Alfonso Jones

Alfonso, no quarrel on that point, only with your importing into the context prior to the break knowledge which she didn't have then of how the relationship between her and Nathaniel would end. She might have had an eye to the future, I grant. But she wasn't prescient. That was my point. Hell, she didn't even know he was lying to her. (And she certainly couldn't have anticipated, for instance, how naive she would look to me in her attempts to understand what was going on.) Ellen ___ Well, I'm not trying to import any of that into the context. I did not know it would be necessary to spell this out, but let me do so: 1) I am not assuming that Rand was prescient in any fashion, foreseeing the breakup, etc... 2) I am not assuming that Rand KNEW Branden was lying (but from the journals she did know that she was missing some piece of the puzzle. 3) I am simply indicating that not everybody is totally forthcoming and straightforwardly honestin their journals. Especially if future publication is thought to be a possibility. THAT IS ALL. No assumption of prophetic powers of Rand. Alfonso

Well, I will state again: 1) It would have been better to be honest and publish the actual journals - not highly edited excerpts. I understand why those controlling the journals resist this. 2) I will insist that in reading someone's journal, someone of sufficient fame that eventual publication is a possibility, we should remember that we should not just ASSUME that everything in the journal is exact truth. Just as with any book, etc... No anachronism there. This is just part of not being naive. Alfonso

Exactly, Michael. Ba'al - There is a difference between listening to try to understand and listening to find the opportunity to pounce at a discovered (or manufactured) ambiguity. Do you seriously think Michael is suggesting pacifism, or disapproval of our (USA) defensive actions in pursuing World War II? I think the application of the carton by Michael is pretty obvious, in context. Alfonso

Too subtle. Alfonso

Reminds me of Winston Smith in 1984 - except that things never reverse themselves in O-land. As far as I know, nobody has been dropped into the Objectivist memory-hole and ever emerged again, rehabilitated. Alfonso

The rumor is that there are some people who think exactly that -- such as almost everyone for most of human history, and a shocking number of people even today. Barbara Well put. Your "some" would have to include the overwhelming majority in centuries prior to the latter half of the 20th century, worldwide, plus the overwhelming majority in many countries in the world to this day. Alfonso

It's all about being King of the Hill. Sorry to be so blunt. --Brant Is that like "Intellectual heir?" Alfonso (smiling)

I put my answers after Barbara Branden's questions... With regard to the periodic denunciations and "excommunications" that have plagued the Objectivist movement since its beginnings, what do you think is the cause (or causes)? 1. Is it an entirely understandable phenomenon, needing no explanation other than the characters and actions of the people who have been denounced? It is a sad phenomenon which has been quite destructive. Many of those who have been excommunicated have been more Objectivist, IMO, than those who have excommunicated them, and those who have participated in the chorus of judgment. The excommunications have not all been rooted in the character or actions of those being denounced. Sometimes they have been as much rooted in the character of those doing the denouncing, and/or incidentals which have no rational basis being made matters over which one should “divide.” Some people need “absolute certainty” on everything. It seems that they just can’t stand to say “I do not know the answer at this time.” And such personalities seek authority – whether it be Ayn Rand, the Pope, or some other person, enthroned into absolute authority (whether the person wanted that authority or not). 2. Is it consistent with any or all of the principles of Objectivism? No. It is inconsistent with the principles of Objectivism. It drives away from first-hand mindedness to slavish adherence to whatever are the current pronouncements of those with the “authority” to excommunicate. And the notion that a Peikoff or a Schwartz would have the depth of understanding to make such a judgment is amazing in its lack of groundedness. In that regard, as if it mattered, where does the notion of “Intellectual heir” as applied to Peikoff come from, other than his imagination? I can find no place where Rand ever applied the term to him. She termed him “an Objectivist philosopher” and complimented “The Ominous Parallels,” quite highly. But Nathaniel Branden was the only one I ever recall seeing named by Rand as intellectual heir. (All of which leaves aside the questionable nature of the title “intellectual heir!”) 3. Does it arise from strengths in the philosophy of Objectivism? No. See above. 4. Does it arise from errors or weaknesses in the philosophy of Objectivism? No. 5. Does it arise from virtues in the personality and character of Ayn Rand? No. 6. Does it arise from flaws in the personality and character of Ayn Rand? No. (This is the hardest answer for me.) I think that she did, by the authority position she had, pass (sadly) on the opportunity to indicate clearly that she wasn’t passing that role on to anybody. The author of any system inevitably has a certain authority system – they may not have the final answers – but they can surely speak to original intent. When the mind is as formidable as that of Ayn Rand, then there is an excellent chance that they will do better than anyone in their generation at filling out details, working out puzzles and apparent points of tension, ... Somehow, the notion of first-hand mindedness never seemed to sink into a significant fraction of the “Objectivist” community. Instead, rapid and unquestioning assent to whatever is said by ______ (fill in the blank with an authority in the nominal Objectivist community) seems to be the rule. Ever see anybody take on Peikoff in a serious discussion (dare I say “argument”) at a conference, or elsewhere, from within the O community? It is one for thing for Ayn Rand to say “This person does not represent me or my philosophy.” And to give concrete (valid) reasons. It is another thing for someone else to do that. Quite another thing. 7. Is its source to be found in the psychology and character of a particular type of person who is strongly drawn to Objectivism? Could be. Sadly, some of those who are attracted to any radically distinctive position will be “true believers” who will by their behaviors reveal that they HAVE NOT INTERNALIZED the positions they espouse. 8. Is it caused by the teachings of one or more Objectivist organizations? Not so much the teachings, but the BEHAVIORS of the ARI have not been helpful in this regard. The leadership of ARI must bear the great portion of the responsibility for this, of course. 9. Is its source to be found in a handful of nut cases of no importance or consequence? No. That being said, there are some nut cases who have certainly contributed to the problem. But they would have had no credibility in this behavior if there were not those in leadership positions engaging in the behaviors. Some people enjoy this. It attracts attention, and lets them to pretend to be leaders. 10. Is it none of the above? No. Alfonso

If you should change your mind and publish (internet or physical print) you have at least one reader here. Alfonso

Exactly. Alfonso

Good resource. Thanks - Stephen Boydstun. Alfonso

Thanks for posting this, and thanks to Nathaniel Branden for the permission to post it. One doesn't have to agree with every word of the article to value the contributions, the careful reasoning, the clear exposition, and the irenic tone. Alfonso

MY OPINION ABOUT ALL OF THIS A far better course of action than Valliant's silly reasoning and his snippets from Rand's journals would have been to have just PUBLISHED THE UNEDITED JOURNALS! At least from November 1967 - whatever he chose to cite last in his book. We should of course remember as we interpret even the snippets we have from Rand's journals that Rand was intelligent - and had to realize, as she wrote in her journal, the high probability that what was in the journal would eventually be made public some time after her death. It happens. Given how Rand chose to portray the causes for the break, it is not unrealistic to be cautious about assuming that everything in those journals (even if we were to have the unedited version) comes from a totally disinterested observer. Alfonso

Chris - Every wonder how it can be that some read (or DON'T READ!) Passion of Ayn Rand and conclude that Barbara Branden was trying to MALIGN Ayn Rand? Branden's admiration is so visible throughout the book, especially in the crescendo in the final chapter. Alfonso

Michael - But don't you sort of wish you could be damned by a better class of people? Alfonso (smiling)

Victor, there is a rough sort of common denominator -- that conservatives usually want less governmental inference in the economy (thought not necessarily in one's private life) than do liberals. Andrew, when I recommend something, as I do strongly recommend Sayet's talk, this should not be taken to mean that I agree with or expect you to agree with every word he says. Barbara A bit of a flashback, to read that last sentence. Alfonso

Thanks to Barbara for sharing this. It is of course also available in audio form from TOC bookstore. Excellent insights. Alfonso

Yes. Unfortunately, neither are business schools. Alfonso (who knows first hand as a Professor in a business school)

Is this Peikoff interview/appearance archived somewhere in audio or video format? Can somebody point me to a source? Alfonso

If anyone thought Rand needed bolstering, they must surely now note that Valliant was an utter failure at that task. Poor writing, poor documentation, silly errors of argumentation. Rand only needed bolstering for those who are unable to conceive of her being anything other than perfect in each and every dimension. I stand in awe of her accomplishments - as, obviously from their writing, do the authors of The Passion of Ayn Rand and My Years With Ayn Rand. Anyone who can read either The Passion of Ayn Rand or My Years With Ayn Rand and not conclude that the respective author is an intense admirer of Rand is using a method of exegesis with which I am not familiar! Alfonso

Certainly not after AS. The woman who would object to a question in which the questioner said "John Galt contented" because Galt never CONTENDED, he explained, he said, he stated, ... would not seem likely to be silent about denigrating Peter Keating on the grounds of SELFISHNESS. I'm still surprised she let it go back at the time of the release of The Fountainhead, with no record of objection. Alfonso

I would think that she would go ballistic if she heard "Peter Keating - weak, selfish..." After all she had said through the novel and the screenplay, to have someone regard SELFISH as one of Peter Keating's key attributes - is to betray such a fundamental misunderstanding of The Fountainhead. I do not believe that Rand ever heard this trailer. Alfonso

I was watching the movie The Fountainhead recently, and viewed the trailer. They show each of the major characters, and say just a few words about each of them. For Peter Keating, the voice-over is . . . "Peter Keating --- weak, selfish, . . . " I wonder if Ayn Rand ever saw that trailer, and if so how strongly she reacted... Alfonso

I have heard NO voices in favor of Mrogi... Alfonso

Good post, Roger. Alfonso