Cathy

Pretty much. --Brant Thank you, I think I am catching on ~Cathy~

Brant, I wish I could have been there, and known, and been part of that life and the ideas she had. Maybe that's why I am so upset with her and my father. I should have been able to sort through my own standards and know all views, not just what my father wanted me to know. They must have been something Brant, I can "hear" it in what your writing. Maybe I would have admired her or maybe I would have hated her...but it should have been my choice. Right now, I am learning everything I can about both of them. I believe her views about the government 100% but I do not believe in selfishness. As close to selfishness as I can get would be one hand washes the other...other than that, I do believe we are our brothers keeper. I told my husband one time that I wish I could be like other people and not feel so much...but then that wouldn't be me. ~Cathy~ Selfishness was defined by Rand--so-called dictionary definition--as "concern with one's own interests." After slapping that word into the title of a collection of her essays for polemical or rhetorical reasons she came with this next to nothing jejune meaning. If you take selfishness or rational self-interest per se you end up in problem-land because only the very deepest core of a human being wears these clothes for that's where individualism resides. Growing up, branching out, finding a mate, having a family, maturing into a responsible social being all apropos human nature--earning a living--well, there's nothing selfless about that. Romeo and Juliet as teenagers and then as a couple in their thirties with children: not the same but we can still call 'em selfish. The problem with altruism is its being used as moral justification for enslavement, psychological and political. It's the ethics of collectivism. You must sacrifice yourself for the greater good and people must be sacrificed. --Brant Sacrificing ones self for the greater good has been happening since the beginning of time. What makes her think that selfishness would make the world a better place? What extent did she mean by it? If I seen someone hungry, I would give them food, But not if it meant my own would go hungry...is that what she means? ~Cathy~

Daunce, between you and the others, books and movies, I am finding out so much more! All of them stop existing for me since I was thirteen. I didn't think about them having a life before me or after I was thirteen. For me its like digging up the dead, literally. Because of all this I have found not just about my aunt, but a first cousin who is 85 years old, who knows how long I have her, and thank God I wasn't to late. So yes, all and all most of you have been very nice and helpful for me. I really do hope you all know how much I've come to care about you and appreciate all of you! ~Cathy~

Daunce...your a hopeless romantic aren't you we need more people like you in the world ~Cathy~Y.Dear Cathy! You do me too much credit. \I am not now nor ever have been a romantic, especially as your aunt defined it. And as in popular imagination - Candles around the bathtub are too dim to read by, and soft jazz playing in the background irritates me beyond endurance. \I am pretty hopeless at times, though. Ha ha ha ha lol lol lol...you make me laugh!!!! You are so funny. You make me in a good mood ~Cathy~

Brant, I wish I could have been there, and known, and been part of that life and the ideas she had. Maybe that's why I am so upset with her and my father. I should have been able to sort through my own standards and know all views, not just what my father wanted me to know. They must have been something Brant, I can "hear" it in what your writing. Maybe I would have admired her or maybe I would have hated her...but it should have been my choice. Right now, I am learning everything I can about both of them. I believe her views about the government 100% but I do not believe in selfishness. As close to selfishness as I can get would be one hand washes the other...other than that, I do believe we are our brothers keeper. I told my husband one time that I wish I could be like other people and not feel so much...but then that wouldn't be me. ~Cathy~

She didn't destroy Nathan and "hypocrite" is too strong a word. She was a great American hero in over her head in many ways for biting off more than she could chew, but she didn't suffer one common human failing: under-achieving achievement. The cause of under-achieving is within a person and without with the without for most having the more to do with what's within than anything else. She beat the without; she survived communist Russia. It made her a giant. The only real value to us of what kind of criticizable person person she was is to illustrate problems with aspects of her philosophy. I understand your locus focus for your family connection but yours is an almost unique situation. There is no aunt Alice in my life. Yes there was a real problem out of the 1950s and 1960s with Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden high-fiving each other and others seduced into the mix until an unsustainable edifice of an artificial reality manifested then collapsed from the lies built on lies starting with that first one she was mostly responsible for. Frankly, it's hard to greatly condemn an almost 50 yo woman pulling out the stops to get laid by an almost 25 yo man who was pushing all her buttons on what she ultimately wanted as a woman out of life--on the one hand--and doing all she could to protect her public imagine thus protecting her magnum opus, so she must have thought, on its way to completion and publication, from scandal. For all her philosophical radicalness she was in important ways personally quite conventional*, so she played "Let's keep a secret." --Brant *Nathaniel Branden's observation Brant, I understand what you are saying just not most of the words ; ). What got me is she went against all her standards of what she expected from others. She said she would not give power to anyone who could hurt her, but she did. Was she really that self centered to believe he would not out grow her? I thought she was a self proclaimed genius and she should have known the age difference between them was not a "smart" thing to do. I knew Uncle Frank did not except the affair. Your right, she was not an under achiever that's for sure. She was smart enough to be a good manipulator...that's the way I see it. I think I need to read the book...I may see things differently. I could still be angry with her and am looking for the worst about her. If she didn't destroy the Brandon's, she tried to, and that is what I think was wrong. The affair could have came out then...what made her so sure that the Brandon's wouldn't have told the public? She must have thought she had all the power and she did because they didn't tell. It seems to me she played "let's keep a secret" all her life, but in death she had no more power. Sad in a way. ~Cathy~

Just got finished watching the movie "The Passion of Ayn Rand". Ayn Rand may have writing good books, she may have had some good thoughts, but all in all she was nothing but a hypocrite. How could she destroy Nathan when she did the same thing he did? Nothing like keeping in control of your feelings and emotions. Says one thing and does another. I'm happy that I only knew kooky Aunt Alice! ~Cathy~

Yup. Cut out all the big words and philosophy starts with pointing. Show and tell. In caveman days, they probably pointed and grunted or growled or uga-ugad or something instead of saying, "I mean this." Michael Wow! Why did she have to make things so complicated! I think I understand caveman more than "Ayn Rand...hey that kind of rhymes lol! ~Cathy~

There is a dual principle at work. To center on one's self correctly one must comprehend the world, at least to the extent it affects one's well being. Being in the right state: you with respect to the world and the world with respect to you. The shoe not only fits the foot. The foot fits the shoe. And so on.... Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al...I like that...if the foot fits the shoe ~Cathy~

Thank you Michael...yes, it might help once my eyes stop hurting from looking up every word I don't know in the dictionary I have a lot of learning to do...but I know there is no way I am ever gonna catch up to any of you...but Ill try Thx ~Cathy~

Thank you Michael. That definition is going to have to be broken down for me. What is fundament nature and what are the principals of reality? Sorry, haven't use my brain in sometime

Qua Objectivism think that man needs philosophy for he is the thinking, free-willed animal. This philosophy guides him through his thinking and choice making. The morality is rational self-interest; it centers on one's self. There are four basic principles: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics--or reality, reason, self interest, and individual rights (capitalism, freedom). These are all interlocked, one logically leading to the next. The key and bridge one to the next is individualism. This refers to one man, one brain, one thought--there is no group think. Now, the supremacy of reality and reason is shared with science. The morality of rational self-interest doesn't deny that man is a social animal only states what is basic, which is first he is an individual animal with the need for freedom to thrive, produce and mate and achieve optimal happiness thereby. When reading about Objectivism merely categorize the material under one of the four principles and see how they integrate one principle to the next. Objectivism has two basic aspects. (1) Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand which is, say, 85% cultural and 15% intellectual (the percentages can greatly vary and are not important as such) and Objectivism which is 100% intellectual. She presented her philosophy from her view of the ideal man and his needs and the notion of the impotence of evil. While evil is indeed impotent per se, you cannot rend the possibility of evil out of any man the way she did her heroic, fictional characters. ("Man," BTW, is the over-riding concept shared by both sexes.) It is #1 that is difficult to master. The only one to do so I know of was Nathaniel Branden. Leonard Peikoff after 40 (50? 60?) years of study still fell short, falls short. I am referring to the Objectivist (Ayn Rand) catechism. My Objectivism is #2 and the (my) cultural self-automatic, just like Rand but with quite different results. Ayn Rand's mastery of Objectivism was intellectual and a bunch of her opinions (cultural). Mastering her Objectivism means you need the obsessive brilliance of Nathaniel Branden and to share her bed--not possible for a female. Then she'll announce to the world--she can't; she's dead--you are the master (and hers). (This spills over into her views of the sexes, masculinity and femininity and why a woman is unfit to be President of the United States.) --Brant Ok Brant...lets see if I got this right. PHOLOSPHY: school of thought. general studies of reality, existence, mind, and language. METAPHYSIC: understanding existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect. EPISTEMOLOGY: knowledge and understanding. ETHICS: human morality- right vs wrong, good vs evil, virtue vs, vice, justice vs crime. POLOTICS: organized (acceptable) control over a human community. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of these equal to individualism. One individual with one brain, knowing what their existence means, knowing right from wrong, between good and evil, knowledge and understanding, what their own understanding means of government control and what their behaviors deal with cause and effect and their freedom to pursue their life and happiness. Am I getting it...or am I confusing you as much as I am confused LOL! ~Cathy~ BTW, I wonder if she would be more accepting of a woman president now a days....hmmmmm Not bad, but politics and individual rights are in the same category re Objectivism. --Brant throw her in the swimming pool: if she floats she's a witch (burn her); if she sinks she's innocent; God will sort it out regardless (you floated) Brant, You were standing on the riverbank with a long stick to fish her out and lead her home safe through the woods. Daunce...your a hopeless romantic aren't you we need more people like you in the world ~Cathy~

Qua Objectivism think that man needs philosophy for he is the thinking, free-willed animal. This philosophy guides him through his thinking and choice making. The morality is rational self-interest; it centers on one's self. There are four basic principles: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics--or reality, reason, self interest, and individual rights (capitalism, freedom). These are all interlocked, one logically leading to the next. The key and bridge one to the next is individualism. This refers to one man, one brain, one thought--there is no group think. Now, the supremacy of reality and reason is shared with science. The morality of rational self-interest doesn't deny that man is a social animal only states what is basic, which is first he is an individual animal with the need for freedom to thrive, produce and mate and achieve optimal happiness thereby. When reading about Objectivism merely categorize the material under one of the four principles and see how they integrate one principle to the next. Objectivism has two basic aspects. (1) Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand which is, say, 85% cultural and 15% intellectual (the percentages can greatly vary and are not important as such) and Objectivism which is 100% intellectual. She presented her philosophy from her view of the ideal man and his needs and the notion of the impotence of evil. While evil is indeed impotent per se, you cannot rend the possibility of evil out of any man the way she did her heroic, fictional characters. ("Man," BTW, is the over-riding concept shared by both sexes.) It is #1 that is difficult to master. The only one to do so I know of was Nathaniel Branden. Leonard Peikoff after 40 (50? 60?) years of study still fell short, falls short. I am referring to the Objectivist (Ayn Rand) catechism. My Objectivism is #2 and the (my) cultural self-automatic, just like Rand but with quite different results. Ayn Rand's mastery of Objectivism was intellectual and a bunch of her opinions (cultural). Mastering her Objectivism means you need the obsessive brilliance of Nathaniel Branden and to share her bed--not possible for a female. Then she'll announce to the world--she can't; she's dead--you are the master (and hers). (This spills over into her views of the sexes, masculinity and femininity and why a woman is unfit to be President of the United States.) --Brant Ok Brant...lets see if I got this right. PHOLOSPHY: school of thought. general studies of reality, existence, mind, and language. METAPHYSIC: understanding existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect. EPISTEMOLOGY: knowledge and understanding. ETHICS: human morality- right vs wrong, good vs evil, virtue vs, vice, justice vs crime. POLOTICS: organized (acceptable) control over a human community. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of these equal to individualism. One individual with one brain, knowing what their existence means, knowing right from wrong, between good and evil, knowledge and understanding, what their own understanding means of government control and what their behaviors deal with cause and effect and their freedom to pursue their life and happiness. Am I getting it...or am I confusing you as much as I am confused LOL! ~Cathy~ BTW, I wonder if she would be more accepting of a woman president now a days....hmmmmm

I would really appreciate anyone who could help me learn about objectivism. I read all I can and just get more and more confused ~Cathy~

Ill be praying for you all

Objectivism, Big "O" "objectivism" is rigidly an atheist philosophy. However, there are several offshoots that have found that they, as Christians, can be "o"jectivists. There is a current thread on it right now on OL. A... Thank you Selene, I will look for it ~Cathy~

Mikee, you said that much better than I ever could! Nobody knows until they walk a mile in your shoes. This may sound stupid...but I feel better now, between Ginny and you going through the same things as we did. I don't feel so much of an outcast. I hope with your uncle you and your sister had some type of normal life growing up. Thank you for telling me you thought we were dear to her, and maybe we were in her own way. I really am happy that so many people loved her...and I cried to...but it was for all the dead memories. Thank you so much Mikee! ~Cathy~ I am so sorry about your mother Mikee, since I have read this, that is all I've thought about. I don't know why when a child is born their little lives just cant be perfect. There are to many children in the world that suffer that never asked to be born or born to whom they were born to. I hope you and your sister got to be together through your ordeal. My sister and I were split up, it made me stronger, but made her weaker. I couldn't imagine my mother committing suicide, that had to be just horrible for you and your sister. I hope the rest of your life was happy and peaceful to make up for the years of struggling and suffering you went through as a child. ~Cathy~

I need a question answered. I read that an objectivist can not be a Christian...why? ~Cathy~

I stopped reading it after several posts but it's been at or near the top of the thread list for several weeks. I don't mean to rain on any ones parade. It just sounds like a never-ending, insignificant, soap opera imo. To each his own.You know you can stop reading it anytime you want...don't you??? ~Cathy~

Ellen, I am going to Ohio in July, I will go to the court house and try to find it. Marna believes they never got married. I find that hard to believe knowing my father. But yes it would help. I tired last night to know the dates...remembering about how old we were. I Believe I've narrowed it down to...1963-65...1967. We were in Arizona in 1966.This is what I remember so far and there probably were more visits before 1963 but I would be to young to remember. I will see what I can do about the marriage license. ~Cathy~

Mikee, you said that much better than I ever could! Nobody knows until they walk a mile in your shoes. This may sound stupid...but I feel better now, between Ginny and you going through the same things as we did. I don't feel so much of an outcast. I hope with your uncle you and your sister had some type of normal life growing up. Thank you for telling me you thought we were dear to her, and maybe we were in her own way. I really am happy that so many people loved her...and I cried to...but it was for all the dead memories. Thank you so much Mikee! ~Cathy~ I am so sorry about your mother

I don't know...is it? Your still here

So I can clear this up...I remember so far visits from Aunt Alice 5 times. Once at my mothers where she taught us the prayer. two times at my father's on visitations before my father got married to my step mother. Twice(?) at my father's after he was married to my step mother. The reason I put a question mark is I am not sure if they came twice or spent the night. The two times that I could not remember where we were and thought we were with our mother...it was on visitation with my father. I am not very good at explaining things and I am remembering from years ago. I do believe (not sure) that they spent the night at my father's when he went to St Louis for treatment. Aunt Agnes was there with them on one occasion at my dad's before he was married and was there on the day my dad went to St. Louis also. Sometimes I don't make myself clear enough...typical O'Connor...sorry ~Cathy~

Ellen, I just wrote this and I must not have hit post. There were 2 visits I couldn't remember who and where we were. I thought because of our age, we were with our mother. I thought either my mother took us to them or they meet us on our way to Arizona. The it just flashed on me that we were at our father's house on visitation before he got married to our step mother. They came to my mother's house when we were 5 (I think) and she taught us the Russian prayer. There were 2 visits at my dad's before he got married. Then there were 1 or 2 at my dad's after he got married. The reason I say one or 2 is because I don't remember if they spent the night, I remember different clothes. The time at my dad's when all 3 were there was when my dad went to St. Louis for treatment...that's when they drew on our backs. She did know what was happening to us...and what she didn't see with her own eyes or hear with her own ears Aunt Agnes told her. Believe me, she knew. ~Cathy~ Ginny...this makes me know that she knew we ran away and everything we went through with my step mother(everything, not just the bruises). Cathy, From revised information you gave after your visit with Marna, I don't see how you could know that Aunt Alice and Uncle Frank knew about your step-mother's treatment of you and your sister. You changed the location and shrank the time period of the visits to your dad's from after his remarriage to before. I've bold-faced that part below. Ellen