Roger Bissell

Hi, again, Teresa! The book you mentioned was published first in 1979, and it's out in a newer edition published about 1995 or so. It looks really interesting. In light of the fact that various critics, from within and without the Objectivist movement, have claimed that some Objectivists have displayed cult-like behavior, the book should be of some value to us in understanding the general psychological principles involved in this kind of addiction/obsession/whatever. I don't know if these authors have the fundamental explanation or not, but it's one place to start, since they've done a lot of spade work on the subject. In my own experience, I recall a campus Objectivist group in Iowa in the late 60s that was very controlling (or tried to be) of its members, pressing them to take a stand on the Split and/or to break with "irrational" parents, etc. Sounded a lot like the Moonies. Back then, these pressures were done on a more private, isolated basis; the movement was not nearly so connected around the country as it is now. More recently, the confrontations often happen in a very public, in your face way on the Internet. In particular, there has been the raging controversy on SOLO (now RoR) over Valliant's book about the Brandens, as well as the whole phenomenon of the Split and just how immoral the Brandens still are after all these years (are they still lying, etc.). It's a very steep, slippery slope out there, and difficult to keep your footing. Michael Kelly has been one of the more adroit debaters, as have Robert Campbell and Robert Bidinotto, but Valliant and Fahy (on SOLO) and Diana Hsieh and others (on Noodle Food) have been very negative against the Brandens, basically devaluing everything they have done since the Split. So, in a way, the stakes are higher than in the old days, with people of great rhetorical skills (or nasty verbal habits, if you will) going at each other, sometimes making multiple posts in a fairly short time, trying to score points for ARI vs. TOC or Rand vs. Branden, etc. It's all very public and people's moral and psychological character is broadcast for all to see. There have been pressures behind the scenes on individual people to "switch sides," but whether this amounted to cultish behavior (moral brow-beating and threats of withholding moral sanction) or just normal competition (offering monetary and scholarly incentives, similar to "corporate raiding") is unclear. More on this some other time, perhaps. In case anyone is interested in following up on the Snapping book, here is some information from the Amazon.com web site's entry for the book. Best 2 all, REB ============================================ Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change (Paperback) by Flo Conway, Jim Siegelman Editorial Reviews From Library Journal In this expanded edition of the 1978 original, Conway and Siegelman continue their study of the altering of the American psyche, which has led to the rise of religious cults, super Christian sects, private citizen militias, and other phenomena that dominate today's headlines. Probably more timely now than when first published, this is an important title for academic and public libraries. Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc. Library Journal Classic returns....More timely now than when first published....An important title for academic and public libraries. Bookviews Explores the way cults and other factors are causing people to give themselves over to those like David Koresh of Waco infamy, or becoming walking time bombs like Timothy McVeigh, the alleged perpetrator of the Oklahoma bombing...a powerful look at a social phenomenon that is making headlines. New York Times Book Review Their book is judicious, sensible, well-researched and very frightening. New York Post It is a book of investigative reporting at its best. Cleveland Jewish News In a prophetic vein again...."Snapping" is not only fascinating and frightening reading, it is also extremely well-written....The escalating pattern of cult fanaticism and religious-political terror that the authors call a "death spiral" seems to be widening. If we do nothing to understand and ultimately reverse that pattern, it will pull more and more innocent people into its vortex. Edward T. Hall, author of "The Silent Language" Conway and Siegelman are onto something important..."Snapping" is a fascinating book with frightening implications. Kurt Vonnegut "Snapping" is an exciting and responsible and original piece of research which has taught this old poop amazing new ways to think about the human mind. The Examined Life: A Psychology Newsletter Conway and Siegelman deliver a powerful book and an amazing yet responsible look at the inner workings of the human mind. Midwest Book Review What are the social links between cultists, born-again converts, and political extremists? There are closer connections than one might think, and this labels the alteration of personality which has become an American norm, examining how mind-altering practices change the brain's information processing system. Intriguing examples of cult extremes accompany the authors' contentions. United Press International What Woodward and Bernstein were to Watergate, Conway and Siegelman may well be to the cults. cults, personality change, and information disease, June 30, 2000 Reviewer: Prometheus "zosimos" (EVROPA.) This book provides an analysis of the techniques used by cults and certain "self help" agencies to alter the personality of the client. It presents a model, using catastrophe theory, in which the person is driven to a snapping point. After this snap, the personality is drastically changed, and often it requires another snap to rectify the situation. The theory presented here is very interesting. The cases discussed include those annoying cults and "self help" groups which roam college campuses (and its good to see that the authors do not bend to political correctness and include some of the more popular groups). In addition, the effects of stress are discussed in industrial settings. And, the governments royal botch-job at Waco is examined. Personally, I consider some of the "cult deprogrammers" as heroes who have tried to uphold a person's fundamental right to freedom of thought, against the sway of politicians. The only problem I have with this book is that there never is made a distinction between genuine religious conversion and cult conversion (snapping). I do not know how such a distinction could be made, but perhaps it would be an interesting area for further research. Great insight into cultic phenomena, August 19, 2005 Reviewer: Jacqueline S. Mitchell "objectivist birdwatcher" (Grand Junction,Michigan, United States) - Those who don't understand why people go into cults should definitely read this book. Cult leaders take advantage of basic human instincts that are present in everyone, and find people who are at vulnerable life stages who can be manipulated using this knowledge of personality. This book explains how a person can seemingly change overnight into a new personality, often with a new cult-assigned name and completely new beliefs and behavior. Since I have a loved one in a cult, I found this book especially useful. The section on terrorists is particularly interesting, given Islam's current push to brainwash their youth into eliminating all infidels. I was disappointed, however, that the authors did not mention the proven McVeigh/Nichols-Islamic terrorists link (a matter of public record which came out in McVeigh's trial)in their section on the Oklahoma City bombing. Nichols went to the Philippines to learn bomb-making techniques from Al-Quaeda operatives and met with Muslim terrorists such as Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Conway and Siegelman only connect McVeigh and Nichols to Christian groups, thus furthering the Left's agenda of always pointing out Oklahoma City to show how dangerous Christian white men are. An Imperfect but Important Work, January 27, 2005 Reviewer: Gordon Neufeld (Calgary, Alberta) - This book looks at a phenomenon that many people are reluctant to admit even happens: sudden transformations in individuals' characters precipitated specifically by the intentional manipulations of others. This book also looks beyond the manipulations of cults and considers other ways in which modern society, by the very nature of the rapid changes it is undergoing, can precipitate "snapping" or sudden personality change. I think the book tries to extrapolate its central thesis too broadly. At time the authors seem to be merely shopping around for ways to make their ideas sound even bigger and more general in their application. I would have preferred if they had maintained a more narrow focus upon cult members only and upon the ways cult members endure "snapping" and thus can sometimes also be "snapped out" of their programming. As a former member of the Unification Church (the "Moonies") I myself endured this kind of sudden transformation. It certainly needs to be taken seriously and not denied. Nevertheless, former cult members will likely find that Steven Hassan's book, "Combatting Cult Mind Control," is more useful than this book in assisting their own personal recovery. Nazi Cultists Can Deprogram Themselves With This Book, December 17, 2001 Reviewer: "mimereader" (San Francisco, California USA) Use This book and This Free Deprogramming technique: Those who suspect that they may have fallen into the isolating well of Nazi cultism, and are having difficulty climbing out to rejoin their family members and the rest of the community, are advised to consider the Pioneer Little Europe exercises for recovering the tormented among us. The polarized beliefs many Whites have about Hitler are not, contrary to what is constantly said by the Zionist media and modern day nazi cultists, solely attributable to the propaganda of one side or the other. While it is true that the godlike image of Hitler was especially well sharpened by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, through the vivid impression creating influences of radio and film, Hitler's opponents actually contribute much more to fuel the modern cult image. The leading element of today's propaganda is a description of the devil incarnate, not a person with human strengths and weaknesses who was once easily overlooked in a crowd. The new image is attributable to opponents at least swallowing part of what Goebbels offered, or not fighting the superman impression, then adding a dark spin. And picking up the same propaganda tool as Joseph Goebbels, which was usually a highly selective criteria for which images and messages would be shown or held back, Hitler's opponents inadvertently managed to promote a dysfunctional cultism. Hitler cultism in that form, however, became so sinister that it was separated from its original purposes, which was to unite, inspire, and lead people into actions intended to benefit them. It was not to create a cult separated from any normality. Today's Hitler cultism is a mixed creation offered by two separate camps that are separated from the White community, the Zionists and pro-Hitler cultists who converted - or snapped - from Zionist propaganda. Shaking off the cultism, however, is not an easy matter, as it's been fueled by both sides since the beginning. Those who suspect that they have been conditioned into cultism, a feeling which arises when we find our actions out of step with the people important to us, are advised to use this method for gaining their freedom. Those who read and think more extensively than other people tend to be the most deeply conditioned, and will commit themselves to cultism without seeing any progress for incredibly long periods of time. If you even suspect you are in this category, try the following more cerebral exercises for straightening yourself out: 1) Begin with a study of conditioned reflexes, which began as a more formal science under Ivan Pavlov, but chose a more modern and popular exposition to grasp the subject quickly. Among the recommended books are "Battle for the Mind" by William Sargant & "Snapping" by Flo Conway & Jim Siegelman, or the film Ticket to Heaven. 2) Examine also any books or films available on how people such as Roosevelt, Hitler, Churchill, and Stalin used the media to promote their images. Pay particular attention to how the public reacted to radio, and read about the Orson Welles radio program that caused many Americans to believe that they were being attacked from Mars 3) Obtain the little pamphlet "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer the San Francisco longshoreman. Hoffer took cult criticism to such an extreme that he actually neglected to acknowledge how cultism, in a more sublimated, controlled, and moderate level, is commonplace in society. This left wing book was selling at the George Lincoln Rockwell book shop in 1970, shortly before the NSWPP lost most of its leaders, and it had a lot to do with key people reassessing themselves 4) Sir Oswald Mosley was one of the few major figures of national socialism and fascism to survive WW2, and it is extremely important to note that his autobiography includes a postwar assessment of "the movement." Find our why Mosley said fascism is obsolete, or why he felt Hitler had failed, as his perspective is leaps and bounds ahead of those further down the ranks. And read Diana Mosley's books, as no one ever said she abandoned the cause, and find out what she thought of Hitler and Mosley. 5) Contact the person who straightened you out and find out how you can help others. 6) Admit to your family that you were a cultist. Some will start telling you how Hitler and National Socialism actually had many positive points, but put your emphasis on building your own community with them.

Hi, Teresa, my good friend -- I'm glad you're here! Here is where you belong! :-) You asked about a book called Snapping. I've never heard of it, but it sounds like something I'd like to read. I've certainly witnessed the phenomenon that the people in the 12-Step programs call "addiction switching." Some switch from narcotics to cigarettes and coffee (!). Others become workaholics, or rage-aholics, or sex addicts, or religious addicts or compulsive gamblers or compulsive shoppers. You name it. I've seen and dealt with way too many people of this type. I'd say it's the "human condition," but there still are a few non-compulsive, non-obsessive people left in the world. :-) REB

As I mentioned in my essay "Up from Despair" http://wheelerdesignworks.netfirms.com/Obj...wtopic.php?t=10 my wife's ex-husband (who has had various compulsive and addictive behavior problems) became deeply and/or obnoxiously religious after she left him over 15 years ago. He used to send reams of religious material, much of it his own voluminous blatherings, attempting to convert us from our Godless atheism, but for several years now it has been blessedly quiet from his corner. Until now. We have an issue regarding their younger daughter and her financial and college plans, which I need not go into here, except to note that Becky's ex was trying to "triangulate" and involve us in something that should be worked out between him and their daughter. Here is how his first email began (leaving out the financial and legal details): Now, that smarmy stuff is typical of the "nicer" things he used to send us. Sounds like a gift, doesn't it! But note the rewriting of reality embedded in his "gift." Instead of our getting together through our own rational thinking and valuing and deliberate, chosen actions, our getting together was instead actually part of God's plan. Apparently is how Becky's ex, for self-esteem reasons, has to rationalize his having screwed up and losing his wife's love and their marriage. Like, it wasn't his fault. It was God's will that his marriage would end. It was part of a great Plan, to bring not only him, but also Becky and me, to the Lord Jesus Christ and eternal salvation. Yup. Anyway, here is our fairly level-headed, non-judgmental response (biting our tongues!): Pretty civil stuff, right? Not trying to stir the pot or wave the red flag in any way. Except, it didn't seem to do much good. He wrote back (again omitting the financial and college items): Wow, talk about doing a 180! Being an atheist is "cool," because atheists get to be emotionally "cold" and unfeeling and uncaring. (Actually, he was pissed that we didn't offer to take over an obligation he had agreed to, despite our and his daughter's discouragement, several years ago.) We are living errors and lies, but we will be very sad if we don't repent, "because the end of it all is closer than you think." There is the veiled threat that always comes out when he's pissed. If we don't become Christians, we will burn in hell. Have a nice afterlife, you goddamned sinners. hahahahahahaha. I've saved, and if you don't listen to me, you won't be, and you'll rot eternally. Yup. What this is all leading to is a few final comments on the issue of mortality (since Rich and my wife's ex both brought it up). Yes, we're getting older and closer to the day we will die. But so what? If you do not believe there is an afterlife or a God, what difference does that make? No one wants to die. But focusing on death robs life of all the joy and value it should have. The meaning and purpose of life is to pursue values and be happy. That requires that you focus on life and on what values you want to attain and how to be happy. Focusing instead on death only gets in the way of your enjoying your life to its fullest. If you're a Christian, this life is but a miniscule sliver of eternity, so it can't have much value or importance compared to the afterlife -- except for the purpose of converting others to Christianity so they too can share the afterlife. It is only to atheists that this life can have value and importance for itself and the happiness it can bring, not for some supposed future but non-existent afterlife. That is why, if you are really serious about this life being all that there is, you should focus on life and happiness and turn a deaf ear to all the religious fanatics who try to get you to short-circuit your mind with faith. In closing, I want to mention a perfect example of the love of life-orientation. I recently read a biography of George Washington, and I was amazed to find that on his deathbed, the last thing he did was to take his pulse! Not to thrash around frantically, sobbing that he didn't want to die, or that he was afraid of death, but that he wanted to go out with his boots on so to speak. He was seeking values to the very end--more particularly, knowledge about reality, about his physical condition. Some people say "I want to be just like him when I grow up." I modify this and say, "I want to be just like George Washington when I die." With my boots on. Seeking values. Seeking knowledge. Loving life. REB

Michael wrote: Rich commented: This is very deep stuff, guys. I am looking forward to reading Rich's thoughts on mortality. My wife, Becky, and I have just in the past two days been faced with yet another symptom of this problem in a couple of emails from her ex-husband, who continues to evangelize and subtly threaten us with eternal death if we do not become Christians. I'll start another thread on this shortly. Suffice it to say here that I think that Rich is exactly right: low self-esteem and bad people skills separately or together give rise to the judgmental and controlling behaviors that we so often see among fellow Objectivists. And those problems are not peculiar to Objectivism, but seem to appear among people with a religious kind of attitude in general. all 4 now, reb

Michael, I'm happy to post my review of Russian Radical here in the Sciabarra Corner. As long as you have room for it, it certainly is more convenient for your visitors! Onward and upward! REB

Dialectical Objectivism? A review of Chris M. Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical by Roger E. Bissell 1996 It has been my extreme delight to witness the emergence of a new hero in the history of ideas: Dr. Chris M. Sciabarra, Visiting Scholar at New York University. Though he is hard at work on his next book--Total Freedom, a study of the theory and history of dialectics--the reverberations are still echoing from his second book, which I review here. Few works with the level of scholarship evidenced in historian and political theorist Chris Sciabarra's book about Ayn Rand's philosophy have generated such a visceral, polarized response: scathing hostility and scorn on the one extreme and glowing, enthusiastic praise on the other. While an examination of personalities and events surrounding the preparation and subsequent reception of this book would be a fascinating study in its own right, the present review will focus instead on the thesis that spawned the controversy. Rand's philosophy of Objectivism was born in the aftermath of her final and most famous novel, Atlas Shrugged, though the spiritual core of its ethos apparently dates back to her adolescence in Russia. That Objectivism champions reality, reason, egoism, individualism, laissez-faire capitalism, and romantic art has been common knowledge to its supporters and enemies alike for several decades. What is new in Sciabarra's thesis, what has set everyone on their ears--with either delight or outrage--is his claim that the methodology by which Rand developed her philosophy is the "dialectic." Although Sciabarra doesn't provide a one-sentence, genus-differentia definition of "dialectic," the description he gives (pp. 14ff) portrays dialectics as a methodological orientation with six basic, interrelated characteristics: (1) holism--a commitment to preserve "the analytical integrity of the whole," to see its essential parts as "distinctions within an organic unity...inseparable aspect of a wider totality," which cannot be "fully understood in the absence of the other"; (2) contextualism--a commitment to perform both abstraction and integration when studying a "whole from the vantage point of any part," rather than reifying its parts and treating them atomistically as if they were independent of the whole; (3) synchronic, or structural, or systemic, internalism--a commitment to grasp the systemic, often reciprocal, interrelationships among the various parts that constitute a whole (and especially the various theoretical issues that together form a wider philosophic context); (4) diachronic, or dynamic, or historical, internalism--a commitment to recognize the historical, often conflictive, interrelationships among the various events in the origin, development, and modification of a whole (and especially the past, present, and future course of a system of ideas); and (as a consequence of the first four) (5) a "revolt against formal dualism"--a commitment to treat only fundamental alternatives as being "mutually exclusive or exhaustive" and to seek to transcend the limitations of the half-truths in traditional, false dichotomies; and (6) radicalism in theory and practice--a commitment both to strive for a fundamental, critical understanding of a system and to advocate and work toward fundamental, revolutionary changes in the system. Although this description of dialectics seems to reveal quite clearly both its nature and its value, it is also, in this reviewer's opinion, a rather unwieldy checklist. But, then, the subject of methodology is not a simple one either. Eventually, one hopes, once the differences and similarities between dialectics and other methodological orientations are more fully sorted out, Sciabarra will zero in on a more elegant, concise (dare it be said: genus-differentia?) statement of what dialectics is. In the meantime, one other specific concern about his existing set of criteria should be addressed: the point about dualism appears to be overly one-sided (almost monistically so!) in its emphasis. Sciabarra provides ample illustration of Rand's "revolt against formal dualism," i.e., her policy of consistently rejecting false alternatives in every branch of philosophy: e.g., materialism vs. idealism in metaphysics, rationalism vs. empiricism in epistemology, altruism vs. hedonism in ethics, and statism vs. anarchism in politics. She discovers the common false premise in each pair of "ism's" and projects the truly opposite alternative view. Or, as in the dichotomies "between mind and body, reason and emotion, fact and value, theory and practice," she clarifies the common ground, usually overlooked, that ties the two phenomena together in an integral whole. (p. 17) Yet, Rand's approach is not, strictly speaking, the "transcendence of opposites," but rather the transcendence of, or moving beyond the limitations of, false opposites. Indeed, she was all for legitimate polarizing, for insisting that certain basic distinctions be recognized: e.g., identity vs. the supernatural, reason vs. irrationality, individualism vs. collectivism, sacrifice vs. the "trader principle," individual rights vs. the initiation of force, and capitalism vs. statism. In other words, Rand was just as adamant in opposing "monistic reductionism," the attempt to reduce one of two coequal principles to being a mere spinoff or disguised version of the other. Private property is not a form of theft, nor shouting "fire" in a crowded theater a form of free speech. Freely chosen acts between consenting adults are not a form of sacrificial exploitation, nor benevolent giving a form of self-sacrifice. Rational conviction is not a form of faith, nor reason a mere rationalization of one's underlying emotions. Non-existence is not a special kind of existence, nor consciousness a mere epiphenomenon of matter (or vice versa). Although Sciabarra notes many such points and correctly states that "dialectical method is neither dualistic nor monistic" (p. 16), a glance at the index of his book reveals a staggering disparity in the amount of treatment he gives to dualism (references covering 1-1/2 columns) compared to the 3 lines he gives monism. If, as it seems, Objectivism is just as much a revolt against the latter--and if, as Sciabarra says, "the best way to understand the dialectical impulse is to view it as a technique to overcome formal dualism and monistic reductionism" (p. 16)--one would hope that this inequity would be addressed in any future editions. As to the structure of the book itself, each of its three main sections explores Rand's philosophy from a distinct, important perspective and in a very smooth, readable style throughout. Not surprisingly, Sciabarra finds the dialectical method to be unmistakably implicated in each instance and supports his case with voluminous citations derived from a thorough knowledge of the Objectivist literature. (His task was made considerably more difficult, and his achievement all the more admirable, by the fact that so much of Objectivism exists not in printed form, but as taped lectures.) The four chapters of Part I, "The Process of Becoming," constitute a "diachronic" focus on the intellectual roots of Objectivism, i.e., on the historical process involved in "Rand's intellectual groping toward synthesis." (p. 11) Sciabarra's talents as an intellectual historian shine forth as he delves deeply into both Rand's educational background and the cultural conditions in Czarist and Revolutionary Russia, and as he carefully traces the gradual development of her outlook and ideas after she moved to America. He finds much evidence to suggest that Rand, throughout her life, was "a profoundly Russian thinker" whose views were, in large part, "an evolved response to the dualities that [she] confronted in Soviet Russia." (p. 10) At times, due to handicaps such as the spottiness of academic records during Rand's college years and incomplete disclosure of Rand's early journals, Sciabarra was forced to resort to "argument from best explanation." The most intriguing examples of this approach were in regard to the questions about whether Rand actually studied, as she claimed, with Nicholas O. Lossky at Petrograd University during the 1921-22 academic year, and whether she might have gone through a Nietzchean phase, seemingly represented by certain colorful passages appearing in the 1933 edition of We the Living but removed from the 1959 revised edition (and which she referred to as "editorial line-changes," attributed to her earlier awkwardness in writing in English). In both instances, Sciabarra's "best explanation" ends up extending the benefit of the doubt to Rand, but questions remain. Part II, "The Revolt Against Dualism," is a "synchronic" presentation, in six chapters, of the formal structure of Objectivism, beginning with the more abstract theoretical domains of metaphysics and epistemology and working on down through psychology and aesthetics to ethics and politics. Aside from Leonard Peikoff's recent book (Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, 1991, Dutton), this is probably the best overview of Rand's philosophy available. And it has the additional virtue of highlighting the important work done in epistemology by David Kelley, in psychology by Nathaniel Branden, and in ethics and value theory by Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl, names seldom written or uttered by Peikoff and those in his, the more "orthodox" faction of the Objectivist movement. Throughout this section, Sciabarra's reconstruction of Objectivism shows repeatedly "how it is an inherently dialectical and nondualistic formulation that differs considerably from conventional alternatives." (p. 11) Frequently, this entails elucidating the necessary "internal" relations between, for instance, existence and consciousness and identity and causality; between reason and emotion, cognition and evaluation, conscious and subconscious processes; between life, the rational, and the good; between the moral, the practical, and the happy; etc. Such a vista of conceptual connections, composed of elements in relations of "reciprocal causation and mutual reinforcement" actually seems more consonant with Rand's discussions of the various ideas than the standard hierarchical "strict logical dependence, or one-way causality" model we are more used to seeing from Objectivist writers. Packed into the three chapters of Part III, "The Radical Rand," is the most original and challenging part of Sciabarra's thesis and the strongest part of the book. One of the key aspects of dialectics, and the major consequence of the "revolt against formal dualism," is the commitment to radicalism: the refusal to bifurcate human life into two hermetically sealed domains of theoretical, abstract, ivory-tower knowledge and practical, concrete, real-world action. The impulse to radicalism was prominent in Russian intellectual history and was fully expressed in Rand's philosophy. Sciabarra's acumen as a political theorist is highly impressive. He seems not to miss a single opportunity to weave together the many seemingly unintegrable aspects of Rand's thought into a highly compressed microcosm of Rand's own radical outlook. Sciabarra identifies three levels of analysis of the power relations that underlie and sustain statist social systems: the personal (relating to ethics and mental function), the cultural (regarding language and ideology), and the structural (economics and politics). Rand had much to say about each of these distinct, but inseparable aspects of social systems, and she saw a thorough, deep-seated parallel between the political trends, culture, and lifestyle of the "social sphere" and the individual life path, conscious convictions, and subconscious of the "individual sphere." Sciabarra's tightly integrated treatment of Rand's radical social philosophy must be read to be fully appreciated. Notwithstanding the engaging qualities of the main part of the book, it would be a sad oversight not to mention Sciabarra's excellent Notes, References, and Index. The Notes, in particular, give a fascinating peek at some of the behind-the-scenes work Sciabarra had to do in preparing his book. A couple of nitpicks: (1) Note 27 on p. 405 refers to Peikoff's course on logic, which could not have been in 1947 and which had only 10 lectures; the citation should (probably) thus read "Peikoff 1974T, Lectures 1 and 3." (2) The Letters of Ayn Rand, attributed on p. 450 to Douglas B. Rasmussen, should instead, of course, follow Rand's The Morality of Individualism, halfway up the page. Note 20 on p. 408 is particularly noteworthy, since it concerns the concept of "objective" itself. Sciabarra points out that Peikoff, in his original course on Objectivism in 1976, referred to perception as "objective," as an application of the trichotomy of objective-subjective-intrinsic. Rand corrected him, on the assumption that "normative terms such as 'objectivity' cannot be applied to automatic processes such as perception." This reviewer finds Peikoff's unfortunate recanting of his original, illuminating discussion of the metaphysical status of sense data to result in a conflation of the normative sense of "objective" with the relational sense pertaining to the three kinds of phenomena focused on by the trichotomy. In conclusion, it is interesting to note that, despite the overwhelming evidence and logic Sciabarra offers in his book, certain Objectivists have spoken out in rather caustic terms against his perspective. They vehemently resist identifying Rand's philosophic method with the dialectic, mainly it seems because of their acceptance of the traditional assumption that dialectical method is equivalent to Hegelianism or Marxism. Rand is not Marxist, therefore (they reason), her method could not be dialectical. Sciabarra, however, firmly lays to rest both this assumption and the false conclusion drawn from it. He points out that even Hegel referred in laudatory manner to Aristotle as the "Father of Dialectic" and that Rand herself said that the only intellectual debt she would acknowledge was to Aristotle: "Rand was profoundly correct to view her own system as the heir to Aristotelianism. Ultimately, it might be said that her debt to Aristotle concerns both the form and the content of her thought." (p. 19). In addition, Sciabarra shows just how thoroughly entrenched the dialectical method was in Russian culture--especially in her textbooks and in the minds of her professors--at the time Rand went to college. This argues convincingly for the strong likelihood that Rand absorbed the dialectical methodology from her milieu, even while emphatically rejecting the various religious and Marxist conclusions others derived with it. By this many-faceted approach, Sciabarra claims (and this reviewer concurs), he has offered "the best explanation yet published for the origins of Rand's unique approach to philosophic and social analysis." (p. 19) In this connection, it must be noted that certain Objectivists often voice another nagging concern (and, unfortunately, not always in a calm, civil manner), namely, that linking Rand and Objectivism in any way, even methodologically, with thinkers she so despised as Marx and Hegel, will ultimately cause serious harm to the Objectivist movement and philosophy. But as Rand herself was fond of saying about allegedly fragile situations, "A boat that cannot stand rocking, had better be rocked fast and hard." [special note, 2005: the actual quote by Rand is: "It is obvious that a boat which cannot stand rocking is doomed already and that it had better be rocked hard, if it is to regain its course." This comment is found in "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus," Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, p. 203.] Surely this dictum applies no less to her own system of ideas. And aside from those with a vested interest in the pristine isolation of Objectivism from rigorous academic scrutiny, it is difficult to imagine who could find fault with Sciabarra's masterful efforts to garner more mainstream attention to (not to mention respect for) Rand's philosophy. The truth will out. In any case, while Sciabarra's methodological insights place Rand's development and that of her philosophy much more clearly in historical perspective, these revelations, he stresses, need not in any way tarnish her reputation as a staunch anti-Marxist nor lessen her originality and importance as a thinker. They simply identify the fact that "Rand's use of dialectical method was as essential to her historic formulation of Objectivist principles, as was her original synthesis in the realm of content." (p. 20) And although neither the various parts of its content, nor the use of dialectical method, is peculiar to Objectivism, when the method and content are considered together, they constitute Objectivism's fundamental distinguishing (i.e., defining) characteristic. It is their integration into a new system of thought that is unique, Sciabarra says, and therefore worthy of serious, deep study by scholars. As Sciabarra observes: "Objectivism is a seamless conjunction of method and content--of a dialectical method and a realist-egoist-individualist-libertarian content." (p. 381) This unique synthesis, linking "a multilevel, dialectical analysis to a libertarian politics....is Rand's most important contribution to twentieth-century radical social theory." (pp. 319, 381) And, this reviewer would like to add, with Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical, as well as Marx, Hayek, and Utopia (SUNY, 1995), now under his belt, Chris Matthew Sciabarra has emerged as one of the most provocative, and enjoyable, writers on the history of ideas of the twentieth century. [This review was originally published in Reason Papers no. 21, Fall 1996.]

Hi, Kat! Glad the pieces about Chris Sciabarra and his work were OK. A request -- could you fix it so that all of our submissions can be edited? I forget which area I posted in earlier today, but I found some glitches in the HTML and wanted to fix them, but couldn't. Thanks! REB

Who Qualifies as being an Objectivist by Roger E. Bissell Who qualifies as being an Objectivist? I think that’s a legitimate question, but I also think that it’s too easy to pick one’s own pet list of views that can qualify one as being or not being an Objectivist. (E.g., Rand’s views on a woman President, on homosexuality, on anarchism vs. limited government in politics, on survival vs. flourishing in ethics, etc.) Nathaniel Branden has pointed out (correctly, in my opinion, as evidenced by comments Rand made in her journals) that Rand held a “minimalist” view of the Objectivist metaphysics. Well, I think that what qualifies a person as “Objectivist” should also be termed most generally and succinctly. Apparently Rand agreed with this, also. For instance, in “About the Author” in the appendix to Atlas Shrugged, Rand said “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” Do you agree with that? Then you agree with Rand’s written statement of the essence of her philosophy. Wouldn’t that mean that you are, in essence, an Objectivist? Or, at the sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, Rand presented the essence of her philosophy “while standing on one foot.” She said: “1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality (‘Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed’ or ‘Wishing won’t make it so.’) 2. Epistemology: Reason (‘You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.’ 3. Ethics: Self-Interest (‘Man is an end in himself.’) 4. Politics: Capitalism (‘Give me liberty or give me death.’)” Do you agree with these principles? Then you agree with Rand’s verbal statement of the essence of her philosophy. Wouldn’t that mean that you are, in essence, an Objectivist? Later, in 1962, in her column “Introducing Objectivism,” Rand gave “the briefest summary” of her philosophy: “1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. 2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. 3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. 4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.” Do you agree with Rand’s summary of her philosophy? If so, aren’t you an Objectivist? Finally, in “Brief Summary” (1971), Rand said: “If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest [e.g., capitalism and egoism] follows. This—the supremacy of reason—was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism.” Do you agree with this statement about the supremacy and consistent application of reason? Then you agree with Rand on the essence of Objectivism. Are you then an Objectivist? Now, note: not one of the preceding summaries or essential statements mentioned the issue of free will vs. determinism, nor the idea that reason is volitional, in the sense of “could have done otherwise.” Yet, even if you answered “yes” to all of the foregoing litmus tests for being an Objectivist, you would still, in the minds of many Rand followers, not qualify as being an Objectivist, if you also accepted the doctrine of determinism, the doctrine that implies that one could not have done otherwise than one did in a given situation. Unlike many Objectivists, I maintain that rationality includes volition, in the sense of the self-aware monitoring and directing of one's mental processes, while also maintaining that, in any given situation, one could not have done otherwise than one did in that situation. In addition to me, numerous supporters of the essence of Rand’s philosophy also hold some variant of this view, sometimes known as “soft determinism” or “compatibilism.” Is the standard Objectivist view of free will correct, or, instead, is free will or volition compatible with determinism, as I and others argue that it is? I think the jury is still out on this question, and that any attempt to limit Objectivism to those holding the view that volition and determinism are incompatible is premature at best. For this reason, I am not comfortable subscribing to the statement on the Objectivist Metaphysics offered by The Objectivist Center and posted on this site. As I have argued elsewhere, what is implied by basic Objectivist metaphysical premises is “self-determinism,” the view that one’s actions (including one's act of focusing one’s awareness) are determined by one's values/desires/ideas. For short, I call it “value-determinism.” And although it does not qualify as “free will” in the sense of “could have done otherwise,” that is not valid, anyway. But it does qualify as “free will” in the sense of one’s being the originator of that action, absent environmental duress and physical or medical impairment. One’s capacity to will to do something is free of control by anything other than one’s own values. Conditional free will is thus compatible with determinism of a kind that does not require predeterminism or fatalism, and that does not preclude knowledge and correction of error. To conclude: in nearly every thumbnail sketch of Objectivism given before volition was elevated in the 1970s to its presented quasi-mystical status (of categorical freedom of choice, rather than conditional freedom of choice) I found absolutely nothing to disagree with. In Rand’s very sparse, minimalist framework of her philosophy, there are five or six very simple tenets: objective reality, reason, rational self-interest, life as the standard of value, man's rights, and laissez-faire capitalism. And I disagree with none of these principles – though, as noted, I certainly do disagree with what are some of the implications of those ideas. And speaking just for myself, I want Rand's system of ideas to be consistent and true, and I have been working hard for over 35 years to make it so for my own guidance in living. The fact that others disagree with me, at times bitterly, is disheartening, but that’s life. I’m not in this to please others. I’m in it for my own happiness, and I’ve managed to achieve it, even as an Objectivist, at times! I have always regarded myself an Objectivist in terms of the methodology and the minimalist set of basic principles that I accepted when I first became acquainted with Objectivism. Most orthodox Objectivists, and some non-Objectivists in the Randian milieu, however, when they hear my position on the free will issue, deny that this is really a legitimate alternative view of free will, or that it is enough to qualify me as an Objectivist. Some have suggested I instead refer to myself as a Neo-Objectivist, others as a "Bissellist," yet others as "working within the Objectivist tradition." Still others have suggested the term "Randian" (with all the irony that implies). Jokingly, I sometimes call myself a "Kleenex Objectivist." (See my post in the humor folder.) The real irony is that, even if I were accepted as an Objectivist, my philosophizing would not be accepted as part of Objectivism--even if it were compatible with Objectivism! I don't know how any ARI intellectual with a shred of self-esteem can swallow this notion, that the philosophizing of an Objectivist philosopher is nonetheless not Objectivism. I certainly can't. That is why I am completely opposed to the "Closed System" approach of ARI. Their attitude is more appropriate to the care and feeding of hothouse flowers than to a living, growing philosophy. Perhaps that is why they are so hesitant to publish anything other than 30 year old lectures and all the miscellanous items that Rand never intended for publication. No, I am too independent for that. I will continue to regard myself as a rational individualist and as a neo-Randian, in the same sense that some contemporary philosophers regard themselves as neo-Aristotelians--not accepting all of Aristotle's (or Rand's) doctrines, but essentially in agreement with them.

Libertarianism, Objectivism, and Rage a talk by Barbara Branden reported (with gratuitous wise cracks) by Roger Bissell November 22, 2005 The prelude: Early in the evening of Monday, November 21, my wife, Becky, and I braved the horrific L.A. rush hour traffic and motored up from Orange County (the county with a peel) to a very special meeting of the Karl Hess Club in West Los Angeles. (We heartily recommend the cuisine at the meeting site. Billingsley's Restaurant served up a delicious trout and a mouth-watering tri-tip steak.) Arriving relatively late, Becky and I had to sit at separate tables (but situated so we could still make goo-goo eyes at each other :-), and I managed to snag a seat at the table of honor, already occupied by Dr. John Hospers, former SOLO contributor Jim Kilbourne, emcee and noted sci-fi author Brad Linaweaver, Karl Hess's niece, two other folks whose names I have forgotten, and the evening's speaker (and another ex-SOLO contributor), Barbara Branden. The dinner chat: Linaweaver, good-natured agnostic that he is, shared his chagrain over having converted his ex-wife from Baptist and Democratic leanings to Episcopalianism and Libertarianism, after which she promptly divorced him. I suggested that if he was willing to be a sacrificial marital animal, he could save quite a few young ladies that way. He also mentioned how Nietzsche is a perennial college favorite over Kant, when students are given a choice of whom to study or write about, and in the same vein (?), I lamented the fact that the philosophy sections of bookstores have shrunk in recent years, to the point that philosophy has become a... "niche"...market. The head table seemed to be a bastion of Bush supporters in an otherwise largely anarcho-libertarian group. Linaweaver vigorously pressed his case that while Bush is a good President, Reagan was a great one -- more, that Reagan was arguably the greatest President of the 20th century. I offered to endorse this claim, if Linaweaver would reciprocate by endorsing my belief that Bush is the greatest President of the 21st century. At that point, Linaweaver became very abusive, calling me a bastard and a smart ass, even baring his teeth at me. (At least, he seemed to become harshly judgmental. :-) I also had some brief interaction with Jim Kilbourne and Barbara Branden, both of whom I was meeting for the first time, and both of whom had ncie things to say about my writing style, which they appreciate for its clarity. Actually, what they said was that they appreciate the fact that I make it easy for them to disagree with me. <sigh> Jim and I also discovered that we have the same two favorite Puccini arias: Nessun dorma from "Turandot" and O mio babbino caro from "Gianni Schicchi." When I introduced myself to Barbara ("Hello, Barbara, I'm Roger Bissell"), she responded, "Well, of course, you are!" (Indeed, who else would I be!) Her quiet, intense, friendliness won me over, so I immediately set aside my automatized mind-set of harsh judgmentalism to Enemies of Objectivism and decided grudgingly to open-mindedly consider what she had to say. The Agora: Various people did their show and tell of events and products they were involved with. It was announced that Barbara's talk was being video-taped with her permission, and that it would be marketed pending her approval of the tape. The talk: Barbara said that on a wide range of controversial topics, nearly everybody seems quick to anger; families and long-term friendships are damaged or broken up by things that can't be unsaid. She partially understands the reasons, which she will share with us. Barbara gave three examples from her personal experience: (1) When she questioned on an online discussion group why James J. Martin had a long-term association with an anti-semitic organization, the IHR, if he wan't anti-semitic himself, Barbara was met with angry abuse and vicious sarcasm and lost a 30-year friendship in the process. (2) On an Objectivist blog, when some were trying to justify Leonard Peikoff's denunciation of David Kelley for speaking to a libertarian group, Barbara pointed out and documented that Peikoff had twice appeared at book-signing parties at Laissez-Faire books after excommunicating Kelley. She was accused of dishonesty and evasion and banned from the blog, and she and Nathaniel Branden were branded as "Enemies of Ayn Rand and Objectivism." (3) Recent discussions of the 1968 Split are polarized around people painting Nathaniel and Barbara as villains and Rand as being irrational. In summary, Barbara said, "these people are all nuts!" But why are they behaving this way? Barbara suggested that we set aside those with stored resentment and hatred, who seem to explode just to vent and shock others and look at more complicated factors. Barbara focused on several key ideas: (1) The erroneous notion that there are "inherently evil ideas," and that you can judge a person's moral character by judging their convictions and thoughts. Someone who has "evil ideas" in effect is someone who disagrees with us, and they are thus evil people, and it is acceptable to denigrate and abuse those who disagree with us for that reason. By establishing their evil, we also fortify our own purity. We all agree that Muslim Fundamentalism is a serious threat, but does this mean we should damn all Muslim Fundamentalists, even a 13 year old boy? His context is that Muslims are heroes and Americans are the Great Satan, and he doesn't know any better. Was Andrei in We the Living evil? He eventually rejected Communism, once he saw its evil, anti-life consequences. If he were alive today, he would not be a Communist. Young people often brand something they dislike as "the most evil." They exaggerate, with no historical context to back it up. Ideas aren't evil, only people are evil. And people often err not because they are corrupt to the core, but because life is difficult. Why keep trying to sell your ideas in the world, if people are that evil? We have the right to make mistakes in life without being damned. We have the right to appropriate anger -- e.g., at the disastrous consequences of ideas and actions -- but not to unjust moral outrage at another's errors. If you don't like being treated as a destroyer because of your ideas, don't do that to others. (I am reminded here of the Frozen Abstraction Fallacy, written about by Rand in "Collectivized Ethics." She gave the example of altruists who regard egoism as not a morality; it is the same error for egoists to regard altruism as not a morality.) (2) The erroneous notion that just because you have a certain perception of reality, others must have it, too. E.g., we see what bad consequences ideas lead to, but others may not be aware of it. Barbara always saw piles of dead bodies when people advocated the draft. Pro and anti gun people both envision innocent victims if their opponents' ideas prevail. Our ideas are not self-evident to our opponents. Rarely do people disagree out of sheer perversity. (3) The vast oversimplification of the psychology of others. We are mentally complex creatures. As a set of principles of human action, psychology is still in its infancy. It is a relatively new science, its methodology is not agreed upon, and its philosophical base is not firm. We understand some motivations, not all. Various proposed theories (e.g., Freud's) have holes. Self-esteem is central, and one day, when it is scientifically validated, we'll have a theory of human action, but today we can't psychologize and assume we know each other's minds. Nobody evades knowingly. There is a big difference between conscious, willful evasion and being dimly aware that you aren't looking in all the directions you should be looking. Holding questionable ideas is usually the result of self-induced fog, not simple, crude evasion. Yet, "evasion" is the Scarlet Letter of Objectivism. When all else fails, say that someone is guilty of evasion. The motive here seems to be moral authoritarianism, the desire to keep people in line, not just disagreeing with them, but holding them in moral contempt and judging them as evil when they disagree. A tip: if you fly into an immediate rage when challenged, it may be a sign that you are not sure about your beliefs. Another label, "Social metaphysics," where you were supposedly guilty of finding reality not in facts but in the opinions of other people, used to be the cancer of Objectivism. This, too, seems prompted by moral authoritarianism. In conclusion, Barbara asked: isn't there enough pain in the world? Wouldn't it be nice if someone for a change erred in being too lenient in judging others? There is a great lack of empathy these days. Judging people without empathy and awareness of their context won't change people and won't change the world. It will just make us outcasts. We should strive for a realistic, sympathetic understanding of others rather than morally condemning them (unless they deserve it, such as racists who deny the Holocaust or think it was a good thing). The discussion: Lineweaver asked if Barbara thought that Reagan was great because he saved us from Communism, and she agreed. My wife, Becky, said that people who are attacked become defensive, and it is hard for them to keep an open mind to our ideas or for us to persuade them; and that when you listen to another's point of view non-judgmentally, it is more likely they will be open to your point of view; Barbara agreed with this. One guy offered the distinction between moral condemnation that "X is bad" and moral judgment that "X is bad for me," and that the latter guides you in what to do, while the former offers only anger and not guidance. I asked about the role of suppressed anger and use of drugs and alcohol which de-inhibits people who become more angry and belligerant, and I asked if Barbara was going to write a book about this topic; she said no, but she was working on a book that was related to the topic. Another guy suggested that personality type and addiction were behind people's efforts to control others; Lineweaver and Barbara said that we really don't have enough data to know that these are causing people to be controlling and judgmental. Neil Schulman, a Jewish guy, asked why it wouldn't be OK to be friends with an anti-Semite or a member of a racist group? It was suggested that this only gives them legitimacy ("some of my best friends are Jews"). Steve Reed suggested that the Internet shears off context, and we regard each other as disembodied intellects, rather than persons, and he apologized for unfortunately breaking off relations with various people because of this. A guy supporting gun owner rights told of his attempts to persuade a legislator to favor concealed carry laws, giving her much data and argument to support his claim, and she was still unconvinced and didn't want to hear more; he asked if she was being unreasonable. Barbara said you can't tell, and she suggested that one of the biggest mistakes she made in earlier years was feeling that she had to accept any argument that she wasn't able to refute, instead of saying, "It still bothers me, and I'll have to think about it." All in all, it was a very stimulating, fun evening. Barbara's talk was very well received, generating a standing ovation and much friendly discussion. The lack of rancor and antagonism was surprising and heartening. We don't usually attend Karl Hess Club functions (the only other one being a talk by John Hospers on his relationship with Ayn Rand), and we probably won't in the future, but this event was well worth the time and money to attend it. And the time and effort to write it up and share with you, gentle reader. :-) Additional comments There's a reason why early media coverage of the Objectivist movement wrote about "The Cult of Angry Ayn Rand." It's not an illusion, and it's not all justified, and the unjustified anger has a very harmful effect on our ability to effectively communicate ideas. Yes, indeed, I have been guilty of inappropriate anger, way too many times, as a matter of fact, and I don't doubt that I will again. But I'm criticizing a behavior that undermines values. Apologies are fine, but when the behavior recurs too often, the apologies lose credibility, as they should. Bad habits are better broken sooner, than later. Basically, Barbara advises against getting angry at people just because they disagree with you, which we both see happening a lot. She believes that one must reserve one's wrath for people who behave viciously -- e.g., Nazis, racists, etc. -- not people who, for instance, oppose concealed carry gun laws. (Both pro and anti gun folks "see" bodies of innocent victims as a consequence of their opponents' goals, and both sides would do well to remember that in their discussions, rather than assume that what is "self-evident" to them is so to the other person.) My wife and I agreed that Barbara she struck us not as an angry person, but one who was anguished over how much inappropriate anger is unleashed in the world, particularly in the Libertarian and Objectivist movements, and how destructive this is to our attempts to communicate our ideas to others. She also struck us as a person singularly devoid of having a chip on her shoulder -- unlike...some people. Perhaps I should have used another word than "struck"! BB seemed like a very gentle person -- a very empathetic, intense, wise, and gentle person. My wife and I both liked her immediately, and we both find it sadly laughable that BB is regarded as an "Enemy of Objectivism."

Kleenex and Objectivism--the Ominous Parallels by Roger E. Bissell October 4, 2005 There has been much debate over whether the label "Objectivism" is legitimately applied only to those writings by Rand and those she authorized by others, or more broadly to any thinker whose philosophy is more similar to Rand's viewpoint than to that of any other philosopher. In other words, some claim that there is an ambiguity in how "Objectivism" is used, while others deny this claim, of course. Unfortunately for those who subscribe to the Purist Proper Name Theory, there is an ambiguity in the name "Objectivism", and most people do use "Objectivism" the same way they use "Kleenex" or "Xerox." In fact, if we like, we can call this interpretation the Kleenex Proper Name Theory. Some might even see more than a passing similarity between Kleenex and Objectivism. Consider the fact that all tissues are frequently referred to generically as "Kleenexes", and even though they are quite similar, still there are some noticeable differences between at least some of the different brands of tissue. Some tissues (LP tissues?) are more harsh than Kleenex, while others (DK tissues?) are more flimsy and less durable than authentic Kleenexes, though comforting to the skin. Yet, we call them all "Kleenexes" (unless we subscribe to the Purist Proper Name Theory). Also, all said, I would rather have some kind of tissue (AR, LP, DK, SOLO, NB) for the purpose of blowing my nose than, say, a paper towel or a cloth towel or a piece of paper (John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Plato, Descartes, etc.). Yuk. Arrrgh. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to make a few Xerox copies of this and mail them to friends who don't have PCs. :-)

Objectivist Punctuation--Two Schools, One Method by Roger E. Bissell September 27, 2005 There are many ways of distinguishing between the two main factions in the Objectivist movement, which are, of course, the pro-Brandenians and the anti-Brandenians. For instance, you can look at who gravitates to the two main institutions that promote Objectivism: TOC tends to attract pro-Brandenians, while ARI seems to be totally comprised of anti-Brandenians. (This is not the official stance of either organization, but the Brandens have appeared at a number of functions of the former, while being entirely omitted from those of the latter.) However, my favorite way of distinguishing between the two factions was suggested to me by the following comment by James Valliant on another thread (The Critics of the Passion of the Critics of Ayn Rand's Critics, or some such overly windy nonsense). Valliant wrote (of Barbara Branden's book about Ayn Rand): Now ~that~ is pure anti-Brandenian punctuation. Pro-Brandenian punctuation, on the other hand, would require re-writing the above quote thusly: See? It's subtle, so you might have missed it. If you want to deny the truth of a pro-Brandenian claim (such as that Barbara Branden loved Ayn Rand), you put the word "love" in quote marks. If you want to deny the truth of an anti-Brandenian claim (such as that Barbara Branden had enmity toward Ayn Rand), you put the word "enmity" in quote marks. Now, I'm sorry not to have had a real pro-Brandenian example to offer, but this approach to punctuation seems to be used largely (if not exclusively) by anti-Brandenians and ARI partisans. I will, however, continue to keep my eyes open for the tell-tale sign of Objectivist punctuation among the pro-Brandenians and TOC partisans. It would be a real shame if they were unable to be truly objective in their use of quote marks. If you want a general guideline: basically, to employ Objectivist punctuation in the way that Mr. Valliant and so many others do -- whether pro- or anti-Brandenian -- you simply pick whatever you're trying to deny the truth of, and you put it in quote marks. This is a direct parallel to the Objectivist approach to humor, of ridiculing whatever you want to deny metaphysical significance to. Some might even claim that Objectivist punctuation is really a very crude form of humor, as evidenced by those who laugh when they see it being used in an attack on someone they dislike. Here is another example, which shows that Objectivist punctuation is used for more than simply registering one's support or opposition to the Brandens. This example is taken from a comment in an Objectivist blog discussion by one L.S. (who seems at times to be channeling Leonard Peikoff, and at other times to be lapsing into near-hysteria at criticisms of Rand and ARI), who wrote of Bill Dwyer's critique of Peter Schwartz: Now, if we could call this pro-Schwartzian, then an anti-Schwartzian re-writing might go like this: See how Objectivist punctuation works? If it still seems a bit unnatural to you, pick any raging (or tepid) controversy you are interested in, then make a comment about someone representing the side you disagree with. Be sure to refer to their "arguments" or their "logic" or their "decency," whatever positive attribute or action they might believe to pertain to themselves. But be prepared for payback in regards to your own "rationality" or "good character." If you would like to share these thoughts with someone not on this web site, by all means, feel free to quote me. :-)

Religious Addiction by Roger E. Bissell July 7, 2005 Philosophy and religion can be used as a tool, to guide one in the living of one's life. Or they can be misused, as a manifestation of "fight or flight"—that is, as a weapon with which to exercise power over others or as a privileged sanctuary within which to hide from the demands of life in the real world. One form of the misuse of philosophy and religion is what some have called "religious addiction." It is a very real problem in America and, to some extent, in the Objectivist movement. It is a sickness comparable to drug and alcohol abuse. By this, I do mean not that a particular philosophy or religion is making certain people ill. I am saying that those people are misusing their religion or philosophy in a way that disguises and perpetuates, rather than heals, the emotional illness they had before turning to that religion or philosophy. I have my own list of telltale signs that newly super-devout worshippers or adherents of a philosophy are engaging in religious addiction. Here are just a few of them: 1. Although they have been "healed" by God or Objectivism or whatever of their abuse of alcohol or drugs or sex or whatever, they are still locked in the grip of other addictions, such as nicotine or compulsive spending. 2. Under the guise of religious or moral righteousness and missionary zeal, they still engage in the same hateful and abusive actions toward friends and loved ones that they did before "finding God" (or Rand). 3. They speak of being "forgiven" of their sins by God, or having "rationally risen above" their previous immoral behavior, yet make no effort to acknowledge the exact nature of those wrongs to the people they have hurt and make no effort to make amends for those wrongdoings. For these people, religion or philosophy is a "refuge." It is a hideaway, not unlike the bottle, where they can continue to deny responsibility for their mistakes and avoid facing up to their problems in dealing with life and with other people. To paraphrase Rand, "don't tell me that these people don't exist, because I've met them." They exist in mainstream religion, in Objectivism, and elsewhere, and I have met quite a number of them, both in person and online. For these people, it is a very small step from "How Dry I Am" to "How Great Thou Art"—or to the embarrassing attempts of some to pose as would-be Roarks and Dagnys, instead of their own, authentic selves. As a prescription for breaking out of this self-destructive pattern of behavior, for religious addicts of whatever persuasion, I recommend the reading of Nathaniel Branden's The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem and/or a good 12-step meeting. Additional comments: One person asked me for examples of how someone who has acted wrongly in the past can use Objectivism to make amends to those he has harmed. He wondered if there isn't often a likelihood that attempts to make amends will cause more harm than good, especially if the initial wrongdoing created an irreparable breach. Here is one example, which relates to how I have screwed up in romance over the years and still come out very happy in the end. :-) Years ago (shortly after the Big Split), I was engaged to my first wife (of three), and she was a very jealous woman (not without some reason, and not just because of my own wandering eye). At some point, she began stormily insisting that I not have this female friend or that female friend, because she was sure that I was having (or would, if given the opportunity, have) sex with one (or more) of them. Most of the friendships were hardly more than acquaintances or cordial relationships, so not a great deal was lost by "breaking off" with them. But one young lady in particular meant a considerable bit more to me. We were both music majors, both Randians, and very much enjoyed intellectual discussion with one another. We had indeed considered a romantic relationship, but decided that it was not a good idea, so decided to remain just friends. Yet, even this was intolerable to my fiancee-and-then-wife. Being of relatively low confidence at that time, and susceptible to intimidation and fear of loss of the romantic relationship I did have with her, I kow-towed to her demands. So, with great reluctance and anguish, I told my friend we couldn't speak to each other any more, a silence that lasted for nearly 15 years. For those who do not grasp the subtlety of the immorality of the above described action of mine, read Rand's "Altruism and Appeasement." :-( I should, however, share here my recent interchange on this matter with Michael Kelly. He wrote: I told Michael that I thought I could make a pretty good case that I was immoral -- or at least, woefully immature (and imprudent or lacking in practical reason) to be contemplating marriage in the first place, whether with a pathologically jealous woman or a (more) normal one. But you are certainly correct that jealousy does not go away when you make sacrifices. (That's another issue: does one ever really sacrifice in the Randian sense of a higher value for a lower value. I think the more conventional sense of "sacrifice" would be more apropos. Anyway, years later, I was going through therapy and realized exactly what I had done wrong, that it was contrary to my improved self-esteem and my improved grasp on Objectivist ethics to have treated my friend so unjustly, and I set about contacting her in order to try to make amends. The short version of this story is that it had a happy ending. My bridges were not "irreparably burn[ed]." She accepted my expression of deep sorrow and regret. She saw that I had changed greatly for the better. And most importantly, she welcomed me back as a friend -- and some time later, we began a very deep, wonderful romance that culminated in our marrying 15 years ago. Barbara Branden has commented: I couldn't agree more. About 10 years ago, when I first ventured forth onto the Internet, I ran into quite a few people of the "basher" persuasion, one of whom was the late Ron Merrill. In October of 1996, we had the following exchange: Ron wrote: I replied: I share this exchange not in order to portray myself as somehow superior to or more (or less) of an Objectivist than Ron. Indeed, I, too, for many years spent far too much time in "basher" mode and considered it the best way to go in combatting evil in the world. (That, in itself, is a negative focus. It should be on spreading good in the world.) It has taken many years, too many years of vacillating, to break free of this bad habit. Perhaps it's just mellowing with age . Perhaps it's fear over getting cancer or something from carrying around all that anger. (Sadly, Ron himself was taken away at far too young an age by cancer. I only hope that it was due to something other than his antagonistic stance toward the world.) Perhaps it's being sadder but wiser over seeing so many brilliant people behaving so horribly toward those who should be their intellectual allies and companions. Perhaps it's the love of a good woman who herself long ago outgrew such behavior, and saw my better possibilities and patiently encouraged me to do the same. (Yeah!) Perhaps I'm just too tired and shell-shocked from such experiences to want wallow in them again. Whatever. If I'm "grounded," as Teresa Summerlee Isanhart says (and thanks, as always, Teresa, for your good-hearted supportiveness), it's not because I started out that way. I had to spend a lot of time figuring out where the ground was! James Kilbourne commented that he wanted to hear Michael Kelly's thoughts on 12 step, saying: I jumped in and told him that the 12-Step movement has been applied not just to people with addictions to alcohol, drugs, food, compulsive spending, sex, etc., but also to people with "relationship addiction," sometimes known as codependency. I was such a person, especially while married to my second wife, who had a serious problem with several addictive behaviors, including prescription tranquilizers, compulsive spending, and shoplifting. Thus, while she attended Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, I attended Al-Anon, which is for friends, colleagues, and loved ones of people with substance abuse (and similar) problems. These meetings, which I attended weekly for about three years in the late 1980s, did me a world of good in dealing with my (now ex-)wife's problems and my (now)wife's ex-husband's (now, there was a religious addict!) pernicious effects on the emotional well-being of their daughters (who lived with us). One of the key concepts is encapsulated in the "Serenity Prayer" by Reinhold Niebuhr: The primary application of this idea in Al-Anon is to realize that you cannot change "your alcoholic," but that you can (and should) change yourself. The courage aspect puts the focus of your thoughts and efforts where it belongs, on your well-being. The serenity aspect, the non-judgmental acceptance of the alcoholic/addict, places the responsibility where it belongs, squarely on him, for deciding how (if at all) he is going to change as a result of your self-focused changes (rather than as a result of pressures on him). Ayn Rand quoted this prayer approvingly in her essay "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made" as being spot-on philosophically, and I certainly agree. Now, this non-judgmental acceptance does not absolve you of the necessity and responsibility for engaging in evaluation (and acting accordingly) of people in your life. However, it means that, rather than engaging in loud, blistering denunciations and condemnations of them, you quietly discern what it is that bothers you about what they are doing. If you find that you cannot stand their company, you leave. If you find that you cannot trust them, you do not enter into relationships of trust with them (or you leave). Etc. You discern and act. You do not give them an excuse to blame you for their bad behavior by engaging in harsh judgmental behavior yourself. ("No wonder I drink or use drugs or screw around or weigh 300 pounds. Look what a horrible person I have to live with!" -- standard excuse-making enabled by harsh judgmentalism.) This application of the Serenity Prayer, more than any other aspect of the 12-Steps, is why I think so many codependents are able to climb back on the self-esteem wagon after spending years mired in a dysfunctional relationship. If you can set aside the "God" and "Higher Power" talk and focus on the essence of the ideas involved, I think you will see that there is a very potent aspect of Objectivism embodied in the 12-Step movement. Not the unreformed Objectivism of the over-the-top judgmentalists, but the evolved, enlightened (neo)Objectivism of Nathaniel Branden (see especially The Disowned Self). One final comment, which is very apropos of this topic and of Objectivism in general. Barbara Branden said that Objectivists should never forget that their philosophy is a shield, not a weapon, an another person objected that philosophy is both a shield and a weapon. Actually, I agree, but with this qualification: philosophy can legitimately be used as a weapon of defense against those who are trying to abuse others. It cannot legitimately be used as a weapon with which to abuse others. I think this more precisely captures the distinction Barbara was trying to make, while recognizing the point that philosophy can be used--illegitimately--as an offensive weapon. So, my signature should always be read with that qualification in mind. [This essay and these remarks were originally posted on SOLOHQ during July of 2005.]

Objectivism, Nathaniel Branden, and my Interest in Psychology by Roger Bissell 1991 Objectivism is the philosophy of Russian-born writer and thinker, Ayn Rand (1905-1982). She championed a system of ideas that sees reality as being what it is independent of anyone's wishes and as thoroughly knowable by the human mind. She viewed rational self-interest as the proper guide to living our lives, and laissez-faire capitalism and individual rights as the proper social system for us to live under. And she regarded romantic music, art, and literature as the best esthetic values for us to pursue. In the early days of the movement, the development and application of Rand's Objectivist ideas seemed to be under very tight, strict control. Rand and her right-hand man, Canadian-born psychologist Nathaniel Branden (1930- ), told us that we were all merely "Students of Objectivism." We were to tell others that it existed and they, the Objectivists, would tell people what it is. Hmmph. (1998 Note: Things have not improved much since these words were first written. The current stance by the keepers of the flame is that if you disagree with some significant aspect of Objectivism, you are not an Objectivist, but a neo-Objectivist, or some other hyphenated creature. Double hmmph.) But then came the Great Split of 1968. Severe personal differences sent Rand and Branden on their separate ways. The scattered remnants of the Objectivist movement struggled to reorganize around various projects and goals. The Objectivist philosophy, wound up tighter than a coiled spring in the 60s, seemed to burst out in a number of different directions. Before the Great Split, Branden had been the chief public spokesman for the Objectivist philosophy. By 1971 he had almost totally shifted his focus onto his own career field, psychology. He had not only produced recordings of his earlier lectures on Basic Principles of Objectivism and a monthly "Seminar" series, but also his books The Psychology of Self-Esteem and Breaking Free. That year saw the publication of his third book on psychology, The Disowned Self. This pathbreaking book--in my opinion, his most important--was a major step forward in undoing the damage caused by the oppressive atmosphere and repressive policies of the 60s phase of the movement. Branden, having himself been "disowned" by Rand, had "left home" to begin a new life and practice in California. He encouraged his supporters to get in touch with parts of themselves that they had suppressed and ignored in the name of "rationality." He urged us to have the strength of resolve to lead lives independent of the stifling influence of the remaining "inner circle of Randian Loyalists. Branden has continued his prodigious output with a number of recorded lectures and an additional seven books [nearly 20 as of 2005]. Among them are two on romantic love, two on sentence-completion self-therapy exercises, the first two of a projected six on "pillars of self-esteem," and the memoirs of his relationship with Rand. [Also, by the mid-90s Branden was once again accepted into the mainstream of the Objectivist movement--at least, the "kinder, gentler" part of it, centered at the Institute for Objectivist Studies, under the leadership of David Kelley.] I have learned an enormous amount from Branden's writings and lectures. I especially valued his thoughts about the nature of the mind, will, and emotions. In particular, these ideas influenced various sections of my esthetics book, as well as an essay, "A Dual-Aspect Approach to the Mind-Body Problem" (published in 1974 in Reason Papers #1 and quoted in Tibor Machan's 1974 book The Pseudo-Science of B. F. Skinner). Branden's reviews for Academic Associates' Book News seem to have disappeared down the memory hole, but they were quite helpful to me. His reviews of Mortimer Adler's The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes and Arthur Koestler's The Act of Creation pointed me toward these two extremely prolific and insightful thinkers. They, too, greatly influenced my thinking on esthetics and on the mind-body and free will issues. Also, Koestler's discussion of hierarchical structure stimulated my interest in diagramming concept hierarchies, musical form, and family tree diagrams. This latter led to a 20+ year love affair with family history, which included publication of two family surname newsletters and the first of a projected three-volume work, The Bissells of Barstow (Illinois). Branden's 1971 emphasis on self-awareness, self-acceptance, and self-responsibility also played an important part in my personal life. It helped me to dig my way out of some of my worst personal problems. It prepared me to be receptive to even more helpful ideas in Timothy Galwey's "Inner Game" books and the Al-Anon 12-Step program. These ideas were reflected in a 1979 lecture, "Advice to would-be Professional Trombonists," and a 1989 essay, "A Higher Power for Atheists and Agnostics" [the latter of which will soon be posted elsewhere on this website]. The 12-Step program, in turn, led me to family systems theory and personality type theory. I have done much theorizing, writing, and speaking about personality as it relates to communication and motivation--and I am pursuing an M.A. degree in psychology from California Coast University. Who knows, someday I may finish this degree work and actually become a psychologist! If I do, it will be largely due to the richness and power of Nathaniel Branden's influence on my life.

I had just finished Scott Turow's Presumed Innocent on Monday, and I went back yesterday to reading Fred Seddon's Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and the History of Philosophy. Seddon's book is very expensive, but I got a used copy on the Internet. It's quite well worth the read. He knows his stuff, and apparently Rand and Peikoff did/do not know theirs, especially about Plato, Hume, and Kant. (I just finished the two chapters on Kant's epistemology and ethics last night.) REB

Comments on Chapter 13 of Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical by Roger E. Bissell 9/27/96 A cardinal feature of Ayn Rand's philosophy of life--and, not coincidentally, one of the key aspects of dialectics, and the major consequence of the "revolt against formal dualism"--is the commitment to radicalism: the refusal to bifurcate human life into two hermetically sealed domains of theoretical, abstract, ivory-tower knowledge and practical, concrete, real-world action. Following up on his discussion in Chapters 11 and 12 of Rand's tri-level analysis of power relations in society, Chris Sciabarra concludes his path-breaking work, Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical, with an examination of how Rand proposes to change things for the better, i.e., to implement "her vision of the ideal individual and the ideal society." (p. 352) In chapter 13, "History and Resolution," Sciabarra reveals that just as Rand's critical view of the dualistic ills plaguing people and society had a clear, extensive historical context, so did her proposed cures for those ills. Her decision to major in history in college was thus a prophetically wise one, for it was from history, as Sciabarra points out, that she was able to draw the understanding of what makes social change possible. Historically, men have been ruled mainly by those in revolt against the nature and requirements of the human, conceptual mode of awareness--i.e., by faith (via the Witch Doctor) and by force (via Attila). (I am reminded of this passage, one of my favorites, from Atlas Shrugged: "Power lust is a weed that grows in the vacant lot of an abandoned mind.") Only with the rebirth of secular philosophy through the efforts of Aquinas and his followers was this dualistic hegemony eventually, but only temporarily, overturned, in favor of a pro-reason, pro-freedom orientation personified by two historically new archtypes: the Intellectual, who channeled philosophy into the production of ideas and knowledge, and the Businessman, who channeled science into the production of goods and wealth. But while the birth of modern science and the Industrial Revolution swept Attila and the Witch Doctor to the side, the latter gradually managed to "infiltrate secular philosophy and to undercut the efficacy of reason by clouding their mysticism in technical and scientific writing," the pivotal and arch-example of this being Kant. (p. 355) While this point is clear enough from various sources, Sciabarra's parallel point is not: "The Attilas began to use ever more sophisticated methods of predation to feast on the enormous productive power unleashed by the reasoning mind." (ibid) I recall from reading Murray Rothbard's multi-volume history, Conceived in Liberty, as well as L. Neil Smith's alternate history science fiction novels, that there were some pretty nasty, crafty types involved in the early days of the United States of America, both during and just after the Revolution--Alexander Hamilton, to name one. Since these people were in favor of a strong national government and mercantilist and other interventionist policies, they would certainly qualify as Attilas. And to the extent that they participated in the process of devising our Constitution and pushed for weasel clauses such as the Interstate Commerce clause, they certainly functioned as Attilas using "ever more sophisticated methods of predation..." I am aware that Rand calls attention to various shameful actions of businessmen in the latter 1800s and early 1900s, including supporting the Interstate Commerce Act, various antitrust acts, the Income Tax Amendment, etc. But I think that the master Attilas in American history were the ones who deliberately sabotaged the free market with various clauses such as the one discussed above. In any case, the Witch Doctors managed to undercut philosophy and to deprive free trade and free expression of a proper moral base, thus making inevitable the demise of (relatively laissez-faire) capitalism and, along with it, the businessmen and the intellectuals. The chief responsibility for this tragedy rests with the intellectuals, according to Rand, the reason being that the "leverage" for change in the social sphere is on the same "tier" as it is in the individual sphere: ideas or "conscious convictions," which in the social realm amount to "culture." And within the area of culture, the leverage more precisely rests in the hands (i.e., minds) of the "philosophic system builders," who are like the commander-in-chief of any army, and who set the cultural-historical trends with their networks of ideas. Their "field agents," as it were, are the intellectuals, who apply the system's ideas to various disciplines. The ideas are further transmitted by scientists, businessmen, journalists, politicians, etc., hrough the various communications media and the arts. Discovering and clarifying this kind of historically recurrent pattern in cultural change is an important part of understanding human nature deeply enough to form a coherent, valid model of how change works and how it might be rationally predicted and redirected, and Rand apparently grasped this point by the time she reached college. As for how change might be redirected in a more positive way, Rand's dictum "Check your premises" says it all. Spell out, and examine the foundation of, your own mixed premises--and those of the culture in which you live. Remove the contradictions--including the relational "contradictions," the false dichotomies--from those premises, and you and/or the culture will inexorably move toward a more rational, integrated resolution. But since ideas exist in a material, historical, and psychological context, positive change may well not be swift and automatic. (As an aside, I want to highlight Sciabarra's point that neither Rand nor Marx were what he would call "reductionist monists," in pushing the causal efficacy of ideas vs. matter. Instead, he shows, both were contextually reacting to the dominant trend at the time which, in Marx's case, was Idealism and, in Rand's, mechanistic determinism.) Rand did not put much stock in either utopias or detailed blueprints of the ideal society, preferring instead to work within the broad outlines of certain principles toward transformation of the personal, cultural, and structural levels of existing society. Her clear hope was that, eventually, enough people would come to accept her ideas that they would become the dominant philosophy of the culture and would generate reasons and desires that would motivate people to move away from the mixed, semi-statist status quo and toward freedom. Only once reason and freedom were consummated "on the personal and cultural levels," could they then be realized on the structural level, so that rational, free political and economic institutions could emerge. (p. 368) To help her in the task of moving America toward a rational, free society, Rand conceived yet another archtypal figure, the New Intellectual, whose role is to conquer dualism by throwing out the soul-body dichotomy and helping reunite the Intellectual and the Businessman, apparently by wearing both hats himself ("a thinker who is a man of action"), when possible. Just as Rand's ideal of an integrated human being required rejecting the soul-body dichotomy, so did her ideal of a free individualist society require rejecting the false alternative of theocratic vs. secular collectivism, based as they were on the monistic emphasis on either values or facts. (p. 375) But in being an arch individualist and anti-collectivist, Rand did not thereby fall into either pitfall of atomism or anti-community. Thus, she seeks an ultimate "integration of individual and social harmony" (p. 376), on the premise that in a free society, a society of nonexploitative relations, there are no inherent conflicts between rational individuals. In the meantime, of course, we must all merely do the best we can, in our struggle against the statist tendencies toward (in Rand's words) "gradual and general destruction." It will be a long struggle, indeed, one which will not likely resolve in our or our children's generation. But that is no reason not to fight for reason, freedom, and capitalism. Those who went before us gave their time, efforts, and (where necessary) lives in order to establish and preserve what freedom we still have. And, if I understand David Kelley's point correctly in Unrugged Individualism, it would be moral freeloading to not give as good to those coming after us. Had Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry been able to travel through time and ask each of us: "Do you want us to fight for our freedom which, if we are successful, will also benefit you?," who among us would not say, "Yes, go, fight those Redcoats!" Who among us would want to take a chance with our own continued existence? (Remember, this is a science fiction thought experiment, OK?) That being so, by the rational, Objectivist virtue of benevolence, it behooves us to emulate those who made our freedom possible, by extending the same efforts here and now! * * * Now that my somewhat casual overview of Ch. 13 is completed, I would like to share some additional, more personal comments: I frequently hear Objectivists voice the nagging concern (unfortunately, not always in a calm, civil manner) that linking Rand and Objectivism in any way, even methodologically, with thinkers she so despised as Marx and Hegel, will ultimately cause serious harm to the Objectivist movement and philosophy--as if Objectivism were some kind of hothouse flower that had to be jealously protected from a hostile environment. But as Rand herself was fond of saying about allegedly fragile situations, "A boat that cannot stand rocking, had better be rocked fast and hard." Surely this dictum applies no less to her own system of ideas. And aside from those with a vested interest in the pristine isolation of Objectivism from rigorous academic scrutiny, it is difficult to imagine who could find fault with Sciabarra's masterful efforts to garner more mainstream attention to (not to mention respect for) Rand's philosophy. The truth will out. I have also wondered a great deal about why some people are able to quickly and clearly see that Rand's philosophical approach is, as Sciabarra puts it, a thorough-going "revolt against dualism," while others struggle (in vain, it seems) to grasp it. The latter appear to prefer a view of Rand as having developed her wonderful philosophical insights in a cultural vacuum--i.e., not in response to wrong-headed or inadequate ideas and policies currently ruling the culture, but simply as a solitary act of intellectual curiosity and ingenuity. Even when it is (seemingly) grudgingly conceded that Rand sometimes engaged in a process similar to dialectics, the attempt is immediately made to minimize its importance in the overall scheme of Objectivist theory. For instance, it is sometimes claimed that dialectics is only appropriate when there are false dichotomies to be transcended, as in radical social theory, and not in philosophy in general. There's no doubt that, on some occasions, someone might have asked Rand, "What is your view of x?," after which, if she didn't already know the answer, she would ponder the matter at some length, then arrive at her own position, with no apparent connection to resolving false dichotomies. As Peikoff details it in his essay on Rand's intellectual method ("My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand, an Intellectual Memoir," The Voice of Reason), this is how she arrived at her theory of measurement-omission. But the evidence is overwhelming, both from Rand's cultural environments in Russia and America and from her writing, that she saw Western culture as being thoroughly infested with dualism and the job of the "New Intellectuals" as confronting head-on those dualisms personified by Attila and the Witch Doctor. This gritty scenario was the primary framework within which she did philosophy, not that of the solitary individual engaging in the private birthing of Immaculate Conceptions. To Rand, philosophy is not a pristine activity, cloistered away from the world and all its practical concerns and imperfections, devoted to a reverent seeking after the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. Philosophy is a tool for living on earth, and the earth was massively screwed-up (and still is). In other words, philosophy is a necessity for coping with the many problems generated by our culture's unfortunate milleni a-old love affair with dualism. It bears repeating: dualism is as old as recorded history (probably much older) and has a strong tendency to result in both social fragmentation and the failure of individuals to achieve personal integration. (See Russian Radical, p. 293). When John Galt seized the airwaves in Atlas Shrugged, the world had reached the point of collapse from this diabolical romance, and he proceeded to spell out the roots and branches of the evils of dualism for his listeners. Now, this is Rand speaking through her hero, of course, and there is no clearer statement anywhere of the horrendous pitfalls of dualism than in "Galt's Speech," nor of the kind of radical alternative that is needed. The cure, of course, is "capitalism ideally understood" (p. 294), which points toward the "genuine integration" of human beings and makes possible "triumph over social fragmentation" (pp. 293-4), and which is why, as Rand emphatically said, "the new radicals are the fighters for capitalism." (p. 370) This is how Rand views philosophy and culture--and the way to set them on the right track. Discover and point out the false alternatives and their pernicious effects, and propose the radical cure. So why some of Rand's admirers (including, unfortunately, a number of second- and third-generation Objectivist philosophers, upon whom we depend to carry the torch) are not able to readily embrace Chris Sciabarra's dialectical thesis about Rand, the major corollary of which is the "revolt against dualism"--I confess I do not understand. In a "perfect" world, perhaps we would have lives of cradle-to-grave rationality, and philosophy would serve not as a treatment, but as a preventive, along the lines of the "wellness" model of medicine. Even now, some people seem to think that if parents behave just so, their children will not develop irrational, unhealthy tendencies. These same people probably think that the numerous revelations of significant character flaws in leading proponents of Objectivism are just vicious propaganda to try and discredit the philosophy (rather than the attempt to strip away the mystique and portray them as real human beings). This only goes to show that denial (Da-Nile) is not just a river in Egypt! Let's be realistic, people: our culture is rife with dualism, and, to some non-harmless degree, all children will be affected by it, despite the best efforts of well-meaning parents. The revolt against dualism is an on-going war, and the battlefield casualties number in the billions. Rand was aware of this, Sciabarra is aware of it, and it's well past time for the rest of the Objectivist movement to get its head out of the sand and recognize it, too. The final point I would like to address may shed some light on the strangely intense disagreement over the whole issue of dialectics and Objectivism. What we may be seeing, more than anything, is a clash of "thinking styles." Many thinkers appear to strongly prefer either "integration" or "reduction," while Rand seemed to be very adept at both of these aspects of cognitive functioning. In my own studies of Carl Jung's theory of personality, I have noticed the strong similarity between what he calls "extraverted thinking" and the Objectivist view of the linear, "vertical", chain- or bridge-like aspect of thinking that insists on reducing concepts to their base in external reality and on defining truth in terms of correspondence of one's ideas to reality--and what he calls "introverted thinking" and the Objectivist view of the non-linear, "horizontal," web- or mosaic-like aspect of thinking that insists on integrating one's concepts in a non-contradictory way and on defining truth in terms of the internal coherence of one's ideas. Now, as Jung and many followers have taught, these thinking preferences need not be mutually exclusive, regardless of the fact that many people strongly lean toward one or the other. In fact, as Objectivism has recognized, both are indispensable in the attainment of knowledge and truth. It's my observation that those more supportive of Sciabarra's application of dialectic to the understanding of Rand's philosophical method appear to prefer introverted thinking, while those who oppose this approach in favor of a more standard, sequential approach to Objectivism seem to prefer extraverted thinking. Yet, neither approach is truly all-or-nothing. Peikoff, for all his sequentialism in developing Objectivism in his book, frequently moves in spirals back through the same ideas, making new, broader connections between the different areas. And Sciabarra, for all his holism in presenting the dialectical aspects of Rand's thought, wisely presents a sequential overview of her philosophy in Part II of his book. So it is obvious--to me, at least--that both approaches are not only helpful, but crucial in coherently grasping reality. In the Broadway play "Oklahoma," there was a song entitled (something like) "The Ranchers and the Farmers Should Be Friends." They had much more to gain from cooperating and getting along than in feuding with each other over their petty differences. I am suggesting that this is exactly analogous to the situation that the Objectivist movement is in, as made apparent by the otherwise mystifying level of antagonism and talking-past one another that has occurred in various recent discussions of Sciabarra's book. * * * Additional comments (10/8/96): Actually, we have a multiplicity of issues dividing us in the Libertarian and Objectivist movements, but they are all united by an underlying difference of perspective. And this difference is manifested in both our thinking and our feeling styles. It is clear to me that there is a rough division between those preferring coherence/tolerance and those preferring correspondence/crusading, and that this cognitive/normative dissonance is what is splitting our movement in general and in this discussion of Chris' book. The two perspectives are not ultimately incompatible. Just try to have coherence (non-contradiction) without correspondence (foundation in reality), or vice versa! Or, for that matter, serious attention for one's judgments, without a sincere, reasonable attempt to properly communicate them. And serious interest in what one communicates in a tactful way, without something firm and unequivocal to communicate. But there is a tension between these attitudes/skills that it takes some maturity and reflection to work out. I have fallen short on a number of occasions and so, it appears, have many others within the Libertarian and Objectivist movements. Chris, to his ever-increasing credit, is a welcome exception to this generalization. I join the ranks of those who salute his generous-hearted, civil, respectful way of defending his ideas, while he acknowledges the worthwhile points of those who disagree with him. We all want radical change, the replacement of the current mystic/altruist/collectivist status quo with a free, rational society, and this goal must not be sold out for something as shallow as "respectability" in other circles. Nor, however, is this kind of social-metaphysical, second-hander motivation any more virtuous when it aims in the direction of the self-righteous, Inner-Circle kind of "respectability." Now, within the broad umbrella of radicalism, it is true that some want to go the narrower path toward that change, by in-your-face polarization between Objectivism and everyone else. We're right, we have the truth, and since we can't convince you of our monopoly on the truth, a plague take all your houses--which we won't bother to inspect for possible aspects of the truth we might have overlooked! Maybe these people are right. Maybe the academic establishment is "savagely and unalterably opposed" to our ideas. Though Chris appears to have intrigued and excited people in both the Objectivist and the Marxist camps with his bridge-building, common-ground-seeking approach, he has also clearly aggravated and outraged quite a number in each group. And maybe these latter voices will win out. But if they do, then the future of Objectivism will be as sterile and eventually dead as that of Marxism. We are operating in a social context, and we must infect the culture with both the most effective ideas and methods we have, if we are to achieve the massive paradigm shift from mysticism/altruism/collectivism that our goals require. And that, to some of us, means promoting the methodology of dialectics, in as rational and pure and uncompromising a form as possible. Chris' ongoing dialogue with the Marxists on the nature of dialectics is playing an important role in determining exactly how rational the methodology will be with which our culture moves into the 21st century--and, as a corollary, whether the Objectivist philosophy will ultimately triumph or fade away. In his own vigorous, clearly-argued, no-holds-barred, yet diplomatic, scholarly way, Chris is fighting a battle that serves something much more important than wangling a little extra respect for Rand's ideas and shelf-space for her writings in university bookstores. He deserves better than he has gotten from the Objectivist movement thus far. (And thanks to those few who have at least offered him porkchops in return. You know who you are. Lastly, there is a strong temptation and tendency for some to slip into a more negative, malevolent framework at times, drawing emotional fuel from intellectually bashing one's opponents, but this is not the product of a healthy motivation. Rand rightly regarded polemics as a secondary focus in philosophy, and did right in passing along this perspective to Peikoff and the rest of us. It is up to those of us who want to spend most of our energies pursuing positives to make sure that we are not drawn down into the negative, isolationist cul-de-sac of a fortress mentality. * * * My full review of Russian Radical which was published in Reason Papers, No. 21, Fall 1996. It is posted on the Internet at: http://members.aol.com/REBissell/indexmm5.html

WHAT IS "DIALECTICS"? by Roger E. Bissell 10/26/95 Let's begin by asking Rand's Question: what facts in reality give rise to the need for the concept of "dialectics"? In any developmental process, including the acquisition of knowledge or the achievement of goals, there are points at which or periods during which legitimate, needed progress is delayed or blocked and/or illegitimate "progress" needs to be delayed or blocked. In the intellectual and moral realms, such delays or blockages are often the result of oppositions or conflicts between two or more ideas or values. 1. Sometimes one is presented with a false alternative and one needs to identify a correct, third possibility. (E.g., sacrifice self to others vs. sacrifice others to self--vs.--sacrifice no one.) 2. Sometimes one needs to dissolve false oppositions by revealing the deeper compatibility of the two supposedly antagonistic ideas or values. (E.g., reason vs. the emotions.) 3. Sometimes one needs to show how one of two oppositions is dependent upon and/or parasitic upon the other. (E.g., good and evil, physical objects and consciousness). 4. Sometimes one needs to draw a new distinction between a third position and the two original ones, with the earlier two in a subordinate distinction to each other, as in "two sides of the same coin" (E.g. the intrinsic and subjective views both hold that having a nature invalidates consciousness, whereas the objective view holds that conscious is valid because of its nature.) 5. Sometimes one needs to insist on "polarizing," i.e. heightening an existing opposition, rather than brushing it under the table, or creating a new one. (E.g., seeing everything as black vs. white in moral judgment, rather than compromising by reducing everything to shades of grey. Also, highly significant, is Rand's article, "Credibility and Polarization," The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct. 11, 1971, in which she discusses "intellectual polarization." See discussion below.) In order to deal properly with all these intellectual and moral situations, people need a method or approach that helps them to sharpen and clarify opposing ideas or distinctions--including the creation of new oppositions or distinctions, in some cases--so that they may be retained if valid and complete, abandoned if invalid, or transcended (going beyond present limits and reaching a new level of mental integration) if incomplete. This method or approach is the dialectic. A dialectical process (in the context of thought, rather than historical or natural processes) is thus a process of logically sharpening and clarifying intellectual or moral distinctions. (Dialectics, in short, is the science of distinctions.) The historical accuracy of this definition can be seen in the following quote by Mortimer Adler: "The thread of common meaning which runs through these four conceptions of dialectic [viz., those of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel] is to be found in the principle of opposition. In each of them dialectic either begins or ends with some sort of intellectual conflict, or develops and then resolves such oppositions." ("Dialectic," in The Great Books, Vol. 2, The Great Ideas. A Syntopicon, 2, Angel to Love, p. 350) In this same vein, Aristotle himself said: "A dialectical problem is a subject of inquiry that contributes either to choice and avoidance [i.e., resolves a value-controversy or conflict], or to truth and knowledge [i.e., resolves a controversy or conflict over an intellectual issue], and that either by itself, or as a help to the solution of some other such problem." (Topics, Book I, chapter 11, 104b, 1-3) Aristotle also made it clear that a dialectical problem may be over a present intellectual or value dispute between two conflicting parties, each of whom holds a definite position on the matter; or it may be over an issue on which no one has formed a definite position, but which may be developed into such a problem and then dealt with. (104b, 4ff) In describing the dialectic according to Aristotle, Mortimer Adler also said: "Though it is primarily a method of arguing from assumptions and of dealing with disputes arising from contrary assumptions, dialectic is also concerned with the starting points of arguments." (p. 348, "Dialectic," in The Great Books, Vol. 2, The Great Ideas. A Syntopicon, 2, Angel to Love) In other words, as Ayn Rand said, "Check your premises," succinctly stating another dialectical aspect of her philosophic approach. Of the four main historical advocates cited, only Hegel (and his followers) applied dialectic beyond the realm of human thought, as well. Hegel and Marx applied it to the task of describing historical and/or socio-economic change. In this context, Rand's 1971 article, "Credibility and Polarization" (Ayn Rand Letter) is highly significant. She says that when people are pressured into refraining from "intellectual polarization"--i.e., dialectic processes over conflicting ideas and values--in the name of "national unity," what results, ironically, is "the ugliest kind of divisiveness or existential polarization, if you will: pressure-group warfare." Thus, Rand has put her finger on one of the key factors lending plausibility to Hegelian and Marxist analysis of social change--how suppression or absence of an intellectual dialectic generates a subterranean pressure that breaks out in myriad manifestations of seemingly unresolvable social conflict. This is a powerful dialectical insight. In that same article, Rand gave at least a partial description of a dialectical process in outlining what intellectual polarization would bring about: I say, "Three cheers for Ayn Rand, the Dialectical Objectivist!"

Ayn Rand: Dialectical Objectivist by Roger E. Bissell October 23, 1995 What Chris Sciabarra says about Rand's historical context and method really "rings true" for me. We must have similar psycho- epistemologies. (Gotta make a "macro" for that word. Jeez.) Anyway, I heartily recommend Chris' book, Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical. He's a hell of a scholar and thinker and writer. Just for the record (I have an ax to grind, and this is the lead-in): I do not believe or maintain that Rand was a Hegelian school dialectic thinker. She would never have told anyone to embrace both sides of a true alternative (i.e., a real contradiction). But she did urge us (and showed us how) to spot false alternatives (i.e., merely apparent contradictions) and to seize what is true in each side of the alternative, while rejecting the illegitimate, forced choice. People can rail all they like about the supposed unwisdom of using a term that, having originated with Plato and Aristotle, was later supposedly discredited (for rational--as opposed to Rationalist--folk like us) by Hegel. But it had a legitimate, honorable origin. And what about "capitalism" or "selfishness"? Why aren't we supposed to disapprove of these terms, too? After all, haven't they, too, been discredited for us, due to the fact that most of society applies them primarily incorrectly (i.e., to evil people)? Of course, Rand and her "ilk" (among which I count myself) are perfectly happy using the "C" word and the "S" word. If you are, too, I don't understand why people object to the "D" word. Is it possibly because some of Rand's "ilk" (myself not included) use it as a convenient smear word, rather than as a perfectly legitimate term for referring to her drive to (Aristotle's words) "raise searching difficulties on both sides of a subject"? I must confess one thing: I would not be nearly so enthusiastic over Sciabarra's use of the term "dialectic" in describing Rand's method, if I were not already aware of Mortimer Adler's very successful, very non-Hegelian use of it. Adler, editor of the Great Books and one of the arch-Aristotelians of the 20th century, is probably the outstanding modern proponent of dialectic. His two-volume book, The Idea of Freedom (pub. about 1960) is a model of dialectic discussion of five major, related notions of freedom recurring throughout human history. The clarity and insight resulting from his method is stunning. If you haven't experienced it already, treat yourself. Even though Adler takes a non-partisan approach--and is far from being an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism--hen you see the five options laid out there, it's crystal clear which one is correct. (If you're right-minded, of course .) [by the way, Adler has also written a very dialectical article on "Dialectic," which appears in Volume 2 (The Syntopicon) of the Great Books. He points out that the dialectic began with Plato/Socrates, and he proceeds to elaborate on the versions used by Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel. I strongly recommend this article. (You should be able to find a set of the Great Books in any large library or used book store.) I'm assuming, of course, that we are all really interested in truth and that some of us are not just engaged in a knee-jerk exercise against words Rand disapproved of. ] Despite their vast differences on many essential points, Aristotle and Hegel both stood firmly against partial or one-sided perspectives (which is what the dialectic is all about, in both its legitimate and illegitimate forms). So did Rand's teacher, Nicholas O. Lossky. And so did Rand. We can't blot out historical fact, just by denying it over and over. It's true. We need to learn to live with it. But, no, Rand was not a Hegelian school dialectic thinker. Nor a Marxist. I guess you could say Marx was a dialectical materialist, Hegel was a dialectical idealist--and Rand, seeing the false alternative, was a dialectical Objectivist! Additional comments: Sciabarra's (and Adler's) resurrection of the term "dialectic" is not the only work-in-progress of rescuing honorable terms from the "enemy." The "L" word ("liberalism") also is in the process of being salvaged by some of our compadres. See for instance: Liberty for the 21st Century. Contemporary Libertarian Thought, ed. by Tibor R. Machan and Douglas B. Rasmussen, pub. Rowman and Littlefield. Especially see the essays "Community versus Liberty" by Rasmussen, "'Rights' as Metanormative Principles" by Rasmussen and Douglas DenUyl, and "Liberalism and Libertarianism: Narrowing the Gap" by Daniel Shapiro. Rasmussen and Den Uyl are also working on a piece called "Liberalism Defended: the Challenge of Postmodernity." They repeatedly and clearly refer to their position as "Classical Natural Rights Liberalism" (or "Libertarianism"). Also see their book Liberty and Nature: an Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order, (LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1991). For those of you not already familiar with Tibor and the Dougs, these guys are best described as enthusiastic, well-read, articulate neo-Aristotelians --and an unofficial part of the non-Peikoffian Objectivist faction. Neo-Objectivists, perhaps? More importantly, will their ploy/strategy succeed in salvaging "liberalism"? Since 20th century, statist liberalism is all but dead, I think there's a very good chance they will be able to co-opt it for libertarianism or negative-individual-rights-ism or whatever. Stay tuned! Wilhelm Windelband, reviewed favorably by Rand back in the 60s, wrote: "Hence the processes of deducing, proving, and explaining, in which the ultimate task of science consists, must be preceded by the searching out of the starting points for deduction, of the ultimate grounds of proof, and of the highest principles of explanation. The activity of thought involved in this last process Aristotle calls 'dialectic,' and has laid down its principles in the Topics." (A History of Philosophy, Vol. I, orig. German 1891, transl. & pub. Macmillan 1901, p. 137)

Dialectics: Guardian of Logic by Roger E. Bissell March 1998 In exploring Chris Sciabarra's arguments about the nature of dialectics, most people by now are catching on to the fact that its essential characteristic is contextuality and that it requires what may be called "perspectival thinking." In other words, in order not to overlook any important facets of our object of concern, we should take care to look at it from every angle and gather all the data we can, so as to give ourselves a higher likelihood of reaching a good conclusion. Indeed, it does. But rather than putting dialectics on the soundest possible philosophical footing, some people seem to think that this reduces dialectical thinking to triviality--or, as one person called it, "an unenlightening equivalent of good thinking," invoking "Rand's Question" because he cannot see "the fact of reality that gives rise to the need for the concept of 'dialectics'." Perhaps one of the simplest ways to cut through this confusion is to draw the parallel between dialectics and logic. Leonard Peikoff says that "...the same methodology--the avoidance of contradiction-- is at the heart of every process of logic..." (Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 119). We could easily say that the basic injunction to "avoid contradiction" is just as unenlightening as "avoid context- dropping." Logic is tarred by the same brush! What is the fact of reality that gives rise to the need for logic? Just engage in "good thinking" and you can forget about logic. Oh, you can't engage in good (non-contradictory) thinking without at least implicitly using the principles of logic? Well, then, by the same token, how can you engage in good (non-context-dropping) thinking without at least implicitly using the principles of dialectics? Seriously, as Chris has already made amply clear, the method of dialectics reflects the nature and needs of human consciousness every bit as much as logic does--and it also reflects the facts of external reality just as logic does. And just as the discipline of logic develops and employs numerous concepts to help one to avoid contradiction in specific situations, so too does the discipline of dialectics develop and employ numerous concepts to help one to avoid context-dropping. So there is a seamless connection between metaphysics, epistemology, and methodology, both for logic and dialectics. But I'll go further: without dialectics, logic is in peril! Without the means (concepts, principles) to guide one in maintaining context --especially in complicated situations or fields of study--it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to keep one's thought process connected to reality. And as Peikoff aptly states: "If one drops context, one drops the means of distinguishing between truth and fantasy; anyone can then claim to prove anything, however absurd..." (ibid., p. 124). Without dialectics, whence logic?

Well, get busy! Seriously, at a minimum, you should add The Disowned Self and The Psychology of Romantic Love (or whatever it's called). His more recent books on living consciously and taking responsibility are also important. I don't know. You by now have received the cc's of two emails I sent Nathaniel regarding possible projects. I think he is unsure of the market for such books, especially considering that he already has the daily self-esteem book available. He and I will sit down and talk (or chat by phone) about this idea some more soon. I'll keep you posted. But as a Plan B, if the publication route doesn't materialize, I think that a folder or two or three here on this site would be a wonderful place to share the results of our perusing of NB's works. You know, a folder devoted to pithy one-liners, a folder devoted to definitions of important psychology terms, a folder of works he has recommended for reading or cited in his books and essays. I also think a folder dedicated to a Nathaniel Branden Bibliography (i.e., a listing of his writings and tapes) would be a wonderful addition to this website. Viz., not only his 20 or so books, but monographs and essays, tapes and CDs, etc. I'd like to be the compiler of this. There could be reviews and discussion of any and all of the items, too. Let me know if you and/or Kat would be willing to open up a folder, or a section of folders (see below for more), for this kind of thing. Something similar could be done for Barbara Branden's works, including her contribution to Who is Ayn Rand, her essays for The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist, her Efficient Thinking lectures, her various essays and interviews in magazines and online, and of course her book The Passion of Ayn Rand. Nor should the list end there. I have compiled a list of Leonard Peikoff's lectures, to which should be added his books and essays. The same should be done for David Kelley. And for Tibor Machan. And for Chris Sciabarra. And for George Reisman. And for Robert Efron. The list goes on and on. So many Objectivists and Objectivist-inspired writers and lecturers from whom we can learn so much -- and have already! But back to your concern, Michael. I prefer perusing Branden's works page by page, listing definitions and one-liners as I go. all 4 now, reb

Up from Despair—Becky and Me By Roger E. Bissell Since injudiciously opening up my yap when Michael Kelley bravely shared his life story with us on SOLOHQ, I have had repeated requests (most recently from Phil Coates, on the "eve of destruction" of SOLOHQ) to share how I have screwed up my adult life, and how I got it straightened back out again. I think the part that is the most interesting in this regard is not my musical career or my intellectual path, but my romantic-marital mistakes and how I eventually rectified them. As per the “spiral theory of knowledge,” I’ll go through the same progression of years twice, so as to factor in my wife Becky’s role in all of this. (She has graciously consented to letting me post this, despite her misgivings about anyone really being interested in it.) So, here it is, for what it's worth. It certainly can't compare with the level of angst and despair communicated so vividly by Michael in his personal saga, but I hope it will be helpful or at least interesting to some readers. There are lessons I had to learn, and others may still face similar ones in their lives and draw some insight or reassurance that healing and happiness are not an "impossible dream." My apologies if our story seems a bit repetitive or disjointed in places; I have stitched it together from personal emails written about 10 years ago (updated where necessary). I welcome comments here, or you can email me at rebissell@aol.com. How I Screwed Up My first two marriages lasted 6 and 13 years, respectively, and they failed for very different reasons. My first wife had a strong "betrayal complex," in part because the guy who got her pregnant in high school deserted her. Partly, also, because she found out that I had been secretly dating another woman (who is now my wife! see below) while we were engaged. Anyway, throughout our marriage, I was completely faithful to her, yet she was easily aroused to suspicion and continually accused me of messing around on her. Any time she saw me talk to another woman, any time even a bank teller said "Oh, you're Roger's wife," anything like that, and she hit the roof. The straw that broke the camel's back was when she came with me to a music job I was working and she got jealous and nasty about the female vocalist. I told her to leave, and when I got home, she had taken a bottle of sleeping pills. (It was not much fun having the Channel 4 news van follow our ambulance to the hospital, I can tell you.) We lasted another 7 months after that; counseling didn't work. She remarried the next day after the divorce was final, and she and her second husband have been together now nearly 30 years and have two more kids. My second wife seemed diametrically different from my first wife. She was totally accepting of my musical career, though less intellectual, and she didn’t seem to have a jealous bone in her body. However, she came from a family with drug and physical abuse, and she was also a druggie and a kleptomaniac (shop-lifter) and a hypochondriac and shop-aholic and a credit abuser, to boot. Oh, yes—did I mention the infidelity? My second wife and I met several months after my first wife and I broke up, and the engagement was far too short (unless you believe that my “life plan” required getting married to her and suffering for 13 years—and having three wonderful children. I’d like to think that sanity would have set in, and I wouldn’t have married her, if we had had to wait a year or more.) She did everything obsessively and with a sense of urgency. She had to get pregnant right away. Then, because an old unresolved love affair reared its head, she had to get an abortion. Then, she had to have tranquillizers (to deal with what stress?). Then, she had to get pregnant again. And buy a house. And have her own bank account, from which she bounced checks. Etc,etc,etc, When her mom died, she refused to use the inheritance money to pay down our home loan which was "negative amortizing" (becoming larger), because it wasn't on a fixed interest rate. Etc,etc,etc. She went nuts when we moved to California in 1985. Two years later she spent 7 weeks in a drug rehab center. Two years later she and the kids moved back to Tennessee. In 1991 she married a fellow AA member. That lasted 6 months, long enough to move out of a convenient rental house into a very inconvenient home she was stuck with payments on. Luckily, her dad moved in and helped with payments. In 1995 she married a guy who seems quite a bit more appropriate; they’ve been together now for 10 years. My first ex seems to be in pretty good shape. However, after her spending 18 years of AA and other recovery programs several nights a week, my second ex still scares the crap out of me. Basically, her dishonesty is the thing I have the most trouble with. I think she's clean, drug-wise, and probably buys everything she removes from stores—but she still wouldn't know the truth if it bit her on the ass. (This is not just rancorous blathering 15 years "after the fact"; most recently, I have witnesses for some really cruel, untrue things she said about our daughter on her wedding day two years ago.) For years, I felt very much out of control, being so far from my children and having to rely on my ex-wife for information. But getting a court to force her and them to stay here in California when we divorced in 1989 would have been worse than the way we worked it out. Of that, I'm convinced. Instead, I focused on straightening myself out, and while I'm still very much a work in progress, I like myself and my life a lot better than I did 20 years ago. For one thing, I'm married to a wonderful woman, partner, companion, etc. (More about her shortly.) For another, I’m still on great terms with my four older children, my two older step-children, and I have a very special little girl in my household who is turning day by day into a remarkable young woman. For another, I'm in a financially manageable situation, which does a lot for my serenity. For another, I'm totally in love with learning and writing philosophy and having a ball like I did back in the early 70s, before I got discouraged from lack of feedback and turned my focus onto my music career. If there were any truth in the book Do What You Love, and the Money Will Come, I ought to be a millionaire. But even though I’m not financially well off, in many intangible ways, I feel that I’m a very rich man, indeed. I said the relationship problems were very different, but some of my own shortcomings in each case were the same. First, I was “rescuing” each of them, trying to give them a better life. It’s a judgment call as to whether this was benevolence or altruism, since I was strongly attracted to each of them as part of the deal. But in either case, a person who finds himself acting on that premise (or with that as part of mixed premises) needs to stand back and take a few deep breaths and think about it a while—preferably with a calm, sensible person who can help him get some objectivity and perspective. Which I didn’t do. Secondly, I ignored/evaded subtle signals I was getting that the women were not a good marriage risk. I brushed the signs under the rug and hoped everything would work out. In some ways, the marriages were good—some pleasure, some mutual growth and visibility, some shared happiness of childrearing. But the pain was significantly more of a negative than those things were positive. I wanted a good marriage, and nothing I did on my end to improve myself seemed to matter, and there was nothing I could do to fix them. In retrospect, I think that if I had moved out the first time my (second) ex cheated on me—less than 6 months after we married—I'd have saved myself tons of grief. But I probably wouldn't have been pushed to the point where I actually learned how to focus on myself and to have nourishing relationships, rather than exploitative ones. More than 10 years later, I finally "got it" by going to Al-Anon to learn how to cope with my (ex)wife's drug problems and related behavior. I learned that the primary problem in my life was not her, but me. I wouldn't have learned this by leaving her when she first started abusing me and the marriage. I also wouldn't have had my three great Tennessee kids that I am so proud of and who still (say they) love me, despite our living 2000 miles apart most of the time and their mother being less than flattering in her comments about me and less than supportive of my father-child relations. I have learned a lot as the father of these kids, and I have learned a lot as the spouse of their mother and, despite the suffering involved, it's hard for me to imagine my life and happiness having turned out any better if I'd left her sooner. As is often the case in emotionally abusive relationships, I had to "hit bottom." Reality had to smack them in the face and say that "you have nowhere to go but up, so get started now." The problem was how to figure out which instance of broken trust constituted "bottom." But I finally got it through my thick skull that there was going to be no quick fix, that I had problems too (and not just an abusive partner), and that I had to make more of a change in their life than just my address! My Wife, Becky, and How We Got Together, Twice! Before I make a second pass through the past 36 years, this time factoring in my wife (my third and final wife, I like to say :-), let me tell you a little bit about her. Becky's a real sweetie! She's about 5-3, brunette, big dimples, gorgeous eyes and smile. She's moderately outgoing, quite direct and expressive, and does well in leadership roles. She's quite intelligent, able to organize and plan and envision how things ought to be in daily life and organizations, and has a great ability to analyze situations and logically organize her thoughts. She is rather soft-hearted and accepting, but is very tenacious in an argument; being rational about values is very important to her. She is a very organized person, as well as very responsible and honest and hard-working (I often feel like a slug next to her), but she has a tendency toward work-aholism; she is the best companion and partner I've ever had, and that's before we even get to the bedroom. :-) She was a piano major in college and taught private lessons for a number of years in Nebraska, Colorado, and out here in California. She also waitressed for a number of years before getting a teaching certificate, and she has been teaching 7th grade social studies and language arts for the past two years. Becky and I grew up in rural Iowa about 40 miles from each other, and our dads were both farmers and our moms both housewives. She is the oldest of 6 kids, and I am the older of 2 (my sister is 4 years younger). She and I were born in 1949 and 1948, respectively. We both had domineering opposite-sex parents and rather more docile same-sex parents. Interesting parallel—ominous even. She and I first met at an enclave of young Objectivists when I started graduate school in Iowa City in 1969, and we quickly became friends and eventually fell into what I guess should be called an "affair" that fall, while I was engaged to my first wife, who lived several hundred miles away in Nebraska. We were both music majors (she in piano, I trombone), so we saw each other 3 days a week in class and frequently in the evening for departmental and other concerts and Objectivist and Libertarian functions. It didn't take long to realize we had a very strong attraction to each other. But for reasons I won't go into here, I felt I had to make a choice, and that the choice I had to make was to break off the relationship with Becky, who was not interested in marriage at that time anyway. ("Anyway" means that that is not the main reason.) So, instead I married my fiancee, whom I had met in 1967 when she was pregnant with her son, whom I adopted in 1970. Our marriage lasted until 1976, then she remarried and had 2 kids with the guy she's still married to, and I remarried to the woman I had 3 kids with and who has subsequently remarried twice. My marriage to #2 lasted 13 years (compared to 6 for the first). During this time, Becky married first to an Objectivist college acquaintance, and that lasted from 1971 to 1977. Then she married the guy who was a cross-dresser and druggie and rage-aholic and with whom she had daughters born in 1978 and 1982, that marriage lasting from 1978 to 1989. While I was going to Al-Anon, I realized that I needed to make amends to various people I had wronged during my life, including especially Becky, so I eventually contacted her as I was passing through the town where she lived in 1988. She came out to the airport briefly, and we chatted and decided to initiate a correspondence. (The coherence and adherence came later. :-) Two months later, her husband went into a quasi-suicidal depression (a gun was involved), so she moved out, and he promptly went mega-religious (after half-heartedly trying a couple of AA meetings). Meanwhile, I had already told my wife that I wanted a more nourishing love relationship in my life, and that I was not demanding it from her (a no-no in "recovery"), just letting her know that I was not going to let myself be bound to marital fidelity when there was no commitment on her part to working out our relationship problems. (She steadfastly refused to engage in marital counseling.) If she recovered to the point that a good relationship was possible again, that would be fine. But if in the meantime I found another relationship that gave me what I wanted, that would have to be fine, too, since I was focusing on what was right for me, as she was in her program. (What's sauce for the AA is sauce for the Al-Anon....and just to clarify, her presenting problem was not booze but prescription tranquilizers.) So, during the winter of 1989, Becky and I realized that not only were our marriages falling apart, with no repair likely, but that we were getting more and more attracted to each other. We did a lot of sharing and working through issues in our correspondence, and finally we decided to have a "visit" in March of 1989. Not long after that, we decided to pursue divorces, so that we could marry. My ex and the kids moved to Tennessee in August, and Becky and her girls moved in with her folks for about a year and a half, finally moving out to California in August of 1990. Becky and I married earlier that year in April, and it was a long spring and summer, that's for sure! We deliberated a number of times about whether to have a child of our own, considering how many other mouths we had to feed, but finally in early 1994 we decided to go for it. (No rest for the fertile. :-)) Our daughter was born later that year, and she'll be 11 in just a few days. Ironically, when we first met in 1969, Becky didn't want to get married or have children. Very soon after we decided not to see each other any more, though, she did get married, albeit to a guy she thought of as "safe" rather than romantic. No kids with him, though. Instead, she finished her music degree and taught piano for several years. Then, when she met her second husband, she got pregnant and eventually stopped teaching piano, due to the demands of her second daughter and her borderline-psychotic husband. I rib her about this from time to time: "You didn't want to marry and have kids with me, so you marry a guy you don't love and marry another guy you can't trust and have kids with him." By this skilled use of rhetoric, I was able to convince her to marry me and to have our daughter. :-) Digression on Romantic Adoration Becky has many admirable traits, among them considerable intelligence and strength and honesty. But what really attracts me to her, romantically and sexually, what turns me on about her is, I'm afraid, even less tangible than such intellectual and spiritual traits. I find any number and many types of women physically attractive or fun or interesting or even provocative to be around and interact with. But as for what I am drawn to so strongly that it feels like a profound "metaphysical" or "worshipful" connection is when a woman I respect and admire visibly melts when we relate to each other on a basic level—not problem solving or arguing or even sharing experiences, but just realizing who it is that is there. In my vast—well, OK, half-vast—experience, this has only happened once, and that's with Becky. My own stupidity and immaturity resulted in my throwing away our chance for a permanent relationship the first time we discovered this connection—way back in 1969. After two failed marriages each, we finally found our way back to each other, and the "chemistry" was still there. Perhaps only because I am 8 inches taller, she was looking up to me with her "melted" expression, but regardless of the accident of height, it was truly worshipful, and there was definitely a sexual or gender component to it, worship of a man. Not of me being superior, but of me being (potentially) a very high value to her. And that is when she is her absolutely most attractive, sexually, to me. So, I would have to say that—in the special kind of way I have just described—the essence of my wife’s femininity is in her capacity to "worship" a man in the way that she looks at and thinks about me. That is when I experience her as being most feminine, as embodying what I most want in a woman. Now, for her to be my close friend and confidante, as someone I can admire and feel affection toward, that additional component does not need to be there at all. The strength, the passion for values, the caring about people's needs and feelings, the intelligence—those are all virtues that I find and appreciate in a number of people, and I certainly acknowledge that they are a component of my love and affection toward my wife. But they are not what goes into her femininity—or at least my experience of it. Now, I know that there are some relationships where it is the man who has the "worshipful" kind of orientation toward the woman, and the woman's emotional responses to the man in regard to romance/sex are triggered by his worshipful attitude and aura. And, sad to say, there are some relationships where this deep kind of spiritual affinity or "chemistry" does not exist, despite considerable love and affection for each other. But if we are to regard masculinity and femininity as an overlay of one's basic, personal virtues and traits, then I think that the deepest emotional/sexual appreciation of each other can only happen when there is this "worshipful" type of bond between the two people. And this can be completely co-present with the various strengths of body, mind, and character that we value in people in general, but do not think of as masculine or feminine per se. What really turns me on is the idea (and reality!) of a woman who is intelligent and strong and "melts" emotionally and sexually when we are together (and the various responsibilities and distractions are set aside). And if my wife finds out about this woman, she'll kill me! :-) Seriously, I wonder if this kind of phenomenon is at least part of what Rand was groping around trying to explain. I have this sneaking suspicion that she wanted to feel that way toward Frank, but that gradually she grew more and more frustrated with his relative non-intellectual nature. Then, when Branden showed up and manifested such brilliance as he did, she really latched onto him as a potential John Galt and highest value for herself. That is one reason that she was ultimately so outraged and devastated when he rejected her attempts to resume their sexual relationship—he didn't look at her with that "worshipful" attitude and aura any more, and she felt betrayed that he would give it to someone else (not to mention deceiving her about it), while she probably still felt it about him. (More so than 10 years earlier, since he was rapidly moving up to the point of being a published book author—and a prolific one, at that, as we all see in retrospect.) But haven't you seen at least one photograph of Rand looking all "melted" and "gooney-eyed" at Branden, as if she were a newlywed on her honeymoon with Apollo or somebody? It's that kind of worship of a man that I am talking about, and it can be very rationally justifiable and appropriate (unlike the fiasco that Rand and Branden created). And, needless to say, this can apply in the other direction, or in both directions—as well as between people of the same sex. The more fully one integrates one's gender and sexuality with one's overall personality, the more likely that a healthy romantic/sexual response by another person to oneself will include the component of "worshipfulness"—and the more likely that one's own response to another will, as well. But it is usually the case that people are unevenly developed and integrated, and thus they tend to attract a complementary personality, i.e., someone who more freely has certain responses than they do. Thus, the "worshipful" phenomenon tends to be "one-way." And far be it from me to say that women should exhibit it while men should not—or vice versa. I think it's best that everyone be or work toward being emotionally open to one another as a deep source of spiritual and romantic value. But we're all on our own paths, and we're the best judge about how to get where we want to go—despite the most dogged efforts of other well-meaning (?) folks who presume that they know better and try to nudge us into their own little cookie-cutter (or Comprachico?) molds of how we ought to be. Eye candy? Give me Bridgit Fonda or Helen Slater. Don't get me wrong, Ann Gillian is a fine lookin' lady, but she doesn't ring my chimes. I'll tell you who does from the "old days." In "Waterloo Bridge" (1940), Vivian Leigh—and in "Ten North Downing" (1958), Suzy Parker. Suzy (I hope I'm right that she is the brunette who was Gary Cooper's love interest in the movie) reminds me of my wife, though she is taller and a little breezier. Mainly, I really dug the way she looked at Cooper when their relationship was heating up. (First time I saw it, I thought, "That's for me." Luckily, it was/is. :-) Another good example of this is in that delightful, quirky movie from Australia, "Strictly Ballroom." I know they're just actors, but the leading lady had it just right. That is femininity—and masculinity, in men, of course. Adoration is cool. :-) All’s Well That Ends Well… Now that we seem to have our happy ending firmly in hand, a lot of the past seems like not much more than a bad dream. How could two seemingly rational folks like us make such obvious, horrible mistakes? It took us a long time (20 years!) to get to the point of happiness for man qua man. It’s incredible, the agony people can dish out to others when they aren't responsible enough to get their heads on straight. And themselves, of course. I married twice, basically by mistake, before finally getting straight on what I wanted in a mate—though some would say that I couldn't have really clearly known until I had worked through the "issues" that hooked me into the other two. And it's a tossup as to who suffered more, me or the two ex-wives. (Not to mention the children; they're probably the main victims.) Now, of course, as we race through our late 50s, headed toward retirement, we have a whole new set of worries: how to stay healthy and vital as our bodies gradually and inevitably start to fall apart, how many more years to work, where to live when we retire, and how to remember the names and birthdays of all our grandchildren (three at last count, with more likely on the way). But these problems seem normal. I think we’re through the rough part now. <contented sigh>

I'm glad to be here, Michael, and I appreciate the warm words of welcome and the enthusiasm for some fun possibilities to work on together. I have been with and corresponded with NB a number of times, so I would be happy to approach him about our ideas. I agree with your suggestion of working offline and posting teasers to this list. Becky and I met Barbara a couple of weeks ago, and we are getting together with her and James Kilbourne in a couple of weeks for dinner. I will certainly pick her brains at that time about possible book projects. She may be wanting to keep her plans close to the vest, though. We'll see. all 4 now, reb

Kat, Becky and I were thrilled to discover the location for next year's Summer Seminar. It will be just three miles from our home! I have submitted several program proposals, including a musical performance, to Will Thomas. I'm hoping at least one of them is accepted. I presented papers in 2002 and 2003 to the TOC Advanced Seminar, but I've never presented to or even attended the regular Summer Seminar. This will be a first, and a happy one, because Becky and I will both be able to attend! More later! REB

Hi, Kat & Mike & Everybody! I have already posted twice, once as a guest and once as a member. Interesting how that works. Kat, I just sent you an email with a pic of myself attached. I already cropped it a bunch, but it still was too large (too many pixels) to upload. I hope you can "do your magic" on it so it will upload. Thanks in advance! Best 2 all, REB

I'm all for it! You won't get any acrimony from me! (At least, not toward the Brandens. :-) In particular, I have always been greatly impressed by Nathaniel's output of books. What is it--20, at last count? Just amazing. I shake my head when I think about how much richer the Objectivist movement would be if Peikoff and Kelley had put out even half as many (or even 1/4 as many) books as Branden. Another enormously productive Objectivist is Tibor Machan. Both of them were "excommunicated" by Rand--as was Murray Rothbard, a libertarian (but not Objectivist) and another extremely prolific author. I think both Tibor and NB refer to themselves as "neo-Objectivists." If getting kicked out by Rand is what it takes to be really productive, perhaps we should hope for more schisms!