Harriman/ARI and/or Peikoff rift?

[Peter]

I cobbled together what you wrote so bear with me Stephen:

. . . Ms. Branden held the affair between Ayn and Nathan to be morally wrong . . . .

end quote

Yet Stephen disagreed about Ayn and Nathaniel’s affair:

. . . . There was nothing wrong with that affair, and likely something very right . . . . I’m sure any misrepresentations therein were minor compared to the misrepresentation Barbara and Nathan pulled for some time on Rand concerning his shift of romantic feeling away from Ayn, a misrepresentation notable by its absence in Alex’s bill of grievances . . . . I’ve known of such cases of open marriage, particularly when the husband has entered a non-performance stage, and I don’t think it is wrong across the board.

end quote

It is a tough call, because Rand was such an authority figure. And of course, position, money and “familial standing” have much to do with it. I view Frank’s and Barbara’s acquiescence as coerced. If it was not legally coercive, then I personally could not “sanction” the arrangement and I use the term “sanction” advisedly, if not wisely, as a bystander. Complicating the issue if I remember Barbara Branden’s book, she was also emotionally splitting from Nathaniel and seeing another man, then or soon after that.

[Guyau]

Jonathan, thanks, you are correct, that was Fred Weiss, not Judd. Therefore, the latter is probably not so wildly scatterbrain as I had confusedly inferred.

Merlin, yes. Money. DK and Yaron probably both knew him.

Peter, to be clear about your first quote: It was someone else who had asserted that Barbara had come to think the affair wrong. I remarked that a google of her book on "wrong" did not turn up any such assessment.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, thanks, you are correct, that was Fred Weiss, not Judd. Therefore, the latter is probably not so wildly scatterbrain as I had confusedly inferred.

Judd Weiss doesn't appear to be scatterbrained, but, personally, from what I've seen of him online, including prior to hearing about the accusations made against him which he says are false, I get a vibe from him that makes me want to not be connected to him in any way. It's in his words, in his photos, and even in his fashion choices. He might be a great guy, but for now, I'm very cautious about him. Maybe you're picking up on some of that vibe too?

J

[Darrell Hougen]

I don't know how you'd go about measuring and proving it, but I think that TheBrandens™ books helped Rand much more than they hurt her.

Jonathan,

I do, too.

I know some people would disagree with that, but in my studies of persuasion, it's almost a universal law that credibility--especially the perception of it--is a major factor for a persuader to be effective.

The image of an all-perfect Rand (with maybe a few insignificant blemishes) promoted by doublespeak, excommunications and hostility is not credible (except for fundies) no matter how you cook it.

Ironically, Barbara and Nathaniel, by getting all the crap out into the open for everyone to see and opine on it, greatly enhanced Rand's credibility with the public at large. (Not that of some of her followers, though. )

Michael

I don't think the Branden's books hurt Rand or Objectivism or objectivism, though I think Rand's behavior has had both positive and negative consequences for the spread of the philosophy.

Rand's affair with N. Branden negatively impacts her credibility and impact on personal relationships. If she wasn't able to live up to her own philosophy, who could? Is it even possible? Is there something seriously wrong with it? Is it even potentially damaging?

Without getting into the details of Rand's comments or objectivist comments on romantic relationships, I would say that objectivist insights should be generally good for relationships, but Rand's own behavior leaves a big question mark on that aspect of her philosophy and probably lessens the impact her philosophy will have, at least in the short term.

Much more damaging, in my view, is her doctrine of condemning those that differed from her in small ways. Her belief that people who held beliefs that were nearly the same as hers but differed in some significant way or even insignificant way were the greatest threat to the propagation of her philosophy made her intolerant of dissent and has fostered a culture of intolerance. First, her belief in this regard is wrong. People, through rational inquiry, tend to converge on the truth or facts over time and it is easier for someone that is close to being right to find the right answer eventually than it is for those whose views are diametrically opposite. In fact, it is likely that Rand's views are only approximately correct in many respects and she should have welcomed critical analysis of them. Second, her intolerance has become a model for intolerance in her followers.

In the long run, Rand's poor behavior might help to save objectivism (with a little "o"). Because she behaved badly in some respects and because everyone knows about it, Rand cannot be placed on a pedestal, though some people still try. She cannot become an unblemished icon. It is much harder to form a cult of personality around her. Her affair is probably more helpful in that respect than her intolerance.

Rand's affair proves that she was human, that she was flawed and imperfect. That helps to counter the tendency to form a cult of personality around her without really saying anything about her philosophy, other than as noted above --- e.g., is it possible to really live up to the demands of Objectivism (or objectivism)?

Rand's doctrine of intolerance, on the other hand, was stated almost as a philosophical principle. If it's wrong, that means she made a mistake, and a serious one at that. For people that hold her philosophy as a complete and unblemished work of genius, it is difficult to accept the fact that she was wrong about such a divisive issue. Until people realize that she made a serious error, it will be impossible for many people to move forward. However, the acceptance that she did make mistakes, some of them serious, should help people to move past Rand as icon and to critically analyze and reformulate objectivism into a vibrant philosophical movement.

Darrell

[Guyau]

Yes. So flashy and so many babes in photos. Well, beautiful people like being with each other, and nothing wrong with that.

Took time to read Judd, and I see, well yes, money. And not a sort of person----sales, you know---I'd hang with.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand's affair with N. Branden negatively impacts her credibility and impact on personal relationships.

Darrell,

Do you know of anyone who suffers in their personal relationship because they want to follow Rand's vision, but cannot because they became disillusioned due to her behavior (or the alleged exploitation of that behavior by Barbara and Nathaniel post-break)?

That reasoning sounds good on the surface because it appears to make sense, but when I look to see what is what, I don't see that conclusion played out in reality.

Anywhere.

I do know one thing that has played out in my own life. The concept of constantly judging my partner's morality, of constantly condemning her in the name of justice and integrity, but saying, "Love is exception-making" when things get too complicated, is a lousy-ass foundation for a love-relationship.

That hasn't worked out well for me. I burned through several serious relationships for precisely that reason and I had no idea a Rand-Branden break had even happened back then. Thank goodness I woke up and checked that goddam premise. Family is important. And that's the norm. There are exceptions, but that is the norm.

Why?

Because human beings already come that way. Male parent. Female parent. Offspring. Put them together and whaddya get? Family.

Even in non-reproductive relationships like homosexual ones, family is important.

I won the lottery when I got Kat and I decided it was time to make some adjustments in my thinking. God knows I know how to do it wrong.

This had nothing to do with Rand's behavior and everything to do with her ideas on sex and love. I took them to heart and tried to live by them, not just mouth them. And I made a holy mess of things.

Let me be fair, though. Her notions are not bad for a slice of the relationship. It's good to add some heroism, high moral standards, etc., into the mix.

But these ideas don't work for the whole shebang. Especially glamour, which wears off quickly when you live with a person. You see them sweat and snore and fart and throw up and goof and get mad for nothing and tell stupid jokes and all kinds of unglamorous things. Glamorized versions of what human love could and should be aren't much of a help at those times. In fact, if that is one of your fundaments, you fall out of love real quick.

Look at the sorry trail of failed relationships in O-Land. At least from what I have read about online. Happy relationships where both partners call themselves Objectivist are the exception, not the norm.

Here's something in Rand's behavior I find a love-killer in a relationship more than anything else. And it has nothing to do with what normally comes up in these discussions. At some point she and Frank kept separate bedrooms.

WTF?

That, to me, is a deal-breaker. And I don't believe it is healthy, but what do I know? I admit, after the sheer number of failed relationships I have in my past, I'm not really the person to give the best advice about that for others.

I do know Kat and I are in it for the long haul. Deeply in love. We are the best thing that ever happened to each other and we make sure it stays that way--especially at the times when it's not easy. And I say that with pride.

I don't say we don't have our troubles (although they are far, far less than I ever experienced before because we don't judge each other constantly). My pride stems from being able to say we put our relationship first when trouble comes.

This is one difference I have with Rand's ideas. I tried it her way--over and over--and I almost blew it for my lifetime. But I got my family--late in life, but I got mine. It's one of the most precious things I have and I'm keeping it.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I own The Logical Leap by David Harriman, but I haven't read it yet.

From what I gather of the criticism, critics bash him on his history of science, not on his conclusions of method as they apply to science. (And it seems like this book is getting some traction as a kind of self-help book on teaching science.)

Two qualifications: (1) I am referring to serious critics and not people engaged in defending/attacking Objectivism, nor am I considering a kerfuffle over first-level concepts that appears more like a turf war over who gets to say what Rand meant than an actual treatment of the material in Harriman's book. (2) I only skimmed the discussions on this, so I might have missed something in my overall view.

That said, here's what it sounds like to me so far:

Harriman: Here's what I've got.

Response: Cool. Something good to look at and go into more.

Harriman: Here's how we got there.

Response: Er... you might want to check some of that stuff.

Whether Harriman is or will be excommunicated or not, Peikoff did write the Introduction to the book. I have not seen an opinion on that Introduction so far, but I think it's fair to say this book represented what Peikoff considered to be good and true at the time he wrote the Introduction. I doubt he has changed his views, but who knows with him?

I'm going to end up reading that thing to get my own opinion on it.

Michael

Michael,

The views on induction and foundations of method in the book are Peikoff's, taken "almost verbatim" from Peikoff's course "Induction in Physics and Philosophy."

Sure Peikoff thought the ideas right. The foundational ideas are his. The book actually is co-authored by Peikoff and Harriman.

Harriman then spin-doctored to present the history of science as supposedly demonstrating the correctness of Peikoff's ideas on induction.

The people criticizing the book are aware of the respective contributions, and aware that in criticizing Harriman on the history of science they're in effect challenging the foundations of the approach.

Peikoff realized this himself, said as much in his email presenting an ultimatum about McCaskey.

I'm not sure if any of the critics so far has gone directly at the foundational part - except me and Robert Campbell in posts on this board. I've only spottily kept up with material written after the time period of the McCaskey expulsion. I know from conversation with some others that they're aware of the foundational problems but didn't push those in print at the time because they still had a tenuous relationship with ARI and were hesitant to directly attack the parts of the book which are Peikoff's contribution.

The egg-shell walking was very much like what goes on in the American Physical Society in relation to climatology - people speaking cautiously or not at all because they aren't going to get funded if they aren't careful.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] personally, from what I've seen of [Judd Weiss] online, including prior to hearing about the accusations made against him which he says are false, I get a vibe from him that makes me want to not be connected to him in any way. It's in his words, in his photos, and even in his fashion choices. He might be a great guy, but for now, I'm very cautious about him. [....]

That's how I react, too.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't have this reaction to Judd.

It might be because I've produced pop music before.

Glitter isn't soul. It's just a different way of being.

From my perspective, Judd's young, good looking, seems to have grown up around money, likes parties and is living his life accordingly in a fast lane (age appropriate LA kind of fast lane that is).

He looks to me like a fine young man.

The glitter will probably start falling away as he gets older, but that's his thing.

I'm actually glad we have someone who looks like that on our side.

Don't ask why. I'm just weird.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

PS: My question is the reverse of the one the fundies are asking. I wonder what Kelley is doing being friends with Harriman (if indeed Kelley considers Harriman a friend).

Yeah, it's like being pals with Lysenko. WTF?

J

What worries me is the thought that Kelley might be trying to get Harriman for TAS.

I would expect Kelley to be able to see the logical problems in the book's foundational material (which was supplied by Peikoff), but Kelley knows little about science and I'm worried that he might mistakenly think that Harriman would be a valuable resource.

The situation is so bad, and getting worse, in science, with government funding skewing things. I think Objectivism-oriented people could be helpful as counter voices. But they'd need to be people who really know science, and there aren't a high percentage of those in the Objectivist community.

In a comment I linked yesterday (from the Epstein thread), Christian Wernstedt wrote:

(The line-up of disgruntled subject matter experts has now grown to a mini-movement in its own right.)

I want to follow up on that and try to find out who all he's talking about. I'd never heard of him before reading that post, but he's clearly one of those of whom he speaks.

Ellen

[anthony]

Some damage.

Jeez...

That whole "Branden damage to Rand" meme is just a myth--and not a very good one if you do a reality check. It's Objectivism fundamentalist food and nothing more. Notice that it never comes up anywhere or by anyone except within a fundie context.

It's garbage.

Michael

-------------------------

Very true Michael: But this 'false myth' has legs. It appears to touch on to a Puritanical streak in each generation of O'ists.

The indignation revealed by all this, has to be connected to their initial disapproval when discovering that Ayn Rand herself was instrumental in a sexual 'shenanigan'. Though I don't think of it as such, at all.

In fact Rand appeared convinced of the rightness of the liaison - honestly, if rationalistically - but apparently blinded herself to its potential effects on the other parties (and ultimately, herself)..

Nothing at all wrong with putting it to Frank and Barbara, who could (and should?) have withdrawn their 'sanction' (but with what consequences?)Nothing wrong or immoral about the sexual and emotional intimacy outside of their marriages. (Socially Conservative in nature, Objectivism is not - I believe).

No, the one over-riding immorality in it all, was Rand passing off her hurt by, and rejection of NB...as caused by his *intellectual* deceit!

Like some lies, this has had long effects, despite it being near certain as the single immoral evasion in Rand's entire life.

Damaging to all, no matter how (we speculate) that she obviously wanted to maintain the privacy of the affair itself, from prying gossip.

For the attacks on Nathaniel for his "betrayal" of AR with another woman; quite hypocritical.

The first affair 'good', since instigated by Rand, the second affair, 'bad' - one supposes. If anything, it was NB's ongoing admiration of her, and the prospect of hurting her and ending their intellectual collaboration, which brought about his temporary dishonesty, I think. (Not having read the relevant literature.)

The younger Puritan Objectivist male will learn later in life the experience of flagging or fickle sexual desire.. And catch a glimpse of what a man - even a man of great integrity- may be capable of in trying to regain his vigour, and empathize.

Better late than never, but too late for the principals concerned.

[Brant Gaede]

The real problem is mixing up people with their supposed philosophy, not realizing how that tears at and confines us as individuals. Ayn Rand fell into this trap by creating a new world by writing Atlas Shrugged and moving inside. But here's the difference between her inside and us (everyone else) outside: she was left free to add and subtract and move things and people around, even calling it "Objectivism" with everyone else playing continual catchup to it all, including her rationalizations all called "rational." Such is the suductive power of a great artist. 50 years ago, a year after reading AS for the first time, I would have been crazily delighted to meet and be an acquaitance or a friend of hers. Today I would decline to meet with her no matter who the invitation was from. That's because everything I could say to her that wasn't trivial would tear at the whole of a mighty ediface and I would have no desire to do that. The big too bad real reality for her, however, was the rationalization and power that worked in the 1950s and got her into bed with Nathaniel Branden didn't work in the 1960s. I swear if Natrhaniel had come to her even as late as say 1967 or even 1968 and confessed it all to her face and told her that he regretted it all and that it was her he had wanted all along and he had broken with Patricia and wanted her back because she was his highest value and he could hardly keep his hands off her*, they would have ended back into bed together. Now where is "Objectivism" in all that, aside from "the philosophy of Ayn Rand"?

--Brant

*that wouldn't work of course, except in a novel; way too much of an acting job--there's that impotent "impotent" thing Rand finally and ironically wished off on him

[Guyau]

. . .

Much more damaging, in my view, is her doctrine of condemning those that differed from her in small ways. Her belief that people who held beliefs that were nearly the same as hers but differed in some significant way or even insignificant way were the greatest threat to the propagation of her philosophy made her intolerant of dissent and has fostered a culture of intolerance. First, her belief in this regard is wrong. People, through rational inquiry, tend to converge on the truth or facts over time and it is easier for someone that is close to being right to find the right answer eventually than it is for those whose views are diametrically opposite. In fact, it is likely that Rand's views are only approximately correct in many respects and she should have welcomed critical analysis of them. Second, her intolerance has become a model for intolerance in her followers.

. . .

Darrell,

When it comes to the history of philosophy, as opposed to the history of mathematics or the hard sciences, I don’t think it is true that two who are close in philosophic views and are near the truth are likely to converge in their views over time. Their tendency is further divergence from each other, one or the other perhaps staying closer to the truth. Getting at what is by one’s own lights truer, better philosophy, tends to be through rejection or revision of earlier philosophy, and one can reasonably suppose that it will be the same for any serious philosopher following on one’s own era. I know philosopher after philosopher in the history, and Rand too, who thought they had at last arrived at the destination sought through the earlier centuries. Nevertheless, they have some sense of how precarious are their results, socially speaking. That is why Kant wanted to denounce the nearby Fichte who was at first representing Kant in such and such a way and with his own bent of mind already showing. By then Kant had already been in league with others to try to get his philosophy rightly presented by authors and teachers, to get his philosophy promulgated as exactly what it was, without the slightest deviation.

There is another dimension to Rand’s “intolerance,” and that would include inaccurate representations of outright opposing philosophies, accompanied by moral and psychological condemnations of their originators. That is cheap, shallow aspect of Rand’s writings to be dismissed and not emulated.

There is yet another dimension to Rand’s “intolerance,” which issues in decisions about personal associations and interactions. Deciding to exclude someone from one’s personal circle can be from protecting one’s own space and, in Rand’s case, where some in her circle were also certified by her as spokespersons for her philosophy, exclusion can be by way of protecting accurate promulgation of her philosophy. Square enough. There is another reason for disassociations and nonassociations, which faces everyone, whether Objectivist, Thomist, or whatever. That is closeness to bearers of what one judges evil or otherwise foul. This can bear on decisions about attending a memorial ceremony or cocktail party or about trading with a tyrannical government. How close is too close to what evil? It is an old problem.

[Peter]

Darrell Hougen wrote:

Rand's affair with N. Branden negatively impacts her credibility and impact on personal relationships. If she wasn't able to live up to her own philosophy, who could? Is it even possible? Is there something seriously wrong with it? Is it even potentially damaging?

end quote

I appreciate your psychological insights. I think Rand’s literary and personal relationships were damaging, just as Michael recently wrote. On Atlantis Kurt Keefner jokingly wrote about Rand’s fictionally damaging relationships:

P.S. BTW people keep misquoting that Simon and Garfunkel lyric and it's getting on my nerves! The correct text is "I am a Roark. I am a Wynand. And a Roark feels no pain. And a Wynand never cries."

end quote

[Peter]

Darrell Hougen wrote:

Much more damaging, in my view, is her doctrine of condemning those that differed from her in small ways. Her belief that people who held beliefs that were nearly the same as hers but differed in some significant way or even insignificant way were the greatest threat to the propagation of her philosophy made her intolerant of dissent and has fostered a culture of intolerance . . . . Second, her intolerance has become a model for intolerance in her followers.

end quote

The following history may be interesting to a few of you. Ardent Rand defender, lecturer, and strict Objectivist, Ellen Moore, wrote about Ralph Hertle in 2002:

Ralph tells about the terrible times that students lived through in NY in the '60's. I believe him, and I've heard many such stories of those days. Fortunately, in those early years, I lived far away from the inner circle, and even my rare visits with some of them provided ample evidence to me that they did not practice what they preached. What I learned from them was that they all wanted me to know that they basked in the glow of Rand's favor and approval - even when that was not actually the case. And after all, they assumed, Ellen lived too far away and would never find out the truth. But I did. Truth will out! I've known many students who suffered at their hands over the years.

Ralph wrote:

"Objectivism has a sacred cow. That is the prohibition against polemics." ..... "There is a ton of polemical information available, but it is not indexed and integrated. Nor is it offered through any identifiable Objectivist source."

I certainly disagree. One can obtain almost everything that has ever been written or lectured about pro/anti Objectivism from many different sources. Rand's "polemics" still sell in the millions every year. About the only source that is not open to the public domain is Peikoff's rigidly guarded, inherited archives. And that is only one example of his anti-objective, cultist dogmatism.

Ralph wrote:

"Miss Rand did not understand what terrible psychological permissions she had given to the Objectivist psychotherapists. The Objectivist psychotherapists and moralists had a field day disapproving and wrecking people's lives."

Ralph is assuming that Rand knew what went on in private therapy sessions. I would not assume that she did know what was going on in private. Ralph speaks harshly about "the exacerbations of the Objectivist Romantic-moralist cops (which for political reasons remain un-named) ..."

Some Psychotherapists have been publicly named in Ellen Plasil's book "Therapist" -- Allan Blumenthal, Lonnie Leonard. And we can name Nathaniel Branden who was the key figure in setting up that psychotherapy circle because each, being busy tending to their own patients, passed clients on to each other. It is common knowledge that some of them were unofficially practicing therapists without completed training and credentials at that time. Talk about exacerbating horrors, and "wrecking people's lives". One might add that there were also "friends" who were psycho-therapizing each other. A sure-fire, non-objective, psychological disaster in the making.

Now, Ralph writes about the Rand-Branden Affair from his own interpretation of who made a play for whom. He thinks Ayn made a play for Nathan. I suggest that Ralph reread Nathan's books of confessions. Nathaniel made it clear that he remembers exactly what he was planning - he said, "I knew the moves had to be impeccable" and he said, "Of course, Ayn, I love you." He also said, "I wanted to get inside her consciousness..." - there speaks a knowing psychologist's personal revelation.

Frankly, I've always viewed the sexual affair as a natural outcome of their intimate relationship, i.e., the actual relationship that existed between all four partners. Keep in mind that we have only the two Brandens' *unsubstantiated* accounts of particular private events. Peikoff did make a public statement to the effect that Rand's journals verified that "There was an affair".

Ralph's implication is that the "affair", but for the "gossiping curiosity" of the "Objectivist Romantic cops" - "would not have been the life-wrecker issue it became."

Keep in mind that Nathaniel Branden's October 16, 1968, public statement, "In Answer To Ayn Rand" - for the record, was that, speaking about a letter he wrote to her at the beginning of July after which time she broke off her personal relationship with Nathan. The business relationship between her and NBI ended by September.

Branden wrote of the letter,

"It was a tortured, awkward attempt to make clear to her why I felt that an age difference between us of twenty-five years constituted an insuperable barrier, for me, to a romantic relationship."

He obviously did not tell the truth to us, his public then - i.e., later we learned he had had a romantic relationship for several years with her, a woman who was 25 years his senior.

Contrary to Ralph's misinterpretation, Rand had been able to "win" Nathan as a romantic partner when, as he reports, he had been married to Barbara for only 1 1/2 years.

Ralph wrote,

"The path taken by Nathaniel Brandon was correct. The moralists, however, did not want to hear about it, and they made NB the fall guy. That was really unnecessary, and many people were greatly affected."

I disagree that NB's path "was correct", but yes, many people were affected by those events.

Ralph strays off the topic of NB into an analogy about Jesus, Catholics, Sin, anti-Jewish gossips, etc., to little discernible effect, but it appears that he believes NB was ousted from the Objectivist circles by "hatred for people by gossiping". That is not in fact what happened. Rand repudiated both he and Barbara publicly in her statement in The Objectivist, dated May 1968, "To Whom It May Concern", written in September 15, 1968. After that, the ripples of disillusionment traveled far with schisms broken wide.

Ayn Rand was told by Barbara that she, BB, had known for two years that Nathan had been having another affair with Patrecia Wynand for the past 4 years, and Rand was furious that he had been deceiving her for 4 years - get it? - 4 years of continuous deceptions to cover up an affair with a young woman he claimed to love.

Does that sound like the rational actions of an independent, integrated, honest Objectivist? Why did he not just tell Ayn the truth that he had fallen in love with Patrecia? She and her husband were part of their inner circle. Wouldn't an Objectivist adult man stand up for his right to love? What did he think he could gain by 4 years of deceptions? This is the man who lectured his students for 30 minutes on the evils and consequences of lying. He played dishonesty out to the inevitable bitter end.

Keep in mind that during those same 4 years he was still married to Barbara; he may have been a sexual partner to Ayn [but as I read his confessions, they indicate that their sexual affair was long over]; and he was sleeping with long-suffering, secretly and patiently waiting, Patrecia. Surely, it takes a really slick romanticist who can string along three women during many years of deceptions without getting caught. Nathan was a master at it. Don Juans could take lessons in conning and cover-ups.

Anyway, it was Barbara who told Ayn the truth because she had sufficient conscience to know that Ayn Rand did deserve the justice of being told the truth. And Nathaniel had finally reached the conflicted end of his romantic-string-flings.

Ralph concludes that,

"He [NB] has been given a bad rap by the Objectivist romantic-moralist cops." "In retrospect, Ayn Rand's romantic and emotional interests also need a lot of support. She was married and started a bigamist affair. No Objectivist that I have ever heard has ever said that she had made a mistake. She wasn't accorded the equal criticism that was given to Branden, however negative it was. That was unfair to AR as well as to NB, because once the discussion had been closed, the matter of a romantic involvement had to have been given short shrift by the Objectivist romance cops.

"Ayn Rand was married, however, it appeared that her husband was in poor health. She wanted to continue in her life's ambitions. No one gave her a break. Her interests, love, and passions were ignored."

Well, Ralph, perhaps you are right that NB was given a "bad rap" - re: sexual morality - for having more than one partner at a time -- AR had *only* one affair [as far as we know, and we do not know any details about her private sexual relationship with her husband, but the affair occurred in his home, and if so he knew and sanctioned it - again only the Branden's unsubstantiated "stories" of distress are in the public

record.]

My interpretation of those stories is that there is no way for any reader to know how to differentiate between the truth of the events versus the self-justifications and subjective interpretations offered by Barbara and Nathaniel.

What they both admit to in their very public books is that the lies and the deceptions really happened. And frankly, I view Ayn Rand as having the courage of her principles, convictions, and integrity for explaining as much of the private details to her "public" as we needed to know.

I am one Objectivist who has stated often that Rand made a big mistake - in trusting the character of Nathaniel Branden. She gave him the benefit of every doubt - ever since he reported he went to a movie with Barbara but told Ayn he was working - and even though she knew and discussed at length his "psycho-epistemological problems". The simple fact is that Ayn Rand loved him for what she projected and wanted him to be. Think about it. He betrayed every principle, value and virtue that an Objectivist should hold dear. He conned her. Her mistake was in trusting him.

So what effect did their "breakup" have on Objectivism? We had strong disagreements among students as to who to believe. Who was telling us the truth? And that is still the issue today. Who is telling us the truth?

Otherwise, Objectivism is what it is, and those who love it will live by its principles, and will work effectively to achieve a happy life. And the world will go on with the individual effort of those who each do their own part in showing others how to live a rational life.

And what of the others who will not agree with, nor represent the ideals of Objectivism? They will continue to assert that Ayn Rand did not live by her principles, and they will badmouth her personally for what they never understood, and they will try to rewrite history and try to change what Objectivism is. But, they will fail - because they cannot change the publicly known facts.

As for Nathaniel Branden (divorced again) and Leonard Peikoff, each of them married three wives and had extra sexual affairs. Both have shown publicly in many ways that they could not integrate or apply the

principles of Objectivism in their personal lives. What damage could they possibly do to Objectivism that they have not already done? They have done a lot of harm, and I certainly would not wish their kind on

another generation of unsuspecting, naive students.

There is only one way to go from here. Read Rand, and learn to live honestly with the guide of rational principles. That is what a true Objectivist does.

Ellen Moore

[Brant Gaede]

Nathaniel Branden had no responsibility for Lonnie Leonard--that's a responsibility too far. As for Alan Blumenthal, I can not say. For Alan Blumenthal to defend himself against certain allegations or an allegation made against him by a certain person might expose him to a lawsuit no matter how exculpatory for it would only be ~he said/she said~ pissing off the "she" who had decided in her generosity or tiredness of it all not to sue him. But there's little doubt about it: Lonnie Leonard was a first-class woman-exploiting son-of-a-bitch now, thankfully, a dead one.

--Brant

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

Lonnie Leonard was a first-class son-of-a-bitch now, thankfully, a dead one.

end quote

I always felt Ellen Moore spoke as if she WERE Ayn Rand which is one of her odd strengths and made her so interesting. Brant, I wanted to quote (yet dreaded) Ellen’s letter about Objectivist psychotherapists, knowing two people (never to be named) who were their patients. And I did not wish to harm or re-damage the reputation of Nathaniel Branden, but that letter and many others have been public for over a decade. Ellen was extraordinarily hard on Mr. Branden and Barbara Branden both of whom I would be proud to know. I won't quote it but I just read something Ayn Rand said, when she mentioned she made mistakes. What you do afterwards is very important.

Interestingly, our very own Ellen Stuttle knows a lot about those NBI days.

Peter

From: Nathaniel Branden <brandenn@pacbell.net>

Reply-To: brandenn@pacbell.net

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: for the record

Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 09:28:01 -0800

For the record, I am not suggesting that anyone who challenges some premise of Objectivism should be off this list. If this list is understood to be a site where people who share some or all or few of the premises Objectivism wish to exchange ideas about Objectivism and its implications and its possible problems, there's nothing wrong with that.

What I said was that if one does not agree with one or some of the most fundamental premises of Objectivism, then it is misleading to call oneself an Objectivist.

I often call myself a "neo-Objectivist" and explain that I agree with the broad fundamentals but have significant points of disagreement, above all in the sphere of psychology and to some extent in ethics. Although more and more I dislike labeling myself at all, because there is always the need for a long explanation.

What I also claim is that I know a good deal about what Objectivism is and is not.

Nathaniel Branden

[Brant Gaede]

For the record, people should know about the late Ellen Moore that she wasn't smart or knowledgeable enough to really understand what she was talking about, at least when it came to Objectivism if not philosophy generally (where she didn't seem to go), which made her ironically interesting for her dogmatic, consistent interpretation of the philosophy and who was and did what apropos all that with the standard moral right-cross to the jaw of her detractors and whom she was talking about. It was hilarious how she supported Jimmy Wales destroying Atlantis only to have Jimmy burn her ass in return. That was the end of her public her for she didn't migrate to Atlantis2 on Yahoo Groups which, for some time, was a vibrant if inadequate replacement for what Jimmy had fucked up.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Getting back to Richard Gleaves:

He's the guy who did that wonderful multipart YouTube mashup of Galt's speech. And he's done some decent stories--better than what usually comes out in our subcommunity. I hope he continues because he has talent.

I just came across his first novel on Amazon for anyone who wants to get it:

Sleepy Hollow: Rise Headless and Ride (Jason Crane) (Volume 1)

It looks fun and I just bought a copy.

As to the schism stuff, he seems to be burned out by it. I don't think he expected the level of nastiness that got aimed at him from the fundy tribe. He took down some Facebook posts on the Harriman thread because of the attacks, then later regretted he did so because the coin dropped that the attacks were unfounded, but now there is no proof.

One day I hope he learns that when people get that irrationally nasty, what they say against him says far more about themselves than it does about him.

But the trick is to act on that knowledge. Get away from people like that (as cordially as possible, but firmly) and produce (which this guy does well).

People like this, though, have difficulty acting in that direction. (Maybe him, maybe not him, I prefer not to be specific as I do not know enough about him--so please understand this observation as going broad.)

Ironically, the Objectivism fundies get them tied into a big honking sanction of the victim knot inside themselves. And rather than act, they get paralyzed and spend serious time and effort over-justifying every doubt.

Michael

[Jonathan]

I don't have this reaction to Judd.

It might be because I've produced pop music before.

Glitter isn't soul. It's just a different way of being.

Certain types of "glitter" on an artist or performer are usually a form of genuine self-expression. It comes across to me as a costume on anyone else. "No, I'm not actually a pop star. I buy and sell parking garages for a living. Trick of treat!"

And if a person wants to be stylish while promoting individualism and Objectivish philosophy, he might want to give some consideration to the clash that he is engaged in in aesthetically following the herd. The signal sent is, "I'm needy of approval and I'm all about conforming to the established collective cool rather than in genuinely expressing some individually acquired/earned/informed taste." The opposite of the Rand/Roark attitude.

From my perspective, Judd's young, good looking, seems to have grown up around money, likes parties and is living his life accordingly in a fast lane (age appropriate LA kind of fast lane that is).

Did he grow up around money? His blog seems to want to give the impression that he didn't. He seems to want people to believe that anyone could make a million by the age of 24. That implies starting from zero. Is that a bluff? Did he neglect to mention that the actual secret ingredient of his success was that he started out with a pile of someone else's money and connections, etc.? I don't know.

He looks to me like a fine young man.

The glitter will probably start falling away as he gets older, but that's his thing.

I'm not griping about the glitter per se, but just noting that the specific style of glitter is one of the things that sets off alarm bells.

I'm actually glad we have someone who looks like that on our side.

Don't ask why. I'm just weird.

I hope that my first impressions of him are wrong. I hope that I'm experiencing false alarms, and that all of the little things that don't add up can be dismissed as his innocent youthful hubris and inexperience.

J

[Jonathan]

In a comment I linked yesterday (from the Epstein thread), Christian Wernstedt wrote:

(The line-up of disgruntled subject matter experts has now grown to a mini-movement in its own right.)

I want to follow up on that and try to find out who all he's talking about. I'd never heard of him before reading that post, but he's clearly one of those of whom he speaks.

Ellen

Someone should invite Wernstedt to OL. He looks like he'd be a lot of fun.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

I don't claim accuracy of my info about Judd other than what can be linked to--it's speculation based on my life experiences with other people.

I just read a few more things written by him and apparently he was a flaming Randroid of the worst condemnatory kind in his teens. He said he wrote things back then that today make him blush with embarrassment because they were so over the top. So he's obviously a person who goes through well-defined stages and likes the edge.

(Apropos, I used to promote the following phrase: If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space. But that didn't work out too well for me when I fell off into the abyss. )

And to be clear, when I said glitter, I meant tasteless, affected, overdone, shallow glitter.

I don't know what his profession is, but if he is in sales dealing with products for young adult males, he most definitely has the appearance to do well for certain verticals.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Darrell,

Do you know of anyone who suffers in their personal relationship because they want to follow Rand's vision, but cannot because they became disillusioned due to her behavior (or the alleged exploitation of that behavior by Barbara and Nathaniel post-break)?

I don't think that that would be the test that one would use. Rather, the test would be something like one or more of the following: Has anyone bought into Rand's mistaken and very romanticized/fantasized notion of human sexuality and sexual psychology because they were unaware of the fact that she herself did not live by it? Has anyone beat themselves up over not being in the ideal romantic relationship that Rand publicly projected but didn't actually achieve? Has anyone suffered psychologically or destroyed relationships because they looked down their noses at "shop girls" and such who weren't good enough for them according to Rand's flawed and hypocritical theories of romantic love?

The issue isn't that people are harmed because they become disillusioned due to Rand's behavior, but rather than Rand's theories of sexuality and romantic love are harmed due to her coming nowhere near living by them, and also due to her using her theories as a weapon with which to condemn others while exempting herself from the exact same standards (example: Patrecia = shop girl = unworthy of genius Branden, yet, Frank = shop girl = somehow magically worthy of even greater genius Rand).

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

That's certainly part of it.

But my main point is that Rand's views of romantic love and sexuality only work within certain contexts, so, to me, the issue of whether she lived up to them or not is a secondary one.

To use an extreme example (and I intend no disrespect to Rand--I'm going way past what I should metaphor-wise for the sake of clarity), it's like a person who was a master phrenologist and was harshly vocal against other phrenologists for reasons X, Y and Z, but it comes out in the end that our master phrenologist also had the same issues with those reasons, too, especially as those issues reflected how reality really was.

It's hard for me to get excited about the inconsistencies of the master phrenologist because phrenology doesn't work in the first place.

I'm not saying Rand's views of romantic love and sexuality don't work. I am saying they don't work outside of very narrow contexts. And we never discuss where they work. We only discuss them in the general context of universal values.

Rand tried to make them work for all of human nature, but like the phrenologist, she was not successful at being consistent. So her failure was not in being wrong or inconsistent (essentially, reality saw to it that she had no choice about that), but that she expanded the scope applicable to her views way too far and tried to force it to work anyway.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The notion of only making out with heroes (of a certain type) led to many students of Objectivism looking for heroes (of a certain type) and pretending to be heroes (of a certain type) or at least zipping it up so as not to be self-exposed as anything else. A lying culture built on lies--plus a lot of great ideas!

--Brant

ah, the good old days!