Weird News about Ayn Rand and Objectivism

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jon,

I don't understand what you are talking about.

It's a nice challenge, but a challenge to do what?

Where is anyone discussing Rand's feelings of anxiety?

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

So history records no objection on her part? Then it seems he and that author got her right, according to her.

Branden’s Passion relates several stories Rand told Barbara about Mises, even the time he screamed at her during a couples dinner at the Hazlitt home. But there is nothing about him misunderstanding the message of her work, which I think would really grab her attention, as it has Michael’s and Brant’s.

[Ellen Stuttle]

7 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

But there is nothing about him misunderstanding the message of her work, which I think would really grab her attention, as it has Michael’s and Brant's.

Von Mises didn't misunderstand her.  Think what the story is, and the implication - that the masses can't cope when "the men of ability" (of whom there aren't many) stop carrying the world on their shoulders.  Everything falls into shambles.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

14 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

But there is nothing about him misunderstanding the message of her work, which I think would really grab her attention, as it has Michael’s and Brant’s.

Jon,

Now I get it.

I never said or thought that Mises misunderstood Rand.

I don't speak for Brant, but I didn't get that from his words, either, and I doubt he ever thought it. (My interpretation of Brant's post is that he was talking about how Mises was expressing his own thoughts, not putting words in Rand's mouth, how he was saying what he thought all along. But that's my interpretation. Brant will probably correct me if I'm wrong. He loves to do that.  )

It's fascinating how words change meanings when people with two different frames (contexts) try to communicate.

Just to be clear, I object to the class warfare frame--and a specific one at that. (And, please, I'm not saying this is your frame.) I find the division of humanity between masters who, as a class, are superior mentally and morally, and masses who are hopelessly stuck as mental and moral livestock--except their lot can collectively be improved in terms of goodies by the overseeing and farm husbandry of their masters--Noblesse Oblige and all that.

Since this is not clear when discussing Rand and Mises, my own form of communication might be at fault. In other words, this might be a bit more nuanced than the clarity I have in my own mind about it.

So I'll give it a shot through some random thoughts about the nuances I see.

There are two issues at point for me in the class warfare mentality thing, both of which are at the heart of individualism.

1. Temporary state vs. form-of-being.
2. Mob mentality.

 

Temporary state vs. form-of-being. In my mind, people can be born or thrown into any situation and, as long as they can think and act, they can change their situation. Nobody is born into a permanent moral or mental state, although there may be innate barriers in terms of how much information one mind may be able to process and work with compared to another. For example, there are innate differences between retarded people and geniuses. But even the mentally handicapped are able to improve within their biological boundaries when they exercise their own choice to do so. Unless someone is seriously defective to the point of incapacity, nobody is born innately unable to understand how to take care of themselves (survive, reproduce, work) after they become adults. 

Those who see being poor, for example, as anything other than a temporary state, those who think this is a form-of-being, automatically think they are superior to the poor by simply existing. And if they think on it too long in animal husbandry mode, they soon get the idea that breeding the poorness out of the human race is a good thing. (And sacrificing the defective livestock along the way, of course, if there is no way to keep them poor-ass suckers from breeding.)

I get it that both Rand in her early days and Mises were frustrated at trying to get people's minds to change about collectivism, but that is the job they chose. And I get how this frustration can lead them at times to think that the masses are mentally and morally hopeless because the masses, well, are the masses and that means they are defective by nature. As a conclusion within context, I get it. And I am more than happy to extend flexibility. As a form-of-being, though, I cannot disagree more with that conclusion.

I am certain that any member of the masses can rise above the general average by choice and effective work. And because I believe both Rand and Mises held that view, too, and I acknowledge that frustration is a temporary state, not a mental frame frozen in one's mind for all time, I have no problem  accepting that they had inconsistencies in expression at times.

We all do. Who has not said, "I hate you" in anger at someone they did not hate? 

The danger in diving too deep and too long into self-righteousness, anger, feeling of superiority, frustration and the like, is freezing such temporary states into a permanent form-of-being inside oneself.

One can do this due to neuroplasticity, but it takes a lot of deeply felt and focused effort over a long time. It's like a weight lifter. The weight lifter can make one arm much bigger than the other by only lifting weights with one arm. And, believe me, that takes time and effort. This is a great metaphor for what people can do to their minds.

Freezing a temporary mental stated into a form-of-being in one's mind inevitably leads to later incorrectly attributing temporary states as forms-of-being to a collective. After all, if you are that way, why are not others that way, too? That's what your subconscious will think about. Before too long, the conclusion will be that others actually are that way, especially when in group.

Saying that humans exist in time and waves of mental frames, thus something said in one context (even a moral pronouncement) may not have the same meaning when said in another context, is not the same as moral equivalency. It's identifying the nature of the living being that is thinking and judging. There is no thought without someone thinking it. And, such a someone has an innate nature, but not one attributed by an ideology. Their nature is a form-of-being that came through biology.

Being able to choose (volition) is part of innate human biological nature. And even then, there are boundaries. One cannot choose to be born differently than one was born biologically. That already happened and one cannot choose to change the past and make that reality. Also, one can choose to mutilate oneself to appear different than the human species and achieve that, but one cannot choose to change the human species into the same and make it reality (except through eugenics--and even then, the innate part of human nature is the starting point and the intended change will be in the future, not the present of the starting point or the past--and no one can choose differently and have that be reality).

I could go on (and maybe I should), but the point is, when people start talking about averages between achievers and nonachievers (or believeers and nonbelievers, etc.) as being separate classes, it's so damn easy to step outside of volition and merit as standards for making those evaluations and step into form-of-being thinking, step into thinking of these classes as different life forms, and that always leads to bigotry. 

Tangentially, that process has been the downfall of every group of people who attained superior status I am familiar with. Being an elite comes with measurements of scope and nature of what is being measured. Being superior in one area (like science) does not grant superiority in other areas (like engineering). When people start making mistakes like that, other people come and replace them without joining their elite club.

This even applies to things like racism. When one attributes Western glories to an elite "white culture" instead of to individuals who use their minds, the white people get replaced before too long--not because other races are inferior or superior. But because anyone of any race can choose to think. And those who choose to think are superior at producing and organizing.

Ironically there's this. If those who choose to think stop thinking and start believing they are innately superior as a class to the rest of mankind, they soon get replaced by others who choose to think. And guess what those newcomers will do? They will choose to make their own clubs. But even more, where do those individuals generally come from? The masses...

 

Thinking this way has nothing to do with misunderstanding Mises supposedly misunderstanding Rand. It's holding the individual thinking person as a standard, not Rand's honor, nor elite group of insider Randians, nor anything else as a higher standard of value--even when looking at the words of Rand and Mises.

 

Mob mentality. I'll try to be shorter on this one.  

A mob mentality is a temporary state, not a form-of-being. "The elites" or "the masses" automatically congeal in a culture because of mirror neurons, learned traditions and so on. But belonging to one from such unchosen reasons does grant the mob a form of metaphysical permanence on the individual.

Part of innate human nature is to live in groups. An individual can override this nature to a point and become a monk, but the nature was there before the choice to override it was implemented. Nature provided human beings with shortcuts to cooperation and the mob mind is one of those shortcuts. Each of us is prewired to go along with the mob and succumb to peer pressure. We can fight it and often override it, but we all want approval, especially to belong. 

Any particular group is a temporary state, not a form-of-being. The form-of-being for an individual in this case is the desire to belong to and follow a group, not the particular group or groups the individual identifies with. 

And this means when groups start going bad, each individual has the choice to not go along with it. To leave it. This is a hard choice and an even harder implementation. And it's one of nature's way of letting the cream rise to the top.

I, personally, get very uncomfortable when superior achievement gets attached to mob mentality--into the "elite class" versus "the masses." And I rebel against it. Oddly enough, this is due, at root, to the mob (or any collective) being the wrong standard of measurement when given primacy than anything else. It is a misidentification of reality. 

Does this make me part of the cream rising to the top? Frankly, I don't know and I don't care. Given the quantity of fuck-ups I've done in life, I doubt it.  

But there is one thing I cannot do inside myself while knowing I'm doing it--that is betray what I know. I've got too many scars from earning what I know to give that up just because I happen to like this group or that.

This extends to Rand, Mises, Trump, or any of the people I admire and support. 

What's more, I am certain my way of thinking about this is the correct way to use my brain. I could go into why, but let's leave that for another time.

There is one thing I know as part of this way of thinking. People are not consistent at all times in all contexts. I have to look at larger patterns, not just gotcha details, to get a handle on a person's chosen nature. The gotcha details will always produce gotchas. And, many many times, incorrect identifications. That means when my idols don't act like idols, I see it without pain or fear or guilt. I identify it. I can put it into a context where it makes sense--or not. And go from there.

I will not call that "misunderstanding" them. My own mind is far more important to me than their minds. And, as far as my mind goes, as the lady said, "A is A." That standard supersedes all others for me. Even when looking at any elite class and the masses. Even when looking at Rand and Mises themselves. 

Michael

[ThatGuy]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

Now I get it.

I never said or thought that Mises misunderstood Rand.

I don't speak for Brant, but I didn't get that from his words, either, and I doubt he ever thought it. (My interpretation of Brant's post is that he was talking about how Mises was expressing his own thoughts, not putting words in Rand's mouth, how he was saying what he thought all along. But that's my interpretation. Brant will probably correct me if I'm wrong. He loves to do that.  )

It's fascinating how words change meanings when people with two different frames (contexts) try to communicate.

Just to be clear, I object to the class warfare frame--and a specific one at that. (And, please, I'm not saying this is your frame.) I find the division of humanity between masters who, as a class, are superior mentally and morally, and masses who are hopelessly stuck as mental and moral livestock--except their lot can collectively be improved in terms of goodies by the overseeing and farm husbandry of their masters--Noblesse Oblige and all that.

Since this is not clear when discussing Rand and Mises, my own form of communication might be at fault. In other words, this might be a bit more nuanced than the clarity I have in my own mind about it.

So I'll give it a shot through some random thoughts about the nuances I see.

There are two issues at point for me in the class warfare mentality thing, both of which are at the heart of individualism.

1. Temporary state vs. form-of-being.
2. Mob mentality.

 

Temporary state vs. form-of-being. In my mind, people can be born or thrown into any situation and, as long as they can think and act, they can change their situation. Nobody is born into a permanent moral or mental state, although there may be innate barriers in terms of how much information one mind may be able to process and work with compared to another. For example, there are innate differences between retarded people and geniuses. But even the mentally handicapped are able to improve within their biological boundaries when they exercise their own choice to do so. Unless someone is seriously defective to the point of incapacity, nobody is born innately unable to understand how to take care of themselves (survive, reproduce, work) after they become adults. 

Those who see being poor, for example, as anything other than a temporary state, those who think this is a form-of-being, automatically think they are superior to the poor by simply existing. And if they think on it too long in animal husbandry mode, they soon get the idea that breeding the poorness out of the human race is a good thing. (And sacrificing the defective livestock along the way, of course, if there is no way to keep them poor-ass suckers from breeding.)

I get it that both Rand in her early days and Mises were frustrated at trying to get people's minds to change about collectivism, but that is the job they chose. And I get how this frustration can lead them at times to think that the masses are mentally and morally hopeless because the masses, well, are the masses and that means they are defective by nature. As a conclusion within context, I get it. And I am more than happy to extend flexibility. As a form-of-being, though, I cannot disagree more with that conclusion.

I am certain that any member of the masses can rise above the general average by choice and effective work. And because I believe both Rand and Mises held that view, too, and I acknowledge that frustration is a temporary state, not a mental frame frozen in one's mind for all time, I have no problem  accepting that they had inconsistencies in expression at times.

We all do. Who has not said, "I hate you" in anger at someone they did not hate? 

The danger in diving too deep and too long into self-righteousness, anger, feeling of superiority, frustration and the like, is freezing such temporary states into a permanent form-of-being inside oneself.

One can do this due to neuroplasticity, but it takes a lot of deeply felt and focused effort over a long time. It's like a weight lifter. The weight lifter can make one arm much bigger than the other by only lifting weights with one arm. And, believe me, that takes time and effort. This is a great metaphor for what people can do to their minds.

Freezing a temporary mental stated into a form-of-being in one's mind inevitably leads to later incorrectly attributing temporary states as forms-of-being to a collective. After all, if you are that way, why are not others that way, too? That's what your subconscious will think about. Before too long, the conclusion will be that others actually are that way, especially when in group.

Saying that humans exist in time and waves of mental frames, thus something said in one context (even a moral pronouncement) may not have the same meaning when said in another context, is not the same as moral equivalency. It's identifying the nature of the living being that is thinking and judging. There is no thought without someone thinking it. And, such a someone has an innate nature, but not one attributed by an ideology. Their nature is a form-of-being that came through biology.

Being able to choose (volition) is part of innate human biological nature. And even then, there are boundaries. One cannot choose to be born differently than one was born biologically. That already happened and one cannot choose to change the past and make that reality. Also, one can choose to mutilate oneself to appear different than the human species and achieve that, but one cannot choose to change the human species into the same and make it reality (except through eugenics--and even then, the innate part of human nature is the starting point and the intended change will be in the future, not the present of the starting point or the past--and no one can choose differently and have that be reality).

I could go on (and maybe I should), but the point is, when people start talking about averages between achievers and nonachievers (or believeers and nonbelievers, etc.) as being separate classes, it's so damn easy to step outside of volition and merit as standards for making those evaluations and step into form-of-being thinking, step into thinking of these classes as different life forms, and that always leads to bigotry. 

Tangentially, that process has been the downfall of every group of people who attained superior status I am familiar with. Being an elite comes with measurements of scope and nature of what is being measured. Being superior in one area (like science) does not grant superiority in other areas (like engineering). When people start making mistakes like that, other people come and replace them without joining their elite club.

This even applies to things like racism. When one attributes Western glories to an elite "white culture" instead of to individuals who use their minds, the white people get replaced before too long--not because other races are inferior or superior. But because anyone of any race can choose to think. And those who choose to think are superior at producing and organizing.

Ironically there's this. If those who choose to think stop thinking and start believing they are innately superior as a class to the rest of mankind, they soon get replaced by others who choose to think. And guess what those newcomers will do? They will choose to make their own clubs. But even more, where do those individuals generally come from? The masses...

 

Thinking this way has nothing to do with misunderstanding Mises supposedly misunderstanding Rand. It's holding the individual thinking person as a standard, not Rand's honor, nor elite group of insider Randians, nor anything else as a higher standard of value--even when looking at the words of Rand and Mises.

 

Mob mentality. I'll try to be shorter on this one.  

A mob mentality is a temporary state, not a form-of-being. "The elites" or "the masses" automatically congeal in a culture because of mirror neurons, learned traditions and so on. But belonging to one from such unchosen reasons does grant the mob a form of metaphysical permanence on the individual.

Part of innate human nature is to live in groups. An individual can override this nature to a point and become a monk, but the nature was there before the choice to override it was implemented. Nature provided human beings with shortcuts to cooperation and the mob mind is one of those shortcuts. Each of us is prewired to go along with the mob and succumb to peer pressure. We can fight it and often override it, but we all want approval, especially to belong. 

Any particular group is a temporary state, not a form-of-being. The form-of-being for an individual in this case is the desire to belong to and follow a group, not the particular group or groups the individual identifies with. 

And this means when groups start going bad, each individual has the choice to not go along with it. To leave it. This is a hard choice and an even harder implementation. And it's one of nature's way of letting the cream rise to the top.

I, personally, get very uncomfortable when superior achievement gets attached to mob mentality--into the "elite class" versus "the masses." And I rebel against it. Oddly enough, this is due, at root, to the mob (or any collective) being the wrong standard of measurement when given primacy than anything else. It is a misidentification of reality. 

Does this make me part of the cream rising to the top? Frankly, I don't know and I don't care. Given the quantity of fuck-ups I've done in life, I doubt it.  

But there is one thing I cannot do inside myself while knowing I'm doing it--that is betray what I know. I've got too many scars from earning what I know to give that up just because I happen to like this group or that.

This extends to Rand, Mises, Trump, or any of the people I admire and support. 

What's more, I am certain my way of thinking about this is the correct way to use my brain. I could go into why, but let's leave that for another time.

There is one thing I know as part of this way of thinking. People are not consistent at all times in all contexts. I have to look at larger patterns, not just gotcha details, to get a handle on a person's chosen nature. The gotcha details will always produce gotchas. And, many many times, incorrect identifications. That means when my idols don't act like idols, I see it without pain or fear or guilt. I identify it. I can put it into a context where it makes sense--or not. And go from there.

I will not call that "misunderstanding" them. My own mind is far more important to me than their minds. And, as far as my mind goes, as the lady said, "A is A." That standard supersedes all others for me. Even when looking at any elite class and the masses. Even when looking at Rand and Mises themselves. 

Michael

Thank you for taking the time to write this, Michael. It could serve as a decent rebuttal to arguments made by Stefan Molyneux regarding I.Q. and his claims about "reversions to the mean" in certain demographics.

 

[Jon Letendre]

If Mises did not misunderstand Rand then the author who said Clinton’s winning GDP-vote comments were Rand-like did not misunderstand Rand, either.

[Jon Letendre]

I am sensitive to the multitude of issues around race and IQ. It is fraught with potential abuse because of what we are. I also think that attempting to erase a truth, paint over it, block it out, because someone might abuse it, is potentially the most lethal way to proceed, on any issue.

[ThatGuy]

Re: Rand and "the masses", and her early vs. later ideas on such, I'm reminded of her comment that "In America, the common man is most uncommon."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

... the author who said Clinton’s winning GDP-vote comments were Rand-like...

Jon,

When poor standards are used, it's easy to make anything like anything else.

Of course Hillary Clinton and Ayn Rand are just alike. They're both women.

And that means Ayn Rand is totally not like Donald Trump. One is a woman and the other is a man.

Or, Ayn Rand and Karl Marx are completely alike. Both are authors.

Need I go on?

Maybe a little more relevance in the standards would help.

But think of the gotchas one could play doing it with poor standards.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

I’m not playing gotcha, you are just wrong about that person misrepresenting Rand’s message.

[Jon Letendre]

1 hour ago, ThatGuy said:

Re: Rand and "the masses", and her early vs. later ideas on such, I'm reminded of her comment that "In America, the common man is most uncommon."

I don’t recall where she said that, do you? I can’t say I think I know what she means and I don’t recall any context. 

[ThatGuy]

29 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

I don’t recall where she said that, do you? I can’t say I think I know what she means and I don’t recall any context. 

I think it was Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand. I don't have it in front of me to confirm at the moment.  But for now, here's a couple of similar quotes, found on THE AYN RAND LEXICON site: 

 

There have never been any “masses” in America: the poorest American is an individual and, subconsciously, an individualist. Marxism, which has conquered our universities, is a dismal failure as far as the people are concerned: Americans cannot be sold on any sort of class war; American workers do not see themselves as a “proletariat,” but are among the proudest of property owners. It is professors and businessmen who advocate cooperation with Soviet Russia—American labor unions do not.

“Don’t Let It Go,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 212

America is the land of the uncommon man. It is the land where man is free to develop his genius—and to get its just rewards. It is the land where each man tries to develop whatever quality he may possess and to rise to whatever degree he can, great or modest. It is not the land where one glories or is taught to glory in one’s mediocrity. No self-respecting man in America is or thinks of himself as “little,” no matter how poor he may be. That, precisely, is the difference between an American working man and a European serf.

“Screen Guide for Americans,”
Plain Talk, Nov. 1947, 40

[Brant Gaede]

18 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

So history records no objection on her part? Then it seems he and that author got her right, according to her.

Branden’s Passion relates several stories Rand told Barbara about Mises, even the time he screamed at her during a couples dinner at the Hazlitt home. But there is nothing about him misunderstanding the message of her work, which I think would really grab her attention, as it has Michael’s and Brant’s.

I wasn't focused on whether he misunderstood her. I don't really care if he did. You have to take these two giants separately re their ideas, orientations and differing ages and backgrounds. Rand had a lot more time than Mises' to transcend her European background. They were both elitists. The masses in Atlas Shrugged were really Russians. For Mises', Germans. They were not championed nor protected by the masses as such so I guess they returned the favor. 

--Brant

[ThatGuy]

28 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

I think it was Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand. I don't have it in front of me to confirm at the moment.  But for now, here's a couple of similar quotes, found on THE AYN RAND LEXICON site: 

 

There have never been any “masses” in America: the poorest American is an individual and, subconsciously, an individualist. Marxism, which has conquered our universities, is a dismal failure as far as the people are concerned: Americans cannot be sold on any sort of class war; American workers do not see themselves as a “proletariat,” but are among the proudest of property owners. It is professors and businessmen who advocate cooperation with Soviet Russia—American labor unions do not.

“Don’t Let It Go,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 212

America is the land of the uncommon man. It is the land where man is free to develop his genius—and to get its just rewards. It is the land where each man tries to develop whatever quality he may possess and to rise to whatever degree he can, great or modest. It is not the land where one glories or is taught to glory in one’s mediocrity. No self-respecting man in America is or thinks of himself as “little,” no matter how poor he may be. That, precisely, is the difference between an American working man and a European serf.

“Screen Guide for Americans,”
Plain Talk, Nov. 1947, 40

Ah. It was Barbara Branden, expressing Rand's attitude in the above quotes.
Here's Branden's quote (bolded by me) in context:
 

“The Gloria Swanson Theater on Fourteenth Street, near Union Square, a strongly pro-Roosevelt district, was showing Willkie campaign movies and had requested speakers to answer the audiences’ questions. Seven times a day for two weeks, Ayn’s shyness vanishing as it always did in the presence of eager, questioning minds, she happily answered questions from the stage of the theater. The experience further confirmed her in her respect for the American public, in her conviction that the so-called “common man” is singularly uncommon. The most intelligent and rational questions she heard anywhere were asked by the audiences from the working-class area of the theater.”

Branden, Barbara. The Passion of Ayn Rand . Author & Company. Kindle Edition.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Rand had good things to say about the American "common man."

Nonetheless, her expressed views about the large majority of humankind were dismissive.  Google the word "ballast" in Rand's work.

Here's an example from the title essay of For the New Intellectual.  This isn't early Rand.  It was written after Atlas Shrugged.

Quote

[my bold emphasis]

Against whom is this alliance formed? Against those men whose existence and character both Attila and the Witch Doctor refuse to admit into their view of the universe: the men who produce. In any age or society, there are men who think and work, who discover how to deal with existence, how to produce the intellectual and the material values it requires. These are the men whose effort is the only means of survival for the parasites of all varieties: the Attilas, the Witch Doctors and the human ballast. The ballast consists of those who go through life in a state of unfocused stupor, merely repeating the words and the motions they learned from others. But the men from whom they learn, the men who are first to discover any scrap of new knowledge, are the men who deal with reality, with the task of conquering nature, and who, to that extent, assume the responsibility of cognition: of exercising their rational faculty.

A producer is any man who works and knows what he is doing. He may function on a fully human, conceptual level of awareness only some part of his time, but, to that extent, he is the Atlas who supports the existence of mankind; he may spend the rest of his time in an unthinking daze, like the others, and, to that extent, he is the exploited, drained, tortured, self-destroying victim of their schemes.

Men’s epistemology—or, more precisely, their psycho-epistemology, their method of awareness—is the most fundamental standard by which they can be classified. Few men are consistent in that respect; most men keep switching from one level of awareness to another, according to the circumstances or the issues involved, ranging from moments of full rationality to an almost somnambulistic stupor. But the battle of human history is fought and determined by those who are predominantly consistent, those who, for good or evil, are committed to and motivated by their chosen psycho-epistemology and its corollary view of existence—with echoes responding to them, in support or opposition, in the switching, flickering souls of the others.

A man’s method of using his consciousness determines his method of survival. The three contestants are Attila, the Witch Doctor and the Producer—or the man of force, the man of feelings, the man of reason—or the brute, the mystic, the thinker. The rest of mankind calls it expedient to be tossed by the current of events from one of those roles to another, not choosing to identify the fact that those three are the source which determines the current’s direction.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

I’m not playing gotcha, you are just wrong about that person misrepresenting Rand’s message.

Jon,

That's an opinion, I guess. Here's another.

You're just wrong.

So there.

Nice chat...

  

Michael

[Peter]

I searched for the word, “passion” and found some oldies. Wow. BB praised Bush and Giuliani. Peter

From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:04:37 EST. Ellen Lewitt wrote me off-list, asking some questions about Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, and saying I might send my reply to Atlantis if I wished.

Here is my reply: << You asked if the rumor -- about Ayn Rand telling Murray Rothbard he must divorce his wife because she was religious -- was untrue. It was totally untrue. I was present at each of the (very few) meetings between Ayn Rand and Murray, and no such thing ever happened. Besides, it would have been totally out of character for her: she never told one spouse what he or she ought to do with regard to the other spouse.

To answer your other questions: Murray was never at all close with Ayn Rand. Despite his writings to the contrary, he met with her only a few times -- because she disliked him from their first meeting. When I later interviewed him for THE PASSION OF AYN RAND, he spoke to me about their meetings, clearly acknowledging that this -- that they met only a few times -- was true; obviously, he knew that I knew the truth, and that he could not pretend with me. I have the entire interview on tape.

Murray did not leave of his own choice. He had written an article (I forget for which publication) in which he clearly plagiarized my Master's thesis on the subject of free will -- that is, he used my arguments without giving me credit for them.  Nathaniel asked him to rectify this, perhaps in a letter to the editor of the publication; he would not have had to admit to plagiarism, but could say something to the effect that he had neglected to credit me. He refused, denying the obvious fact that he had plagiarized me -- and we ended our relationship with him.>> Barbara

From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: On the Psychology of Bush and Giuliani (was The Psychology of Terrorists Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:23:56 EST. Andrew Taranto wrote: << I'm curious to hear anyone's assessment of Bush's (or others') psychology. He in particular seems to have been rising to the occasion with a decent amount of aplomb. Guiliani, more so: I actually feel an affection for him that I didn't before, like I felt for Gayle Wynand.>>

Guiliani has been wonderful. And Bush surprisingly good. It seems as if, psychologically, both have been floating most of their lives, in some sense waiting for the moment in history that would allow them to utilize the best within them. Both have a certainty they didn't have before, as if they understand the position they now are in, in a way that they never understood any position in which they found themselves before. The world they now are in is a world, however horrible and fearful, they understand and can deal with. I don't mean any of this to denigrate them; I mean to say that the moment and their psychology have meshed, and that they have found the circumstances they best understand.

I've been watching Bush very carefully on television. His face seems to have thinned down and become more intense; the laid-back Texan is gone. He walks almost with a strut, and the uncertainty he once projected is also gone. Whatever mistakes he is making and will make, we are now seeing a dedicated and certain man we never saw before, that probably no one ever saw before, and that only he knew was somewhere inside him, waiting for its time.

I've seen this before in a very few other people. That is, that a man or woman finds the circumstances that in some very deep way they understand; their world becomes something that they comprehend and can cope with and they are able to rise to an occasion more demanding than they ever faced, an occasion they feel they were (psychologically) born to cope with, despite its difficulties.

I imagine that generals in war feel the same way: that being in battle is their moment, the moment they have been waiting for all their lives, and that they never before knew how intensely it was possible to live.

I experienced some of this personally, so I can understand it quite deeply. During my years with Ayn Rand, I was confused by many of my emotions and by my often ambivalent attitudes. But when it came time to break with her, I felt a clarity and certainty I had not felt for a long time. This, now, was I situation I could understand; I knew what to do and what I wanted, I felt that at last I was fully myself, acting according to values I deeply cherished. I felt a confidence that was new to me, that I was in a situation I was peculiarly able to deal with, and that the world I was dealing with at last made full sense to me. There was no more conflict between my reason and my emotions; in this situation, I knew without question what was right and what was wrong.

I felt the same way during the writing of THE PASSION OF AYN RAND, a rather odd but total certainty that I knew exactly what to do, what needed saying and what did not. I felt that this was the book I was born to write, and that nobody else could do it. The book was *mine* and I knew I could write it as it should be written. I remember especially that before I came to it in the writing, friends would ask me how on earth I intended to deal with the affair between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel. I always answered, truthfully, that I hadn't the least idea -- but that when I came to it, I would know how to handle it. And I did. The writing of PASSION was my moment, engulfing me in a drama and a life I understood. Barbara

From: SANDRAMEND To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Barbara Branden: A valentine to the author of THE PASSION OF AYN RAND Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:14:34 EST. I have always greatly appreciated Barbara's biography THE PASSION OF AYN RAND. My copy is heavily underlined and post-it taped, because Barbara is a biographer worthy of her subject.0

Recently, I had reason to be reminded this when, finally, finally, after being disappointed and dissatisfied with all the biographies of Orson Welles I'd read I came across Peter Bogdanovich's bio of Welles. Welles was a genius and I had all sorts of questions about him. When I BUY and can underline the important passages in Bogdanovich's book, I will pass on what I learned about him. I love genius. I love learning what makes them tick. Glieck's bio of Richard Feynmann GENIUS is a bit over my head but I keep it around for when I can get all my brain cells firing.

If Barbara published THE PRINCIPLES OF EFFICIENT THINKING in book form, I'd buy the book. Audio-tapes? Not.  I have so many Tony Robbins tapes I've never listened to just because I don't learn that way.

I learn by reading.  And what Barbara learned about how Ayn's mind worked is to be found in her book. If you're curious about the scandal, watch the movie. If you look at Ayn Rand and say to yourself: *how can I be more like her?* THE PASSION OF AYN RAND is the book to read. I also have WHO IS AYN RAND, the book Barbara and Nathan wrote earlier. But THE book on Ayn Rand is THE PASSION OF AYN RAND.

Sandra, who hopes Barbara will recover from her eye surgery quickly. (Take lots of carotene, Vitamin A, and Lutein, and come back to the intellectual barricades soon, Barbara).

From BB. 3/10/01 atlantis Re: ATL: RE Godlike. My own difficulty with John Galt is not that one COULD NOT be like him, in essence -- that is, a person of great accomplishment who embodies the Objectivist virtues, the apotheosis of the human potential -- but that in certain respects one SHOULD NOT be like him. Galt, like Howard Roark and like Rearden, (Francisco is the exception to this) is a man who deals with people, even people whom he loves, in an almost totally cerebral way; one knows by other means that he is a man of great emotional passion, but one sees it only in his sexual encounter with Dagny. One understands deductively the passionate commitment that has driven him all the years of his strike, but one rarely hears it in his words.

I believe that the emotional repression of Ayn Rand's heroic male characters is one of the reasons that so many of her admirers came to see repression almost as a virtue and not to fight it in themselves. Ayn Rand further buttressed this error in her male characters by having her people make remarks to the effect that they would never allow a woman they love to see them in pain. This was Rand's own philosophy; she told me that when she first had met Frank O'Connor, she did not tell him of all the miserable and mindless jobs she had to work at -- because she never wanted to face him in pain. It seemed she felt that to show her suffering to the man she loved would be the equivalent of demanding his help, even his pity. Why she believed that, I do not know. And perhaps it was all the hidden and repressed pain in her life that caused her, in later years, to talk about little except her suffering. Barbara 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Nonetheless, her expressed views about the large majority of humankind were dismissive.  Google the word "ballast" in Rand's work.

Ellen,

How about her entire 1973 article called "The Missing Link"?

In this article, Rand looked through an evolutionary lens and decided there might be a category of animal somewhere in-between other species and human beings, an evolutionary "missing link" so to speak, and she called this animal "the anti-conceptual mentality."

Although Rand did not specifically target the masses as being subhuman creatures, she strongly implied it. At least her examples were taken from individuals one can easily associate with the masses (a midwestern businessman, a novelist of gossipy stories, South American poor people who worked in a factory, and an academic going through the motions of public presentations without concern about the content).

The most important distinction in this article, though, was her dehumanization of vast quantities of humans. And Rand did not imply this. She stated it openly. From the end of her article:

Quote

I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent. But a certain hypothesis has haunted me for years; I want to stress that it is only a hypothesis. There is an enormous breach of continuity between man and all the other living species. The difference lies in the nature of man's consciousness, in its distinctive characteristic: his conceptual faculty. It is as if, after aeons of physiological development, the evolutionary process altered its course, and the higher stages of development focused primarily on the consciousness of living species, not their bodies. But the development of a man's consciousness is volitional: no matter what the innate degree of his intelligence, he must develop it, he must learn how to use it, he must become a human being by choice. What if he does not choose to? Then he becomes a transitional phenomenon—a desperate creature that struggles frantically against his own nature, longing for the effortless "safety" of an animal's consciousness, which he cannot recapture, and rebelling against a human consciousness, which he is afraid to achieve.

For years, scientists have been looking for a "missing link" between man and animals. Perhaps that missing link is the anti-conceptual mentality.

There you have it.

There are, to Rand, a whole bunch of people who do not have "a human consciousness" because they are afraid to achieve one. Note, they are not born with human consciousness, as common sense would dictate, but they must achieve one. Therefore, these people, she hypothesizes, are "transitional" creatures, and desperate ones at that. They are evolutionary missing links between humans and other species.

Another way to say this is there are humans and there are subhumans. Or even another, there is a superior class of humans and an inferior class of human-like livestock.

Rand does not go into why these subhumans choose to not think conceptually, seeing that, to her, such choice is a requirement for their change in status and elevation to a human being. She merely says that a person "must become a human being by choice." Those are her words and I am not spinning anything. If one does not choose as she says, one is not human. Thus spaketh Rand.

Well, what causes a subhuman to refuse to make such a choice? The only reason she gives is fear.

In light of modern psychology, neuroscience, the DNA sciences, and so on, if anyone believes being human is merely a question of fear-based choice, they deserve what they get when they can't make their own thinking work in reality.

In that article, Rand also said:

Quote

All proper associations are formed or joined by individual choice and on conscious, intellectual grounds (philosophical, political, professional, etc.)—not by the physiological or geographical accident of birth, and not on the ground of tradition.

Well, what do you know? There they go. Out go babies with the bathwater. Ker-splash!

After all, what philosophical, political, or professional grounds can a baby muster to justify its associations?

 

That's a quip, but I've earned that quip. I took these words of hers to heart and blasted through several families over decades before I finally got it right. Sometimes you have to live with people and deal with them when they think a lot differently than you do. That's life, or at least, living a good life. The question is, can you agree on rules of behavior, carry an attitude of goodwill and find things to share with these others? The question is not whether you both can abstract from abstractions in a similar manner.

God, when I look back on my past and see all that heartache... The string of heartaches I suffered and the heartaches I caused... It was all avoidable... So easily avoidable...

Oh well...

Although I am critical of Rand in this post, that's because I disagree with her view of human nature and its perfectability according to an ideology--and that view of human nature is what I am discussing right now. I lived this, not just thought about it in an armchair. So agree or disagree (which is your right), I am more than entitled to my critical view of her idea of human nature. I earned the right to say she was insightful about some parts of human nature and, try as she might, those parts did not extend to cover the entire human being. I am right, too, because I figured it out and got it right--in action, not just by deducing life from principles. I have a far better family, one that gives me great happiness, right here and right now than she did at the end of her life. That's proof enough for me.

Try perfecting a teenager, for God's sake.  Talk about a lost cause at the outset...  And try having a family if you throw out the teenager because that is not a "proper association."  

Fortunately, there is a lot more to Rand than this and I am richer for having internalized it. But discussing that is for other contexts. Also, the more I study her fiction, the more enthralled I get with her artistry. She was a brilliant fiction writer in so many ways. But like I said, now is not the time to talk about it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Thank you for taking the time to write this, Michael. It could serve as a decent rebuttal to arguments made by Stefan Molyneux regarding I.Q. and his claims about "reversions to the mean" in certain demographics.

T,

Stefan is a mixed bag for me. But he's a hell of a hard worker and he covers things without bowing to peer pressure. I admire that.

I haven't gone into his arguments on race and IQ deeply enough to comment about them. What little I did look at seemed so beside the point. Intellectually, it gave me the same sensation of seeing one argue about the superiority of one school of phrenology over another in determining the character of a person. I mean, the arguments can get heated, I suppose, but who believes phrenology has anything to do with character these days? So why the hell should I waste my time on that?  

Ditto for race and IQ.

I suspect Stefan like tackling a hot-button issue like race and IQ as an audience-builder at times more than as an intellectual issue. It really gets people wound up and talking about him. And his audience grows... 

On the other hand, there are several videos I have seen by Stefan that I have considered quite insightful. Also, he can nail down great metaphors for intellectual issues better than most people I read and watch.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

I searched for the word, “passion” and found some oldies. Wow.

Peter,

Add wow to that ten times.

Michael

[Peter]

I think Barbara Branden thought a lot about that letter concerning "The Passion of Ayn Rand." I have it somewhere and I may reread the book.

[ThatGuy]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

T,

Stefan is a mixed bag for me. But he's a hell of a hard worker and he covers things without bowing to peer pressure. I admire that.

I haven't gone into his arguments on race and IQ deeply enough to comment about them. What little I did look at seemed so beside the point. Intellectually, it gave me the same sensation of seeing one argue about the superiority of one school of phrenology over another in determining the character of a person. I mean, the arguments can get heated, I suppose, but who believes phrenology has anything to do with character these days? So why the hell should I waste my time on that?  

Ditto for race and IQ.

I suspect Stefan like tackling a hot-button issue like race and IQ as an audience-builder at times more than as an intellectual issue. It really gets people wound up and talking about him. And his audience grows... 

On the other hand, there are several videos I have seen by Stefan that I have considered quite insightful. Also, he can nail down great metaphors for intellectual issues better than most people I read and watch.

Michael

"Audience-builder"? He seems pretty serious about the idea, and has made it the cornerstone of his support for his anti-immigration stance and his support for "The Wall", claiming that the low IQ range of immigrants from certain areas meets the "sweet spot" for criminality.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

40 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

"Audience-builder"? He seems pretty serious about the idea, and has made it the cornerstone of his support for his anti-immigration stance and his support for "The Wall", claiming that the low IQ range of immigrants from certain areas meets the "sweet spot" for criminality.

T,

I'm just giving my impression of what little I have seen of him on this issue.

But it's true, this has attracted and built audience for him. (Honey attracts flies, but so does shit.  )

When the issue of race comes up on a Stefan video, I generally turn it off. I don't see all that many Stefan videos as it is. God knows, I have trouble enough navigating the crazy crap in my head. I don't need to try to navigate the crazy crap in someone else's head.  

To be fair, I would probably disagree with Stefan on this, and in quite clear and strong terms, if I ever did a deep dive. The post of mine that you liked was pretty clear on how I see human potential and I doubt there is anything Stefan could say that would get me to change my mind.

(I've put my life where my mouth is, too. The mother of my kids in Brazil has some black blood in her. So my kids have black blood in them. I'm not proud of that or not proud of it. Back then I didn't see race as anything important and I still don't. Well, in casting a play or movie its important, of when groups or individuals get so riled up about racial matters they want to fight. Things like that. But otherwise, I really am an individual merit kind of guy. With one caveat. When I was much younger, I was down on clarinet players to the extent of bigotry. But this was because my girlfriend was a clarinet player and she betrayed me with another clarinet player. She left me for that idiot. So even today, I kinda think clarinet players suck.  )

There is a young guy over in Hawaii who's interested in Rand. He made an online crusade of bashing Stefan over his views on race for a time. I can't remember his name right off the top of my head, but I would know it if I saw it. I only saw him do this crusade on Facebook, but he was quite active and vocal and he kept it up for months.

He's a good kid. I got the impression he was so invested, he was letting his own dreams slide. But it was his life and his choice.

So I know Stefan has irritated the crap out of some people on this. 

That's OK by me. Let them fight about it. They care. Me, not so much.  

Michael

[Peter]

I had some statistics on race and IO several years ago and they can be found if you search "IQ" on OL. During my life, throughout many jobs I have marveled by the fact that a person may be lower in English verbal skills yet higher in mathematical skills.   

[Jon Letendre]

On 3/4/2020 at 12:04 PM, Jon Letendre said:

She is dead so who cares, but does anyone know what Rand would think? Does anyone care? Does it matter?

No one knows what she would think? (About someone “Living History” getting up on stage as her for a Q&A in 2020?)

Yes, you do.