Jonathan Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Thanks for the replies.From the bits and pieces that I've read in comments online about PARC, I understand that Rand's thoughts were directed toward grappling with the mixed signals that she was receiving, but I was expecting that there would also be some self-examination: Rand seriously confronting her own errors, lies or deceptions, and pondering how they may or may not have contributed to the problems that she faced with NB.The righteous tone of Rand's views on topics such as cowardice, second-handers, appeasement, social metaphysics, courage, independence, betrayal, sacrifice, etc. keeps ringing in my ears (just one example: "It is understandable that men might seek to hide their vices from the eyes of people whose judgment they respect. But there are men who hide their virtues from the eyes of monsters.") I have a difficult time imagining that, when marshaling her thoughts and constructing "case studies" about her relationship with NB, the woman who repeatedly scolded the world on the moral depravity of caring what nameless, faceless others think would not contemplate her need to hide one of her highest values not only from the eyes of "monsters," but also from the eyes of her closest friends and associates, and what effect that might have had on her relationship.I really can't imagine myself being a famous, deeply philosophical novelist, loving my supremely valuable, ideally heroic wife, having an affair with another, much younger woman who, although supremely valuable and ideally heroic enough for me to love passionately, intimately and perhaps risk the possibility of damaging my ideal marriage over, was not quite supremely valuable and ideally heroic enough to be worthy of my willingness to face negative public opinion, and then, when pondering my lover's problems, mixed signals or possible lies, not asking myself why, if I truly loved her and believed that what we were doing wasn't wrong, I was behaving as if the affair was something shameful. What kind of signal did that send, what effect might it have had on our relationship? Regardless of what reasons or excuses my lover was giving me, I can't imagine not making it a priority to seriously examine how my role in creating a secretive, deceptive, mixed-signal atmosphere may have resulted in my receiving mixed signals.Regarding James Valliant, I don't doubt that he was meticulous in putting together PARC, but it seems that he can be a bit slippery or lawyerly with the truth, including on this thread. Does anyone here understand what his answer to me means? When he claimed that my questions are all answered in PARC, did he mean that if I read his book I'll discover that the answer to my questions is "No, Rand doesn't address those issues, therefore you didn't need to read the book since the only type of entries you expressed interest in are not in it"? Or does it mean that he thinks that ~he~ addresses those issues in the book, which is not what I asked? Instead of answering my questions with a simple, honest "no," it appears to me that he's trying to mislead me into believing that the book contains what it doesn't. Is that the type of maneuvering that I can look forward to in the book?J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now