BASIC PRINCIPLES BOOK ANNOUNCED

[Roger Bissell]

Roger, Chris, Peter, Bill.-

First of all, I am not implying that those who have claimed to remember Peikoff giving "The Concept of God" lecture at one time or another during the existence of NBI were fabricating or making-up the story. I am not questioning anybody's integrity. And there is now too many that claim to have heard Peikoff deliver that lecture at different places and times.

On other hand, there does not seem to be any NBI document or announcement from that time that lists Peikoff in that role. Barbara Branden, who ran NBI and contracted with the lecturers, seems to have categorically denied that Peikoff ever did that lecture (from #61 in "Nathaniel's Lectures on the Basic Principles" thread:

"He definitely did not write this, or any other of the Basic Principles lectures. - Barbara").

Some time ago, when The Objectivist Center first issued BPO on CDs, I corresponded with Russ LaValle, who was on their staff, and apparently supervised the production of the CD set. I had asked him about some of the BPO lectures that were listed on an NBI brochure from 1967 but were not included in the Academic Associates record albums and later TOC CD sets (the same issue mention above in Roger's response) Russ, in turn, queried Nathaniel Branden about this. Branden's reply was that the BPO lectures were periodically revised and updated during the ten years that they were offered through NBI, and that during that time, some lectures and/or lecturers were substituted or revised.

However, since my question to Mr. LaValle did not mention Leonard Peikoff as a BPO lecturer (because I was referencing only lectures listed on the NBI BPO brochure that I had), Dr. Branden's response cannot be construed as verifying or denying Peikoff as a participant.

In regard to the current Basic Principles, whether on CD or now in print in The Vision of Ayn Rand, I see no reason to question that Nathaniel Branden is the author of "The Concept of God" lecture. As I have said above, one need only compare discussions of that issue in Peikoff's CDs and book, with Branden's CDs and (now) book to see that their structure, style, and argumentation are very different.

Jerry, thanks for your additional comments. Two points:

1. I agree with you: it's clear that the version of Lecture 4 we heard on the Academic Associates LPs and the later cassettes and CDs was written by Nathaniel. The connection between it and the preceding lectures is stylistically seamless. The interpolated material from Leonard's term paper on the origin of the concept of God is just as clearly written in another, distinctly different style.

2. The brochure you sent me does not prove that Leonard did not (at that time) give Lecture 4, any more than it proves that Mary Ann Rukavina did not give Lecture 18 on the visual arts, or that Barbara did not give lecture 5 on efficient thinking. ~None~ of them were mentioned. As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

With that, I retreat once more into my cubicle, where I am doing penance for my shortcomings by redoing the index to Nathaniel's lectures. :-/

REB

I am contemplating sending Leonard a copy of The Vision of Ayn Rand with a note asking him if he would like to:

1) sign his name to the "God" lecture (No, not as a god, but as the lecturer); and

2) Upon reading the BPO book, and thus invoking fond memories of those halcyon days, would he like to offer any corrections to his OPAR? (Citing the proper attributions, of course).

Jerry; Don't hold your breath on getting any response from Peikoff.

Chris, I could be mistaken, but despite the lack of emoticons in Jerry's post, I figured he was joking about sending VAR to Peikoff.

However, I agree that he would not be likely to reply, except perhaps through his secretary. I emailed him about 5 years ago, offering to send him a complimentary copy of my piano-trombone jazz duo CD, and she replied that Peikoff only likes piano jazz. Talk about specialized interests! Not willing to sift through some trombone jazz -- played by an admirer, no less! -- in order to also hear generous amounts of piano jazz. Doesn't sound quite right to me...perhaps I didn't get the whole story from Peikoff's secretary. Ya 'spose?

REB

[Jerry Biggers]

The emoticons do not always work correctly for me (there's a prodding one that I would have used, :poke: ). Of course, I was not serious re sending Peikoff a copy of Vision .

Anyway, cult leaders have been known not to take kindly to being ribbed or any other interaction that they would view as disrespectful to their august position.

[Roger Bissell]

The emoticons do not always work correctly for me (there's a prodding one that I would have used, :poke: ). Of course, I was not serious re sending Peikoff a copy of Vision .

Anyway, cult leaders have been known not to take kindly to being ribbed or any other interaction that they would view as disrespectful to their august position.

I know what you mean. I am a cult of one, and it's all I can do to keep from poking fun @ the position I will be in next August! Heh. After nearly 25 years in Southern California, I will be returning to Middle Tennessee that month. My position will (literally) be all over the map, moving two cars and a rental truck to our new home, which we first must select and buy! It's almost like the old puzzle of how to row the cannibals and missionaries across the crocodile-infested river, but not quite.

Anyway, onward and upward, as Nathaniel B. would say!

REB

[Reidy]

Barbara Branden denies that Peikoff gave the god lecture. The guest speakers we remember hearing at NBI are gone. Given some well-known history I can see why their original texts aren't there, but (I gather) the book doesn't even acknowledge that they ever spoke. Branden has memory-holed his "neurosis of the intellectual" talk and substituted something he wrote in the 80s.

Objectivism just wouldn't be Objectivism without this sort of thing.

[Jerry Biggers]

Barbara Branden denies that Peikoff gave the god lecture. The guest speakers we remember hearing at NBI are gone. Given some well-known history I can see why their original texts aren't there, but (I gather) the book doesn't even acknowledge that they ever spoke. Branden has memory-holed his "neurosis of the intellectual" talk and substituted something he wrote in the 80s.

Objectivism just wouldn't be Objectivism without this sort of thing.

When I corresponded with Russ LaValle, of The Objectivist Center, regarding some of the lecturers that you are probably referring to, he replied that inclusion of the one guest lecture by Ayn Rand would have required the copyright permission of the Estate of Ayn Rand (that is, Leonard Peikoff). The same barrier applied to use of material from the few other guest lecturers (such as Mary Ann Rukavina).

The original release of the Basic Principles lectures on LP albums was by Academic Associates, a firm closely tied to the Brandens, and I believe owned by Robert Berole (also a former employee of NBI). Since these people had been then declared persona non grata by Rand and Peikoff, I think that the issue of why their material was not included in the audio releases by Academic Associates, and subsequent distributors, does not need further explanation.

Although some have remembered Leonard Peikoff giving the the Concept of God lecture, there does not seem to be any evidence that this occurred on more than a few occasions. When I took the course in Washington and New York in 1966-68, Nathaniel Branden gave that lecture. Ayn Rand's one guest lecture on literature would certainly have been interesting. However, it is quite likely that most material that she had covered in that presentation was later included in her book devoted to the same topic, The Romantic Manifesto.

Mary Ann Rukavina Sures, who sided with Rand, certainly would not have given her permission, since that would have ended her relationship with Rand. One may be able to gather the gist of what she had to say in that lecture, in her later article which I believe was published in The Objectivist, "Metaphysics in Marble."

As for Peikoff's lecture on God, whatever original material there was, was quite likely used in his discussions of the same issues in the relevant sections of his audio course, The Philosophy of Objectivism, recorded in 1976, and intended as a replacement for the Branden BPO course. Of course, a print version is available in his OPAR book, which he stated was an improved version of his earlier audio course. I do not think Peikoff's discussion in OPAR compares favorably to Branden's presentation, as printed in The Vision of Ayn Rand. But now we can all easily make the comparisons for ourselves, can't we?

Oh, one other issue, the missing lecture (listed as #19 on my NBI brochure for the Basic Principles of Objectivism course offered in the Fall, 1966, in Chicago)on "The Neurosis of the Intellectual - Why many male intellectuals feel impractical, unefficacious, unmasculine qua intellectuals - The effect on their work and their lives - The wider social consequences." Sounds fascinating, doesn't it? I did not get an answer why that was not included in the Academic Associates LP set. Dr. Branden apparently replied to Russ LaValle's inquiry (to my recollection of Mr. LaValle's reply to me) that lectures were added and deleted to BPO when it was given through NBI, and that he included material in the AA set that gave the best overall presentation of Objectivism from the material available. Possibly, that particular lecture had already been dropped from the course before NBI closed its doors in 1968. Perhaps the same material was later included in one of Dr. Branden's subsequent books, but if so, I missed it.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Barbara Branden]

Jerry Biggers wrote:

" Barbara Branden, who ran NBI and contracted with the lecturers, seems to have categorically denied that Peikoff ever did that lecture (from #61 in "Nathaniel's Lectures on the Basic Principles" thread:

"He definitely did not write this, or any other of the Basic Principles lectures. - Barbara").

Peter Reidy wrote:

"Barbara Branden denies that Peikoff gave the god lecture."

I did not intend to deny that Peikoff ever gave the lecture on god -- he did give it -- , but only to deny that he wrote it. Nathaniel wrote the lecture. It may have been-- it was a long time ago, so I'm not certain of this -- that Nathaniel was ill and Peikoff substituted for him the evening of the god lecture.

Barbara

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry Biggers wrote:

" Barbara Branden, who ran NBI and contracted with the lecturers, seems to have categorically denied that Peikoff ever did that lecture (from #61 in "Nathaniel's Lectures on the Basic Principles" thread:

"He definitely did not write this, or any other of the Basic Principles lectures. - Barbara").

Peter Reidy wrote:

"Barbara Branden denies that Peikoff gave the god lecture."

I did not intend to deny that Peikoff ever gave the lecture on god -- he did give it -- , but only to deny that he wrote it. Nathaniel wrote the lecture. It may have been-- it was a long time ago, so I'm not certain of this -- that Nathaniel was ill and Peikoff substituted for him the evening of the god lecture.

Barbara

Barbara,

Thank you! As you quite correctly pointed out, you only stated that Peikoff never wrote that lecture, or any other in the Basic Principles lectures.

So, our minds are not playing tricks on us! Whew!, I feel better already.

[Roger Bissell]

Barbara Branden denies that Peikoff gave the god lecture. The guest speakers we remember hearing at NBI are gone. Given some well-known history I can see why their original texts aren't there, but (I gather) the book doesn't even acknowledge that they ever spoke. Branden has memory-holed his "neurosis of the intellectual" talk and substituted something he wrote in the 80s.

Objectivism just wouldn't be Objectivism without this sort of thing.

When I corresponded with Russ LaValle, of The Objectivist Center, regarding some of the lecturers that you are probably referring to, he replied that inclusion of the one guest lecture by Ayn Rand would have required the copyright permission of the Estate of Ayn Rand (that is, Leonard Peikoff). The same barrier applied to use of material from the few other guest lecturers (such as Mary Ann Rukavina).

Yes. That is why Nathaniel--wanting to retain two lectures'-worth of material on esthetics--substituted a "two-lecture" (#17 & 18) reading of the chapter on Rand's literary method that originally appeared in Who Is Ayn Rand? That was material he certainly had the rights to, and it's good material, for what it is: literary criticism (of a very positive, appreciative kind).

There are two problems with it, however:

1. It is material that has been considerably over-exposed (IMO). Not only did it originally appear in 1962 in

Who Is Ayn Rand?

, but also as both a stand-alone pamphlet by The Atlas Society, as well as a chapter in The Objectivist Center's compilation,

The Literary Art of Ayn Rand

--as well as lectures 17 and 18 of Nathaniel's Post-Split lecture series, as included in his new book, as well. (It's odd to me that neither Nathaniel nor the book's editor, Will Thomas, mentions that this material was included in his Post-Split lecture series.)

2. There is certainly nothing wrong with Nathaniel writing about that part of Rand's esthetic views that he knew the most about, but the absence of any material on the visual arts or music seems to reinforce the myth that Rand's esthetic views were just a rationalization of and over-generalization from her literary biases. This misconception has been recycled not only by Rand's critics, but also even by some of her admirers and supporters. I have written in

The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies

and spoken at Free Minds 09 against this fallacious view, but I don't have a sense of whether my perspective has gained much traction yet.

Jerry sez:

The original release of the Basic Principles lectures on LP albums was by Academic Associates, a firm closely tied to the Brandens, and I believe owned by Robert Berole (also a former employee of NBI). Since these people had been then declared persona non grata by Rand and Peikoff, I think that the issue of why their material was not included in the audio releases by Academic Associates, and subsequent distributors, does not need further explanation.

Let me expand a bit on Jerry's last point, just for clarification: Since Nathaniel and Barbara had been then declared persona non grata by Rand and Peikoff, I think that the issue of why Rand's and Rukavina's material was not included in the audio releases by Academic Associates, and subsequent distributors does not need further clarification.

...Ayn Rand's one guest lecture on literature would certainly have been interesting. However, it is quite likely that most material that she had covered in that presentation was later included in her book devoted to the same topic, The Romantic Manifesto.

Mary Ann Rukavina Sures, who sided with Rand, certainly would not have given her permission, since that would have ended her relationship with Rand. One may be able to gather the gist of what she had to say in that lecture, in her later article which I believe was published in The Objectivist, "Metaphysics in Marble."

I agree with Jerry on this. Yes, read "Metaphysics in Marble." As for Rand's lecture on esthetics and literature (#17 in the Pre-Split lineup), it still does exist in recorded form, but I have not been able to pry a copy of it out of the hands of the former NBI office worker who twice promised me a copy. In any case, it's not going to be published without ARI's permission, and I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening! In the meantime, I suggest reading Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 5 in The Romantic Manifesto. You might also give a listen to Rand's 1960 lecture "Our Esthetic Vacuum" (the audio version sold by The Ayn Rand Bookstore, not the abbreviated version published in The Objectivist Newsletter). (No, I do not recommend Chapter 4 in TRM: "Art and Cognition." It is an embarrassingly bad piece of work.)

As for Peikoff's lecture on God, whatever original material there was, was quite likely used in his discussions of the same issues in the relevant sections of his audio course, The Philosophy of Objectivism, recorded in 1976, and intended as a replacement for the Branden BPO course. Of course, a print version is available in his OPAR book, which he stated was an improved version of his earlier audio course. I do not think Peikoff's discussion in OPAR compares favorably to Branden's presentation, as printed in The Vision of Ayn Rand. But now we can all easily make the comparisons for ourselves, can't we?

Yes, indeed. In fact, since I have a transcription of Peikoff's 1976 discussion of God from his Philosophy of Objectivism lectures, we can compare that with his OPAR discussion, as well. Perhaps I'll offer it in the same manner that Robert Campbell has been providing A/B comparisons of Rand's Question-Answer periods. But it will have to wait until I clear other items from my plate.

Oh, one other issue, the missing lecture (listed as #19 on my NBI brochure for the Basic Principles of Objectivism course offered in the Fall, 1966, in Chicago)on "The Neurosis of the Intellectual - Why many male intellectuals feel impractical, unefficacious, unmasculine qua intellectuals - The effect on their work and their lives - The wider social consequences." Sounds fascinating, doesn't it? I did not get an answer why that was not included in the Academic Associates LP set. Dr. Branden apparently replied to Russ LaValle's inquiry (to my recollection of Mr. LaValle's reply to me) that lectures were added and deleted to BPO when it was given through NBI, and that he included material in the AA set that gave the best overall presentation of Objectivism from the material available. Possibly, that particular lecture had already been dropped from the course before NBI closed its doors in 1968. Perhaps the same material was later included in one of Dr. Branden's subsequent books, but if so, I missed it.

"The Neurosis of the Intellectual" was being offered in the Basic Principles series as late as 1967. Some of the material also appears in Lecture 8 of Nathaniel's course Basic Principles of Objectivist Psychology, as well as in Chapter 7 of The Psychology of Self-Esteem, especially on pp. 119-122 of the 32nd anniversary edition.

A kind spirit sent me a fairly well fleshed-out set of lecture notes, and I would post the material here, except I don't have Nathaniel's permission, and my impression from discussions with him is that he would prefer to publish it as a stand-alone essay at some later point. In fact, he does not even have a copy of the text of that lecture, and he would like to locate a copy of the audio tape of it, so that it can be transcribed, then edited and published. Nathaniel has not been holding out on us or trying to re-write the historical record. So much for the "memory hole" theory.

IMO, this lecture is a very important one. Although I can see that it might not have relevance to some Objectivists, it certainly did to me, especially the part about freezing up and making faulty judgments under the influence of fear. Had I heard this lecture back in the late 1960s, it very well could have changed the course of my adult life. <sigh> But I managed (the hard way) to learn its lessons anyway, and I'm better for it.

REB

[Chris Grieb]

This is my last post on this issue but I am still a little surprised that Barbara would have used Leonard's appearing for Nathaniel in the tapes that were being sent out all over the country.

I must also mention that Peikoff gave the opening lecture of Basic in several cities in the fall of 1967. Interestingly the NBI rep in Pittsburgh told me that the speaker was orginially to be Barbara Branden but she had to cancel.

[Reidy]

I stand corrected about what Barbara Branden has said. As several of us have mentioned, an appearance by an understudy would be unlikely in the presumably definitive taped lectures that NBI sent out nationally. As I have mentioned, Peikoff was a skilled comedian in those days and Branden wasn't. Thus I conclude that Peikoff wrote the talk I heard in 65-66. The local NBI rep, who knew Peikoff personally, said it was an adaptation of a college term paper.

The likely resolution is that there were two lectures by two authors and that both were in the taped series at different times.

I don't remember much about "The Neurosis of the Intellectual," except that it quoted Arthur Koestler's explanation of what he found appealing abour communism. I suspect it would be interesting historically but not top-drawer stuff. At a time when students virtually never criticized the Objectivist deities, many disliked this lecture. Today it would probably strike us as psychologizing middlebrow cultural criticism of the kind Philip Wylie, Paul Goodman and Betty Friedan were doing at around the same time.

[9thdoctor]

I’d be interested in a volume of some non-anthologized Nathaniel Branden's writings on Rand, I’m thinking particularly of his contributions to The Personalist in the early ‘70’s, which were part of the debate over Nozick’s article about Rand. That plus this unfamiliar “Neurosis” lecture, maybe his NYT piece replying to Sidney Hook, and I’m not sure what else. The trouble with The Personalist pieces is that they occur in a debate context, and may not comfortably stand alone, I haven’t seen them in many years, I don’t know. This same problem may apply to the Hook piece too.

Has there been any consideration of putting such a volume together? I’m afraid the elements I’ve named would make a thin volume, but there’s probably more material out there. Maybe add in some of Barbara’s other writings and the page count should rise high enough.

[Roger Bissell]

I’d be interested in a volume of some non-anthologized Nathaniel Branden's writings on Rand, I’m thinking particularly of his contributions to The Personalist in the early ‘70’s, which were part of the debate over Nozick’s article about Rand. That plus this unfamiliar “Neurosis” lecture, maybe his NYT piece replying to Sidney Hook, and I’m not sure what else. The trouble with The Personalist pieces is that they occur in a debate context, and may not comfortably stand alone, I haven’t seen them in many years, I don’t know. This same problem may apply to the Hook piece too.

Has there been any consideration of putting such a volume together? I’m afraid the elements I’ve named would make a thin volume, but there’s probably more material out there. Maybe add in some of Barbara’s other writings and the page count should rise high enough.

Nathaniel's monthly "Seminar" recordings, made back about 1970 and marketed by Academic Associates, contain a lot of question-answer format stuff that, even now, would make fascinating reading. I think that material, transcribed and published, would make a pretty generous volume along the lines of Nathaniel Branden Answers. Perhaps some of his interviews (e.g., the one in the 1970s with Reason magazine) could be included.

Nathaniel also did a number of book reviews over the years, some of which are posted here on Objectivist Living. They're quite interesting, too.

Another goody -- is it published here? -- is his article for The Daily Objectivist (which flourished around 2000 A.D.) entitled "Who Owns Objectivism?" If it is ~not~ posted anywhere here, I could ask him for permission to post it here. It's quite a nice piece. Actually, it would have made a good addendum to the Epilogue of his new book....reb

[Robert Campbell]

Reading through the last couple of pages of this thread further confirms my hypothesis that there's been an awful lot of motivated forgetting of NBI lectures over the years, as well as some forgetting of the usual kind.

For instance, I'd never heard of the one-time 19th lecture on "The Neurosis of the Intellectual." I wonder how long that particular lecture was in the rotation.

My impression (and that's all it is) from the BPO lectures that I've heard off the Academic Associates, later Atlas Society, recordings is that they mostly reflect what was being presented in the last couple of years of NBI, minus whatever adjustments had to be made to compensate for unavailable guest lectures. Of course, if Nathaniel Branden was truly slack in updating his lectures (as Ayn Rand alleged in "To Whom It May Concern"), his lectures from the last year or two of NBI may not be terribly different from those given several years earlier.

I made a close study of Lecture 4, on the concept of god, for my piece on the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion. As presented in the AA series, this is obviously not Leonard Peikoff's work. It contradicts his later presentations on "the arbitrary" on several key points. What's more, the issues dealt with in that lecture are indeed dispersed in the 1976 lecture series on Objectivism, and in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand; one consequence is that the Peikovian rejection of theology and the supernatural in Chapter 1 of his book contradicts the Peikovian rejection of theology and the supernatural in Chapter 5. If Dr. Peikoff gave that lecture during the NBI days, it was as a stand-in.

Robert Campbell

[Roger Bissell]

I’d be interested in a volume of some non-anthologized Nathaniel Branden's writings on Rand, I’m thinking particularly of his contributions to The Personalist in the early ‘70’s, which were part of the debate over Nozick’s article about Rand. That plus this unfamiliar “Neurosis” lecture, maybe his NYT piece replying to Sidney Hook, and I’m not sure what else. The trouble with The Personalist pieces is that they occur in a debate context, and may not comfortably stand alone, I haven’t seen them in many years, I don’t know. This same problem may apply to the Hook piece too.

Has there been any consideration of putting such a volume together? I’m afraid the elements I’ve named would make a thin volume, but there’s probably more material out there. Maybe add in some of Barbara’s other writings and the page count should rise high enough.

Nathaniel's monthly "Seminar" recordings, made back about 1970 and marketed by Academic Associates, contain a lot of question-answer format stuff that, even now, would make fascinating reading. I think that material, transcribed and published, would make a pretty generous volume along the lines of Nathaniel Branden Answers. Perhaps some of his interviews (e.g., the one in the 1970s with Reason magazine) could be included.

Nathaniel also did a number of book reviews over the years, some of which are posted here on Objectivist Living. They're quite interesting, too.

Another goody -- is it published here? -- is his article for The Daily Objectivist (which flourished around 2000 A.D.) entitled "Who Owns Objectivism?" If it is ~not~ posted anywhere here, I could ask him for permission to post it here. It's quite a nice piece. Actually, it would have made a good addendum to the Epilogue of his new book....reb

OK, I found "Who Owns Objectivism" on Nathaniel's web site. It is renamed "Who is an Objectivist?" Here is a link to the essay, which is posted a free-access PDF file: Who is an Objectivist?

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Reading through the last couple of pages of this thread further confirms my hypothesis that there's been an awful lot of motivated forgetting of NBI lectures over the years, as well as some forgetting of the usual kind.

For instance, I'd never heard of the one-time 19th lecture on "The Neurosis of the Intellectual." I wonder how long that particular lecture was in the rotation.

My impression (and that's all it is) from the BPO lectures that I've heard off the Academic Associates, later Atlas Society, recordings is that they mostly reflect what was being presented in the last couple of years of NBI, minus whatever adjustments had to be made to compensate for unavailable guest lectures. Of course, if Nathaniel Branden was truly slack in updating his lectures (as Ayn Rand alleged in "To Whom It May Concern"), his lectures from the last year or two of NBI may not be terribly different from those given several years earlier.

I made a close study of Lecture 4, on the concept of god, for my piece on the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion. As presented in the AA series, this is obviously not Leonard Peikoff's work. It contradicts his later presentations on "the arbitrary" on several key points. What's more, the issues dealt with in that lecture are indeed dispersed in the 1976 lecture series on Objectivism, and in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand; one consequence is that the Peikovian rejection of theology and the supernatural in Chapter 1 of his book contradicts the Peikovian rejection of theology and the supernatural in Chapter 5. If Dr. Peikoff gave that lecture during the NBI days, it was as a stand-in.

Robert Campbell

Robert, "The Neurosis of the Intellectual" was "in the rotation" of BPO for at least two years.

I found reading Linda Tannehill's DENNIS HARDIN'S 1967 typed up notes personally clarifying and liberating, even though I had long ago worked my way through related personal problems without their benefit. I can't tell you (mainly from acute embarrassment) how many marital and intellectual situations were impacted by this neurosis, before I got into a support group that finally helped me deal with it.

I think I will at least post an outline of Tannehill DENNIS's lecture notes, so that it will be clearer what the scope and import of the lecture was. Maybe in a day or two....REB

[Chris Grieb]

Reading through the last couple of pages of this thread further confirms my hypothesis that there's been an awful lot of motivated forgetting of NBI lectures over the years, as well as some forgetting of the usual kind.

For instance, I'd never heard of the one-time 19th lecture on "The Neurosis of the Intellectual." I wonder how long that particular lecture was in the rotation.

My impression (and that's all it is) from the BPO lectures that I've heard off the Academic Associates, later Atlas Society, recordings is that they mostly reflect what was being presented in the last couple of years of NBI, minus whatever adjustments had to be made to compensate for unavailable guest lectures. Of course, if Nathaniel Branden was truly slack in updating his lectures (as Ayn Rand alleged in "To Whom It May Concern"), his lectures from the last year or two of NBI may not be terribly different from those given several years earlier.

I made a close study of Lecture 4, on the concept of god, for my piece on the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion. As presented in the AA series, this is obviously not Leonard Peikoff's work. It contradicts his later presentations on "the arbitrary" on several key points. What's more, the issues dealt with in that lecture are indeed dispersed in the 1976 lecture series on Objectivism, and in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand; one consequence is that the Peikovian rejection of theology and the supernatural in Chapter 1 of his book contradicts the Peikovian rejection of theology and the supernatural in Chapter 5. If Dr. Peikoff gave that lecture during the NBI days, it was as a stand-in.

Robert Campbell

Robert, "The Neurosis of the Intellectual" was "in the rotation" of BPO for at least two years.

I found reading Linda Tannehill DENNIS HARDIN's 1967 typed up notes personally clarifying and liberating, even though I had long ago worked my way through related personal problems without their benefit. I can't tell you (mainly from acute embarrassment) how many marital and intellectual situations were impacted by this neurosis, before I got into a support group that finally helped me deal with it.

I think I will at least post an outline of Tannehill DENNIS's lecture notes, so that it will be clearer what the scope and import of the lecture was. Maybe in a day or two....REB

Roger; I have no memory of the lecture: "The Neurosis of the the Intellectual" so I look forward to when you post the notes by Linda Tannehill DENNIS HARDIN.

I would guess she is still alive but that Morris Tannehill is dead.

[Roger Bissell]

Reading through the last couple of pages of this thread further confirms my hypothesis that there's been an awful lot of motivated forgetting of NBI lectures over the years, as well as some forgetting of the usual kind.

For instance, I'd never heard of the one-time 19th lecture on "The Neurosis of the Intellectual." I wonder how long that particular lecture was in the rotation.

My impression (and that's all it is) from the BPO lectures that I've heard off the Academic Associates, later Atlas Society, recordings is that they mostly reflect what was being presented in the last couple of years of NBI, minus whatever adjustments had to be made to compensate for unavailable guest lectures. Of course, if Nathaniel Branden was truly slack in updating his lectures (as Ayn Rand alleged in "To Whom It May Concern"), his lectures from the last year or two of NBI may not be terribly different from those given several years earlier.

I made a close study of Lecture 4, on the concept of god, for my piece on the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion. As presented in the AA series, this is obviously not Leonard Peikoff's work. It contradicts his later presentations on "the arbitrary" on several key points. What's more, the issues dealt with in that lecture are indeed dispersed in the 1976 lecture series on Objectivism, and in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand; one consequence is that the Peikovian rejection of theology and the supernatural in Chapter 1 of his book contradicts the Peikovian rejection of theology and the supernatural in Chapter 5. If Dr. Peikoff gave that lecture during the NBI days, it was as a stand-in.

Robert Campbell

Robert, "The Neurosis of the Intellectual" was "in the rotation" of BPO for at least two years.

I found reading Linda Tannehill's 1967 typed up notes personally clarifying and liberating, even though I had long ago worked my way through related personal problems without their benefit. I can't tell you (mainly from acute embarrassment) how many marital and intellectual situations were impacted by this neurosis, before I got into a support group that finally helped me deal with it.

I think I will at least post an outline of Tannehill's lecture notes, so that it will be clearer what the scope and import of the lecture was. Maybe in a day or two....REB

CORRECTION! The typed up notes I refer to above are NOT by Linda Tannehill. Their content is similar to an NB psychology lecture that Tannehill did notes on from about that same period. My apologies to the anonymous friend [DENNIS HARDIN] who sent me HIS typed up notes, and for any confusion to the rest of you folks. In due time, if he gives permission, I will post them; if not, I will briefly summarize the points made....REB

[Reidy]

Was the god lecture you mention in #88 delivered by Peikoff? If AA/TAS was selling it, probably not. The textual tradition seems to include at least two versions of this lecture, by two speakers, and this may not be the one we heard at NBI.

[Chris Grieb]

I just received my copy of "The Vision of Ayn Rand" and I must report that opening of lecture "4" was what I remember from the Basic course I took in 1966. If that is the case then perhaps Peikoff may have read Branden's lecture. If Peikoff did "live" in NYC there was have the additional bonus of having a full time teacher of philosophy answering questions.

[Jerry Biggers]

Was the god lecture you mention in #88 delivered by Peikoff? If AA/TAS was selling it, probably not. The textual tradition seems to include at least two versions of this lecture, by two speakers, and this may not be the one we heard at NBI.

I hope we are not developing this very minor issue (to me, anyway) into the Objectivist equivalent of the endless quest by religious scholars for the real authorship of the "Q" and other Dead Sea Scrolls documents!

I thought that Robert's posting in #88 was clear. And so was Barbara's posting in this thread. But I'll take another crack at it: 1) Nathaniel Branden is the author of "The Concept of God" lecture, both at NBI and in the later Academic Associates and TAS re-issues, 2) Due to the "Branden-Peikoff Non-Aggression Pact of 1968" (an apocryphal occurrence), Leonard never got anywhere near the Academic Associates' recording studio, and would not have been let in if he had. 3) Similarily, Nathaniel was not asked, nor did he request, to make any guest lectures at the 1976 "Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture course given by Leonard, 4) Parenthetically, George H. Smith, when he discussed the same issues in his book, Atheism: The Case Against God, credits that lecture to Nathaniel Branden. 5) It is safe to say that Academic Associates never marketed any lectures by Peikoff. It is also safe to say that the Ayn Rand Institute has never marketed any lectures by either of the Brandens. ARIans are too busy rewriting documents (sort of reminds me of the scene from DeMille's The Ten Commandments(1955), the Pharaoh commanding, "Let the name of Moses be stricken from the tablets...") 6) There are indeed discussions of this issue, The Concept of God, in Branden's The Vision of Ayn Rand, and in Peikoff's summa, OPAR. But they are not similar. "Inquiring Minds" may wish to make comparisons of these two texts. Please. Try it, you'll like it!

Despite the above facts, some people heard Peikoff give a lecture on that subject under the auspices of NBI sometime in the sixties (a fact verified by Barbara Branden). It is quite likely that most people who attended NBI heard Nathaniel Branden give that lecture (not coincidentally, at events run by an organization bearing his name).

I am afraid, however, that there is not enough interesting material on this non-controversy to create an Objectivist equivalent to Holy Blood, Holy Grail-DaVinci Code. But maybe there is a lost painting by Frank O'Connor, showing the "Collective".....and sitting at the table is a figure vaguely resembling Leonard writing on a document that could be "The Concept of God" lecture.....nah!

Edited January 7, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Chris Grieb]

Was the god lecture you mention in #88 delivered by Peikoff? If AA/TAS was selling it, probably not. The textual tradition seems to include at least two versions of this lecture, by two speakers, and this may not be the one we heard at NBI.

I hope we are not developing this very minor issue (to me, anyway) into the Objectivist equivalent of the endless quest by religious scholars for the real authorship of the "Q" and other Dead Sea Scrolls documents!

I thought that Robert's posting in #88 was clear. And so was Barbara's posting in this thread. But I'll take another crack at it: 1) Nathaniel Branden is the author of "The Concept of God" lecture, both at NBI and in the later Academic Associates and TAS re-issues, 2) Due to the "Branden-Peikoff Non-Aggression Pact of 1968" (an apocryphal occurrence), Leonard never got anywhere near the Academic Associates' recording studio, and would not have been let in if he had. 3) Similarily, Nathaniel was not asked, nor did he request, to make any guest lectures at the 1976 "Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture course given by Leonard, 4) Parenthetically, George H. Smith, when he discussed the same issues in his book, Atheism: The Case Against God, credits that lecture to Nathaniel Branden. 5) It is safe to say that Academic Associates never marketed any lectures by Peikoff. It is also safe to say that the Ayn Rand Institute has never marketed any lectures by either of the Brandens. ARIans are too busy rewriting documents (sort of reminds me of the scene from DeMille's The Ten Commandments(1955), the Pharaoh commanding, "Let the name of Moses be stricken from the tablets...") 6) There are indeed discussions of this issue, The Concept of God, in Branden's The Vision of Ayn Rand, and in Peikoff's summa, OPAR. But they are not similar. "Inquiring Minds" may wish to make comparisons of these two texts. Please. Try it, you'll like it!

Despite the above facts, some people heard Peikoff give a lecture on that subject under the auspices of NBI sometime in the sixties (a fact verified by Barbara Branden). It is quite likely that most people who attended NBI heard Nathaniel Branden give that lecture (not coincidentally, at events run by an organization bearing his name).

I am afraid, however, that there is not enough interesting material on this non-controversy to create an Objectivist equivalent to Holy Blood, Holy Grail-DaVinci Code. But maybe there is a lost painting by Frank O'Connor, showing the "Collective".....and sitting at the table is a figure vaguely resembling Leonard writing on a document that could be "The Concept of God" lecture.....nah!

Jerry; The only thing you say in the above is that most people heard Nathaniel Branden give the "God" lecture. I think more people took the courses on tape and would have heard Peikoff. There were probably eighty cities where BPO was given by tape and in these cities they would have heard Peikoff.

[Jerry Biggers]

Was the god lecture you mention in #88 delivered by Peikoff? If AA/TAS was selling it, probably not. The textual tradition seems to include at least two versions of this lecture, by two speakers, and this may not be the one we heard at NBI.

I hope we are not developing this very minor issue (to me, anyway) into the Objectivist equivalent of the endless quest by religious scholars for the real authorship of the "Q" and other Dead Sea Scrolls documents!

I thought that Robert's posting in #88 was clear. And so was Barbara's posting in this thread. But I'll take another crack at it: 1) Nathaniel Branden is the author of "The Concept of God" lecture, both at NBI and in the later Academic Associates and TAS re-issues, 2) Due to the "Branden-Peikoff Non-Aggression Pact of 1968" (an apocryphal occurrence), Leonard never got anywhere near the Academic Associates' recording studio, and would not have been let in if he had. 3) Similarily, Nathaniel was not asked, nor did he request, to make any guest lectures at the 1976 "Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture course given by Leonard, 4) Parenthetically, George H. Smith, when he discussed the same issues in his book, Atheism: The Case Against God, credits that lecture to Nathaniel Branden. 5) It is safe to say that Academic Associates never marketed any lectures by Peikoff. It is also safe to say that the Ayn Rand Institute has never marketed any lectures by either of the Brandens. ARIans are too busy rewriting documents (sort of reminds me of the scene from DeMille's The Ten Commandments(1955), the Pharaoh commanding, "Let the name of Moses be stricken from the tablets...") 6) There are indeed discussions of this issue, The Concept of God, in Branden's The Vision of Ayn Rand, and in Peikoff's summa, OPAR. But they are not similar. "Inquiring Minds" may wish to make comparisons of these two texts. Please. Try it, you'll like it!

Despite the above facts, some people heard Peikoff give a lecture on that subject under the auspices of NBI sometime in the sixties (a fact verified by Barbara Branden). It is quite likely that most people who attended NBI heard Nathaniel Branden give that lecture (not coincidentally, at events run by an organization bearing his name).

I am afraid, however, that there is not enough interesting material on this non-controversy to create an Objectivist equivalent to Holy Blood, Holy Grail-DaVinci Code. But maybe there is a lost painting by Frank O'Connor, showing the "Collective".....and sitting at the table is a figure vaguely resembling Leonard writing on a document that could be "The Concept of God" lecture.....nah!

Jerry; The only thing you say in the above is that most people heard Nathaniel Branden give the "God" lecture. I think more people took the courses on tape and would have heard Peikoff. There were probably eighty cities where BPO was given by tape and in these cities they would have heard Peikoff.

Hi Chris,

So, you are claiming that in all eighty cities that BPO was presented, and for the ten years that NBI was offering that course outside of New York City through tape transcription, that it was the Peikoff version (or, more precisely, Peikoff reciting Branden's lecture) on "The Concept of God" lecture that was most often utilized?

I am wondering, how did you come up with that conclusion? As energetic as you were (and are), I presume that you are not claiming that you personally heard that Peikoff lecture in all eighty cities (where, in many cases, the course was also repeated several times over that time period).

It would have been interesting if there were some way to survey the 20,000+ people who attended NBI courses through tape transcription, but I doubt that it would even be possible to survey even a representative sampling at this late date.

The only person that is likely to have reliable information on this is Barbara Branden, since she supervised the tape transcription endeavor at NBI. From her previous comment (#81) in this thread, it appears that she was saying that it was likely that Peikoff was used only as a stand-in when Nathaniel was ill, for example.

So, let us ask: "Barbara, which version of the "Concept of God" lecture was used for the BPO courses that were delivered through tape transcription in the eighty cities: the version recorded by Nathaniel, himself? Or was it Leonard's recitation of Nathaniel's lecture that was used on the tape transcription versions?"

Edited January 9, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Chris Grieb]

Jerry; Please just let's move on.

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry; Please just let's move on.

Chris: I agree. There are far more important issues than this.

However, I do think proper attribution to an author (Branden, Peikoff, or anybody else) is important.

[Chris Grieb]

I wish there were footnotes or a glossary to "The Vision of Ayn Rand". I suspect some readers might not know who the people who are quoted or referred to.