Wagons Being Circled

[Rich Engle]

Yes, Bob, I agree with Dennis, that was bare naked dead nuts on.

I dunno. It just keeps coming back--I've been watching this for a very long time now. What is it that requires this hateful sanitizing? What is that psychology? To admit that a human (and she was human) is a human? It's like . . .pagan idolatry, without the fun. And that gets done over and over . . .and it looks like those who do are feasting on a grave, it really does. To what end? To uphold something that wasn't really true? What does it say about people who have to have that? It smacks of denial. I mean psychological denial, if you drill into the thing.

rde

[Reidy]

In point of fact, Who is Ayn Rand? is part of the canon, just as Nathaniel Branden's contributions to the anthologies are. At the time of the Great Kiboshing, Holzer issued an ex cathedra statement to the effect that what N & B Branden had published to date counted as recognized Objectivism.

[Rich Engle]

Great. It's part of canon, now.

And I think you are right, Reidy.

Ah, the cooling calm effects of applying ecclesiastical techniques to Objectivism. And that is what is happening. I think I have it now.

It is being elevated to religion! Ah-ha, ho, ho! Behold the irony!

I always figured it that way, in a sense, from my UU education. To wit: there are two basic categories of religion: Creed based, and Covenant based.

ARI=Creed

Everyone else that has been around=Covenant

The latter supports democratic thought, freethinking, and a whole helluva lot more stuff that I will fight for.

So, that means we are waiting for an Emperor to Die.

It is Rome.

Ah, if she isn't turning in her grave yet, she will be. She should have gone for cremation. Did she? I never checked.

Soon, it will be time for all the Great Ones to travel to the Council of Rand-Cia (this will be on one of the coasts). And great Battles will be fought-ed. Cha-cha dancing classes will be had. Buffets will be eated from. From it all, in a blistering moment of Destiny, The Peikoff will choke off a piece of random fishbone passed up through his feeding tube from an anarchocapitalist terrorist. Wolf Blitzer will be trotted out for a eulogy. The autopsy will reveal large amounts of Viagra built up in LP's system (to no avail, as will be proven by various tell-all books). Forensics will show that the terrorist "El Perigo" dropped antifreeze into LP's Diet Coke<tm>. Diana Hsieh will roll out a biography (prewritten, get it on your Kindle) within hours.

Deathbed confession to Blitzer from Peikoff: "Open the top left drawer in my bedchamber--I have a copy of Victor Pross' book "Icons and Idols/Pop Goes the Culture" in there. There are stains all over the Michael Jackson painting--please destroy it, please don't let me die this way."

The Cha-Cha class will not be cancelled. "He would have wanted it that way." --unidentified ARI spokeshuman.

rde

Wait for the movie.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Ellen Stuttle]

In point of fact, Who is Ayn Rand? is part of the canon, just as Nathaniel Branden's contributions to the anthologies are. At the time of the Great Kiboshing, Holzer issued an ex cathedra statement to the effect that what N & B Branden had published to date counted as recognized Objectivism.

That statement is in Rand's part of "A Statement of Policy," not in Holzer's.

I just reread Holzer's part to be sure. His started following hers in The Objectivist Volume 7, Number 6, June 1968 (published in October 1968) and continued in Volume 7, Number 7, July 1968 (published in November 1968).

The only reference Holzer makes to "authorized Objectivist sources" is in this paragraph:

"A Statement of Policy"

Part II--By Henry Mark Holzer

June 1968 (published in October 1968)

The Objectivist

A recent example of impropriety was perpetrated by a group which, while it purported to be an Ayn Rand study club, nevertheless proposed to issue its own "position paper" on Objectivism. Objectivism is a fully integrated and consistent philosophic system. People may take any philosophic "position" they choose, but if their position differs from that in authorized Objectivist sources (as listed above [ i.e., as listed in Rand's policy statement which preceded Holzer's]), they should not attempt to peddle their views under the label of Objectivism or any "variant" thereof. Such attempts are obviously intended to cash in on an implied association which they have not earned, and they come close to being a fraud on Ayn Rand's readers.

Here's the segment of Rand's part of the post-split "A Statement of Policy" in which she includes the Brandens' pre-split publications in the category of authorized works.

This was originally posted as post #146 on the "Peikoff: The Great Pretender" thread and then re-posted with emphasis added as post #61 on the "New Developments re Harriman Induction book" thread.

I'll add red emphasis to the statement about the Brandens' pre-split work.

"A Statement of Policy"

Part I--by Ayn Rand

June 1968 (published in October 1968)

The Objectivist

pg. 7-8

I regard the spread of Objectivism through today's culture as an intellectual movement--i.e., a trend among independent individuals who share the same ideas--but not as an organized movement. The existence (and the later policies) of NBI contributed to certain misconceptions among some of its students and the public at large, which tended to put Objectivism in an equivocal position in this respect. I want, therefore, to make it emphatically clear that Objectivism is not an organized movement and is not to be regarded as such by anyone.

My role in regard to Objectivism is that of a theoretician. Since Objectivism is not a loose body of ideas, but a philosophical system originated by me and publicly associated with my name, it is my right and my responsibility to protect its intellectual integrity. I want, therefore, formally to state that the only authentic sources of information on Objectivism are: my own works (books, articles, lectures), the articles appearing in and the pamphlets reprinted by this magazine (The Objectivist, as well as The Objectivist Newsletter), books by other authors which will be endorsed in this magazine as specifically Objectivist literature, and such individual lectures or lecture courses as may be so endorsed. (This list includes also the book Who is Ayn Rand? by Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, as well as the articles by these two authors which have appeared in this magazine in the past, but does not include their future works.)

I shall not establish or endorse any type of school or organization purporting to represent or be a spokesman for Objectivism. I shall repudiate and take appropriate action against any attempt to use my name or my philosophy, explicitly or implicitly, in connection with any project of that kind or any organization not authorized by me.

If students, supporters or friends of Objectivism wish to form local groups of their own--for such purposes as the study, discussion and dissemination of Objectivist ideas--they are welcome to do so. They can be of great value and help to the spread of Objectivism, and will earn my sympathetic interest and sincere gratitude--provided they do not attempt to act as spokesmen for Objectivism and do not associate or collaborate with Objectivism's avowed enemies.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Pursuant to Rand's saying in her post-split "A Statement of Policy" that:

"A Statement of Policy"

Part I--By Ayn Rand

June 1968 (published in October 1968)

The Objectivist

pg. 7

I want, therefore, to make it emphatically clear that Objectivism is not an organized movement and is not to be regarded as such by anyone.

Holzer underlines this with a changed policy about using "Ayn Rand" "in connection with any group or organization of any kind":

"A Statement of Policy"

Part II--By Henry Mark Holzer

June 1968 (published in October 1968)

The Objectivist

pp. 9-10

[emphasis added]

In the former policy statement (The Objectivist Newsletter, April 1965), Ayn Rand gave her approval to the use of her name for study groups, in a form such as "The Ayn Rand Society" or "The Ayn Rand Study Club." As the context indicated, this was intended exclusively for college groups, but it has led to other and totally inappropriate uses of Miss Rand's name. Therefore, Miss Rand hereby withdraws the permission to use her name in connection with any group or organization of any kind. She suggests that legitimate study groups use names like "Students of Objectivism," "Objectivism Study Club," "Society of New Intellectuals," etc., to indicate their philosophical context without implying any formal connection with her.

The following excerpt from the former policy statement is still valid and bears repeating: "Another name to be avoided is any designation such as 'The Objectivist Society.' An 'Objectivist Society' with which Miss Rand has no connection, and of which she has no knowledge, is misrepresentation and entails a misappropriation of her intellectual property. No admirer of her work can wish to be guilty of this." And: "A person who is in agreement with [her] philosophy should describe himself, not as an Objectivist, but as a student or supporter of Objectivism. In any context where he is presenting his philosophical ideas, he should make it clear that he is discussing Objectivism as he understands it, and that he speaks for no one but himself."

Another category of names to be strictly avoided, either for study groups or for undertakings of any kind whatsoever, is the names of Miss Rand's fiction characters (for instance, a designation such as "The John Galt Society"). Miss Rand has asked me to stress this point emphatically. Her fiction characters are Miss Rand's property; they are not in the public domain. In issues of this kind, Miss Rand has the protection of United States statutory and common law copyright.

The experience of the past three years has shown that most of the "Ayn Rand Study Clubs" have, to our knowledge, functioned in an appropriate and responsible manner in accordance with their avowed purpose of studying and discussing her philosophy. But other groups (some of them off-campus and not associated with any university) have used Miss Rand's name while engaging in such dubious activities as publishing newsletters, selling bumper stickers and promoting picnics. It is to avoid abuses of that kind that Miss Rand has changed her policy in regard to the use of her name. There is also the additional reason that the very existence of "Ayn Rand Clubs" as such lends credence to the mistaken notion that Miss Rand is the leader of an organized movement

[Rich Engle]

That looks like a lot of effort that doesn't amount to jack-squat. Although, the red was kind of cute.

I think you finally might have blown out your engines, Ellen.

Idea: Find some turn-of-century fiction author, and start up on them. Warning: stay away from Twain--he would kill you from the grave.

On the upside, you could find someone with a really good open. Hunter Thompson would be too much for you, that is for sure. Maybe Henry Miller--you could spend the rest of your years dissecting "Tropic of Cancer."

rde

Oh, tell me another story.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

[....]

Also, my no-Branden-bashing policy was set to bar on OL rhetorical gimmicks that are used by Branden-haters to Branden-bash. For instance, saying "NB is a liar" in every other sentence so the phrase creeps into the reader's subconscious by sheer repetition, and things like that.

[....]

Also, the worldview that produces the different approaches to Rand, to PARC, to Branden-bashing, etc., is a very important topic within the Objectivist-libertarian subcommunity and it needs to be discussed. PARC is a good topic since it highlights the excesses so well. Is Objectivism a philosophy/body of ideas or a covert religion/cult? Was Rand a human being or was she a super-human being (a covert goddess)? Should we focus on engaging enemies or scapegoating them? And so on.

[....]

That doesn't quite reassure me, since, you see, in the January 1990 Liberty interview, Barbara describes Nathaniel as "a liar and a cheat" (in relation especially to his treatment of Ayn Rand). Barbara was very angry with Nathaniel at the time of that interview.

The interview is important, I think, because it conveys better than any other source I know of what the whole "therapy culture" of the early Objectivist world was like -- a culture which when it started was centered on Nathaniel as the psychologist who was revolutionizing psychology.

The interview shows why those in the inner circle and wider circles wouldn't have thought of going to an outside therapist.

I didn't see that time directly, since I only moved to NYC just after the break. In the post-split New York O'ist world, Allan Blumenthal had become chief therapist. He was much gentler and didn't produce the kind of "God is watching" atmosphere which was strong earlier. But even then, it still wasn't thought that therapists outside Objectivism were qualified.

For instance, in 1971, I asked Allan if he had any recommendations of therapists in the Chicago area, since there was a friend of mine who was looking for a therapist. Allan said that unfortunately he knew of no therapists anywhere he could recommend except for Edith Packer and Ed Locke. (Ed Locke had only recently started seeing clients in the Washington, D. C., area.)

Also in 1971, Edith said something indicative to me. She misunderstood a question I'd asked her and assumed that I was speaking of clinical psychology. (I'd been talking about research psychology.) She said that all one needed to bother with was to get a Master's so one could get certification, and that everything one needed to know about psychology could be learned from Allan Blumenthal.

So it was still an "incestuous" world, although not still so very moralistic as I gather it was earlier.

(The Lonnie Leonard group were separate, with their own thing going. That was a special circumstance that couldn't have developed the way it did if Lonnie hadn't started with Allan Blumenthal's "imprimatur" -- subsequently withdrawn. But I don't share the viewpoint of people who have pointed to the Lonnie Leonard set-up as reflective on Rand.)

I'll type material from the interview tomorrow. If you find it objectionable, you can take it down.

Ellen

[Rich Engle]

That doesn't quite reassure me, since, you see, in the January 1990 Liberty interview, Barbara describes Nathaniel as "a liar and a cheat" (in relation especially to his treatment of Ayn Rand). Barbara was very angry with Nathaniel at the time of that interview.

And, she will never be quite re-assured, will she?

rde

The Legacy Never Ends

[Dennis Hardin]

In point of fact, Who is Ayn Rand? is part of the canon, just as Nathaniel Branden's contributions to the anthologies are. At the time of the Great Kiboshing, Holzer issued an ex cathedra statement to the effect that what N & B Branden had published to date counted as recognized Objectivism.

"A Statement of Policy"

Part I--by Ayn Rand

June 1968 (published in October 1968)

The Objectivist

pg. 7-8

My role in regard to Objectivism is that of a theoretician. Since Objectivism is not a loose body of ideas, but a philosophical system originated by me and publicly associated with my name, it is my right and my responsibility to protect its intellectual integrity. I want, therefore, formally to state that the only authentic sources of information on Objectivism are: my own works (books, articles, lectures), the articles appearing in and the pamphlets reprinted by this magazine (The Objectivist, as well as The Objectivist Newsletter), books by other authors which will be endorsed in this magazine as specifically Objectivist literature, and such individual lectures or lecture courses as may be so endorsed. (This list includes also the book Who is Ayn Rand? by Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, as well as the articles by these two authors which have appeared in this magazine in the past, but does not include their future works.)

My point was that Peikoff desperately wants an officially sanctioned biography of Ayn Rand, and Who Is Ayn Rand? would have served that purpose admirably. Although Ayn Rand did give it her stamp of approval, it is now only available as a used book or a collectible. If it had not been written by the Brandens, Peikoff would have kept it in print and made it available at the Ayn Rand Bookstore along with the rest of the canon. Good luck on buying it there now.

[Rich Engle]

That's like catching a fish that you remembered fondly catching and then trying to re-do the experience. This is ridiculous.

I'm not sure the fish was even caught in the first place.

Again, we're talking about the dead and the dying. Pathetic.

rde

What's up next? The Nursing Home Tour?

[Ellen Stuttle]

My point was that Peikoff desperately wants an officially sanctioned biography of Ayn Rand, and Who Is Ayn Rand? would have served that purpose admirably. Although Ayn Rand did give it her stamp of approval, it is now only available as a used book or a collectible. If it had not been written by the Brandens, Peikoff would have kept it in print and made it available at the Ayn Rand Bookstore along with the rest of the canon. Good luck on buying it there now.

Since it was copyrighted by Nathaniel Branden, Peikoff couldn't have kept it in print even if he'd wanted to. I think that the Brandens basically disowned it and asked that no further copies be printed by the publisher. The section on the moral revolution in Atlas was subsequently published separately as a monograph by IOS.

Ellen

[Dennis Hardin]

My point was that Peikoff desperately wants an officially sanctioned biography of Ayn Rand, and Who Is Ayn Rand? would have served that purpose admirably. Although Ayn Rand did give it her stamp of approval, it is now only available as a used book or a collectible. If it had not been written by the Brandens, Peikoff would have kept it in print and made it available at the Ayn Rand Bookstore along with the rest of the canon. Good luck on buying it there now.

Since it was copyrighted by Nathaniel Branden, Peikoff couldn't have kept it in print even if he'd wanted to. I think that the Brandens basically disowned it and asked that no further copies be printed by the publisher. The section on the moral revolution in Atlas was subsequently published separately as a monograph by IOS.

Ellen

While we’re making points that are utterly irrelevant, let’s also note that if we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs—if we had some eggs.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

While we're making points that are utterly irrelevant, let's also note that if we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs—if we had some eggs.

Dennis,

That's one of the problems with the entire PARC debate. Those who get caught up in the Valliant mindset mention all kinds of details as if the very mention means something important. Once in a while is OK, but if you read the threads, it is such an overblown habit that it makes your eyes glaze over after a while.

I don't think this is on purpose either (except for Valliant), and that's really sad...

It's like replacing cognition with some kind of autopilot.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

No one needs Who Is Ayn Rand today for biography. We have the much improved, much better, much more extensive, The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden, who certainly discarded nothing of value from her earlier work. This work is much kinder than Valliant's PARC, sponsored by Leonard Peikoff, who let Rand's diaries loose in the hands of an incompetent destroying their context doing harm to Rand to do harm to the Brandens. Everywhere you stand looking at that mess you see revenge seeking by her "heir" who has studied, so he said, Objectivism for 40 years (going on 50 now if he kept at it) still not getting it all right, but, I presume, not giving up. If he were to give up his genocidal war-mongering, that would be a major step in that direction, especially if he were then to zip his lip and retire to a monastery.

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

While we're making points that are utterly irrelevant, let's also note that if we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs—if we had some eggs.

Dennis,

That's one of the problems with the entire PARC debate. Those who get caught up in the Valliant mindset mention all kinds of details as if the very mention means something important. Once in a while is OK, but if you read the threads, it is such an overblown habit that it makes your eyes glaze over after a while.

I don't think this is on purpose either (except for Valliant), and that's really sad...

It's like replacing cognition with some kind of autopilot.

Michael

Michael,

I completely agree. People are not even bothering to consider whether what they are saying is relevant. It's become a childish game of one-upmanship. If "people" (you know who you are) would forget about scoring brownie points and just pause a second to consider whether what they are saying is pertinent we could save an enormous amount of wasted bandwidth.

[Dennis Hardin]

No one needs Who Is Ayn Rand today for biography. We have the much improved, much better, much more extensive, The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden, who certainly discarded nothing of value from her earlier work.

--Brant

Of course that's true. I was simply pointing out that Peikoff would love to use the original WIAR bio, but his own malevolence and mad dog religiosity prevent him from doing so.

[Robert Campbell]

This stuff about Ayn Rand never again wanting to lead a movement, nor to be seen as leading one, is a complete yawner.

It doesn't matter what Rand put in print in 1968, or what Henry Mark Holzer put in print for her that same year.

If she'd fully meant these official pronouncements, she'd have

— Terminated announcements in The Objectivist and subsequent publications of events other than her own public appearances

— Terminated her sponsorship or endorsement of all lecture courses by persons other than herself (so after the demise of NBI, there'd have been no "Peikoff tapes" serving as guides to her philosophy, etc.)

— Terminated her association with any psychotherapists and/or psychotherapeutic cultism (instead, she kept some kind of therapy thing going for several more years, with Allan Blumenthal as the new chief therapist)

— Included instructions in her will prohibiting her heir from ever naming any organization after her or trademarking her name (to be fair to her on the second: even in her nightmares she probably never envisioned Ayn Rand^TM )

— Quit telling her readers that only she (and, on fair-weather days, Leonard) were Objectivists and all they could ever hope to be was students of Objectivism

Well, she had 13 1/2 years left in which she could have done all of these things. She never did any of them (I guess you could say the therapeutic thing eventually went away, but only because the new chief therapist packed up and left, not because she decided she was better off without one).

During the 1970s, any Randian who knew a few people could easily identify the membership of her Inner Circle, putting Leonard Peikoff at the top, George Reisman moderately high up, Harry Binswanger at a junior level, and so on.

Her Inner Circle gradually shrank, but it's not like she ever declared it disbanded.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

That doesn't quite reassure me, since, you see, in the January 1990 Liberty interview, Barbara describes Nathaniel as "a liar and a cheat" (in relation especially to his treatment of Ayn Rand). Barbara was very angry with Nathaniel at the time of that interview.

The interview is important, I think, because it conveys better than any other source I know of what the whole "therapy culture" of the early Objectivist world was like -- a culture which when it started was centered on Nathaniel as the psychologist who was revolutionizing psychology

Why do i get the sense that the interview would interest Ms. Stuttle a whole lot less if it gave the lowdown on a screwed-up therapy culture, but never called Nathaniel Branden "a liar and a cheat"?

Ms. Stuttle is not going to get the effects she hopes for. She can harp ad infinitum about a therapy culture centered around Nathaniel Branden. Problem is, the thing wasn't truly centered around Nathaniel Branden.

Nathaniel Branden was Ayn Rand's chief lieutenant, and without her sponsorship and blessing, he couldn't have started or continued any sort of ingrown, in-house therapy operation, drawing exclusively from the ranks of Ayn Rand's other disciples.

If Nathaniel Branden was running the whole thing unbeknownst to his superior, whence came the expectation that he would have to turn to Ayn Rand for therapy.

The whole Valliantoid approach to the therapy cult(ure) requires so many layers of double-think, you'll get mind cramps contemplating it—and hand cramps trying to put it into sentences.

Here are a few:

The cult was truly dreadful and was all Nathaniel Branden's doing, without Ayn Rand's knowledge, consent, or approval—but she not only expected her followers to report to Nathaniel for therapy, she expected Nathaniel to report to her for therapy. Until she finally became completely disgusted with the process, whereupon she ordered him to report to Allan Blumenthal for therapy.

Then, after booting Nathaniel and issuing a long, loud public denunciation of him (which included not a single reference to his abuses of authority while designated Objectivist therapist, but did chide him for such laxities as not cracking down hard enough on campus Ayn Rand clubs and Objectivist groups that displeased her) she appointed Allan Blumenthal her new designated therapist.

You know, just like the cancellations of subscriptions to The Objectivist were all Nathaniel's fault, but Rand continued them after he was expelled, but after he was kicked out all such cancellations were in fact good and righteous acts.

Or, what Nathaniel Branden did, acting as therapist for people he knew well, or who were his literal subordinates in NBI, or were his subordinates in the broader movement, and failing to keep confidentiality, was foul, dreadful, and unethical, but when Rand did it, it was good and righteous and, besides, Rand was the most brilliant counselor who ever lived, even though of course she couldn't really understand her most famous client because he was lying to her—and after Allan Blumenthal took over, what he did was all good and righteous, until he betrayed Rand by ending their relationship, which made what he had done foul, dreadful, and unethical, but not nearly as foul, dreadful, and unethical as the deeds of his predecessor, Nathaniel Branden, because he had "irrevocably" disavowed and denounced the fiend.

And yadda yadda yadda.

A cleaner approach would simply note that offering psychotherapy to lovers, business partners, employees, or disciples is really not a good idea.

Offering therapy to people and reporting all kinds of stuff they tell you to their superiors in an organization or movement so it can be used against them is really, really not a good idea.

Assuming that only persons in the movement are either sufficiently insightful or sufficiently moral to serve as therapists is the height of folly.

A cleaner approach would note that improper uses of psychotherapy or of counseling within a movement can prove mightily tempting to persons in positions of authority, because they offer them additional instruments of social control, when not of blackmail and intimidation.

A cleaner approach would note that abuses of the type that took place in the Objectivist movement of the 1960s (and that had their counterparts in many other places) led rather directly to the adoption of the much stricter ethical codes that the various professional associations now enforce.

A cleaner approach would note that amateur therapy, breaches of confidentiality by therapists, and pressures to see "in-house" therapists were characteristic of other movements contemporary with the Collective and NBI and Rand's circles. Some were far more ruthless, systematic, and vicious than Rand and the people around her ever imagined getting: think "auditing" and the whole quack-therapeutic apparatus of Scientology.

One excuse i've heard offered, semi-seriously, for Ayn Rand's amateur psychotherapeutic activities and Nathaniel Branden's unprofessional ones, is that the 1960s were, after all, the era of Carlos Castañeda and Baba Ram Dass. Had anyone ever suggested such points of comparison to Rand herself, the reaction would have been volcanic. The Valliantoid response would be sheer, shrieking, pious denial. But there might be something worth exploring there.

Oh, one further cramp-inducing convolution: although I've heard that ARIans still go frequently into psychotherapy, ARi no longer maintains so much as a feeble simulacrum of the NBI therapy machine.

Whether this is a consequence of being sadder but wiser, or of ARI's difficulties retaining trained clinical psychologists in the fold, is hard to say.

Yet Valliantism is part of the elaborate system of apologetics for the deification of Ayn Rand, the demonization of TheBrandens and those lesser infernals who failed to remain loyal to the goddess, and the vicarship on earth of Leonard the First and Only—who has some eccentric psychological theories of his own, but is neither a psychotherapist nor the promoter of a therapeutic cult.

Robert Campbell

[Reidy]

Is "therapy" the right word for what Rand was providing to Branden in their final months together? I thought that therapy, with its attendant confidentiality obligations, kicked in only when you've publicly announced that you're in the business and only with people who pay you for the service. Failing either of these conditions it's just a heart-to-heart talk. Rand failed the first and, as far as I know, the second. If so, the fact that they called it therapy at all may be part of the pathology.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Reidy

[Selene]

Reidy:

Call it counseling. Bartenders, family, co-workers and good friends engage in it all the time. Some are more skillful than some of the licensed "professionals.

Secondly, some folks are more comfortable "letting their hair down", or"opening up" to others, than to a professional therapist. Some of my close friends and clients are

licensed professionals in that field. Most of them stress that the toughest job for a therapist is just that aspect of the process. Moreover, many folks have searched for the "right" therapist and gone through four or five before finding the right fit which makes perfect sense to me.

In this particular case, I cannot see how anything therapeutic could have occurred with the players in the drama. Moreover, it is precisely because the scene was replete with drama that the chance of therapy breaking out was nil.

Just my opinion from the outside.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pete,

It's been a while since I have opened PARC and researched something, and I certainly do not intend to do so now, but Rand might have used the term "therapy" herself to describe the issue (in the adapted excerpts--probably bowdlerized--Valliant presented of her diary).

If she didn't use that term, Valliant certainly did. I remember that loud and honking. His allegation was that Nathaniel asked her for therapy as a ruse to string her along, then kept the ruse up for months.

Once the boomerang goes back in his face--that Rand practicing therapy as a philosopher is not a wise decision, in fact it is irresponsible, this is not so attractive to those who want NB to be the scapegoat of all thing bad and evil, so they change the tune.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Is "therapy" the right word for what Rand was providing to Branden in their final months together? I thought that therapy, with its attendant confidentiality obligations, kicked in only when you've publicly announced that you're in the business and only with people who pay you for the service. Failing either of these conditions it's just a heart-to-heart talk. Rand failed the first and, as far as I know, the second. If so, the fact that they called it therapy at all may be part of the pathology.

Peter,

Valliant doesn't hesitate to call it therapy.

One of Rand's terms, if I recall, was "psychological sessions."

She had offered "psychological sessions" to Albert Mannheimer, so it wasn't new with her.

"Psychological sessions" sound like therapy to me.

And no one in Rand's circle was real clear about attendant confidentiality obligations in those days...

Robert

[Brant Gaede]

Is "therapy" the right word for what Rand was providing to Branden in their final months together? I thought that therapy, with its attendant confidentiality obligations, kicked in only when you've publicly announced that you're in the business and only with people who pay you for the service. Failing either of these conditions it's just a heart-to-heart talk. Rand failed the first and, as far as I know, the second. If so, the fact that they called it therapy at all may be part of the pathology.

Peter,

Valliant doesn't hesitate to call it therapy.

One of Rand's terms, if I recall, was "psychological sessions."

She had offered "psychological sessions" to Albert Mannheimer, so it wasn't new with her.

"Psychological sessions" sound like therapy to me.

And no one in Rand's circle was real clear about attendant confidentiality obligations in those days...

Robert

It may have been therapy, but I guarantee you if it was talk it was just talk therapy absent the use of altered states of consciousness, abreactive and other techniques, especially the not yet available sentence completion and assuredly ineffective.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

That doesn't quite reassure me, since, you see, in the January 1990 Liberty interview, Barbara describes Nathaniel as "a liar and a cheat" (in relation especially to his treatment of Ayn Rand). Barbara was very angry with Nathaniel at the time of that interview.

The interview is important, I think, because it conveys better than any other source I know of what the whole "therapy culture" of the early Objectivist world was like -- a culture which when it started was centered on Nathaniel as the psychologist who was revolutionizing psychology

Why do i get the sense that the interview would interest Ms. Stuttle a whole lot less if it gave the lowdown on a screwed-up therapy culture, but never called Nathaniel Branden "a liar and a cheat"?

The interview interests me so much -- it's Barbara at her most eloquent -- I've typed probably 2/3 of the 10 pages of it, even though I've been trying to cut enough for fair use. I can't do that, cut enough. I need to check out the copyright situation. I don't know what the status is with old issues of Liberty (this one is 20 years old), which were under Bradford's editorship. (Bradford was also the interviewer, and he asks really good questions, imo.)

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Assuming that only persons in the movement are either sufficiently insightful or sufficiently moral to serve as therapists is the height of folly.

Quite agree. Doesn't mean that isn't what they did.

Ellen

Edited September 24, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle