RoR: Forum

George -- hear, hear.

Since I've withdrawn from further comment about L'Affair, I have decided instead to outline my GENERAL view of the relevant moral principles governing romantic relationships over on the new thread started by Michael Newberry on "Moral Perfectionism." Those who still have trouble understanding what I believe about "the morally perfect," or WHY I have drawn certain conclusions about The Affair, may find clarification there.

But please! Don't hijack Michael's thread into further specific discussion about L'Affair! Keep the debate there about the general issue of "moral perfectionism," and (if you wish) how that issue might generally impact relationships. I think that's what he wanted.

P. S. Just a comment to Barbara: Thank you. I'm much relieved that my comments about this painful episode didn't do a grave injustice to the facts and perspectives presented in your honest and valuable book. You were in a position to know first-hand the direct impacts of these events on yourself and the other participants, as none of us here was.
And as for the reliability of your account, I find it interesting that to date, every reviewer I've read who doesn't already have some partisan oar in these waters has marveled at your fairness and objectivity. As I continue to do.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 2/15, 8:03am)

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 2/15, 11:46am)

Post 81

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:13am

Jon,

I know the road well and have taken my wife, sister, brother and friend up that road, all on different occasions. I will be taking my twin granddaughters up there this August.

Fred

Post 82

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:29am

Barbara,
The good news is that you're only 342 miles from Ouray, (if you still living in Sante Fe, NM) and the drive up US 550 (the million dollar highway) is an added bonus. You could go up for dinner, sleep the night and be home the next day. I'll be there this Aug 7-8. See you there. Tee hee.

Fred

Post 83

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:20am

I don't have time to write much between now and Friday - which is just as well, because most of what I would have written has been said already by Marcus, Linz, Phil, and off-site by Eyal Mozes.

It is not a negative reflection on Barbara Branden's account that it is told from a very personal viewpoint, and from a cultural context shared by her with NB but not shared by the other protagonists. I am grateful to Eyal Mozes' writings for pointing out that the culture of Eastern-European secular Jews, in which Ayn Rand grew up, and the Hollywood - New York culture in which she lived, and in which she married Frank, do not make the same presumption of life-long monogamy that one expects in Winnipeg or Edmonton. As for Ayn Rand's reticence in her discussions of sexuality - in the context of the 1950s sexual frankness would have been distracting enough to obscure her message completely. (I suggest the film "Kinsey" if that context seems too strange to contemplate today.) To Robert and George, I can only say that (as I happen to have learned the hard way) other people sometimes have other values.

Post 84

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:15am

Well, Barbara, thanks for welcoming me to SOLO HQ. But I wonder what Nathaniel will think when he learns that you think that I've been "slumming" over at his YAHOO list? :-) Oh, did you mean, ahem, ahem, that other one? Should I violate the purity of this redoubt by mentioning the unmentionable other one?

Seriously, I got bored over there. So I thought I'd come over here and exploit the archives.

--Brant

Post 85

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 4:28am

Barbara,

I am coming in a little late in this thread to send you a greeting from the "Silent Contingency" of people out there who are affected by the ideas of Objectivism, but who rarely interact with the organized groups promoting it.

I read The Passion of Ayn Rand in Brazil (believe it or not) shortly after it came out. It was simply put one of the two books that - so far in my life - have packed the greatest unexpected overpowering wallop on my imagination. It captivated me so completely that I read it in two days, unable to do anything else. The other book was Atlas Shrugged (around 1970 when I was in my first year of college). In both cases I was living through tortured and confusing situations. Then, here came these two magnificent books explaining what all the misery was about and pointing to the way out.

Basically, Atlas Shrugged explained why I was unable to understand the people around me and why they usually attacked my talents and achievements (which hurt like hell to a kid growing up). I became an instant convert. I was so passionate about these new ideas, especially the supremacy of reason, that I tried to preach them to everyone I talked to, making a general bother of myself. Campus life in Boston in the early 1970's was not the ideal place for this. It was a hotbed of left-wing thinking.

So I tried to establish contact with other like-minded people. I even went to New York at the time to see the stage production of Night of January 16th and made an obligatory visit to the official office of Ayn Rand (I think it was The Ayn Rand Letter at that time) and see if there was someway of absorbing more of these great ideas and maybe getting involved somehow. Sort of like going to Mecca.

Boy was I in for a shock. I had never encountered such rude people in my entire life. I was totally confused because I thought that I had been doing everything right. Rather than accept the fact that these people (the gate-keepers to the Promised Land, as I thought of them at that time) were behaving badly, I put the situation on ice and moved on. I loved Ayn Rand's ideas and read everything I could get my hands on. But I just couldn't stand the "Ayn Rand" people whom I met. They seemed hell-bent on making a virtue out of bad manners and scathing contempt for anything they disagreed with.

Thus I joined the "Silent Contingency" of Objectivism. I am sure that there are much more of us out there who have had similar experiences over the years. Now I come to your book.

Ahhm... oh yes, first there is that little issue of the demolition derby I have made out of my romantic life over the years. Ayn Rand type romance has not worked for me, and God knows I have tried. You simply cannot base sexual attraction and love on merit alone (especially with Brazilian women). At least I haven't been able to.

So, there I was, making a mess of everything. I was convinced that I had found the only system of thought I really liked and could identify with, but somehow I was not getting it right. Then I came across The Passion of Ayn Rand. What a relief! I saw that I was not alone in my confusion, nor in the error of trying to force my romantic feelings into a straight-jacket of preconceptions. Reality has no mercy at all on someone who refuses to learn his/her essential nature and be true to it. I had to learn that the hard way. Apparently those that I admired also had to.

In this wonderful book of yours, Barbara, you came down from Mount Olympus and let us mere mortals know that there are no perfect gods out there, but sometimes there are magnificent human beings, and it is OK to try to be a magnificent human being who stumbles sometimes. Even Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden have had some pretty hairy moments. And they could still keep their heads up.

Life has taught me that emotions may not be good tools of cognition, but reason is also a pretty poor substitute for emotions (especially love and excitement). Both are essential components of a healthy mind and soul. Without proper balance, one will undermine the other and cause a catastrophe. You illustrated this principal particularly well in the life of Ayn Rand, especially her disastrous adoption of an alternative life-style that was incompatible with her professed public image at the time. This is no mere opinion either. You were there. You took your knocks the hard way.

In your case, specifically, I consider you as a for-real heroine in life. Only a heroine could have kept her peace all those years to honor a pledge of secrecy that should not have been required of anyone. And only a heroine could have broken it the way you did.

Congratulations on a marvelous book and an inspiring act of courage.

Michael

Post 86

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:31am

Absolutely wonderful post, Michael. Beautifully written, too. I'm sure it will resonate with many here who have gone through parallel journeys. Welcome aboard, and I hope you write more often.

Post 87

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:53pm

Michael, it is not often that any writer receives a reward for her work such as your post. It's a double reward: in the sense of your appreciation of my book, and that book's beneficent effect on your life. For both, I am deeply grateful. Whatever I have given you, you have repaid.

Barbara

Post 88

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 6:28pm

Michael, great story. Three comments/questions:

Could you elaborate on how you were treated at your Mecca?
I never had that admiration of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, because I had generated my own discovery of AR in 1968--the year of The Break--and my subscription to The Objectivist had started with the issue following the one containing the announcement of the split. After a few years of reading The Objectivist, I noticed that NB and BB were never referred to in or did any writing for the journal, although I knew about their involvement with Objectivism and had read Who Is Ayn Rand? And looking over tables of contents of the back issues, I noted an article titled "To Whom It May Concern." I guessed this had something to do with the puzzle--and ordered that issue. (I don't think I would have come to especially admire NB anyway, since in my own opinion I was just as intelligent as he.)
Have you met The Girl from Ipanema?

Post 89

Friday, February 18, 2005 - 4:02am

Wow!!!!

You guys just bonked me right on up to one Atlas statue.

Barbara, I have waited for over 30 years to make contact with you. Even with my above post, I was not sure how you would react. And I sure didn't expect your first words to me to be so complementary. Quite frankly, they took my breath away for a moment. Thank you so very much. I feel like I have received a highly treasured present and I will cherish this message of yours always.

Robert, I really appreciate your kind words and welcome. I think that I just might write some more.

Rodney, thank you for your interest in my experiences. As this is a thread on The Passion of Ayn Rand, I don't really want to talk a great deal about myself. But my trip to "Mecca" might have a little bearing on things.

At that time (the early 1970's), I only knew of Objectivism from paperback books (practically all of them) and The Ayn Rand Letter. I was fairly poor back then and was studying music at Boston University on scholarship. I didn't have much money to buy back-issues of any previous publications. I also avoided the "Ayn Rand" people in Boston, who were real pieces of work arrogance-wise, at least the ones I met. So I actually had no idea that a split had even occurred. To tell the truth, I was hoping to get a glimpse of Ayn Rand, Nathaniel or Barbara when I visited the office in New York (my Mecca). And I can tell you, with the funds I had back then, a trip to New York during a school year for something like this was a really big deal for me.

In New York, I saw the Night of January 16th. I pretty much enjoyed it, with small a reservation or two, but I was confused about the audience. With the exception of the applause, everybody seemed more like they were at a funeral. Very little talking going in and even less coming out. A really uptight crowd. Maybe a few furtive glances.

I couldn't help thinking, where did the joy go? The enthusiasm? I basically got the Ayn Rand ideas down, so now where were the people? The role models? After all, this is an "Ayn Rand" event. Oh well, maybe they didn't go that night and these were normal people who did not identify with Objectivism. No matter, I was going to the OFFICE the next day and pay my due homage.

I used to wear my hair fairly long at that time - nothing really outlandish, just sort of Beatle-ish. It was the fashion for my generation. But I am pretty sure that this was one thing that spoiled the first impression I had on those office people.

On the way over I started feeling terrible, something I ate. But no sacrifice was too great for my pilgrimage. I had to walk about 15 blocks to get there. So, when I finally went in the building, I was dizzy and very close to vomiting.

As I entered the office, I felt an immediate frosting over, sort of like when you go into a room where everybody is talking and there is sudden silence. There were several people inside, I don't really remember how many. A rather attractive young lady asked if she could help me, but her tone of voice suggested that she wanted nothing more than for me to walk right back out the door.

I forced myself to stop feeling bad and asked her how I could find out information on whatever activities and publications were available. I also mentioned that Ms. Rand had announce that a film version of Atlas Shrugged had been negotiated and that I held a dream of somehow being able to contribute to the music. I don't remember the exact words, but the impression in my memory of her reaction is something like: HOW DARE YOU? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? And on and on and on. And I remember her being really mean. I was dumbfounded and could not speak. Everybody just stayed frozen, staring accusingly at me as if I had come in from a hostile planet.

Of course, I was completely embarrassed and I came extremely close to vomiting. That would have really put the cap on it. So I mumbled something about just wanting some information, that's all, sorry and everything, and I tried to get out of there fast. Then another young man called out, "Sir!". That stopped her tirade and made me turn around. In a nice tone of voice, he suggested that I contact the motion picture producer. I nodded thank you and left. I never did get the information on the publications or activities, though.

I thanked my lucky stars that I had not been given the opportunity to reveal my name. I wanted to keep receiving the Ayn Rand Letter. So I slunk back into the "Silent Contingency" and stuck to the books and pamphlets. They, at least, wouldn't bite my head off over nothing - and I could even nourish my dreams with them.

So there you have it. Mecca. After that, it was several years before I discovered that a split had occurred. I wasn't too interested, though. I loved the writings of Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden (and a few other of the "Chosen") and that was all that really mattered. People-wise in the Objectivist camp, I saw for myself that everybody was crazy, so I thought it was probably a good idea to keep a distance.

Now I feel vindicated, though. BARBARA has spoken to me. And so have others - cordial and nice, not rude. And I love it.

Sorry to be so long. Just one last item. Yes, I have met the Girl from Ipanema. Her name is Hel� Pinheiro and she inspired the lyrics of Vin�cius de Morais and the music of Tom Jobim walking on the beach in a bikini one day. Don't ask her to sing, though.

Michael

Post 90

Friday, February 18, 2005 - 5:17am

Of course, they must have had all sorts of strange people dropping in. And maybe something had just happened prior to your visit. Perhaps Hel� Pinheiro had shown up to sing.

That's no excuse, though.

Post 91

Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:25am

Once again, Michael, you've given me a trip down Memory Lane. Don't think you were alone in your experiences. The rudeness and bad manners you witnessed had a cause: fear. These folks were so intimidated at the prospect of "measuring up" to a platonic notion of Moral Perfection that they were terrified to be emotionally open, perhaps revealing any hidden errors or flaws. So they all talked in safe, memorized cliches, and adopted remote, cold demeanors, trying to ape the manner of Rand's fictional heroes and heroines. I suppose they thought gruff rudeness and stiff postures made them look strong and independent.

I was involved with some of the Boston crowd in the early '70s, and while there were a few regular folks there, there was also rampant rigidity and bad manners. You know -- you walk into a room full of them, and nobody even looks up to say hi. You see, noticing other people's presence would indicate a Lack of Productive Focus, or maybe even Social Metaphysics. Very unRoarkian. So they practiced the Aloof thing, and got really good at it. At times I wondered if they were even breathing, or if somebody had stuck mannequins in the chairs.

Same sort of experiences with the NYC Objectivist crowd. I remember going there with another Objectivist to meet with a bunch of Inner Circle hangers-on and discuss their possible participation in some joint activist project. Everyone just sat there like polished stones, waiting for the host-leader to speak for them, suppressing their independent opinions lest they reveal some awful Unchecked Premises. I can still remember the leader revealing, in a faintly conspiratorial tone, some piece of inside information he'd gotten from some muckamuck in the Inner Circle. He concluded, with a superior air, "...and I was told this directly by (X's) mistress."

Yeah, "mistress." Not "girlfriend." Not her actual name. "Mistress." I suppose he put it that way just to demonstrate that this Inner Circle crowd was oh-so-defiant of the Conventional Sexual Ethic. Why, I got hot just contemplating how DARING these people were...

To this day, I don't know how I managed to keep from falling on the floor laughing. Probably because I suddenly realized it would have been hysterically funny if it weren't so pathetic.

In my experience, the intrinsicism/platonism of the Objectivist movement seemed related to how close you were to the Inner Circle. In those days, I found that Objectivists got progressively more insufferable in direct relation to their proximity to New York. On the other hand, I knew Objectivists from Canada, for example, who were among the nicest, most intellectually stimulating and emotionally open people I've ever had the pleasure to meet.

With the post-NBI fragmentation and scattering of the movement, the social aspect of the movement improved a lot. Even many previously insufferable people -- like me, to cite a noteworthy example -- have lightened up. My experiences with the ARI crowd suggests they still have a lot of folks who can do outstanding impersonations of cigar store Indians. But I also know that among their rank-and-file members are many really fine, nice people. TOC, where I worked for six years, is loaded with terrific folks and their Summer Seminars are fabulous fun; I highly recommend you attend their events. (Go online to www.objectivistcenter.org.)

And SOLO? Michael, I'm still reserving judgment. I mean, simple logic tells me that any group founded by Perigo MUST be filled with Rabid Subjectivists and Muscle Mystics. Or worse. But hey, being an open-mind sorta guy, I figure I'll lurk around here a while and hope for the best.

;^)

Again, welcome, and thanks for another compelling post.

Post 92

Friday, February 18, 2005 - 7:33am

Bob-bert, when you say "I knew Objectivists from Canada," I think you must be referring to some people I knew, since a group of us from Montreal stayed with you and your friends in Boston for the Ford Hall Forum "Anti-Industrial Revolution" talk. (I forget if I stayed with you or someone else.)

I only recall random flashbacks, but I remember myself as generally very nervous and socially awkward, not wanting to do something gauche. But I never had any fear of not being a "good Objectivist," anyway.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 2/18, 10:43am)

Post 93

Friday, February 18, 2005 - 8:32am

Yes, those are the folks I meant, Rodney, and yes you were there. Canadian sleepovers at my then-Somerville, Mass., apartment were common every Ford Hall Forum weekend, and I don't recall if you crashed out on our floor then or not. But it was a delightful group of people, and I miss them all.

Post 94

Friday, February 18, 2005 - 8:00am

I'd like to second Bob's endorsement of TOC events. I've been to six TOC Summer Seminars and they've been terrific.

Post 95

Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:13pm

" The rudeness and bad manners you witnessed had a cause: fear. These folks were so intimidated at the prospect of "measuring up" to a platonic notion of Moral Perfection that they were terrified to be emotionally open, perhaps revealing any hidden errors or flaws. So they all talked in safe, memorized cliches, and adopted remote, cold demeanors, trying to ape the manner of Rand's fictional heroes and heroines. "

Regarding the above:

Again, Robert, in the area of judging people I think you are generalizing too broadly and reading too much into what in many cases was awkwardness, denseness, or social ineptness. Objectivists have never been known for being "people persons"

[ unfortunately for them and for the world... a subject on which I will have considerably more to say at some future time. ]

1. A "remote cold demeanor" can signify emotional repression (which is subconscious not a conscious, deliberate thing) not necessarily fear or trying to be mini-Roarks or Randroids. 2. Rudeness can often be (and is) unintentional and is often endemic in our culture. 3. Cliches can be the product of lack of intelligence or the failure to have read widely outside of Rand, not just fear of making a mistake. Besides, do you really think repeating the non-initiation of force principle or how bad modern art, or other Objectivist principles is a proof of inauthenticity rather than maybe...the person actually believes it and thinks it's important??? If you've heard it all before and hate hearing Objectivist bromides repeated for the n'th time, that's fine and I can sympathize. But many of these people were new to the ideas. They were struggling to integrate them or grow into them. I always cut them some slack, figuring I must have been like them at one point.

I lived in New York in the seventies and knew -everyone-, maybe a hundred or two hundred rank and file Objectivists and the leaders. Spoke to Miss Rand once or twice. And my conclusions were quite different. I only remember a handful of rude or arrogant people (Harry Binswanger came across that way not just to me but to everybody including some of the Oist leaders who though he should be hit on the head, as one of them quaintly put it in an aside.) Sometimes the people at the top were the most insufferable and sometimes they treated people in a kind and benevolent manner. Depends on the person and what was going on in their lives or at the time.

Psychological and personality types vary as widely among movement Objectivists...be they ARI or TOC....as they do among anyone else.

Stiffness until you get to know someone or unwillingness to let a newbie into a conversational circle are regrettable - but they are different issues. Some of what people coming into a tight circle from out of town might experience might have been this.

Incidentally, over the years I've found many very nice people who actually practice Objectivism well ... and many who were not and did not ... both in ARI circles and in TOC circles.

Post 96

Friday, February 18, 2005 - 7:13pm

Phil, I agree that one can always attribute an array of different motives and attitudes to any given action. Without doing a root canal into someone's psyche, you can never "know" such things with certainty, as in the sense of a legal verdict. So, no, I could never prove to you the things I've concluded in a way you'd find conclusive.

But when you are around people for a long time, and get to "know" them on a personal basis; when you observe the behavior patterns that seem related to what you've learned of their premises and attitutes; when you then notice the same behavior patterns repeated, again and again, among a number of other people whom you've gotten to know; when, in the course of your personal interactions with them, many of them eventually reveal or openly admit certain motives and attitudes that they appear to share; and when you then see the SAME overt patterns repeated endlessly within a closely knit subculture of the same sorts of people...well, at some point, you start connecting the dots.

This, in fact, is a lot like the more formal, similarly empirical way that various psychological pathologies are first identified and defined, and upon which formal psychological diagnoses are later made (of course with much more clinical rigor). In form, it's all not much different from the old epistemological method dubbed "Duckology": If you already know what a duck is, and you see something that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and paddles through the water like a duck...you're probably looking at a duck. And while in any single given case it could conceivably be something else, maybe a turtle wearing a duck suit -- in the overwhelming majority of cases you wouldn't be unreasonable to assume it is, indeed, a duck.

Michael's experiences with Objectivists may be limited in number, but what he describes is absolutely nothing new; what he describes are behaviors that have become classic trademarks of behaviors and associated attitudes within the Objectivist subculture of that era, very widely described and discussed and even acknowledged. As you know, even people formerly in leadership capacities within the movement (the Brandens among them) have written at length about these issues, their manifestations and their causes.

So in my encounters during that era, while it may be impossible for me to attribute a specific motive or attitude to a specific person with iron-clad proof and full certainty, it was very clear to me from first-hand observation that such motives and attitudes were rampant within the movement. The roots of such behavior were different from mere nerdiness and lack of social graces: there are other nerdy social cliques that certainly don't behave as did many Objectivists of that period.

Acknowledging this is the first step to identifying the causes of these unfortunate behaviors, and making sure that they aren't repeated or encouraged.

Post 97

Friday, February 18, 2005 - 11:15pm

Adam, you can't have it both ways. You don 't believe me when I say that Frank suffered terribly because of Ayn's relationship with Nathaniel. You prefer to believe Eyal Mozes instead. You add that you know of indications that Ayn had an earlier polyamorous relationship with another younger man, in the 1940s, and that there, too, her relationship with Frank did not suffer.

Do you recall where you learned that she might -- might -- have considered but not had this other earlier relationship? You can have learned it only from THE PASSION OF AYN RAND, where I wrote about it. So if you believe me there -- adding, which I never said, that it did not interfere with her marriage -- then why do you decide to disbelieve me when I tell you that I know, from his own lips and in his own words that Frank did indeed suffer over Ayn's infidelity?

Lindsay, it makes no sense to me that you say Robert and George must be conventional for disapproving of the affair -- and when you say, as if it's self-evident, that the only immorality involved was that of Nathaniel. Good god, Linz, Nathaniel and I were twenry-three years old, and had been married just over a year when the affair began. And we were devoted admirers of Ayn, who was teaching us a set of ideas that was changing the direction and the focus of our lives; she was our mentor, our guide, our moral compass. One could make a case that Rand took unspeakable advantage of us both, that we were relatively helpless, both of us. I did not make that case in Passion, because I knew Ayn's context as well, and I presented it. But to say we all went into the affair with clear eyes and thinking soundly, simply ignores a great deal of the evidence. We all brought an enormous amount of intellectual and emotional baggage to bear, which I describe in Passion. I can only strongly suggest you read the relevant chapters again.

Robert, you are quite correct when you say that Frank and I were, for whatever reasons, sacrificing ourselves to Ayn and Nathaniel, and that Ayn and Nathaniel were sacrificing us to them. That's what happened in fact, in reality. And God help them, Ayn and Narhaniel were using each other for psychological purposes quite apart from the love they felt. Nobody was fully honest with himself or with the others in the whole mess.

No, Linz, the affair should not have happened -- because in order for it to happen, four decent people had to engage in self-deception and the deception of one another.

To be continued. . .

Barbara

Post 98

Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 12:39am

Good God, Barbara! Does this mean that Ayn thought of Nathaniel as John Galt and Frank as Hank Rearden or even Francisco?

--Brant

PS: I am not attempting to be humorous here.

--BG

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 2/19, 4:25pm)

Post 99

Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 7:25am