About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 12:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
oops... I mis-typed. It should be "fighting" not "fight".



Post 41

Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 9:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred, Rand and Honesty, maybe. Valliant's book is supposedly all about honesty so your suggested title implies a basic and maybe a complete review of PARC.

--Brant




Post 42

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 11:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, Nice cites.

Brant, Maybe I should do what the composers do and call it Opus 39 or whatever.

Fred





Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 7:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
>BARBARA: What’s in it for me?
>AYN: I’ll fuck your husband.

Fred, you devil you!

Keep up the good work.

-Bill



Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 44

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 8:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

You wrote: 
Telling the spouses was necessary for their informed (albeit clearly not uninfluenced) consent. There was no similar necessity with respect to anyone else. NB chose to keep his affair with Patrecia secret from Rand. This means that he was screwing Rand without Rand's informed consent. Sex without valid consent is rape. In this respect, Valliant's point about "rape" is entirely valid. 
To paraphrase Mal Reynolds, is that really the direction you want this conversation to be going in?

Rand asked a much younger, lesser known woman, whose entire professional career and income revolved around Rand and her philosophy, to let Rand sleep with her husband. She kept on sleeping with him for years, keeping the whole arrangement a deep, dark secret.

Maybe there were "students of Objectivism" then taking NBI classes in Objectivist ethics who would not knowingly have consented to contracting for same from a philosopher (Rand) and a lecturuer (Branden) who were involved in such a possible abuse of Barbara Branden. By your argument, Rand and Nathaniel Branden should be considered guilty of conspiring to "steal" the monies paid by those students.

Earlier, you had written of the 50s era ""conformity to intrinsicist-Christian morality in American culture": 
Not quite the Nazi occupation, but close enough for applicability of the same moral principle.
 I don't regard them as remotely close enough for there to be applicability without a thorough argument limited to a specific context. And I regard even drawing a broad analogy without such argument to be offensive.

-Bill

[edited for formatting]

(Edited by William A. Nevin III on 11/28, 2:50pm)




Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 45

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 12:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Branden claims he was always the aggressor. So this Helen Mirren image of some kind of sexual dominatrix muscling Branden into bed does not hold up. She simply insisted that they be honest with Frank and Barbara, and Frank and Barbara, according to Branden, both saw it coming before they did.



Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 1:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have always wondered about swinging couples. The standard is for everybody to change partners, not just two of them. That's not fair. That is one good reason for failure right there.

But there was love involved and that made it a bit different, I guess. Even so, even love-wise, the math still didn't add up.

There are many facets to this, not just Alice in Wonderland (thank you so much for that on another thread, Ellen!) and math is just one of them.

This is sort of like the math in "To Whom It May Concern," also.

Michael





Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 47

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 1:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Branden himself does not dispute that he was putting in less work on articles for The Objectivist -- he even justifies it by saying that he never committed to writing an article per issue in his "Answer to Ayn Rand."



Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 1:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rand's math. Rand's facts. Rand's article.

That's what doesn't add up.

Now Branden is going to be blamed for that too?

Michael





Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 49

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 2:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Branden did not dispute her in his "In Answer to Ayn Rand." So the "math" may not have been the relevant issue. Besides, I can't tell by the issue if she was correct or not since all we're given in Fred's article is a count by year. Rand pointed specifically to a trend in "recent issues." And it also may have to do with what is being counted as an "article." Since Branden did not dispute her, and claims that he never agreed to write an article per issue, it seems the criteria for "article" may well be different from the one Fred has chosen.



Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 8:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey,

Your capacity for the blank-out is breath-taking.

Rand wrote:
If you check over the back issues of this publication, you will observe that in 1962 and 1963 Mr. Branden and I wrote about the same number of articles and that he carried his proper share of the burden of work. But beginning with the year 1964, the number of articles written by me became significantly greater than the number written by him.
To quote Fred:
Notice she is wrong about 1962 and 1963. They did not write “about the same number of articles.” In 1962 she wrote seven more than Branden, the greatest imbalance of any year, despite her complaint about 1964 on. In 1963 Branden actually wrote more articles than Rand—the only year that happened.
Also, in 1964, she wrote 2 more articles. That is not what "significantly greater" implies. The seven articles more in 1962 would be more along those lines.

What part of all that is hard to understand?

Rand was wrong here. It's OK for her to be wrong once. No amount of pretzel logic will make her right.

Michael




Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 51

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What is Fred counting as "articles"? I don't know. Having been a journalist for many years and having written many pieces for magazines, I know that some would not be considered articles and others would be considered sidebars or announcements or other such things. A statement like that from Rand, and a response like that from Branden, cause me enough pause to ask what the criteria Fred was using for tallying articles before leaping to any conclusion that both Rand and Branden were getting this wrong. It's not a blank-out -- it's just that I'm not so willing to leap to the anti-Rand conclusion without knowing how it was arrived at, Michael -- something you have little hesitation in doing yourself.



Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 9:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey,

If all you want to do is double-check the facts, by all means. That is always healthy. (Somehow I don't think that merely checking facts is the whole story behind your motivation, though...)

I do not have access to the print version of The Objectivist right now. I will be interested in hearing your conclusions.

Michael




Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 53

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 10:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't have access to the individual issues either. Perhaps Fred can share the criteria he used? Did he simply count everything with a Branden byline as an article? Did he make some distinction? It is necessary to understand the methodology before making any conclusions about this, since the point was not controversial between Rand and Branden.



Post 54

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 8:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Obviously the problems of '67-'68 contributed to The Objectivist falling more and more behind in its publication schedule. "To Whom It May Concern" was in the May 1968 issue, published in early October.

--Brant




Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 1:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Of course, I don't challenge either Rand or Branden on the numbers of actual articles. This is a matter of public record, and one fact about which they did not argue.

But, thanks for all of the interesting points!

And, how on earth can I take exception with the more-than-obvious fact that Rand was so much superior a writer?!

I'm profoundly flattered even by your unwarranted comparison!

(Edited by James S. Valliant on 11/28, 1:23pm)




Post 56

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 11:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey,


"Besides, I can't tell by the issue if she was correct or not since all we're given in Fred's article is a count by year."


Good point. I invite all those interested to go back and do their own count.

Fred



Post 57

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 11:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

I'm flattered that you would be flattered. And I love you writing style. Put me down for a copy of your book on the "origins and nature of the New Testament" when it comes out. I'm teaching a course on Religions of the World starting in May of 06 and would like to be able to read your book before the course. I will be using a Great Books approach, in which the student s and I will read the Tao teh Ching, the Gita, the Dhammapada, (or Light of Asia), the Torah, and the New Testament, and the Koran. Do you have anything on the New Testament in cyberspace, just in case your book isn't out by then. Would love to read whatever you've got.

Fred



Post 58

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 11:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey,

"Perhaps Fred can share the criteria he used? Did he simply count everything with a Branden byline as an article? Did he make some distinction? It is necessary to understand the methodology before making any conclusions about this, since the point was not controversial between Rand and Branden."

I used the following--a byline got you a point. I thought about using "article" since Rand does use that word, but encountered the following problem. Does "article" mean a new article or does a writer get credit if what is in the journal appeared someplace else. What about IAD stuff? What about year end reports?
Tell you what I am willing to do. You give me your criterion and I do another count, esp. since some of you don't have the originals. If you give me multiple criteria, I do that count too.

Consider it part of the service we provide here at SOLOHQ. Tee hee.

Fred



Post 59

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 12:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As far as the New Testament business is concerned, have you read -

Elayne Pagels's works?
or Paul Johnson's A History of Christianity,
    Schonfield's The Passover Plot,
                       Those Incredible Christians,
    Maccoby's The Mythmaker ?
 
or Levy's Blasphemy ?

(Edited by robert malcom on 11/29, 12:58pm)




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.