| | In light of the arguments in THE PASSION OF AYN RAND'S CRITICS, I have removed the site Jungian Objectivism. Though the content did not wholly deal with Rand criticism, integral portions of my articles were based on the Branden's negative portrayal of Ayn Rand which I accepted without substantial evidence. Since I believe there is reasonable doubt concerning their accusations, I cannot justify the project.
Regarding Jung's ideas themselves, I suspect that most Objectivists do not take him seriously, at best, and those who do are more inclined to be sympathetic to Nathaniel Branden. However, I am not ready to dismiss Jung entirely based on this issue, matter of fact, though not recognized, Jung's ideas of projections and repressed shadows play a large role in the discussion of Rand and the Brandens. Valliant himself discusses the projections of Rand onto Nathaniel Branden based on her journal entries (claiming that Rand projected her own benevolence onto him) and that the Brandens were guilty of projecting their own religiousity and repressions onto her.
My suspicion for some time is that Nathaniel Branden introduced some of these concepts to Rand. Branden has quoted Jung in his books, and his interest in Koestler as well as hypnosis, esp, and such point to a larger interest in Jung than admitted. His post-schism works are very Jungian in theme (e.g. THE DISOWNED SELF is not dissimilar to Jung's THE UNDISCOVERED SELF) and though Branden and Rand both argued against Freud, Jung is never mentioned by Rand but quoted favorably by Branden. Brandon knows about Jung's theories, to be certain. If Valliant is right about him, at best, Nathaniel Branden can be said to be blind to his projections of his shadows onto Rand, for which he would have owned up to in JUDGEMENT DAY, and at worst, he is using Jung's ideas against Rand, that she was blind to her own projections and fell prey to her own "ego inflation" (i.e., the megalomania, the dogma, etc.) at the expense of her alienation from her "anima," her repressed feelings, etc..
Both Nathaniel and Barbara have been shown to be capable of the latter, using words such as "insane" and "neurotic" to describe Rand. Thomas Szasz, who fights against the state use of psychiatry to label undesirables as "insane" as a means of control, has chastised Branden for this behavior. (This aspect of Szasz'z though was applauded by Rand and Branden.) But we have seen Branden use psychology against Rand, and we have seen Barbara diagnose people as alcoholics based on flimsy evidence.
It pains me to have to consider such things about the Brandens, yet it pained me to consider such things about Rand. It pains me to have to consider my own work as wrong, but I cannot continue to smear the name of a thinker based on the words of hearsay.
|
|
