RoR: Forum

I'm amazed and dismayed that there have already been 99 posts on a book* which hasn't come out yet (or if it has, which has not been read by virtually anyone here).

What particularly depresses me is the barely suppressed eagerness and the "oh boy, new gossip" level of interest and the prospect for people getting preoccupied with these "personality" topics and who-did-what-in-what-sequence or who-said-what-first-to-who four or five decades ago issues...

...And then we face the very likely prospect of these discussion boards being dominated and endless tedious years of renewed bloodletting and ill-will and feuding just like the last time.

Because no one will EVER let "the other side" get the last word.

And none of it ever gets resolved, because quite frankly most of us weren't there and have to rely on the naturally somewhat conflicting in some cases nearly half a century old recollections of people from long ago. Meanwhile there is a vast ocean out there, a whole world of ideas out there waiting for good thinkers to apply, integrate, and learn.

Can you spell waste of time and get a life?

--Philip Coates

*on rereading this and the thread, I realize that the 99 posts were not all on the book, but on issues surrounding the book, but my main points still stand.

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 5/23, 3:29pm)

Post 101

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 3:56pm

Philip,
I wholeheartedly agree. While I understand there are those, because of personal circumstances,
for whom this may be worth discussing, for the vast majority of people on this forum
(not to mention the rest of the world) it is of no valid interest whatever.

Anyone who takes their view of Objectivism, and indeed Objectivists,
based primarily on incidents happening to this small group of people decades ago,
simply isn't interested in ideas. They are therefore, unreachable anyway.

For the rest, I concur with Philip's advice. Get on with advancing the ideas and forget
about the personal lives of some who were involved with first advancing them.

If for no other reason than that the whole discussion is so unutterably boring. Just as it was
thirty years ago.

Post 102

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 4:12pm

Well, I finished reading the book yesterday, and I have to say that it has caused me to question some of my impressions about what Ayn Rand was like as a person, especially during the time leading up to and after the break with Branden. My image of her has improved. I also have more questions now about how accurately the Branden books portray what Ayn Rand was like and how she behaved during this time.

The last part of the book engages in some speculation about the motivation for Nathaniel Branden's actions that I thought was pretty unfounded, and I didn't like that, but overall I'd say--good book. Glad I read it.

Post 103

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 1:24pm

Thanks for the kind review, Mr. O'Connor.

Of course, Branden's psychology was the main topic of Part II and of Rand's notes from this period. Between Branden's many self-diagnoses and Rand's diagnoses, some integration was required, and Rand's final diagnosis was still ignorant of important facts. I certainly did not mean to psychologize.
(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 5/24, 1:59pm)

Post 104

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 2:58pm

James Valliant says:

I certainly did not mean to psychologize.

Does that include when you drew the parallel between NB's psychological profile and that of a rapist?

Do you think that, being he's a practicing clinical psychologist, with no history of anything remotely connected to rape, or any other kind of criminal pathology, that that kind of unfounded statement might be libelous, or at least just a shitty thing to do?

And to repeat a question that I have asked you directly, and elsewhere: In the interest of accuracy and objectivity, why did you not request an interview with Nathaniel Branden? I don't know, but I'm assuming the case is the same with Barbara. Wouldn't doing that be almost required during a research project like this?

I thoroughly question your motivations, as stated, for writing this book.

Post 105

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 8:29am

I assume the idea is to build Ayn Rand up by knocking the Brandens down. This is not helpful to her public personna--such a victim. You would think Mr. Valliant might have consulted the primary sources before telling those of us who experienced Ayn Rand firsthand who she was and what she was about. The problem, of course, is that once you go talk to the Brandens you are OUT! That was the situation from the get-go from The Break in 1968 and Leonard Peikoff was and is still the chief enforcer. Nothing has changed. You cannot find objectivity out of that context, nor Ayn Rand.

--Brant

Post 106

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 9:57am

Brant Gaede:

You would think Mr. Valliant might have consulted the primary sources before telling those of us who experienced Ayn Rand firsthand who she was and what she was about. The problem, of course, is that once you go talk to the Brandens you are OUT! That was the situation from the get-go from The Break in 1968 and Leonard Peikoff was and is still the chief enforcer. Nothing has changed. You cannot find objectivity out of that context, nor Ayn Rand.

I figured I wasn't the only one thinking along these lines. I noticed Mr. Valliant, so far, has chosen silence as a reply to The Question(s) At Hand- my poor SOLO inbox eagerly awaits, but, alas. Maybe he's pouring over the Gnostic Scriptures, looking for backwoods, Deliverance-style scandal among the Apostles. I expect a Big Revelation in this New Testament book he's doing, maybe a logical proof that a lot of that stuff in there is just stories, did you know that? Or maybe an informed legal evaluation that Jesus' psychological profile runs side-by-side with Charlie Manson's Messiah complex. The possibilities are endless.

What really lies stinking underneath this whole thing is the ARI's KGB-like historical revision and general person-removal of the Brandens (or, as I like to call it, "objectivity, my ass"). That's why all this ancient history still packs any mojo. And here I thought the don't-ask-don't tell policy was goofy.

But I'm all about questions in this, and Gawd help you, James Valliant (whoops, never mind that), Brant's post reminds me of another one.

(gravels up voice, snaps suspenders Spencer Tracy style):

"The course of your research involved gaining access to certain of Ms. Rand's papers, curated by and held in the custody of an organization called The Ayn Rand Institute, headed by one Professor Leonard Peikoff (aka "The World's Foremost Authority on Ayn Rand's Philsophy"), did it not? Please describe the extent and nature of the conversations, if any, between yourself and these two entities!"

Well, I hope not, but on the other hand, I didn't fall off the damn turnip truck, either. If you're weren't going to talk with NB or BB, the only way to remain Totally Objective (or, completely out of it, depending on how you look at things) would have been to completely distance yourself from these two factions, and let the shots fall where they may, even at the risk of them just hitting the back of the barn (which is kind of the way it's looking anyhow).

Right? That's how it would be? Say it ain't so, James. Or, if you did have any back room closed door fun with LP or ARI, there's also the option of FULL DISCLOSURE. Hmmm?

(Edited by Rich Engle on 5/25, 10:08am)

(Edited by Rich Engle on 5/25, 10:09am)

Post 107

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 5:12pm