RoR: Forum

John-
Don't give me a lesson in objectivism 101, if anything take the subject up for yourself. No one is demanding that you do anything except on your on time frame, but I for one am starting to demand that you at least keep to your word. I've heard too often already from you something along the lines of 'wait until my next post'. I've waited and I'm still waiting.

As for this-

Gimme a break. I can't answer your each and every post AND discuss Vallient's book. And I can't do justice to either in 2 to 3-liners.

I personally do not wish you to answer me or any of the others here. I want you to offer a critique of PARC. So don't bother answering this, just give us a critique. If you truly have something to offer this debate, then I want to see you and James and Casey battle this one out, and I'm quite content with nothing more than having 50-yardline seats.

Post 261

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 4:24pm

Copy and paste.

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 5:07pm

"If you wonder why I am so particular about protecting the integrity of the term 'Objectivism,' my reason is that 'Objectivism' is the name I have given to my philosophy -- therefore, anyone using that name for some philosophical hodgepodge of his own, without my knowledge or consent, is guilty of the fraudulent presumption of trying to put thoughts into my brain (or of trying to pass his thinking off as mine -- an attempt which fails, for obvious reasons)....

"(This made me feel a little bit of sympathy for Karl Marx who, on being told about some outrageous statements made by some Marxists, answered: 'But I am not a Marxist.') ...

"If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with -- and then indulge in any flights of fancy you wish, on your own."

--- Ayn Rand

Jan. 1, 1980 (excerpted from the Introduction to the first issue of Harry Binswanger’s

The Objectivist Forum, Feb, 1980 (without permission; fair use)

I had not intended to use this quote here. I had hoped to leave it for the use of a real biographer, who is hard at work on a genuine biography of Ayn Rand, which is due to be released by a significant publishing house, in 2007. However, the [inept] self-styled "historian," James Valliant, and others, keep clamoring for immediate substance. So, I have decided to give you some. (Substance which, I will add, is worth a bit more than two bronze CINDY awards) This biographer, whose name is Anne Heller and who has excellent credentials, has already done extensive research both here and in Russia. She even managed to find me, here in Colorado. However, she has been absolutely barred from all Rand papers under Peikoff’s control. This is not the way proper archives are run. Anything which cannot be verified by other historians cannot be called “history.”

This is my major objection to Valliant’s book. This fact alone casts serious doubt on whatever he says, what he does or does not quote and every interpretation he makes. And when you know that Anne Heller can’t get in, you cannot help but wonder how and why James Valliant, and ONLY James Valliant did. Knowing this one fact relegates everything else approved by ARI to the level of propaganda.

Now, I am not going to comment on the above quote. I am not going to insult your intelligence as the media constantly does by telling you what so and so just finished saying in their speech and what it "really" means. And you each know why. I merely offer it for your consideration.

Laure,

It does not matter exactly who I am, even though I have stated my true name and given the moderators my only current email address. What matters is the truth, of which I am aware and, apparently, most of those who post on this unique and extremely impressive web site, are not. If those in charge, here, are willing to apologize on behalf of Mr. Valliant [and that's apologize TO Ayn Rand, her achievement and her express wishes, prior to her death, NOT to me], then, and only then, will I accept an invitation to continue posting here. A reasonable person does not stay in a land full of snipers who may be given "Atlas Points" for serving up his still-warm heart on a platter.

John Allen

across the valley from four of

Colorado's "14-ers"

Post 263

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:06pm

I rarely chastise anyone on this forum, and have never before suggested anyone leave, but I have to say after reading Mr. Allen's posts and those of others on this thread:

That's it? All those promises of insider info and all he comes up with is a quote from Ayn Rand in TOF and a demand that -- not Valliant -- but Linz and Joe apologize to a dead woman for.... what? Allowing Valliant to post here?

This guy's either a complete phony badly seeking attention or a lunatic badly seeking attention. Pal, you are full of it.

Jeff Perren

Post 264

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:15pm

John-
The first part of that post was well said. That's the sort of thing I was hoping for. Thank you. You do make an excellent point by pointing out that ARI has chosen Valliant and Valliant alone for access to the archives. If what Ayn Rand said, in all of her writing, was without culpability, then why cherry-pick those you allow access to. Everyone knows the dogged agenda of ARI, and the well-known rationalism and ostrich-like behaviour of ARI is indeed enough for suspicion in this case. What..., we're supposed to believe that Peikoff was just in a good and generous mood the day Valliant approached him regarding the archives, yet no one else has ever been allowed that kind of access?

Post 265

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:36pm

Casey,

I'm not about to go back through all my past posts on this book and start arguing the merits of them. Many of them were extremely good, spot on, and presented their case well. I will delegate that privilege to you, if you like, however.

You are entitled to your own evaluation. I disagree - at least for the most part, since some acrimony was involved from personal attacks and I did make a mistake once in a while. I do prefer, however, to finish my own review on more complete terms. Then we can argue the merit of that all you want.

For now, John Allen has asked twice that people look at Pages 210 to 215 of PARC, so I just did (again). I will summarize it factually here.

This small portion falls near the beginning of Part Two of the book entitled "Documenting the Rape of Innocence." There are no more chapter names from this point on, merely little signs in the middle of of the page separating the end of one section and the beginning of the next, and there are many such section.

The 210-215 bit belongs to the first of such sections. It it is divided into an introduction, ten examples of what Valliant calls "oversights" (scare quotes and all) in the Branden accounts that are filled in and/or contradicted by Rand's journal entries, then some editorial comments at the end. For the record, here is a list of the oversights:

1 - That Rand would have not accepted an end to the affair and a change to a Platonic relationship (Valliant argues that she had already accepted the end well before the break);
2 - That Rand was unrealistic about her appraisal of the the age difference (Valliant argues that she was acutely aware of the difference and repeatedly offered it as an "out" to Nathaniel);
3 - That Rand felt jealousy and her possible reaction based on being a woman scorned presented a sensitive issue in the last five months before the break (Valliant argues that Rand's actual concern was with understanding Branden, with hardly any jealousy whatsoever, even to the point of suggesting an affair with a younger woman, but in Rand's words "provided I did not have to meet her or associate with her");
4 - That Rand had a highly negative opinion of Patrecia (Valliant argues that Branden himself was one of the main sources of the negative information on Patrecia);
5 - That Nathaniel Branden had given the impression of providing a "warts and all" memoir as regards his own psychology (Valliant argues that he left out several key aspects, especially the ones that impacted on his affair with Rand);
6 - That the Brandens mentioned that Nathaniel was having therapy with Rand about his psycho-epistemology, but did not mention what was covered (Valliant argues that the therapy was to string Rand along and convince her that his marriage to Barbara was the issue and possibly salvageable and that this went on into 1968, when both Brandens later admitted in their own works that the marriage was over in 1966, or even 1965);
7 - That Nathaniel believed and stated that the outcome of his termination with Rand would have been the same irrespective of any other consideration because of his romantic rejection of her (Valliant argues that the business relationship would have continued);
8 - That the Brandens are vague about what caused the truth about the deception to be confessed (Valliant argues that Rand's incessant questioning of Nathaniel was the actual cause);
9 - That the Brandens repeatedly suggested that Rand was a rationalist about love and engaged in emotional repression (Valliant argues that the Brandens were rationalists and engaged in emotional repression, in addition to moral failures); and
10 - That Rand was quick to make negative moral judgments (Valliant argues that Branden merely attributes to Rand his own harsh moral judgments of himself, ones which Rand ultimately came to reluctantly).

Then there is a list of the four categories of material from Rand's journals that were excluded from publication:
1 - Entries that alluded to people other than Nathaniel, Barbara or Patrecia;
2 - Repetitive material;
3 - Brief, cryptic notes where the meaning is not discernible; and
4 - The June 5, 1968 entries given to Barbara (which were later sold) and entries from mid-July to mid-August 1968, as they were deemed repetitive.

Then it ends with some editorial statements on chronology and so forth, and a description of editorial notations.

Now back to John Allen's request. Page 210 falls within Item 8 above (where Valliant argues that Rand's incessant questioning was what uncovered the truth). Here is a breakdown from the start of Page 210:

As early as November 1967 (with the added evaluative push of "at least as early" of course), Rand noted that Branden was hiding something, but wondered, "What?"

Rand speculates on the vibes of fear she feels emanating from Nathaniel.

Rand constantly insists on new answers and Branden constantly provides new rationalizations, leading to the conclusion that her series of demands were what "drives the truth to surface."

Item 9 (Who actually is the repressor and rationalist, Rand or Brandens)

Discussion of what rationalism means in Objectivism - both philosophical rationalism and psychological rationalism (calling it a syndrome), then discussion of rationalists.

Discussion of how rationalists deny reality by repressing emotions and try to live up to projected ideals instead, concluding that the Brandens had a distorted view of Objectivism not based on facts and a desire to force themselves to live up to that fantasy.

Denial that Rand was a rationalist, stating that she was deceived about love instead, highlighting that she was distressed to learn that the Brandens' love had been "play acting."

Statement that Nathaniel was really the rationalist and emotional repressor, in addition to being dishonest and other more serious problems.

Some quotes from Rand stating that love cannot be forced, that Nathaniel cannot force it, and that the right thing to do to make another happy is to do things to make oneself happy.

Quote from Rand on the impossibility of using an entirely cerebral method for complex issues, that emotions are needed and when they are repressed, they block the integrating process for continuity, context and self-interest and make one act in a contradictory manner (mentioning that the principle of trying to hold the interest of another does not work, as it is altruistic).

Quote from Rand on psycho-epistemology - on the need for automation of all fundamental sense of life issues, giving self-esteem as an example of something that needs to be automatized, since the conscious mind is incapable of handling such wide abstractions all the time.

Mention of Rand's constant urgings to Nathaniel to stop repressing, stop forcing emotions, stop trying to live up to unrealistic ideals and stop trying to use a purely cerebral method.

Conclusion that the Brandens are blaming Rand for their own religious and autistic manner of interpreting Objectivism.

Item 10 (Who was the real moralizer, Rand or Branden?)

Claim that, complaints from the Brandens to the contrary, Rand did not engage in incessant moralism and only reluctantly came to negative moral judgments.

Quote from Rand - Jan. 1968 - stating that she will not break with Nathaniel yet because she does not understand him and that she is starting to sense the beginnings of something immoral and rationalization. She already apologizes to herself if she is wrong.

Claim that the charge that Nathaniel was "betraying his values" actually came from Branden himself, not from Rand, who wrote something to the contrary to him to boost his spirits.

Claim that the harshest moral judgments attributed to Rand came from Branden himself - projecting them onto her. Further claim that Rand only came to the same conclusions reluctantly.

Mention that Branden once considered suspending pre-production of the theater version of The Fountainhead, and before the break, one time Nathaniel offered to sign over his part of The Objectivist as a gift to Rand, which she found offensive, focusing on the fact that the Brandens had given other attitudes in their accounts.

Mention that the contradictions are too numerous to list, and a preference for a letting them unfold in a chronological manner according to her journal entries.

Final comments

Mention of the original material excluded from publication and editorial comments (given above).

One thing was emphasized was that no third party requested the inclusion or exclusion of any material and there was no payment demanded for it.

Back to me

That's the best I could do on short order. I did this outline for the benefit of those who do not have the book, since I get the feeling that Mr. Allen wants to raise some serious issues about it.

Michael

Edit - Dayaamm!!! Look how many posts popped up while I was writing this!

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/21, 6:42pm)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/21, 9:15pm)

Post 266

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:41pm

Actually, Jeff, I think he is spot on about the suspicions that naturally arise to anyone who is not a Peikoff cool-aid drinker. Under normal circumstances, where information was not doled out according to the great and wise guru(Peikoff), but was freely open, there would be no reason for doubt. When the truth is controlled adamantly by a single person though, there is great reason for a little skepticism. Peikoff has never allowed anyone access who has not drank the sacred cool-aid, but all of a sudden we should believe Peikoff has become objective and developed a soft-side for those who just want to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. BULLSHIT.

Post 267

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:19pm

I arrived in NYC in April of 1968 (actually, nearby New Jersey). I didn't know about "weird" re NBI and its inhabitants because I had nothing to compare them to. Leonard Peikoff at the time was giving a lecture or two that would ultimately become, 14 years later, The Ominous Parallels. He announced then that he was going to do the book. Nathaniel Branden struck me as high strung and not audience engaging. His experience of the world around him was that everything was moving incredibly slowly. I don't remember where I read or heard that, but it came from him. At 75 he's probably more patient now. People tended to be intimidated by both NB and Ayn Rand. Most questions from any audience were written and sent up to the stage. That way if you got your head torn off, only you would know it.

(The year before I was in combat in Vietnam. While I was in the army I had contact with Gens. Eisenhower and Westmoreland, albeit briefly in the latter case, but the atmosphere at NBI beat any tension I ever felt from bullets cracking by my head and men dying or from a bed-ridden five-star general.)

I know today that the big thing was age and experience difference. Here was this genius in front of us who had written Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead--a giant who was a giant bulwark against world-wide collectivist insanity. She was intellectually authoritarian; we merely thought she was right, right, right about everything important intellectually. And here was this psychologist who was her right arm and just as authoritative because he had her explicit sanction to speak for her and a powerful personality.

Ayn Rand was the intellectual icebreaker of collectivism. She took on collectivism from A to Z and took no prisoners to the day she died. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on the circumstances, she could instantly see and understand how mistaken beliefs and actions were allies of irrationality and collectivism and she absolutely refused any sanction. But she wasn't always right. If somebody says or does something it could be for many different reasons, some completely innocent. Ayn Rand IDed a motive and was off to the races. Leonard Peikoff gave as an admiring example the streaker who disrupted the Academy Awards. AR figured him out, but it was all a rationalist construct indicating only one possible motivation, even though she was likely right. (I liked the host David Niven's response: "It is remarkable the extent some people will go to to display their shortcomings.")

The Objectivist sub-culture of the 1960s was "A City On a Hill"--a hill a Student of Objectivism was always trying to climb through a moralist's minefield.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 10/21, 6:56pm)

Post 268

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:48pm

Michael,

I was only hoping that ONE of your criticisms may have been memorable to you as especially strong. I don't remember any. But only one would be sufficient; the best one would be ideal for demonstration purposes. Oh well...

As for Mr. Allen, I am in agreement with Jeff.

Post 269

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 5:30pm

Allen,

"you would be shocked to learn about some of the things that go on during gatherings at Miss Rand's...you would not be able to understand them."

Even if we were to believe Blumenthal would tell a plebe this, there is no substance to the sentence. It could be good or bad.
"You would be shocked to learn the effects advanced physics and mathematics has on Objectivism, you would not be able to understand them."

As James Valliant was first to point out, everybody talks about the "trials" and such, "of which we are given but one example between them." "Telling us so little may simply mean that there is very little to tell." "we must ask how they happened to choose the same lonely example."

Post 270

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 7:08pm

So James, you just happened to walk up to Peikoff one day and said "hey we want to do this book about Rand. Can we see her archives?" and he said, "sure, you can have unfettered access. Let me know when you are finished."?

Bullshit. I'd bet my ass Peikoff would turn collectivist before he would unconditionally grant this access. The thing is that everyone here, whether they will admit it or not knows this, and knows how fishy this is.

Post 271

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 7:22pm

Jody,
I substantially agree [with your post about Mr. Allen's post in 264]. (Even lunatics are lucid sometimes.)
But how relevant is all this? First of all, everyone on this forum knows what ARI and Dr. Piekoff are like and have their own opinions. It's a pointless red-herring.

More to the point, what possible difference does it make whether Dr. Piekoff allows viewing of the material to Mr. Valliant only or to many or to all and sundry -- (I would prefer the latter, but since I don't know what's in that material, I'm in a poor position to judge whether it should be released) -- with respect to Valliant's objectivity or lack of it and therefore the validity of his views and the worth of his book.

The only relevant issue is whether or not Mr. Valliant is correctly interpreting that material. To judge that one would have to read his book. (As I have, cover to cover. I reserve stating my views for a later time.) Even that is only partially relevant since, unless one believes he actually made up Rand's journal entries -- which is quite unlikely with Dr. Piekoff looking over his shoulder, eh? -- the material is there for anyone to judge on his own.

Whatever one's views of Mr. Valliant's book, or indeed of Mr. Valliant, Mr. Allen has added nothing of substance, despite repeated 'teases'. As is said in Colorado (and elsewhere), he should put up or shut up.

I do, as many others do I'm sure, look forward to Ms. Heller's book. A substantial, real biography of Ms Rand is sadly lacking in the Objectivist literature. Wittgenstein has had dozens. Ms. Rand deserves many more and much better than the ones currently available.

Jeff
Edited to clarify first sentence, in light of subsequent and intervening posts on subject. Edited portion in brackets.

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 10/22, 8:36am)

Post 272

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 7:53pm

So James, you just happened to walk up to Peikoff one day and said "hey we want to do this book about Rand. Can we see her archives?" and he said, "sure, you can have unfettered access. Let me know when you are finished."?

Bullshit.

I thought what happened was that Peikoff read Valliant's essay on the internet, was struck by how much Rand's own journal entries confirmed what Valliant was saying, and decided that a book from Valliant could help defend Rand from unfair attacks in the Branden books.

Post 273

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 7:56pm

Hey guys,

On the put up or shut up stuff, why don't we give Mr. Allen a little time to compose his posts so that they can have substance? Then at least we can get something to really chew on.

He asked people who have the book to read Pages 210 to 215. I am the only one to comment on them so far.

About having restricted access to the journal materials, I had not noticed one thing that I ended up noticing here. By Valliant's own admission, ONLY journal entries that dealt with Barbara, Nathaniel and Patrecia were included. All others were excluded.

I wonder why entries on Frank were excluded. Could Ayn Rand have loved this man and not have written about him?

Valliant alleges privacy. Hmmmmmm... While his wife was in the bed of another man? Nothing in her personal notes would have mentioned this affair? There's just way too many things unanswered to accept the word alone of any outsider - especially one with restricted access to essential archives and one who filters them.

Then there is that point about Frank being being an alcoholic or not that Valliant keeps harping on. Unfortunately we will not know what Ms. Rand has to say on the subject, will we? We will just have to take Valliant's word... er... Let me rephrase that for precision.

We have to take Valliant's insinuation. I don't ever remember Valliant saying anything - one way or the other - on what Ms. Rand thought of her husband Frank's drinking habits. All I know is that any possible journal entries that could have deal with it have not been published - here or anywhere else to my knowledge.

Then again, I haven't read everything Valliant has written - and I only read his book the first time as a quick first preparatory read a few months ago. I have only firmly digested a large chunk of it, but not all of it.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/21, 9:17pm)

Post 274

Friday, October 21, 2005 - 10:56pm

Daniel -- bull's eye. It's such a relief to read something that corresponds precisely with the truth.

Michael, I'll tell you right now that there was nothing about Frank. They had been married for close to half a century at that point in time and perhaps she didn't have anything more to write in little notes to herself after modeling heroes in two of her epic novels on him, as she freely admitted was the case.

But what's the point? You'll believe what you will, and disbelieve what you will. A given source's track record of credibility or incredibility doesn't seem to make any difference to you.

Post 275

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 6:29am

Well, Casey,

After the rather public history of Rand's heir to resist practically ALL attempts at discovering the truth when such truth has been less than flattering to Ayn Rand, even to the point of publicly denying things like the affair (isn't that called lying?), I see precisely that track record of credibility and incredibility being the problem.

You guys aligned yourself with that source, play the game as he has always played it (which has previously resulted in his having to reverse himself), and then get uncomfortable when the same old inconsistencies are pointed out.

It ain't gonna go away.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/22, 7:42am)

Post 276

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 8:12am

Jody,

I have repeatedly told the story of how I got unrestricted access to the Rand material. If you choose not to believe me, what else can I say? If you have a question of me related to this, I will try to answer you without resorting to the kind of language you used.

MSK,

The references to other people that were omitted in the book were very few and very brief and usually impossible to interpret. Rand's private opinion of individuals who may still be alive and who did not personally attack her in distorted memoirs did not seem to me to be fair game. This was my decision, not Peikoff's or anyone else's. This stuff was so easily excised precisely because those mentions were so brief and few. You may deduce what you will from this fact.

O.K., who are the "you guys" and how exactly have they "aligned" themselves and to what or to whom?

I am also genuinely curious about another part of your assertion: where and when did Peikoff deny the affair? I do recall he once said that he wouldn't believe it from the Brandens, but that's not the same thing. I'm not saying he didn't say it, either, I just want the citation. Better still, why not the exact quote?

Please don't take offense at this, but I have yet to read in any of your posts any substantive criticism of my book. Obviously, and despite his promises to deliver, Mr. Allen has only offered empty personal insults, but you claim to have made points of valid criticism. In truth, you only allude to having done so. Readers of my book know how you've slanted your summaries of it, ignoring the evidence and argument -- and then calling it all "speculation" -- but what are you really saying, Michael? Is it too much to ask that you put your strongest point or two against it in clear English for us to consider?

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 10/22, 8:14am)

Post 277

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 8:21am

This is what David Brown writes about Mr. Valliant
Valliant, needless to say, doesn't exactly exculpate the Brandens either. Nor does he ever give them the benefit of the doubt when it might make sense to do so. Rand, of course, is always tendered the benefit of the doubt. And Valliant is always there to pound his case home, even during the part of the book where Ayn Rand is supposedly allowed finally to speak for herself, the part that transcribes her private notes. In this part of the book, delicately entitled "Documenting the Rape of Innocence," we have Valliant valiantly interrupting Rand again and again, without end, amen, to explain an issue at greater length, put it in context, tell Rand she's so right.
What happened between Ayn and Nathaniel from 1954-1968? Who is responsible for what failings and to what extent? I have my ideas, but I don't really know the whole story for sure. I don't think there's any way I can. I don't think Valliant can either. But he's smart enough to know that this is not all the fault of one party, however much he may have focused his mind on the task of letting Rand utterly off the hook. In any case, this is the stuff of private lives, and in various forms the pattern has played itself out many times over. It's personal stuff, nobody else's business but your own and perhaps a few intimates in whom you choose to confide, which doesn't mean you can't see it on trash shows like "Jerry Springer" and "Cheaters." But because in this case the mess is tangled up with Rand's novelistic and philosophical achievement and the movement that she and Branden created, and because they were both so important to so many people, and because Rand got the ball rolling with her vindictive attack on the Brandens in The Objectivist, their relationship has become the stuff of countless briefs and affidavits and charges and counter-charges in the court of public opinion.
It's a federal case, now. If you want a final verdict, Valliant's screed provides one.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 10/22, 8:27am)

Post 278

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 8:47am

Come on, James,

Let's not play word games.

My meaning is extremely clear and I don't wish to be enticed into a hair-splitting contest.

On a direct quote from Peikoff denying the affair, I will look for one when I get the time, and I also will look to see if anyone was used as a conduit for that view. Let the facts fall where they may.

About the substantial stuff, yes there is a lot of stuff in my past posts that is substantial. Saying that it isn't will not make it go away. I do not wish to go through them right now, though, because of other priorities. They are posted and are available for rebuttal.

I have stated - more than once - but I will state even another time, that I am preparing a full presentation. Then we will have a lot to talk about substance-wise.

When I make presentations, I usually do so with a great deal of preparation. When I make posts, I do so off the top of my head.

That's pretty normal, don't you think? Incidentally, how long did it take you to write your book? It wasn't overnight, was it?

Gotta wait, James. But it's coming.

Meanwhile, we can discuss some things. I am highly interested in what Mr. Allen has to say, for instance, since he knew Ayn Rand before, during and after the break. He just popped in out of nowhere, and that is almost even more intriguing.

I did not get that kind of source's input in your book, except for your rebuttal of the writings of the Brandens and a section dismissing a few of the old guard.

Michael

Post 279

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 9:13am