RoR: Forum

Brant,

The Brandens did not clearly contradict the material found in those tapes -- that would've been pretty stupid when Peikoff has a copy, eh? So, they are not a source for -- nor were they ever likely to be source for -- "ammo" against the Brandens. Some of my listening of this taped material, Brant, was in Peikoff's living room -- with all voices intact. And, if Peikoff were to release these tapes commercially (though I'm really not sure about this), there might be legal/moral concerns if he did not remove their voices.

Post 301

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 12:15am

James,

One thing I'd like to find out from the tapes is whether Ayn Rand herself called her father "Fronz" when talking with Barbara Branden.

Post 302

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 11:46pm

Well, I enjoyed the vision of LP doctoring the tapes. It wouldn't have been the first time, but I did not realize that there may have been a legitimate reason for any previous occasions of which there was at least one. NB's essays were never cut out of The Virtue of Selfishness or Capitalism the Unknown Ideal.

--Brant

Post 303

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 7:30am

Brant,

"What we are talking about, after all, is who was Ayn Rand? If we can't know her through Barbara Branden's biography, since it's the only significant biography, we need more evidence than provided by PARC"

Brant, I've said earlier that Rand deserves many more and better biographies than she's received to date. However, keep in mind that if "we need more evidence", there are the dozens living or recently deceased, some of whom post here, that knew Rand (though admittedly not so well as B & B) and have made many public statements about her, not to mention The Journals of Ayn Rand. And then, of course, there's indirect biographical material, such as Rand's novels...

PARC is hardly the only other evidence than the Branden's books.

Jeff

Post 304

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 8:06am

Mr. Valliant,

This is somewhat off the main topic here, but what precisely are the "legal and moral" reasons for erasing Nathaniel Branden's voice or Barbara Branden's voice from a tape of Ayn Rand?

You say:

Some of my listening of this taped material, Brant, was in Peikoff's living room -- with all voices intact. And, if Peikoff were to release these tapes commercially (though I'm really not sure about this), there might be legal/moral concerns if he did not remove their voices.

You're repeating a standard defense of this practice that's given out by members of the Ayn Rand Institute. But I've yet to hear a plausible explanation for it.

Has NB or BB (or anyone else whose voice was cut out of a tape--I've heard that John Hospers has been accorded the same treatment) threatened to sue ARI or the Estate of Ayn Rand if a tape is released with their voices on it?

People can exercise their legal rights in strange and perverse ways, but why on earth would any of them want their voices cut out of a recording?

Robert Campbell

Post 305

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 8:45am

One small comment on cutting voices out of recordings.

I read a book years ago by Dr. Albert Ellis, Is Objectivism a Religion?. It has been a long time and I do not have the book (I read a library copy back then), but one thing jumped out at me.

There was a panel discussion once with Nathaniel Branden and Dr. Ellis that apparently turned into a fiasco. It degenerated into acrimony. Extremely bad vibes followed and his friendly relationship with Branden deteriorated and finally ended.

The discussion was taped. According to what Ellis recounted, Branden later sent him a copy of the taped event, but only the words spoken by Ellis. The voice of Branden was erased. He thought that was very curious.

I did too when I read that. The donkey-work involved back then in the age of reel-to-reel tape machines would have been very time-consuming.

Apparently, this habit of erasing voices on tapes goes way back in Objectivist history. It would be funny if it had not happened so often.

I can only speculate, but just about everything Branden did in the name of Objectivism back then was brought to Ayn Rand's attention and received her approval. I think it is reasonable to believe that she knew about this. As much as I love Rand and Branden, I cannot approve.

An attempt to emphasize "property rights" has been used several times over the years by official representatives of Objectivism as an excuse to rewrite or partially obliterate history - thus purposely evade reality.

Doing that is pure hypocrisy. Or something a child might do.

But adult people have been doing this. Not just once either.

Dayaamm!

Michael

Post 306

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:03am

Reply to post 294

Jody Allen Gomez

Your comment about cherry picking the evidence is an unfair attack. As interpreted through the lens of your court-attorney analogy, seems to be an accusation that PARC omits relevant evidence or intentionally omits contrary evidence. What is that accusation based on?

Isn't all good writing "cherry picking" the relevant facts out of the universe of all facts? Your court analogy is poor. Jury trials do in fact cherry pick relevant facts. That is why trials are shorter than lifetimes. In the Enron lawsuit, would you need to see every document----could anyone live long enough to do so?

It seems you are suggesting that unless Valliant discloses every word Rand wrote, he is suspect to criticism. That is a strange standard. Clearly the Brandens were privy to numerous conversations with Rand. Did you find the Brandens' books suspect because they did not quote every word she spoke, but instead selected (aka "cherry picked") those "facts" they chose to make their various points.

Of course many objectivists would love to see every word Rand wrote. However, it is not necessary to do so to evaluate PARC.

For the purpose of this post I divide PARC into two categories. PARC exposes the Brandens' internal inconsistencies, with express references to the sources. It is perhaps true that Valliant "cherry picked" the best contradictions, but isn't that just good writing? In the other category, PARC quotes directly from Rand and includes some excellent analysis, which is clearly stated as Valliant's observations. Additionally, Valliant expressly states which of Rands' notes were not included. What evidence is there of "cherry picking?"

Your criticism implies that you don't trust PARC because you haven't seen "all the evidence." For the purpose of analysis of PARC, all the evidence is in PARC.

I, for one, would insist that someone subpoena all the evidence, or else thow the damn case out of court.

It seems that you are saying that you won't decide anything until you know all the facts. Did you apply that standard to the Brandens'----or to any other aspect of existence?

There is a sinister implication in your post that Valliant intentionally left out relevant facts. We could imagine a mythical note from Rand stating, "I'm so jealous and angry I'll destroy NB. I'll get Frank to help, if he every sobers up." Everything in human affairs is subject to some imaginary or possible doubt. However, it is wrong to base opinions on imaginary possibilities.

I don't criticise the Brandens for failing to disclose their every interaction with Rand. I condemn the Brandens for lying about Rand. PARC exposes those lies. My condemnation of the Brandens is strong, because their lies go to the heart of whether Rand lived consistently with objectivism. Their accusations that Rand was consumed by jealousy and to her dying day held a drunk as her highest value goes to the heart of objectivist principals.
{Please see my posts 62 and 63 on this thread}

If you have evidence that relevant writings by Rand were omitted or a reasonable inference that such writings exist, then come forward with that. Otherwise you are attempting to refute known facts by posing the existence of imaginary possibilities.

I am sure we share a love for Ayn Rand and her philosophy. I can't say the same about the Brandens.

Post 307

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 12:07pm

Steve,

One little comment, as your post was a perfect example of what I call the diversion and repetition technique.

I don't recall either of the Brandens denying access to anybody to their tapes or writings by Rand, especially not an independent scholar.

ARI denies access to all but those who agree with their line of reasoning.

That was the essence of what Jody was saying, not that he wanted to see everything himself. Just that other people - scholars (Chris Sciabarra comes to mind) - he respected get an opportunity, which is flatly denied.

So you divert the attention from the real problem and repeat that the Brandens are dishonest. (Not were dishonest on some issue or other... are - and it sneaks right on in.) That's how it works.

The public is expected to take the information selected according to the kind of criteria ARI keeps on displaying as being the entirety of what Rand wrote on certain topics.

I seriously wonder if she ever made a journal entry about Peikoff that was not so favorable...

Just speculating - as I have no other option. Whose fault is that lack of option? I certainly wish I did have another option. So I speculate. The whole world does, to tell the truth.

Rand's private writings and copyrights are Peikoff's property. Her public reputation is not, thank goodness.

A very nice guy who posts little on Solo (but used to post a lot more) just e-mailed me saying something very true. Most of this crap will blow over after a while and the real truth will come out, regardless of what it is.

He's right.

Michael

Post 308

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 2:34pm

"pilfered BB's private property" This means steal, when did that happen? It seems like you've had some Kool-aid yourself.

Go and do a little research and find out who now has possession of those tapes and how they aquired them.

In the court of #294, your request would denied by a judge as not probative to the case. Then he'd ask you where did you get your law licence.

If you truly believe this, then may I recommend that you never represent yourself in a court. Since when is introducing all of the availabe evidence, evidence that the prosecution was able to sift through(but no one else), not probative to the case?

Post 309

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 3:01pm

I don't recall either of the Brandens denying access to anybody to their tapes or writings by Rand, especially not an independent scholar.

ARI denies access to all but those who agree with their line of reasoning.

That was the essence of what Jody was saying, not that he wanted to see everything himself. Just that other people - scholars (Chris Sciabarra comes to mind) - he respected get an opportunity, which is flatly denied.

Thank you Michael for so succinctly understanding what I was saying.

Steve-

Jury trials do in fact cherry pick relevant facts.

Yes, each side does. I've never known a court case where one side picked things relevant to their case and then had the rest put under lock and key.

In the Enron lawsuit, would you need to see every document

In gathering a case, quite possibly, but as far as what one would present to support your case, no, just the relevant evidence. So are you saying that there would be nothing wrong with the defense picking through these documents and then saying 'well that's it, that's all there is to see. Lock this stuff away so that no one else gets their hands on it."?

It seems you are suggesting that unless Valliant discloses every word Rand wrote, he is suspect to criticism.

No, that would be up to Peikoff, but what I am saying is that until Peikoff does this, I'll remain quite wary of anything that relies on sacred and limited knowledge and that just happens to support the ARIan party line.

It seems that you are saying that you won't decide anything until you know all the facts. Did you apply that standard to the Brandens'----or to any other aspect of existence?

Yes, when the evidence is readily availabe, but is suppressed by the official orthodox which is the keeper of the truth, I develop serious doubts and do refrain from accepting them at their word.

We could imagine a mythical note from Rand stating, "I'm so jealous and angry I'll destroy NB. I'll get Frank to help, if he every sobers up."

See most of my other posts, but I'll address this again. We would not have to imagine anything now would we, if the said keepers of the truth did not suppress relevant pieces of the puzzle. But you gotta admit, when people deliberately try to hide things from our view it really gets the imagination going does it not?

If you have evidence that relevant writings by Rand were omitted or a reasonable inference that such writings exist, then come forward with that.

I think Michael answered this well enough with his simple statement-

ARI denies access to all but those who agree with their line of reasoning.

Post 310

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 3:31pm

In post 254, John Allen writes,

"And Lonnie Leonard (as well as Roger Callahan) had been recruited by Mr. Branden. Truly rational people do not make those kinds of errors in judgment about the character of professionals in their own field, and then refer patients to them. Doesn't happen in innocence."

Nathaniel Branden never met Lonnie Leonard. Lonnie was a protege of Allan Blumenthal's, and Allan, not Nathaniel, is the one who referred clients to Lonnie.

Ellen Stuttle (who knew a number of the principals and was a participant in a course for prospective psychology professionals given in '70/'71 by Allan Blumenthal and attended for a time by Lonnie Leonard -- this was just before Allan became aware of certain things about Lonnie, upon which their relationship was discontinued and Allan quit referring clients to Lonnie).

[Edited to change the miswording "principles" to "principals" and delete a misplaced comma while I was at it.]
(Edited by Lysandra
on 10/23, 5:02pm)

Post 311

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 5:41pm

Reply to post 307

Michael,

Thank you for the response.

I did not criticize the Brandens for not disclosing every word that Rand spoke. In fact I was criticizing the standard set in post 294, in which PARC was criticized for not publishing a complete unedited version of Rand’s notes. I was saying that it is unfair to set such a standard. I was not criticizing the Brandens for that.

The criticism is especially unfair in that Valliant described in detail how he selected certain of Rand’s entries and omitted others. Valliant has also supported full disclosure of all of Rand’s notes pertaining to this subject.

Personally, I wish that everything that Rand wrote, spoke or otherwise communicated was in the public domain. Unfortunately for me, Rand did not choose me as her heir---(yet another wise decision by Rand.) However, I believe it is wrong to imply that PARC intentionally failed to report relevant information, unless there is some evidence to support that assertion.

You point to the "real issue." To me the real issue is that Rand’s novels and philosophical contributions represent a sea change in philosophy and ethics. The Brandens have painted Rand as a brilliant but troubled woman who did NOT live by her philosophy, but instead was jealous, petty, unfair, and held a drunken O’Conner as her highest value to her dying day. PARC proves that when Rand wrote “…and I mean it” that she did indeed mean it. The Brandens have made it necessary to convince others to believe in objectivism in spite of Rand, rather than because of Rand.

I agree with you that the truth is ultimate value. At this point I believe PARC is the truth. However, EVEN IF the Brandens were correct about everything, I would still be an objectivist, whether or not Rand lived up to her own philosophy. However, it is difficult for me to understand how the woman that wrote Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead could possibly be the unreasonable, jealous, revenge seeking, bitch that the Brandens describe.

I am also sure that the Brandens did not live an objectivist life based on their own admissions of deceit, which are only magnified by PARC. I can forgive and understand errors of fact and judgment, and temporarily losing sight of one’s long term best interests. I can’t hold that the Brandens' prolonged, well-developed deceit is consistent with objectivism. ( I posted 62 and 63 on this thread; they contain further observations on this thought.)

btw, anytime I read a thread, I read all of your posts on that thread. You are one of the names I look for. I appreciate your willingness to engage in debate and you seem unafraid to clearly state what you believe. I will attempt to be just as forthcoming.

(Edited by steve carver on 10/23, 6:11pm)

Post 312

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:07pm

Reply to post 309

Jody,

I agree that I wish Peikoff would release the notes, tapes, photos, including any coloring books and half-finished cross-word puzzles that are in his possession. I do not understand why he doesn't. If I ever meet him, which is unlikely, I will ask him to do so.

I also agree that is proper to be wary (as you put it) of new information. However, I believe you went beyond wariness when you wrote

thow the damn case out of court

That sounded to me like a complete rejection rather than being "wary." Valliant described in detail how he selected certain of Rand’s entries and omitted others. Even if you hold steadfastly to your belief that contrary materials exist, what PARC does say is worth analysis and consideration.

Jury trials do in fact cherry pick relevant facts.

Yes, each side does. I've never known a court case where one side picked things relevant to their case and then had the rest put under lock and key.

I don't believe Rand's notes have "sides." Again, your defense/prosecution analogy strongly implies an intentional omission of relevant data in the face of Valliant's claim to the contrary.

As to the rest of your comments, I think they are answered by my agreement with you that I would also like ALL the notes released. However I think this must be about the 100th time on this thread alone that persons have agreed they would like to see all the notes. Perhaps we could artistic side of SOLO develope some mantra like chant regarding the release of everything Rand wrote.

Post 313

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:12pm

Steve-

I agree that I wish Peikoff would release the notes, tapes, photos, including any coloring books and half-finished cross-word puzzles that are in his possession.

It's good to know that there is at least one other out there who would pay for a book of her 'half-finished cross-word puzzles'!

Post 314

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:46pm

Steve,

Thank you for your compliments. I will look through your former posts.

I want to address a few points of yours. You wrote:

"The Brandens have painted Rand as a brilliant but troubled woman who did NOT live by her philosophy, but instead was jealous, petty, unfair, and held a drunken O’Conner as her highest value to her dying day."

That's funny, because I also got the impression of an extraordinarily heroic woman and thinker from the Branden accounts. Actually one who also DID live by her philosophy. One who faced tremendous challenges, both external and internal, and conquered most of her enemies using the principles she herself devised.

I am not saying that the warts and speculations as to motives were not present - but all this other good stuff was present as well.

One of my major contentions with Valliant's book is that it leads precisely to the type of one-sided evaluation you just mentioned. If you read the Branden works, you will find a HUGE emphasis on Rands's qualities - much more than on her negative points. Valliant does explicitly the same thing he accuses the Brandens of doing between the lines.

(btw - I haven't had much contact with Barbara these days, but she used to get on my case about lumping her bio with Nathaniel's books. She thinks that they are in completely different leagues - one being a biography/partial autobiography and the other being merely memoirs - and she has her own differences with Nathaniel.)

Back to the one-sidedness. You also wrote:

"The Brandens have made it necessary to convince others to believe in objectivism in spite of Rand, rather than because of Rand."

Actually, that would only be true if you required a philosopher to be 100% consistent to his philosophy 100% of the time, which the variables of reality and volition make impossible. Now, after reading PARC, it becomes really easy to say that though. Unfortunately, it does not correspond to reality. I even believe that James V mentioned that Rand's ideas stand on their own merit. His stated purpose was to put a stop to a certain type of criticism - Rand bashing - that he perceived and attributed to the Brandens. Not save Objectivism from the damage of a poor reputation of the founder.

(Incidentally, the proper form of Objectivism is with a capital "O" - it was Rand who stipulated that apparently to separate it from intrinsicism.)

You eloquently prove my point:

"However, EVEN IF the Brandens were correct about everything, I would still be an objectivist, whether or not Rand lived up to her own philosophy."

Now the next point is a bit trickier and answering it will depend on many factors - especially a commitment to the truth.

Both Brandens publicly admitted their deceit. Would it have been more Objectivist to hide it? I believe that coming clean is an admirable quality.

Where I differ greatly from James V is that he says they came clean for any and every reason on earth except for being basically honest people. He explicitly tries to paint their admissions as another form of deceit.

That's where I take a reality check. They were not lying to the public - or trying to sneak in hidden messages - by saying they had lied to Rand. I won't buy that, but that is where people go with this.

I just read through your two previous 62 and 63.

Here are my thoughts on the length of time the deceit continued - things were extremely complicated back then. One thing that Valliant completely skips over in the majority of his incessant insinuations (although he does mention it to give lip service) is the hero worship that both Brandens had for Rand.

She was their guru - she had held them up to the world as perfect human beings - and then Nathaniel had fallen in love with a younger woman. I certainly do not think he wanted that to happen (actually, how it did happen is a very charming part of his memoir), but once it did, he had to reject the greatest of the greats and also tell her he preferred a woman who was less intellectually developed.

He was not up to the task after all those years being her disciple and then being her lover. That's a tough call for anybody.

Valliant would have you believe that it was only the money.

On the alcoholism thing, it is entirely possible to continue to love an alcoholic once the problem starts. (I am not affirming that Fran was, although I still have doubt.) That is supported in Rand's fiction. You mentioned Roark. Well, I remember him taking care of Henry Cameron in his drunken final years with the greatest of love.

Frankly, Steve, I have enjoyed posting to you.

Michael

Post 315

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 7:05pm

Steve,

When asked whether the purpose of his book is to prove that Ayn Rand was morally perfect, James Valliant has said that it was not. In several posts on SOLOHQ, he has declared that PARC only endeavors to prove that what Nathaniel and Barbara Branden said about Rand's character was false.

You point to the "real issue." To me the real issue is that Rand’s novels and philosophical contributions represent a sea change in philosophy and ethics. The Brandens have painted Rand as a brilliant but troubled woman who did NOT live by her philosophy, but instead was jealous, petty, unfair, and held a drunken O’Conner as her highest value to her dying day. PARC proves that when Rand wrote “…and I mean it” that she did indeed mean it. The Brandens have made it necessary to convince others to believe in objectivism in spite of Rand, rather than because of Rand.

I agree with you that the truth is ultimate value. At this point I believe PARC is the truth. However, EVEN IF the Brandens were correct about everything, I would still be an objectivist, whether or not Rand lived up to her own philosophy. However, it is difficult for me to understand how the woman that wrote Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead could possibly be the unreasonable, jealous, revenge seeking, bitch that the Brandens describe.

Why assume, on the basis of great achievement, that the person responsible for it was morally perfect?

Victor Hugo wrote great novels. Does it follow from his achievements, and the virtues they required, that he was morally perfect?

Aristotle was a great philosopher; inventing the first system of formal logic was just one of his feats, and his moral philosophy is an immediate ancestor of Rand's. Does it follow from his achievements, and the virtues they required, that he was morally perfect?

In the thread on The Argument from Intimidation, I've assembled evidence from various sources that Rand resorted to this "argument" on occasion--even though she brilliantly identified and exposed it in a classic essay, and showed how its use is morally irresponsible.

Did her occasional resort to the argument from intimidation, out of impatience or whatever the motive was, make Rand unfit to write The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged?

Whatever Mr. Valliant's stated intentions, PARC seems to appeal to people who do not merely want to set the record straight about Rand's life and character, or to push ad hominem attacks on her out of the way so critics will engage her ideas. A good part of its appeal is to people who insist that moral perfection was required, or Ayn Rand wouldn't have achieved what she was able to achieve.

Robert Campbell

Post 316

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 8:14pm

MSK,

I have to remind you that in PARC, in Rand's journal entries, we find out for the first time that the Brandens' books did not come clean about several extremely important things:

1) That both of them participated in deceiving Rand for at least two years about Branden's affair while he was carrying on bogus therapy sessions with Rand to work on a sexual problem that he claimed left him sexually paralyzed.

2) That Rand did not split from them because Branden felt the age issue prevented him from carrying on their affair. Even after this became clear to Rand, we learn, she was still figuring out how to continue their business relationship. This is a MAJOR deception that is present in both of the Brandens' books in which you claim they "came clean."

3) They concocted a victim status for Frank complete with Barbara's baseless claim of Frank's alcoholism even though she had never personally seen any evidence of it. Nathaniel years later would "corroborate" this even though he had no evidence or reason to believe it himself.

4) That Rand did, in fact, tell the truth in her statement announcing her break from the Brandens. The pack of lies in both of the Brandens "answer" to Ayn Rand are still proudly displayed at their websites to this day.

There are many more, but these are so important and change the whole nature of their relationship and break to such a degree that no one can call the Brandens' books honest or that they "came clean." FAR from it!

Post 317

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 8:33pm

Casey,

One small detail. This has bugged me for awhile, since it crept in and then got repeated and repeated and repeated as if it were fact.

You claim that Barbara had never seen any personal evidence of Frank's alleged alcoholism.

Did she ever say that anywhere? I have to wait a week or so for Passion to arrive, so I cannot consult it to see if she said that there.

I don't remember her ever saying that on Solo, so could you supply me a quote if you know of one?

Michael

btw - I will not try to say that the deceptions against Ayn Rand were right, but I did not see the Brandens deny these things in public either. They omitted them. But then again, Ayn Rand publicly omitted the news of the affair for years. Maybe they learned something? (I don't care much for those kinds of ommissions either, but I don't like double standards even more.)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/23, 8:48pm)

Post 318

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 9:05pm

Jody - you suggest, "Go and do a little research and find out who now has possession of those tapes and how they aquired them."

Sounds interesting, but I have other priorities - 3 tight deadlines this coming weekend. Could you post some URLs?

Post 319

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:34pm