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 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 11:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis,

I want to thank your painstaking analysis of aspects of Valliant's book. I had noted the type of argument you described in this last post of yours - the constant context switching - but actually you succinctly described the entire second chapter entitled Rand and Non-Rand, at the Same Time and in the Same Respect.

The lack of focus in readers you mentioned is not passive. It is purposely induced by a couple of devices. For instance there is lip-service Valliant makes to objectivity, as given in the following quote on page 16 (I have mentioned this one before, but it is worth repeating):
A personality can be complex - it can even contain contradictory elements - especially ther personality of a creative artist like Ayn Rand.
This makes him sound reasonable and throws the reader off. Then he immediately continues with his real interest (which, by the way, conflicts head-on with what he just wrote without any apology or explanation):
But the Law of Non-Contradiction, which Ms. Branden still claims to believe, remains true. Either Rand was a person who had a universal contempt for the less intelligent or she was a person who had "infinite patience" and 'respect" for them - she cannot have been both.
Notice how he completely leaves out context here, like pretentiousness or passionate sincerity in the less intelligent, which I imagine would cause Rand to be scathingly rude and dismissive to the first and extremely generous to the second. I become particularly irritated with this robotic (i.e. contextless) view of Ayn Rand Valliant tries to present when he makes his learned judgments on the "inconsistencies" in both of Brandens' books.

Another device. Valliant dismisses phrases like "were to become" in his smarmy pot shots. This particular phrase indicates a long gradual process in the Rand that Barbara remembers, not a fixed position throughout her entire lifetime. Where there was no unusual intelligence, Rand grew over time to not hold "value that meant anything to her in personal terms." And, of course, Valliant completely ignores the phrase "so long as she believed the mind was honest and seeking" for Rand's dedication to less competent minds.

But Valliant wisely pronounces on Rand that "she cannot have been both." To borrow a popular phrase, bullocks. She was both in different contexts.

Note that Valliant gives these quotes, but completely ignores context like time and even the words giving the context in the very quotes themselves, to the point of implicitly positing a Rand without mood swings, changes of opinion over time and a host of other volatile characteristics that are inherent in the human condition, when he draws his breathtaking conclusions. Rand simply becomes a robot in his hands during these moments. (Frankly I get angry because I resent that. I love Ayn Rand. And the Brandens for that matter.)

I could do like he does right now. I could make a snide comment about his assertion that there could be "contradictory elements" in the personality of someone like Rand and ask him which is it to be. Could Rand have had "contradictory elements" or not to people who remember her? He clearly states both. So now I could postulate all over the place that since Valliant himself is being contradictory, he is being completely dishonest, seeking financial gain, being extremely petty, willfully misrepresenting his evidence and so forth. (Hmmmm... actually that's not a bad idea...)

But my point here is that this is another of Vallinat's devices to numb the reader's mind, i.e. his constant sudden change of context to draw a conclusion after presenting "evidence" where context is present. This leads a reader to think Valliant is being reasonable, when he actually is trying to sneak in interpretations that are based on false and contextless premises.

In order for a reader to stay focused on reality and not Valliant's opinions and nonstop snide comments, he would have to constantly reread passages and check Valliant's view for context every step of the way. That's one hell of a task to demand of a reader.

There is much, much more to criticize in this work, but that little reinforcement for your point, Dennis, will do for now.

(I don't know you, but I sure like what I see.)

Michael


Post 21

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 2:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Glenn—Marx was not challenging the cultural traditions of two and a half thousand years.  He was (so to speak) “capitalizing” on them.  And, by the way, spellchecker is no substitute for a dictionary.

 

Michael K---Ditto, my friend.  Thank goodness someone else has the patience to help me wade through this disgusting cesspool.

 

You didn’t ask, but I must tell you that I have mixed feelings about both Brandens.  I liked Barbara very much when I met her at an Objectivist seminar years ago, but I do not think that the TV movie based on her book was a positive contribution to Objectivism.  It is, to say the least, unworthy of her, and I think she would do well to repudiate it.

 

Nathaniel has meant a great deal to my personal development.  I owe him a debt that can never be repaid.  However, I made the mistake of telling this to him in person following a lecture two years ago.  I will always regret doing so.  His response was so bewildering that I have never felt the same about him since.

 

But I do love Objectivism and I do love Ayn Rand.  Who knows? She might have responded to my expression of appreciation exactly the way Nathaniel did, but—in a very real way--she saved my life.  And I will not remain silent when I see her wonderful philosophy being dragged through the muck—even if it’s by some damned fool who thinks he’s defending her good name.


Post 22

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 10:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis,

You write, "Nathaniel has meant a great deal to my personal development. I owe him a debt that can never be repaid. However, I made the mistake of telling this to him in person following a lecture two years ago. I will always regret doing so. His response was so bewildering that I have never felt the same about him since."

Welcome to the club. NB is a genius, but he sometimes behaves in ways that are positively bizarre, as though he had turned his mind over to another personality, quite different from his usual one. I was bewildered by this twice, and then started hearing reports of NB's similarly bewildering behaviors from others. NB has even done it in public, on Diana Hsieh's web site: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2004/08/unnecessary-evidence.html - and "Hellen's" "contributions" to Diana's web site not only came from NB's computer, but according to reliable stylographic software were written by Nathaniel Branden himself.

Post 23

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 10:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis: "And I will not remain silent when I see her wonderful philosophy being dragged through the muck"

Thanks for proving my point in post 19. I could have used Einstein "god, when it comes out he was a bad parent, no one will read his theory of relativity."
You seem to be confusing the object (what the book says) with the subject of your consciousness (this book makes me very mad.) Now you and Michael are invading minds, knowing what's going on better then they do. But I do understand your hostility toward others.

By the way, I'll use the dictionary when you take courses and stop writing like this:

"They were surrounded by cold and snow."
"In fact, we are constantly being bombarded with negative messages every day, from all sides."
"We are what we think, and our expectations have a way of enacting themselves into reality."
[This one does explain your psychological views. But why don't you "rethink (your) negative ideas and replace them with more positive views" about this book.]

And from your "novel"...

"He stood on the deck of the Staten Island Ferry and watched Manhattan fly toward him through the early morning mist."
LOL
"The sun was just breaking through, and the scatted rays highlighted the shimmering steel and concrete"
"He started to squint at the first glimpse of filth and decay, then opened his eyes wide again."
"His exhilaration choked on the notion that ugliness should ever claim one instant of his lifetime."
"But neglect was enabling this tide of refuse to rise up from the sewers and engulf the glory of which it was a by-product."




Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 6:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis,

We can certainly aid each other in separating the wheat (Rand) from the chaff (Valliant) in POARC.

I cannot go where you are with the Brandens, though. I have nothing but admiration for both of them, and that is just for starters.

In Barbara's case, do not ever ask me to accompany you in any criticism whatsoever. I am extremely biased and I admit that. I would never suggest she repudiate the movie either. All movements have their legends - that is what attracts people initially to them. Christianity has Christmas and Easter - two very strong draws for churches that, in practice, have very little to do with the religion at all. Yet no church repudiates them. I kind of see the movie in this light - as a sort of popular drawing card for those who know nothing about Objectivism. An appetizer.

The movie made from her book had (1) a terrific and famous cast and production, (2) a wide audience, i.e. success, and (3) a hell of a good real-life story to tell. But you say it didn't deal hardly at all with the philosophy. I say, "So what?" On its own terms it works marvelously - and it does not pretend to be more than it is. It focused on Ayn Rand the woman and did it well.

About your mention of Nathaniel's quirky behavior, my first impression was... Well? What the hell happened? You took me in the story all the way to the cave and now you won't let me see what's in it? Then Adam mentioned Nathaniel's quirky behavior also. Now I really want to see what's in it. What on earth does Nathaniel do?

(Cupping hand to ear and saying, "Confession is good for the soul.")

I can't judge what I don't know. I have not approached Nathaniel yet, for some reason I haven't been able to fathom. Someday I will, but I am putting it off for now. However, when our meeting finally takes place, I have no doubt that it will be a most cordial one on both sides.

I do know that people who are in the spotlight develop quirks to handle harassment and their own needs (I had a small name in Brazil, so some of this I know from experience). I am not saying that this was Nathaniel's reason in your case (or Adam's). But trying to look through the eyes of another can be valuable to help explain the unexplainable. I will give two examples.

The first is suppose Nathaniel suffers from bowel trouble or lots of intestinal gas. He obviously cannot cut loose in front of everybody when it starts hurting. Nonetheless he finds himself, while in pain, suddenly swamped by too many people to handle to politely let him get to the restroom. Especially if a persistent fan comes up and insists on providing him with overly-long gushes. Can you imagine what situation that would be? You are in physical pain and mortified that you might do something embarrassing at any moment and this guy or woman in front of you simply won't shut up!

How about another? Suppose several times in life very enthusiastic fans exhibiting a certain type of gush behavior have turned out to be spies for some "enemy" or have turned on him without mercy later. So, anytime he sees this behavior in the future, he might react negatively, even in cases where it is not warranted.

Public people only have 24 hours in the day just like everybody else. They can make mistakes, but they have their own contexts - which includes interaction with many more people than the average person. As I said, I cannot say if any of this applies to your case or not, but I hope I just gave you something to think about before you condemn (even partially) a great man like Nathaniel Branden or a great woman like Barbara Branden.

Now back to a not-so-great Valliant and an extremely great Ayn Rand.

Michael


Post 25

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 8:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

"What does Nathaniel do?" The various instances differ; the only common characteristic that I have been able to detect, is that in every case NB acted as if he were somebody else. The "Hellen" episode on Diana Hsieh's web site, to which I already posted a link, is (except for having been witnessed in real time by hundreds of visitors to Diana's blog) a completely typical example.

Here is another: A mailing list, of which NB and I were both members, received a message from NB's account, forwarding an appeal from an organization called "Citizens for State Power," demanding greater State government control over the energy industries. I contacted the owner of the list, pointing out that this message appeared to contradict all of NB's known political views, and asked him to check if this was a forgery. He investigated, and found that the "Citizens for State Power" message was indeed personally sent out by NB.

If you have already read the link about NB posing as "Hellen," then by now you should have some idea of what those behaviors are like.

Post 26

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 8:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's inconceivable that Nathaniel would endorse anything called "Citizens for State Power," which is clearly a non-existent group.

It is not inconceivable that some hacker aiming to embarrass him and/or other Objectivists and libertarians employed one of the many viruses that hijack email address books in order to forward fake messages. This has happened to several friends, and I've received virus-laden messages from "their" accounts, without their knowledge, because I happened to be in their email address books.

Isn't this a more reasonable explanation than believing that a lifelong anti-statist would endorse "Citizens for State Power"?


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 10:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Dennis:" I do not think that the TV movie based on her [Barbara's] book was a positive contribution to Objectivism."

I didn't write or control the script, Dennis. However, I would never consider repudiating it. No, it's not a contribution to Objectivism, and it wasn't intended to be. It was a presentation of several dramatic years in the life of Ayn Rand.

I have heard from a great many people who saw the film and who told me that they read Ayn Rand as a result of it. That's what I had hoped would happen.

Barbara

 

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 10:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

Merely because you brought it up, I reread the Hellen Rearden affair on Diana Hsieh's Noodlefood blog. I had already read it once a few months ago. This time I even went to the link that she provided at the beginning and was pleasantly surprised to see posts by both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, and even you around May, 2004. Also some colorful names, like Alligator something or the other, Mysterious Stranger, some lower-case initials and other such popping up in the middle of normal names (some of whom even post on Solo).

I had to skim most of posters (except Nathaniel, Barbara, you and a few other posts) because there was simply too much material to read - and a lot of it was really long-winded posts. Some were pretty knuckleheaded from what I skimmed.

I did not notice any bad behavior by either Nathaniel or Barbara. I did notice that they both seemed to care enough about the people there to make very serious and thoughtful posts in answer to questions and accusations. By that I mean that they did not make light of the other posters and I got the impression that both were being extremely sincere.

Then I went back to reading Ms. Hsieh lambasting of them both for vicious attacks on Rand, psychologizing her, dishonesty, yada yada yada , and that she had banned both Brandens from her site forever for their overtly corrupt behavior. Then she dramatically produced the Hellen posts and Nathaniel's later confession that he had goofed on her. She tried to prove Nathaniel's dishonesty with this and he claimed his goof tried to prove that within a short time, someone would pop up and accuse "Hellen" of dishonesty. But then someone actually did!

He signed off wishing her well and she signed off calling him a "dishonest prick."

LOLOLOLOL...

Maybe I have been in a foreign country too long where good-natured goofing (practical jokes) happen all the time. Maybe there is a lot of subtexts I haven't discerned, like insider info and references to things past. I don't know. I do know that banning someone from an Internet site is like trying to ban them from a public highway - they can always come back in by way of pseudonyms and new accounts. (That happens sometimes here on Solo.)

What I can't understand is the puffed-up indignant posturing (of the criminal invasion of private property type) as if some grave life-and-death issue had just been unleashed on mankind because of a goof.

Sorry, Adam. I thought it was pretty damn funny. The guy knew this lady was pissed at him. He goofed on her anyway and then owned up. OK, he's a bit ornery, but he wished her well. LOLOL... So what's the big deal? What did I miss? That he likes to goof on people sometimes? Get their goat? That's the big moral issue of the day?

Also, I agree with Robert about the plausibility of a hacker attack - or even malicious misuse of his computer by someone with access to it, if that "Citizens for State Power" thing were done in earnest.

In a recent review of the estimable pseudo-learned Valliant tome, Wendy McElroy stated that she found out about the affair between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden when she was young because a person who had been hired to watch Nathaniel's house had used the opportunity to go through his private papers, then released that information on the grapevine.

Thus, he has been subject to that kind of invasive attack before. And that didn't sound at all like a goof like his "immoral" assault on Noodlefood was - it sounded like some pretty serious theft to me. I haven't seen the "Citizens for State Power" message, but it also could be a goof - I don't know. Regardless. Whether or not it is a practical joke, does that constitute a split personality, as you insinuate?

Dayaamm! 

I always feel that so much gets warped all out of synch with reality when those two get discussed - even by good people. My perspective is that of an outsider who happens to be knowledgeable about the philosophy. I swear I'm trying to understand, but I just can't seem to understand some things at all.
 
Also, on the rude quirkiness, is it possible that this man simply gets grumpy at times like a normal human being does? Or is that not realistic?

Michael

Post 29

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 11:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

That is very much the point. The person who verified that the message was manually submitted by NB, is one of the most distinguished Internet innovators and a life-long Objectivist activist; I personally verified the technical evidence and it was absolutely solid. The URL in the message linked to a professional-quality web site of "Citizens for State Power."

I may as well describe the other instance of bizarre behavior from NB that I was a witness to. At a presentation I attended, NB asked that questions be submitted in writing. One of the questions was, in my judgement, a clear and interesting question in applied psychology. On reading it, NB asked the questioner who wrote it to stand, and then turned into a kind of grammar teacher from Hell, expounding in great length and with great sarcasm on several alleged grammatical errors in the question, and never adddressing the content.

All these behaviors have to do with NB behaving as though he were something other than what he is: a woman, a fascist, a pedant... Bizarre and perplexing, but there it is.

Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 11:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob, I don't think it's at all clear that Citizens for State Power is "a non-existent group." Nor, however, is it clear, as Adam seems to think, that this organization exists to pursue goals diametrically opposed to Nathaniel's well-known libertarian political beliefs.

CSP is a very real, basically conservative, free-market oriented organization.  For instance, in regard to the issue of renewable energy sources, Craig Shirley, director of Citizens for State Power stated that if they "can be developed and utilized in an efficient and competitive manner, let them compete and prosper in the open market."

A few years back, a coalition of national and state organizations including Citizens for State Power, Americans for Tax Reform and the American Conservative Union, denounced a government bailout of more than a dozen bankrupt rural electric cooperatives. The groups criticized the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Services for forgiving the hundreds of millions in debt owed to the federal government by the nearly insolvent electric cooperatives.

Another CSP project was to oppose attempts for federally directed deregulation of the electrical industry, and to call instead for deregulation of the federal control of electricity. To the extent that they wanted to replace Federal control with control by the States, this certainly amounts to seeking "greater State control over the energy industries" and thus does appear to be anti-libertarian in its thrust. But in the context of federalism and the conservative push for States' Rights, which seeks to pose the State and local governments as a check against excessive control and distortion of the economy by the Federal government, and to place control over energy development and distribution closer to the actual people being served, it has to be viewed as a step in the right direction.

On balance, CSP is yet another mixed free-statist lobbying organization. Libertarians can certainly agree with some of CSP's policies and goals, while regarding others as, at best, semi-satisfactory way-stations toward the roll-back of the state (and State).

Best to all,
Roger Bissell


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 12:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As Ayn Rand's personal journals and James Valliant detective work proves, the Brandens' will say anything, do anything.

"Fortunately for history, we have Rand's notes, because with them we can fully understand what had been previously been  inexplicable: we can finally see the underlying motive of the Brandens' contradictory and distorted biographies, where all of the lies and omissions, all of the fabrications, and smears, were aimed at a singular, horrible purpose--the concealment of an act of spiritual rape." 



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 12:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LOLOLOLOL...

Glenn, with that spiritual rape crap, you prove that Valliant "will say anything, do anything."

btw - Valliant is not a bad detective, but not great one either. He undermines all his good work with bad premises. Still, I wish he had stuck to detective work instead of blatant slander like that - then there wouldn't even be an issue of having to face possible liability.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 7/07, 12:28am)


Post 33

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 12:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Citizens for State Power (CSP) is a coalition of interests OPPOSED to federal energy deregulation.

"What I'm more concerned about is when these groups make states-rights arguments and seem to have another agenda in mind."--Adam Thierer of CATO talking about CSP.

They seem to have gone out and looked for conservatives and libertarians who would sell out free market ideas for money.
That sounds like Nathaniel Branden, but he was in "good company", David Keene of the American Conservative Union and Grover Norquist of the "Americans for tax Reform" are the most famous free market types to take money to betray the the free market.

On 05-11-00 the Washing Post wrote a story that a secret coalition of nine state electric utilities funneled 17 million dollars into Citizens for State Power, and its liberal counterpart, the Electric Utility Shareholders Alliance. The campaign, which was known as "The Project," created front groups to garner public opposition to deregulation. 

While Citizens for State Power was attacking Republican legislators and opposing free market legislation, Keene used his position as chairmen of the American Conservative Union to endorse the CSP agenda. Keene, who was actually working for CSP and the Carmen Group, signed a number of public letters as Chairman of the ACU.--National Review.

So I guess NB was a small fry. Adam Reed's story sound very much like National Review's and the Washington Post's.




 



Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 1:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, Michael, "spiritual rape" is way over the top. It's also actually a somewhat more dignified way of accusing Branden of "mind-fucking." As we all know, or have heard, rape is not motivated by desire for sex, but by a desire to control. The point of the "spiritual rape" allegation is to assert, in excessively pungent terms, that Branden was trying to control Rand's mind, not merely to distract her so as to keep her from flying off the handle if she found out about his affair, but (presumably) for the sake of control itself. In other words, Valliant is claiming not just that Branden engaged in the immoral behavior of lying to prevent a consequence he feared, but that Branden was actually a callous sociopath, viewing and using Rand (and others) not as a person, but as a thing over which to exercise control for control's sake. I don't think there's a bit of evidence to support this judgment, neither in Rand's newly published journal writings, nor in Branden's memoir, nor in Barbara Branden's biography of Rand. I see plenty of evidence, instead, to support the view that Branden behaved not amorally, but immorally, and that he acknowledged and made amends for this behavior the best he could over the years. For this alone, not to mention his great contributions to the Objectivist philosophy and to the Self-Esteem movement, he has my great admiration and appreciation. The fact that he recently may have engaged in quirky actions that some find objectionable or immoral (e.g., the Hellen incident on Diana Hsieh's blog list) does not negate this.

Best to all,
Roger Bissell


Post 35

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 2:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Barbara,

 

Thank you very much for your comment.  Do you recall the seminar David Kelley gave in Santa Monica shortly after his break with Peikoff?  It was my great pleasure and honor to meet you at that time.  Because I was in charge of organizing the seminar, David was kind enough to invite me to join in several discussion sessions in which you also participated.  In case I neglected to tell you then, let me say it now: I admire you tremendously, and I do regard your book to be an extremely valuable contribution to Objectivism.  If the movie prompted people to buy and read your biography (I am sure it did) and then to discover the works of Ayn Rand, then clearly it did serve a worthwhile purpose.

 

Adam,

 

Like Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden is also a human being.  I do not share your apparent bitterness toward him.  I largely agree with Michael K’s assessment of the Hellen posts.  As I understand it, Diana Hsieh was an associate of his for a long time, and he was trying to open her eyes to the mindset of the ARI crowd.  In fact, he was being remarkably benevolent—far too benevolent, in my opinion, when she is capable of statements such as “you two have done more damage to the cause of Objectivism than I ever imagined possible.”  There would be no Objectivist movement without Nathaniel Branden!  He created it!  Rand would never have launched it on her own—and Leonard has done nothing but sabotage it (to the best of his very limited ability). 

 

Michael K,

 

There isn’t much to tell, actually.  It’s what Nathaniel did not do that disturbed me.  He simply walked away.  Everyone else had pretty much gone.  It was just the two of us.  I walked to the podium and, without really intending to, found myself  baring my soul to him.  It was totally spontaneous on my part—being quite candid, there were tears in my eyes.  He said nothing.  No smile.  No acknowledgement.  Just walked away.

 

Looking back on it now, I think he was simply being authentic in the way that Fritz Perls has often been described.  He looked directly at me, gave me my moment to be vulnerable, but did not feel inclined to reciprocate in any way.  He would likely say that he was giving me the respect of not deceiving me about his response.  (“I’m not in this world to live up to your expectations, and you’re not in this world to live up to mine”—Perls)  He was, in other words, being completely reality-oriented.

 

Nathaniel has often spoken highly of Perls, although he disagrees with the anti-intellectual aspect of the Gestalt school.   If he had been doing therapy with me, perhaps he would have tried to help me integrate the internal reality of my own reaction to the coldness of his response.  Perhaps he would have said: “Name what you’re experiencing at this moment.” And I would have said: “F__k you, Nathaniel Branden!”  And then I would be authentic, too.

 

The fact is—I was devastated.  To hell with Fritz Perls!  Would it kill him to have smiled and said “Thank you!”  Do we really need to be that “authentic” every moment we’re alive, even it means being cruel to the people around us?  I don’t think so.  I know that I make an effort to be benevolent and kind, even to strangers who might not particularly appeal to me.  If that makes me less “authentic,” then so be it.  For myself, knowing that I may have hurt someone when I could easily have avoided it is profoundly disturbing.

 

But big deal.  So he hurt my feelings.  I got over it, rather quickly as I recall.  And I will continue to admire him.  From a healthy distance.

 

Now.  About that damn book we were discussing….   

 

   

 

 

 


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 3:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael: “The first is suppose Nathaniel suffers from bowel trouble or lots of intestinal gas. He obviously cannot cut loose in front of everybody when it starts hurting.”

Do you have a reliable source for this supposition, Michael, or are you just going on gut instinct? I know some people think Branden is an old windbag, but I’m not sure that this warrants letting rip with speculation about the state of his bowels.

In any case, a spell at the lecture podium should, if anything, relieve any build-up of excess gas. And with practice, one can learn simple methods of silent but deadly emission, enabling one to evade responsibility, with the added benefit of blowing off unwanted attention.

And I find it hard to believe that Ayn Rand would willingly team up with a man who lacked elementary discipline. Certainly, her husband Frank was by all accounts a gentleman, not the sort who was in the habit of letting himself go in any circumstances.

It’s also noteworthy that Miss Rand had little tolerance for naturalism, whether in her art or her men. I’m tempted to conclude that you’ve dropped a clanger with this one, Michael, but you usually have an uncanny knack for getting to the bottom of things, so I’m prepared to give your idea some consideration.

It’s quite possible that the disturbing tendencies that Miss Rand noticed in Branden were the result of a growing internal conflict. We know he spent much time in her company, and there’s nothing worse than having to keep the cork in the bottle for hours on end. Perhaps it’s understandable that he sought relief in the arms of another woman.

There’s also some value to future scholars in your thesis. Branden’s works may now be divided into pre- and post-flatulence periods, an approach that is bound to shed much light on some fundamental issues.

Brendan


Post 37

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 3:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis,

Thanks for the elaboration.

"He simply walked away."

Isn't that Nathaniels message? "You're on your own."

I am indebted to NB for coming to this realization. And had a painful moment or two while learning it.

"Would it kill him to have smiled and said “Thank you!”"

Isn't he great? Seriously, Nathaniel is a great man.

"From a healthy distance."

Emphasis on "healthy". You may not have been as much of a mental basket case as I was but I'm sure glad NB is who he is.

Post 38

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 4:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wonder how many will mis-read Brendan's post #39?

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 6:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I know that I must have mis-read it, because I thought it was numbered 36!  :-)

Best regards,
Not Brendan


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.