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 unread


Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 5:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In light of the arguments in THE PASSION OF AYN RAND'S CRITICS, I have removed the site Jungian Objectivism. Though the content did not wholly deal with Rand criticism, integral portions of my articles were based on the Branden's negative portrayal of Ayn Rand which I accepted without substantial evidence. Since I believe there is reasonable doubt concerning their accusations, I cannot justify the project.
Regarding Jung's ideas themselves, I suspect that most Objectivists do not take him seriously, at best, and those who do are more inclined to be sympathetic to Nathaniel Branden. However, I am not ready to dismiss Jung entirely based on this issue, matter of fact, though not recognized, Jung's ideas of projections and repressed shadows play a large role in the discussion of Rand and the Brandens. Valliant himself discusses the projections of Rand onto Nathaniel Branden based on her journal entries (claiming that Rand projected her own benevolence onto him) and that the Brandens were guilty of projecting their own religiousity and repressions onto her.
My suspicion for some time is that Nathaniel Branden introduced some of these concepts to Rand. Branden has quoted Jung in his books, and his interest in Koestler as well as hypnosis, esp, and such point to a larger interest in Jung than admitted. His post-schism works are very Jungian in theme (e.g. THE DISOWNED SELF is not dissimilar to Jung's THE UNDISCOVERED SELF) and though Branden and Rand both argued against Freud, Jung is never mentioned by Rand but quoted favorably by Branden. Brandon knows about Jung's theories, to be certain. If Valliant is right about him, at best, Nathaniel Branden can be said to be blind to his projections of his shadows onto Rand, for which he would have owned up to in JUDGEMENT DAY, and at worst, he is using Jung's ideas against Rand, that she was blind to her own projections and fell prey to her own "ego inflation" (i.e., the megalomania, the dogma, etc.) at the expense of her alienation from her "anima," her repressed feelings, etc..

Both Nathaniel and Barbara have been shown to be capable of the latter, using words such as "insane" and "neurotic" to describe Rand. Thomas Szasz, who fights against the state use of psychiatry to label undesirables as "insane" as a means of control, has chastised Branden for this behavior. (This aspect of Szasz'z though was applauded by Rand and Branden.) But we have seen Branden use psychology against Rand, and we have seen Barbara diagnose people as alcoholics based on flimsy evidence.
It pains me to have to consider such things about the Brandens, yet it pained me to consider such things about Rand. It pains me to have to consider my own work as wrong, but I cannot continue to smear the name of a thinker based on the words of hearsay.

Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 5:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for your post Joe. This book must be read, I see.

Not to Hijack, but on related subjects...

I've never had much use for this whole Rand/Branden thing. My only dealings with any of the involved have been with Barbara on SOLO. I often agreed with and appreciated her posts and articles. I had no involvement in the "namblaphile" threads, but often in the threads surrounding more polite debate. Then came Drooling Beast  and the follow on stuff, and her support of it. It was so rotten and I don't think I spoke of it strongly enough at the time. My first thought was that it was inappropriate, and this I commented on. I thought, Well Linz could very well be an alchaholic (By this I don't mean a boozing street derelict!) as I've never met him personally. He could be......But that's the rub isn't it? That's the smear. By even considering it, I'd already somewhat bought into the assassination of character, and even though I commented on its improper nature I missed the real nastiness of it at first. This must be my time to recognize that fully and say that I failed to catch the true filth in the whole thing, and I let it slime its way into my brain coloring slightly my impression of a good man. Sure Linz erupts, sometimes I disagree, sometime he apologises, sometime he is unapologetic and sticks to his guns and value judgments. In the end, what have you? A good man. A downright decent man at his core who blasts those who deserve it, and occasionally misses the mark and gets some friendly troops. But he cares about this. Cares enough to apologise and talk it through. I sure as hell can't say that I've never blasted an innocent, so I know what it's like, and I too apologise. Did Linz deserve this smear? No. Nobody deserves  to be so unjustly attacked. I was certainly wrong to not see fully just what it was. I have had a lot of respect for James and Barbara, but now? The deffecate and dismount attack on Linz was the first and, barring any further action to apologise from them, the end of most of that respect. Dear Linz, I must say I'm sorry.

Hijack over.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 7:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

Did Rand ever refer to Thomas Szasz in print?

I don't recall her doing that, but I may just be having a senior moment.

Robert Campbell


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 9:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't recall anything in print, Robert, but Sciabarra tell Szasz in FAITH IN FREEDOM that Rand responded during a Q&A at Ford Hall Forum in 1976 to a question on her opinion of Szasz's work: "She said she'd not read enough of you to 'form a full opinion, but what I have read is very interesting.' She had some 'serious' questions' about your premises, but said you seemed to be an advocate of individual rights and that your work was very 'promising.'" This is also mentioned in RUSSIAN RADICAL.
Incidentally, Rand's Q&A talks are scheduled to be published shortly.

Post 4

Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 8:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I believe at one of her Ford Hall Forum Q & A sessions Rand indicated that she was very favorably impressed with what little of Szasz she had read. I don't recall a word in print.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 9/24, 10:00pm)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 9:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert C,

The "Objectivist Research CDROM" does not list any references to Szasz by Rand. It is possible that Rand approved someone else's writing that referred to Szasz for publication in The Objectivist, but the CDROM does not include everything that Rand approved for publication - only her own writings and those of Leonard Peikoff are included in full.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe and Brant,

Thank you for the pointers to the Ford Hall Forum Q&A session.  I didn't hear her 1976 speech, and I don't own a recording, so I'll need to refer to that conveniently timed new book of transcriptions from those Q&A sessions.

Adam,

Does the CDROM exclude some, many, or all of the articles that Nathaniel Branden wrote for the Objectivist Newsletter or the Objectivist?

In any event, I know those articles pretty well and I recall no references to Szasz in them.

Robert Campbell


Post 7

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 6:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethanójust to let you know I saw your post & deeply appreciated it. Thanks. Very decent.

Ah, decency. Whatever happened to it?

Linz

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 7:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz: "Ah, decency. Whatever happened to it?" Bite my tongue.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 9/25, 11:52pm)


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

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 10:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Ah, decency. Whatever happened to it?"

It was thrown out the window by a clever-dick smart-ass anarcho-Saddamite who specializes in snide one-liners and has a severe problem with anything fundamentally decent. Did you miss a meeting?

JR

Post 10

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 6:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ah Jeff,

Linz's comments about that anarcho saddamite etc etc were justice in action. Nothing more decent than justice :-)


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.