| | 1. The guru claims that he or she knows all, and you don't need to learn from anyone else. Bandler tries to cut his former partner out of the picture. Their books are long out-of-print.
Ayn Rand was hardly one to profess omniscience - and if I reminisce accurately, omniscience-oriented philosophy does not bode well with Objectivism. Ayn Rand, was, however a woman of certainty, confidence, conviction, and objectivism indeed promotes contextual, logical certainty.
In a pluralistic society where irrational mentalities exist, it is natural that such justified certainty will receive unjustified disrespect - even to the point where it is judged "cultish". This is extremely unfair, in my opinion.
In Rand's case, I think she actually didn't know that other people had said thing similar to hers.
I distinctly recall an instance where she was cited as stating "Objectivism is simply Aristotelianism without Platonism". This clearly indicates she was aware of the fact that Objectivism is fundamentally not an original or radical philosophy. Indeed, she was aware that Objectivism is only original insofar as it is the first system of all these Aristotelian concepts composed into a philosophy for man on Earth.
Rand despised other approaches to free markets, for example.
I am aware of no such protests - but I haven't covered the entire scope of Objectivist literature as of yet, and you may have profound knowledge that I do not. I'm curious, though: Have you concluded if her objections to such different approaches were supported with reasons, or if they were in fact, utterly unjustified?
The guru doesn't tolerate any mention of the competition, but often complains about it and berates it.
Disfavoring "competition" as the theme of conversation and verbal animosity of the "enemy", is not common behavior - but rather, unique to individuals categorized as "gurus"?
The guru has an obsession with a devil. Ayn Rand's was Immanuel Kant.
I reasonably infer that you've gathered this conclusion based on Ayn Rand's writings, since I widely suspect that you did not know Ayn Rand personally. But to substitute a person's writings as clear, personal knowledge of themselves, is an extremely insufficient method - not to mention, very unfair to the human being. In truth, Ayn Rand had a knack for a captivating style of writing, with a very intense, passionate charm. In addition, she further had a remarkable perspicacity, with a very penetrative perception. Such a leading lady who recognizes any downfall of humanity, will naturally have thought processes that are consistent with the aforementioned characteristics of her identity. But I cannot utter whether she was suffering from neurosis [i.e., obsessed], or whether she was expressing herself rather passionately so as to be a good writer - after all, what is a good writer if he/she cannot captivate, charm and attract the audience?
Moreover, I'd like to clearly mention first and foremost, that there is nothing wrong with reaching the cognitive insight regarding aforementioned perils of humanity - as Ayn Rand herself did - and, furthermore there is undoubtedly nil wrong with an animosity towards something or someone detrimental to one's life.
The guru encourages name-changing and may even do so himself. Several of Rand's followers changed their names, including Nathaniel Branden. One local NLP nut in Austin did the same.
I am aware Ayn Rand had her name changed - likely for similar reasons as many immigrants do - but she herself also mentioned a cause behind such an impetus that is exceptionally common amongst a fine field of people: Writers. She mentioned her name change was for the same reason many writers change their names. Both Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden were writers. It is often times preferable that a burgeoning writer changes their name or abbreviates their name in some way, so as to create a more aesthetically appealing moniker. This kind of appeal is often described as "catchy", or having a "ring" to it.
The guru chastises people publicly and is often obsessed with punishment. This is exceptionally characteristic of one with a strong moral compass, and likewise, strong convictions regarding sociopolitical matters. Such a distinctive character, however, is certainly not limited to public denouncements or disapproval. Indeed, such a human being of moral certitude may even publicly praise, glorify and exalt. It is important to note that, as evidenced in worldwide media and general patterns of news-distribution, "alarming" news receive more rapt attention than "pleasant" news - weather-reports aside. On the other hand, one may debate that the current condition of human existence is such that any person of a strong moral compass, rooted in a rational, moral philosophy will naturally act as you've described.
The guru has a few sycophants who live off his success. Rand had Nathaniel Branden. By that standard, gurus are all over the place. Bill Gates is a guru. My grandfather is a guru. I'm a guru to my dog. Various housewives across America are obviously wedded to..gurus. Once more, it seems that you are highlighting a very common characteristic of human behavior, and then asserting that to be particular to a classification of folks known as "gurus".
The guru alienates former allies. Rand alienated almost everyone including Branden (her former sex partner). Richard Bandler (co-creator of NLP) is probably going to alienate everybody before he dies. Over the scope of an average lifetime, it is normally expected that as one changes and transforms in their personality, behavior and philosophies, one will consequentially change their social and political affiliations. Did Ayn Rand truly alienate almost everyone? And if she did, was it justified by the moral and ethical differences?
The guru labels things. Rand loved to use the word _evil_. All humans label things. As to Rand's loquacious use of the word evil, it would be logical to correlate the extent in her application of word "evil", with her perception of the social-political environment. Remember, Ayn Rand was a woman of a very strong moral certitude.
The guru takes pride in throwing out people for "bad behavior." Rand's publications would actually cancel subscriptions and send refunds. If by "bad behavior" you honestly mean immoral acts, then I see nothing wrong with that. As if it would be praiseworthy to suffer injustice. If someone defies my request to respect my household rules, and stomps their muddy combat boots all over my silk, persian rug, I will certainly take actions that you may deem as "cultish", and eject them from my premises for their "bad behavior".
The guru is addicted to drugs. Bandler's history with drugs is well-known. Rand's worst drug seems to have been cigarettes. However, in the 1950's, it was apparently considered a "moral obligation" for an Objectivist to smoke. If being addicted to "drugs" is a standard for being a guru, then once more, the definition of what a guru is has been blurred even further. Moreover, there is the concerns of considering what a "drug" is, and what constitutes being "addicted" to a drug. Some say all humans are "addicted" to a drug known as the "orgasm". By that definition, we're all gurus! I should grab my blue turban with the sapphire in the middle and sit in the lotus position.
The guru engages in some type of sexual perversion. In Rand's case, it was just an affair with Nathaniel Branden when both were married. Branden then started another affair before finally divorcing his wife Barbara. This is quite tame compared to Bandler's exploits.
Again, there is a very odd standard you are placing on this "guru". The reality that 60% of marriages end in divorce are related to a high rate of "sexual perversion" in human behavior. If engaging in some type of sexual misconduct at one point in our life-spans, is a criteria for being a guru, then I'd wager heavily that the mass majority of humans are all gurus.
The guru is obsessed with intellectual property. In the 1970's, Rand met a guy who had a studio named Fountainhead Productions as a tribute to Rand. Her response to him was: "That is plagiarism." Bandler's lawsuit is well-known in the NLP community, of course. It is easier to draw a black and white line between what is or what is not intellectual property. As any of us should understand, Ayn Rand was a strong protestant of the cult of "moral grayness". So, once more it seems that having a strong moral compass, intense moral integrity and firm convictions are all qualities of a "cultish guru".
I am getting the idea that you hold cynical views of such an archetype. I gather that this animosity is pertinent to different characters in the past who were deemed as cultish leaders/gurus, and supported irrational premises or malevolent philosophies. If the vast majority of these icons all shared that same commonality of diabolical evil, yet with the same strength of moral conviction as Ayn Rand had, then your implicit connection of the two is understandable. Suffice it to say, it is consequential to learn that although these figures all had a strong moral compass, the "philosophical directions" to which they signalled, were undoubtedly different.
|
|
