You would think Mr. Valliant might have consulted the primary sources before telling those of us who experienced Ayn Rand firsthand who she was and what she was about. The problem, of course, is that once you go talk to the Brandens you are OUT! That was the situation from the get-go from The Break in 1968 and Leonard Peikoff was and is still the chief enforcer. Nothing has changed. You cannot find objectivity out of that context, nor Ayn Rand.
I figured I wasn't the only one thinking along these lines. I noticed Mr. Valliant, so far, has chosen silence as a reply to The Question(s) At Hand- my poor SOLO inbox eagerly awaits, but, alas. Maybe he's pouring over the Gnostic Scriptures, looking for backwoods, Deliverance-style scandal among the Apostles. I expect a Big Revelation in this New Testament book he's doing, maybe a logical proof that a lot of that stuff in there is just stories, did you know that? Or maybe an informed legal evaluation that Jesus' psychological profile runs side-by-side with Charlie Manson's Messiah complex. The possibilities are endless.
What really lies stinking underneath this whole thing is the ARI's KGB-like historical revision and general person-removal of the Brandens (or, as I like to call it, "objectivity, my ass"). That's why all this ancient history still packs any mojo. And here I thought the don't-ask-don't tell policy was goofy.
But I'm all about questions in this, and Gawd help you, James Valliant (whoops, never mind that), Brant's post reminds me of another one.
(gravels up voice, snaps suspenders Spencer Tracy style):
"The course of your research involved gaining access to certain of Ms. Rand's papers, curated by and held in the custody of an organization called The Ayn Rand Institute, headed by one Professor Leonard Peikoff (aka "The World's Foremost Authority on Ayn Rand's Philsophy"), did it not? Please describe the extent and nature of the conversations, if any, between yourself and these two entities!"
Well, I hope not, but on the other hand, I didn't fall off the damn turnip truck, either. If you're weren't going to talk with NB or BB, the only way to remain Totally Objective (or, completely out of it, depending on how you look at things) would have been to completely distance yourself from these two factions, and let the shots fall where they may, even at the risk of them just hitting the back of the barn (which is kind of the way it's looking anyhow).
Right? That's how it would be? Say it ain't so, James. Or, if you did have any back room closed door fun with LP or ARI, there's also the option of FULL DISCLOSURE. Hmmm?
(Edited by Rich Engle on 5/25, 10:08am)
(Edited by Rich Engle on 5/25, 10:09am)