You see my main interest and purpose both in literature and in philosophy is to provide an image of an ideal man. A specific, concrete image of what man can be and ought to be.
Regarding Ayn Rand, expat had this to say on a facebook comment on World Socionics Society on May 7:
I've already mentioned Ayn Rand - I don't think she was a LSI, I think she was a LIE. Among other things, her personal life was messed up in Fi areas, although she longed for Fi closeness. Anyway I can write a lot about her as I've read a lot by her and about her. But no, I don't see myself as an "objectivist" But note that she very consistently said that her main goal in fiction was to describe "the ideal man" - not the ideal society or the ideal system or the ideal philosophy. That's it for now.I previously looked into this typing several years ago and I understand the idea of the LIE typing much better than I did when I last thought about this typing years ago. I might even be convinced by it at some point later.
I am moderately willing to see Rand as LIE but not convinced. I have a number of objections to this typing, which I will try to outline here.
Ayn Rand's personal life and relationships were indeed "very messed up in Fi areas." Indeed in Rand's personal life she fell quickly and hard for men, vastly messing up her relationships and ultimately showing great jealousy, unrealistic expectations and a great lack of emotional awareness (which also pervades into her philosophical views). A few videos about Ayn Rand's personal life, particularly centered around her relationship with Nathaniel Branden, an extramarital lover with whom Rand had an affair between 1954 and 1957 and who has written and talked quite a lot about Rand (as has his ex-wife Barbara):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2LJY6LrHGQ
http://vimeo.com/38724174 (has many parts about Ayn Rand but also quite a bit of disorganized other stuff about politics in the 1990s largely having to do with Alan Greenspan, a disciple of Rand's. Some of the more important quotes are reproduced below)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gqk0tdncek
She was attempting to portray an affair between [herself and Nathaniel Branden] as totally rationally justified. She said that it was nobody's business and we were sworn to absolute secrecy, but she said that since they were such unusual people and it was inevitable that they feel what they felt, that there could be no objection to an affair. I also felt, I was very aware of how little Ayn Rand had from the outside, from other people.
[...]
[After Nathaniel Branden fell in love with another younger woman] she then launched into a tirade against him that was so shocking, accusing him of utter irrationality, of betraying objectivism, betraying her, it went on and on indefinitely, and it ended with her saying if he had an ounce of morality left, he would be impotent for the next ten years, and then slapped him across the face three times and said "Get out."
-- Barbara Branden, first wife of Nathaniel Branden
The way that I have always interpreted Ayn Rand's somewhat chaotic personal life is the same as I have interpreted her philosophy as a true excess of rigidity in viewpoint and character, and with concomitant failure to recognize her own emotions which caused her to lash out aggressively and irrationally. I viewed the "tantrums" and jealousy of her personal life as characteristic of LSIs with Se values and suggestive Fe. I might be able to reconcile it as LIE with Se and suggestive Fi instead which is not how I thought of it -- although I think that in LIEs compared to LSIs there is more propensity to introspect and acknowledge one's emotional impulses (and how they mislead them) than Rand ever showed in her life, and that LIEs tend to be more subtle and standoffish in their emotionality and less outwardly explosive.
With respect to philosophy, Rand saw herself as a champion of reason and truth, but had no awareness of emotions nor the importance of emotional guidance. Instead she described that altruism was irrational and unacceptable for agents ("heroes") following rationalism and reason. In her words, altruism was defined as taking other people's happiness to be more important than the happiness of the self, but also it is clear that she thought that most people who failed to pursue their own goals had no value or virtue (to put it another way, she could not conceive of the potential value of others).
Just as Rand's philosophy can be seen as a reflection of her unfailing stubbornness and unfailing dedication to emotional repression, so too can her reaction to critical appraisal of her work which in the public sphere was largely negative. Barbara Branden has some interesting comments in the last video linked above about how Rand became disillusioned, stubborn, and rejecting primarily after her work was not heralded by, in Branden's words, "even one" of her peers as a groundbreaking achievement, and like Freud fell into a habit of constantly excommunicating people from her social circle (although of course Freud enjoyed much more success and recognition while he was alive). I think that this is part of a repressive attitude that Ti dominants who become completely consumed with their work sometimes have (I think Freud is LII who I will post about at some later time. I might be able to see IEI though, it is a mystery to me why the discussion around Freud has historically centered around EIE and ILE instead).
It is also not true as expat says that Ayn Rand described the "ideal man" rather than the ideal society. Well, to be precise maybe it is true to some extent in her fiction which I have not actually read, but in Ayn Rand's words (as in the youtube documentary "Ayn Rand in her own words" and also in her interview with Mike Wallace) she is very precise about the composition and character of her ideal society, which is one of rational self-interest in which there exists a minimal state with no breadth into society beyond law enforcement and in which transactions between individuals predominate (and my understanding not having read these books is that they depict at least many facets of these societies as well as the "ideal man"). She is not however clear at all on how to implement such a government or what moral contract would compel such a government to fulfill their end of the bargain; instead this society lives in an idealistic world with little thought to its implementation. These views are all very similar to the ideal world thought of by libertarians today, which I see as a Ti-focused domain (as is much of theoretical economics): the logical pattern of how transactions would occur and what are the basic principles and human rights that must be enforced in such a society taken to their logical extremes, with no or thought to implementation and practical problems (and consider individuals like Ron Paul and probably also Rand Paul, Jan Helfeld, etc, Ti dominants in my view).
Power didn't interest her and money didn't interest her; that may shock a lot of people, but she lived like a most [ascetic], otherworldly person, she lived very very modestly, she had no interest in material acquisition, she had no interest in material luxury, she lived personally a very spiritually existence, very much a life of the mind. And she probably wouldn't have had a very good opinion of people who were overly interested in material acquisition. What she really admired were people who were interested in creative work. She thought and I would say that what exists is this world and this life, and one should honor it and do the best with it, and not endure suffering passively on the assumption that at some time in some other dimension, or some other life, then you will be happy. But if that you honor your own life, if you want happiness and a place to fight for, that is here on Earth.
--Nathaniel Branden
I can understand why one would look at Ayn Rand's comments about America as a place which she passionately loved for its commitment to the individual, and towards her philosophy of individualism and individual accomplishment, and see these things as like LIEs. But she also seems to be influenced and moved by symbolism in various ways, being moved at a young age by film and its depiction of tall buildings in New York as well as strong, independent men.
But I think it is easier to accept that Ayn Rand could have been an LSI who happened to be very moved by individualism, and whose career objectives were the establishment of a lifestyle and philosophy that was basically the natural logical extension -- to the extreme -- of these principles. Who was opposed to the contributions of emotional guidance in guiding one's judgments and especially vehemently opposed to the idea that people could have value (or "potential") that was not explicitly realized in their behavior, essentially delta good faith judgment.
If you disagree with my comments or observations, I encourage you to comment.
You said "I can understand why one would look at Ayn Rand's comments about America as a place which she passionately loved for its commitment to the individual, and towards her philosophy of individualism and individual accomplishment, and see these things as like LIEs."
ReplyDeleteThen you understand why someone might possibly type her as LIE based on the above reasoning. But as far as I am concerned, that is not my reasoning for that typing - at all.
I think your interpretation of her is erroneous (obviously). I will make my case later (as in the next day or so). Let me just say first what my sources are. I had barely heard of Ayn Rand before 2009 or thereabouts - she is not really known outside the US, even as a novelist, although "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" are fairly easy to find in British bookshops. But she's not really a recognizable name. I first got curious about her precisely because of the Nathaniel Branden interview with Brian Lamb, whose interviews with authors I tend to like, and later from those socionics discussions.
Since then, I have read "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". I have not read her first novel - "We the Living" - but I am aware of what it's about. I've read Nathaniel Branden's memoirs, "Judgement Day", and two recent biographies of Rand, namely Anne Heller's "Ayn Rand and the Word She Made" and Jennifer Burns's "Goddess of the Market". Also, I have read transcripts of her Q&A sessions, oral histories of people who knew her, and extensive bits of her journals. I have seen most, possibly all, of the videos of her interviews.
I have seen some interviews with both Brandens, not necessarily all or the ones you cited. My view is that the Brandens are reliable in the sense that they do not say things that are clearly non-factual, but they do tend to mistake their interpretation of events for the only possible one - and they can be self-serving in the sense of telling the truth, but not the whole truth. For what it's worth - which is actually relevant - I think Nathaniel Branden is a clear EIE and Barbara, an ESI.
Of course I may be wrong about her being LIE, and I don't find LSI absurd (by contrast, I do find SLE absurd). I will explain in more detail why I type her as LIE, but my point here, now, is simply this: I do not type her based on a simplistic association of her views with American values, not on just a few videos. I type her based on far more evidence than that (which, again, I will describe in more detail shortly).
I will now essentially present my own arguments for my typing, "as concisely as I can", as Rand said in the Mike Wallace interview. I will not focus a lot in addressing your own arguments above, maybe we can do that in further interactions if you're interested. One problem I have is that I can hardly point to links for my references, since they are based on my memory of reading the sources I listed above. I will try to make very clear when I am describing my own interpretation of events rather than describing the record.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you have decided that Ayn Rand is "untruthful" and the Brandens more truthful, that makes things difficult as I will be referring to Rand's own words - spoken and written.
In her AS introduction, she said this:
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
She has very consistently made this point, according to several eyewitness reports. One medical doctor who knew her later in live said something like, "I'm not sure that I understand your philosophy or that I can live my life according to it". She replied, "if you're competent at your job, you're living according to my philosophy".
This, by the way, explains what you noticed:
"She is not however clear at all on how to implement such a government or what moral contract would compel such a government to fulfill their end of the bargain; instead this society lives in an idealistic world with little thought to its implementation. "
She was not concerned at all about how this would be "implemented" because she was appalled at the idea of implementing any kind of system on society, especially using force or imposing it from above.
Ayn Rand, as a human being, is actually very easy to understand, if one reads what she wrote over decades, as well as her life. She grew up in Tsarist Russia and she was old enough to experience live before and after the Bolshevik Revolution. Her family was reasonably well-off - independent small businesspeople in St Petersburg - but hardly part of the "elite", as some have said, because they were Jews (and Jews were barely and inconsistently tolerated in tsarist Russia). But she saw the Bolshevik Revolution as nothing but unmitigated catastrophe, for the effect it had in devaluing reason and free association and elevating sheer force, political connections, obedience, and blind following of ideology (or pretending to follow it) and power - with the consequent collapse of the economy. Her experiences of that were described in her first novel, "We the Living", which was the most autobiographical (as she also stated). I haven't read it (yet), but it deals with how different individuals coped with the upheavals of the Bolshevik Revolution. The way Rand herself dealt with it is obvious: she managed to get a visa to "visit" relatives in Chicago and then managed to stay in the US ultimately by marrying Frank O'Connor, whom she met in Hollywood. They remained married until Frank died.
- to be continued -
She became a writer very early on because that's what she wanted to do, and she didn't really have any other marketable skills. At first, she wasn't concerned about writing about philosophy or how people should live etc. What happened was this: rightly or wrongly, in the 1930s and 1940s she started seeing trends in the US that suggested that the same values that had become catastrophic during the Bolshevik Revolution might be slowly emerging in the US as well. By the way, I think that's a not unusual fear among emigrants who left their country of birth for the same reasons - as one myself, I understand that. It may seem paranoid to others, and it may even be indeed paranoid.
ReplyDeleteAs her journals show - she wrote a lot about what she was thinking, especially when writing books, to clarify her thoughts especially into English (her second language). When expressing her fear of collectivist tendencies emerging, she did not express it in terms of the fear of the ideology or of the "system" - she expressed it in terms of the values expressed by individuals, those she referred to "second-handers" and "moochers".
Her fear was what happened when such people became the majority - or when society seemed to adopt the values of such people (which amounts to the same thing). She spent a lot of her time writing, and thinking, precisely about what motivated such people and what made her think in that way, and what made people of the mind, of reason, different from them, and what could they do to prevent those from becoming the majority. You see, she wasn't concerned about the "second-handers" or "moochers", except as enemies to be defeated or neutralised.
That brings us to her breakthrough novel - the one that made her financially independent, "The Fountainhead". TF (as I will refer to it from now on) is focused exclusively on people, human beings, their psychologies - in fact, one might even see it as some kind of socionics study. Its hero - one of Rands's "ideal men" - is a struggling architect, Howard Roarke, who eventually triumphs despite the obstacles presented by "second-handers", whom he mostly ignores but eventually fights. The novel has heroes and villains, almost of a comic-book nature sometimes. A lot of the dialogue is taken by philosophical discussions, but not to the same extent as in "Atlas Shrugged". Personally, as a literary piece of work, I regard TF as superior to AS - an opinion that Rand herself hated hearing, by the way.
- to be continued -
Enter the Brandens. As per their own narrative - above all Nathaniel Branden's memoir "Judgement Day" - they, especially Nathaniel, became obsessed by TF, and he started looking to it as a source of guide to how his life should be led (which I see as an EIE finally finding his Ti). They approached Rand in California - she and Frank were sometimes willing to receive enthusiastic fans - and she was captivated by that bright young man who had all but memorized TF and found it the source of all knowledge (personally, in her place, I'd have found that embarrassing and creepy, but anyway). The four of them became close friends, eventually (at Rand's encouragement or insistence) Barbara married Nathaniel despite her misgivings, they moved to NYC - and Rand moved to NYC as well, not only to be close to the Brandens but because she preferred to live in Manhattan (much to Frank's chagrin, since he infinitely preferred to live in their ranch in California). By the way, at that point, Rand could have chosen to live anywhere. Her main reason to like Manhattan (besides being close to the Brandens) was the *idea* of living there, especially within sight of the Empire State Building, which she saw as a symbol of what the human mind could achieve (for the same reason she was later enthusiastic about Apollo 11, even though it was a government initiative. Some of her more Ti-obsessed followers were confused by the apparent contradiction, because they didn't really get her). I see that is Ni, although of course not beyond the Ni of a LSI.
ReplyDeleteShe had already started thinking about "Atlas Shrugged"when she met the Brandens in California, and over the years - more than 10 years - she would write bits of AS and discuss them with that small core group in NYC, including Allan Greenspan.
By the way, something that is often overlooked: what bound that group together - later called "the Collective" - were personal relationships. They all started as cousins or partners to each other. Rand's present heir - the only one left - Leonard Peikoff, is actually Barbara Branden's cousin, something he plays down these days.
Here's the thing: it was Nathaniel Branden's idea - not originally Rand's - to systematize her ideas, as described in TF and later AS, into a consistent philosophy, and to call it "something" ie Objectivism. Her pre-Branden journals and other writings, even the reports of her conversations, show no such inclination at all. Sure, she went along with it - enthusiastically - for two reasons. One was her then ongoing messed up relationship with Nathaniel Branden (I'll get to the other reason in a moment). It was him who made Objectivism into a sort of messianic movement with a self-help component, with lectures, etc. I am not saying that Rand did not agree with that. I am saying that that wasn't her first inclination or instinct. Revealingly, when she broke with the Brandens, all that dwindled very quickly.
- to be continued -
Now for the second reason, and related to what I quoted from yourself, above. What Rand was trying to achieve with her novels - especially "Atlas Shrugged" - was simply this: she wanted to reach out to what she called "people of the mind" or "of reason", and warn them, in this sense: if you don't pay attention, the "second-handers" and "moochers" will win. What made her so depressed about the reception of AS - apart from its massive sales - was the "silence" from the kind of people she was trying to reach. Because one of her main points - made in TF and AS - was that the "second handers" and "moochers" could only become powerful and take over because, ultimately, the "makers" let them. The "makers" productivity and creativity - and their sense of duty - created the conditions for the "moochers" to survive, thrive, and take over. But if the "makers" realized and stopped, the "moochers" were powerless.
ReplyDeleteAyn Rand herself, when asked to explain her philosophy in interviews - a good example is the Playboy interview - referred to AS, rather than to any of her non-fictional writings (which she saw as less important). And AS is indeed about describing heroes - "people of the mind" - seeing their world fall apart, a la a slow Bolshevik takeover, as the "moochers" became more powerful, But her point was that if the people of the mind - the "makers" - simply disappear, the moochers are left with nothing.
Incidentally, I would say that her heroes in AS - Hank Rearden, Dagny Taggart, Francisco d'Anconia and John Galt - can all be typed as some sort of superhuman Gammas. Galt is a sort of super-ILI, Francisco, some SEE with amazing Te; Rearden and Dagny, LIEs who are also strong in Se. Her secondary heroes - good people who however lack abilities of those heroes - like Eddie Willers and Cheryl Taggart - are very obvious ESIs, more obvious as they are more "human". That is of course clear only upon reading the book.
The difference between Rand and Branden's approach was this: Rand was trying to reach to, and warn, those "makers" out there that already existed. Branden thought that it was possible to "convert" people to becoming "makers" by his messianic movement, with himself as a prophet and Rand as "goddess".
I will end this comment - which was more of a factual description rather than a socionics case - by addressing this:
"After Nathaniel Branden fell in love with another younger woman] she then launched into a tirade against him that was so shocking, accusing him of utter irrationality, of betraying objectivism, betraying her, it went on and on indefinitely, and it ended with her saying if he had an ounce of morality left, he would be impotent for the next ten years, and then slapped him across the face three times and said "Get out.""
That is typical of the self-serving half-truths told by both Brandens, with the effect of persuading people - including you, it seems - that Rand had no control over her emotions, or repressed them, etc.
- to be continued -
What happened was this - as revealed by both Burns and Heller in her biographies, and even - between the lines - by Branden himself in his memoirs.
ReplyDeleteRand and Branden's affair started when she was in her late forties and he, his mid twenties. I would never have called Ayn Rand attractive - certainly not as Helen Mirren portrayed her - but, generally, it is easier for a twenty-something man to feel attracted to a forty-something woman than for a late-thirties man to feel attracted to an early-sixties woman (especially as she aged rather badly). Rand herself interrupted the affair in the late 1950s. Sometime in the 1960s, she expressed interest in resuming the affair. That put Branden in a conundrum: he was no longer in the least interested in that kind of relationship, especially as he was now having an affair (while still married to Barbara, who knew about it) with a gorgeous 20-something called Patrecia (whom he later married and then tragically died in an accident). However, he was terrified of saying that to Ayn, as in "you're too old for me now, and I'm now with a beautiful 20-something". He was terrified because all of his career, his reputation, his fame, his income, his "power", came from his connection to Ayn Rand. He feared that the moment he told her the truth, she would sever all connections with him and his life, as he knew it, would collapse. So he followed the path of least resistance: he told Rand that he was deeply troubled. He said that he did want to resume the relationship with her, but could not. He said - that is important - that he had even become impotent.
He said that over and over again during endless conversations with Ayn, over one or two years (I think), with him terrified of her finding out the truth and so bullshitting her to no end - even while carrying out the affair with Patrecia. Rand, on her part, and as per biographers reconstructed, was totally confused: wanting to believe him but sometimes suspecting the truth.
It all ended when Barbara - who seems to me a fundamentally decent person - could not take it anymore (as Ayn talked about all of that to her) and she said that Nathaniel had to tell her the truth, or she would.
It is in *that* context that Ayn Rand exploded and made the "I hope you will become impotent" remark came. Because that was the bullshit that Nathaniel had been telling her over more than a year, even while he was having an affair with a younger beautiful woman.
Knowing that, doesn't that now look more plausible as a superid Fi+Se thing?
Anyway, the above is the "raw data", not so much the analysis.
- end of this multi-part post -
PS: there is something ironic about Nathaniel Branden - which he revealed in his memoirs, but maybe not intentionally. After the break-up with Ayn Rand, he moved to LA and married Patrecia. He soon established himself as a very successful psychotherapist, to the extent that he even sort of bragged about how he had become his own man and could be successful without Ayn Rand.
ReplyDeleteWell. The problem with that is that - as he himself reveals - as Barbara and he were closing down NBI - the "Nathaniel Branden Institute" that published Objectivist articles and gave lectures etc - Nathaniel quietly kept a copy of all the details of the NBI subscribers in California. When he arrived in LA, he wrote to all of them saying that he was now there and about to open a practice as psychologist - and, obviously, lots of them responded and became his clients - immediately.
So, even when becoming "independent" from Ayn Rand, he still needed the connection with her.
This in itself is of course not directly relevant to Rand's type and I mention that more for my own personal amusement.
Thanks for your detailed comments. It seems like you have more context in some areas and I need to think about some of your comments and particularly look for signs of the deception you are describing in Nathaniel Branden.
ReplyDeleteBut, I want to point out some of the other ways where my basic observations about what Rand was doing differ from yours and lead to the different conclusion. I am curious to what degree you share or at least find those observations reasonable.
Broadly, overall I do not -- or have not previousy, anyway -- interpreted her philosophical perspectives as a "warning" directed towards people of reason. It might be that is what she meant, but in her public interviews (in "her words" as it were) I did not see her as acting as a force of warning so much as imposing her moral principles. It seems much more like the tone of her work suggests "reason and rational self-interest are the only morally acceptable ways of being", and not necessarily "It is very unfortunate how many people are idiots, watch out for them."
One thing that you do not mention in your history which I found very interesting -- really it was my first introduction to Rand and the thing that taints all of Rand's philosophy in my view -- is how allergic she is to the concept of altruism. Again the basic message that I draw here (and most of this is from her public interviews and not reading her books as I said) is not "It is unfortunate and unwise how deeply many people will harm themselves in order to help others achieve collectivistic goals that don't mean anything", it is more like "A person who ever puts the interests of others above his own is immoral and unworthy of the emotional satisfaction they derive. There can be no exceptions." To me the message is more reminiscent for instance of the rigidity of Kant than the distant disdain of, say Hitchens. This message -- a rejection of altruistic ideas and an unwillingness to allow any exceptions -- in addition to the Brandens' commentary is one key factor in why I have been inclined to see Rand as emotionally repressive.
Another thing that is interesting are Barbara Branden's comments in the third video I sent. This video is basically a psychological retrospective in which Barbara discusses the history of Rand's emotionality and the effect of her emotional repression on her work and public character (especially later in life). I think Barbara's comments in that video offer somewhat mixed messages about Rand and many of which could make sense with Rand as LIE. But I am curious about how you interpret them if you see Barbara as ESI (I was wondering if Barbara might be perhaps IEI myself, but I am not very sure of that at all).
A brief further comment on Nathaniel Branden, although I may have misunderstood your meaning. That he bullshitted Ayn Rand by telling her that he really, really wanted to resume the romantic relationship with her but felt unable to do so for reasons he didn't understand - even as he was having the affair with Patrecia - and over 1-2 years (or longer, I'm not sure on the details now) - as far as that goes, it is not under dispute at all. That is how Branden himself told it in his "Judgement Day" memoirs, so there is no argument there.
ReplyDeleteWhat is more controversial, and where Nathaniel was deceptive but Barbara, I think, was misled by him herself: the story of Rand exploding on the occasion of the breakup and saying that now he should become impotent for the rest of his life etc. In his book, Branden explicitly used that to create the version that Rand was emotionally unstable and that she was a "woman scorned" (his words).
What Branden did not mention at all in his version - because that would destroy the effect - was that he had been telling Rand that he had become, indeed, impotent, all the time while having the other affair. With that in context, Rand's reaction - and what she said - becomes far more understandable, and Branden of course comes off even worse than before. My impression is that even Barbara wasn't aware of that detail - she was aware of the explosion and the curse, as she was there herself.
That Branden had been telling Rand all along that he had become impotent was discovered by either Heller, or Burns, or both, by looking at all the evidence. As one of them said, "Rand was not a woman scorned, she was a woman betrayed". I can dig out the precise point, of which biography, this was revealed, and how they arrived at that conclusion. Further, the betrayal was all the worse as Rand seemed willing to accept that Branden was no longer interested but was confused by his "I really really want to, but I'm impotent" bullshit.
I think that point is relevant because it throws light on NB's agenda in telling his version of the story - to make her look worse and him better - and on his, and Barbara's, approach to the truth generally (although in this particular episode I suspect that Barbara was only even aware of his version).
So much for what "really happened", although that is relevant to understand the psychologies of both Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. I will come back to the other issues.
I'm going to address the other points but this is yet another piece of evidence (ie an eyewitness description) on the Brandens and Rand, from a review on Amazon about Burns's book "Goddess of the Market", by a woman named Jan Schulman:
ReplyDeleteI just finished reading this book; i could not put it down. however that may be because AR and Objectivism played such a big part in my life at a very important time in my life and this is the first book i have read that seems to actually be 'objective' about AR and her followers.
with my then-husband, we operated and ran the los angeles chapter of NBI in the 60's. when the 'break' with the brandon's occurred, we were astonished to find that unless we 'sided' with AR, we were excommunicated (their words). we refused to side with anyone. after that we were not even allowed to subscribe to the publications of AR and her cohorts. it was truly heartbreaking; we were being asked to take sides without knowing anything about anything except that AR had denounced NB. we could not do that, and so we were kicked out of an organization that we had been steadfastly loyal to for a number of years.
that is not to say that NB was such a saint either; he did his share of humiliating and abusing those who he felt were 'less' than he; even to the point of admitting to us one day that yes, he and AR did believe, as did Nietszche, that there were those who were 'more deserving' than others; more worthy of life, more elite. they believed in a hierarchy which allocated a special level of entitlement. AR and NB being a part of, if not THE, hierarchy of course. this said while sprawled on our sofa, chewing on radishes. he could be a charmer, but he could be a SOB just as easily.
- continues -
by then, i was heading out the door and out of the realm of objectivism. i learned a lot from both AR and NB (i truly liked barbara and found her to be a classy, warm woman who did not need to intimidate and humiliate others in order to feel good about herself). they were my education and taught me how to think --- for myself. i had to pull away from them because they were poison to a young person trying to find her way in the world. i felt that my very soul was in danger of being completely sabotaged. it was their way or 'the highway' --- meaning: you were irrational, unethical, immoral --- not worthy of existing. on the other hand, they also gave me the greatest tools in the world --- how to think about thinking. how to approach ideas in a rational manner. and how to NOT let myself ever, ever, ever again be dragged into a cult such as objectivism had become.
ReplyDeleteAR was a brilliant, angry, disturbed, troubled woman. i loved her and loathed her. most especially, i loathed 'the movement' and all that it represented. a great example: one time i had worked for NB doing secretarial services for him (after the break) in l.a. i had typed up a letter he dictated, signed the letter (he was out of town) and mailed it. he came to our house the following saturday morning when my husband and i were having breakfast and still in our robes. he sat down, had coffee and then expressed his extreme displeasure with me. "You used an exclamation point in the letter!" he practically screamed at me. "What?" I responded, stunned and confused. "You used an exclamation point! Do you know what an exclamation point is?" "Well, it signifies an important statement, one that is strongly felt." "It's a scream!" he barked at me. "And that tells me something about YOUR psycho-epistomology."
I looked at him like he was crazy. (i actually thought he was.) "But you said you had never been so happy in your entire life. i thought it was deserving of an exclamation point." i said. "it was a strong statement and it was about your feelings and it was an exclamation." he went on to state that he was horrified and embarrassed beyond belief that that letter was sent with that piece of punctuation in it. that was when i realized, fully and clearly, as if a light went on in my head, that he and AR and everyone around them, were so full of their own self-worth (actually so full of crap) that they had lost sight of everything rational. that was when i became not only an ex-objectivist, but practically an anti-objectivist. i let NB know what i thought of his opinion and especially his nerve in blustering his way into our apartment only to insult me, while drinking my coffee (feel free to laugh). (i made really good coffee...smiles...) a few days later he apologized to me, but by then, i didn't care what he thought.
i have no doubt that both BB and NB have changed considerably in their methods of dealing with people since 'those days.' but nowhere near as much as I have. i threw off the yoke, the heavy burden, of trying to conform to all of the guidelines of objectivism and finally became my own, my authentic self.
i highly recommend this book for those who have read AR's books and especially those who were involved with Objectivism in the 60's. it kind of puts things in place and doesn't take sides or kneel down in abject adoration of its subject. it's a refreshing and clean read. and it helped me with a lot of my sad feelings about 'that time' in my life. Jan Richman Schulman (prev in l.a.: Jan Crosby)
Now for more detailed comments. You said, "It seems much more like the tone of her work suggests "reason and rational self-interest are the only morally acceptable ways of being", and not necessarily "It is very unfortunate how many people are idiots, watch out for them."
ReplyDeleteBut the thing is, she actually said and meant both. The message of many people being idiots is very obvious in both "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged", and the message as I described is precisely how countless people who knew her and read the books saw it. Both books have heroes and villains and people in between - what they do not have are people who "saw the error of their ways" and had a "way to Damascus" conversion or whatever. Rand's own inclination was to reach out to the "moral people and heroes" already out there. The whole "let's found a movement to teach people our philosophy" was Branden's idea, not Rand's.
You said, "-- is how allergic she is to the concept of altruism. Again the basic message that I draw here (and most of this is from her public interviews and not reading her books as I said) is not "It is unfortunate and unwise how deeply many people will harm themselves in order to help others achieve collectivistic goals that don't mean anything", it is more like "A person who ever puts the interests of others above his own is immoral and unworthy of the emotional satisfaction they derive. There can be no exceptions."
ReplyDeleteIs that a direct quote, or your interpretation? Because Rand's attitude, as per her explanation in the Mike Wallace interview, on as to how she was willing to support her husband if necessary, was: it gave her selfish pleasure to do so. So, she derived satisfaction in doing something for her husband (or anyone else she wanted to help).
What Rand objected to was "Altruism" as a philosophy where you must deny your own desires, your own happiness, for the sake of others'. The mindset described, very vividly, by the main villain in The Fountainhead, Ellsworth Toohey, according to whom even having the ambition to pursue your own happiness and individuality was immoral. She explained that very clearly in her interviiews and Q&As.
I watched the 3rd video, the one with Barbara Branden (who passed away last December by the way). What she describes of Ayn Rand is not a surprise, as it was consistent with what she has said or written before, and others too.
ReplyDeleteShe mentions something I hadn't addressed in my original comments, Rand's relationship to Frank, her husband. From everyone's descriptions, I'd see him as EII or ESI. I think BB's description of their relationship strengthens the case for LIE for Rand, as does her description of AR's sexual fantasies and the like.
On this, some more detail from her books - TF and AS. TF's "ideal man" is Howard Roark, who has to be described as an Aggressor (or at least someone who could easily play that role). But by contrast, AS's ideal man - or the uber-ideal man - is John Galt, who in that respect is clearly - some would say embarrassingly - a Victim. This is relevant because, as BB said in the video and elsewhere, Rand felt that she was never going to measure up to Galt. She did not show the same attitude towards Roark - the Aggressor. In TF, she stated herself that she identified with the female character, Dominique Francon, who "it's me in a bad mood". Well, Dominique is a clear Victim (and very ILI-like).
I noted that what BB said about AS was what I mentioned above - that Rand expected to reach out to others with AS but got no response.
A lot of what BB describes of Rand's needs with regard to others seems Fi Suggestive to me - actually even her attitude to Libertarians, when she said that what she disliked was the individuals, not their ideals (which seems the opposite of LSI to me).
On Barbara's own type. I think ESI makes sense from this video. She is comfortable discussing at length the characters of others and their relationships, as well as getting into the subject of sexual fantasies etc. She displays a moment which may be of simple Fi+Ni association, that is, her reaction to people defending the draft.
By the way, she said that Ayn Rand never met people she considered to be her equals. That strikes me as an exaggeration and contradicts what biographers have said, and sometimes BB herself. She did meet on occasion people whom she thought highly of and sought their company. For instance, Mickey Spillane, whom she describes in the Playboy interview as her favorite then-living novelist, the author of the Mike Hammer books.
PS I had forgotten - I think Spillane was a SEE, but this is based on reading interviews of him and what I know of his novels, so this is more a hunch than a considered typing.
ReplyDeleteWhere I said, "A person who ever puts the interests of others above his own is immoral and unworthy of the emotional satisfaction they derive. There can be no exceptions" are not Ayn Rand's words. It is my interpretation in quotes as I often do. Nonetheless, I think that Ayn Rand, at least the Ayn Rand of 1958 would agree with those words.
ReplyDeleteHere are some words directly from the famous Mike Wallace interview:
"You don't love causelessly; you don't love everybody indiscriminately; you love only those who deserve it."
"And then if a man is weak or a woman is weak, he is beyond love?"
"He certainly does not deserve it. He can always correct. Man has free will, if a man wants love, he should correct his flaws and he may deserve it. But he cannot expect the unearned."
"You have lived in our world, and you recognize the fallibilty of human beings,
there are very few of us then in this world by your standards who are worthy of love"
"Unfortunately yes, very few. But, it is open to everybody to make themselves worthy. That is what my morality offers them, also that is not the primary motive."
You might interpret that these words favor the interpretation of LIE. I can understand why they might, but the way I am inclined to interpret them is that they show the most critical quality of Ayn Rand's view of morality is not its emphasis on individualism, but rather instead its inflexibility.
Rand's explanation of personally deriving pleasure from helping her husband has always struck me as full of it. It is not the message that I find inconsistent, it is the hypocrisy with which Rand viewed other people. She believes, to quote directly from the Mike Wallace interview, that most people are inherently unworthy of love or of being helped in the way that she found acceptable to help her husband, really whether or not they have proven themselves.
It is as Barbara Branden said in that video you referred to; Rand perhaps did love Frank O'Connor (and from what I know I would not disagree with ESI, although I am not sure. Also unrelatedly perhaps Barbara could be ESI as well, it is not unreasonable and I am really not sure, I am guessing on most types other than Rand's herself). Yet she had a narcissistic complex in a sense; even if he was quite a decent, caring person, it was not enough for her.
You perhaps look at Barbara Branden's comments and see some signs of LIE in her individualism and attention to the individual character of others (I have mixed opinions but I think that it is reasonable to see LIE from many of Barbara's comments). But the primary messages that I draw from Barbara's comments are that Ayn Rand was an unstable, exacting woman whose emotional repression caused her an enormous amount of anguish.
And this is also true with Ayn Rand's emotional outbursts and her "excommunications" that Barbara spends some time talking about in that video -- whether or not they are justified, it is clear that Ayn Rand held an extraordinarily unrelenting arrogance. If you sided against her, you were excommunicated. It remains perhaps that she might have been expressing the arrogance of LIEs (although I tend to think the arrogance is usually stronger in gamma introverts than in LIEs, but ok) instead of the arrogance of LSIs.
If all of this is wrong and/or broadly drawn from misleading testimony from the Brandens, and Rand is essentially not the inflexible, perfectionistic, narcissistic and emotionally repressive person she is made to appear to be (which is broadly what you seem to be suggesting about Rand), I would more readily see her as LIE. But that is very different from how I have always seen Rand and I am not sure I see Rand with those qualities in various domains of Rand's life given the evidence available.
I might read the biographies you suggested at some point.
Also, regarding your point about Rand being a victim -- I regard the erotic styles as very low importance at best. It is not unreasonable to me either that an LSI (who uses both Se and Ni) could be a victim (nor that an LIE could be an aggressor for the same reason) and likewise for every rational type. And indeed from experience I think it can play out in the opposite way in irrational types as well.
ReplyDeleteI actually find it very unlikely that a LSI could identify as a Victim in the way described by Rand in her non-fiction writings and novels. In that case we have there a disagreement on socionics theory. I do think that the erotic styles are useful in broad-brush terms, at least in the sense that Se egos tend to behave differently from Ni egos in the longer term. I have had relationships with ESI, LSI, EIE and IEI women, and while the aggressor-victim thing does indeed shift a bit, the long-term trends are consistent. Ayn Rand was consistent in being a victim.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "If all of this is wrong and/or broadly drawn from misleading testimony from the Brandens, and Rand is essentially not the inflexible, perfectionistic, narcissistic and emotionally repressive person she is made to appear to be (which is broadly what you seem to be suggesting about Rand), I would more readily see her as LIE."
Well, but she may have been a lot of what you describe above, and still be a LIE. For whatever it's worth, when I got interested in looking at Rand more deeply - after reading NB's memoirs - I had no idea about her type, if anything, I was inclined to think LSI. As I learned more about her, and as I felt I understood her better, the LIE in her became clearer, including the flaws you highlighted.
I see most of her flaws - including the "excommunication" thing - as an extreme defensiveness in her Fi suggestive, that is, if he felt that the person actually turned out to be an "enemy". Later in life, she said (I forget where) that her main problem remained that she didn't know whom to trust.
I think that it's at least clearer where our disagreements are and I found this discussion very interesting.
As for biographies and reading material, I have the following comments:
ReplyDelete- Anne Heller's "Ayn Rand and the World She Made" is the earlier one. She talked to many people who knew AR (including the Brandens) and had access to some papers, but not all. She focused into trying to understand AR as a person.
- Jennifer Burns's "Goddess of the Market" came a bit later and is more scholarly in style. Unlike Heller, Burns was given access to most of Rand's journals and letters, although this is not an "authorized biography". She also talked to lots of people. It is stronger in raw facts than Heller's, a bit less focused in analysis.
Both of the above are valuable and useful and can be read with profit. There area also many YouTube videos of both authors talking about their books.
- Nathaniel Branden's "Judgement Day: My years with Ayn Rand" (revised edition) is valuable, interesting, entertaining and very readable. It reveals a lot about NB himself, far more than he intended I suspect. It contains some psycho-babble as he tries to analyse himself.
- Scott McConnell's "100 Voices: an Oral History of Ayn Rand" is a collection of brief interviews with people who knew her throughout her life, even in Russia. I think most of those interviewed had positive memories of her but not all. It includes an interview with Mickey Spillane.
Finally, I think it's important and useful to read "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". to get into Ayn Rand's mind. As I read AS, I kept thinking, "only a Gamma would have written this". You may of course disagree, or make a distinction between her fiction and her ideas. FWIW, she herself never made any such distinction.
ReplyDelete"The Fountainhead" is shorter (although still very long) and, in my opinion, the better piece of work in terms of literary quality and character development. "Atlas Shrugged" is more "epic" but with less believable main characters. It is also a bit science-fiction in that it happens in a slightly different "parallel universe" of sorts while TF is clearly set in the "real world". Personally, I find the first third of AS the most interesting to read; the middle third is sort of slow and vague. The last third is a sort of roller-coaster with a plot and rhythm that reminded me of a comic book - except for John Galt's speech in 60 pages, which takes 3 hours to be spoken.
Both works have main characters droning on about ideas in long discussions and speeches in a way that seems contrived, to say the least, but "Atlas Shrugged" is far more ham-fisted in doing this.
Roan, if you're still leaning towards LSI, how is the inflexability described here different from the static character assments of gamma types? Specifically regarding her quote about hating libretarians and how her stories lack redmption arcs or development in moochers.
ReplyDeleteThe static character assessment is an inflexible assessment of a person. Okay, Rand "hated libertarians" but that is rather general, and not referring to an individual person. In my opinion harsh judgment is represented more when dealing with an individual person -- an "unreasonable" person who one has to deal with and see continually. Which by many accounts -- not merely in the sense of "hated libertarians" which is rather vague and rather weak -- Rand has done.
ReplyDeleteBut she has also done the flip side -- which is the rigid, unshakeable following of various philosophical principles, as in say Kant's unshakeable belief that no exceptions can ever exist to the moral imperative regardless of the situation. I liken Rand's insistence in the complete unshakeable incorrectness of helping others, to this type of inflexibility about philosophy, and not to the inflexibility about dealing with people.
"Rand's insistence in the complete unshakeable incorrectness of helping others"
ReplyDeleteThat is not what she insisted on - not by her words, writings, or actions.
What she insisted on was that it was immoral to elevate helping others to a moral obligation, as in "you have the moral duty to help others".
She had no objection, moral or otherwise, to helping others if that is what you wanted to do according to your own judgment and and your own reasons.
- Expat -