Last post: When will we receive AS3 DVD in December?

No, Khalling, I cannot elaborate ( Christmas time, the judge in the gulch ) and you would be right: impossible, if it wasn't the only real problem at the root of all others.

It is an honor to be able to say those things. And you are most graciously welcome.

Objectivism is and has been forever, who writes for it as well, so we could say that it is shut:: do better by intellectual rights and their dates, or open: It is an eternal truth available to all and any.

jeanne, your comments are quixotic, could you elaborate more?

When Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden not BrandOn,) could not fight city hall, like the rest of US, I followed them separately. I had already decided legality, not politics, would be the way for civilians.

wow. wonderful tribute. thanks for sharing that, marty

I don't believe in the inanimate OBJECT death for humans, even if the anime is late, late etc...

The quality of a post is worth all numbers of any others.

I just did, he just published acknowledgement of Branden's death on HBL. He was no fan of Branden. His comments remind me a lot of Peikoff's comments denouncing Branden.

An accurate analysis.

First you comment on AR's emotionalism, note that it's not rational, and then say that this proves that "reason is not all that it's purported to be?" When you use the word "prove" you are trying to use reason to negate reason. Shame on you for trying that here.

With the exception of Valliant's book, which I found not entirely credible, I have never seen anything in print that describes "what he did/changed in himself, etc." Nor anything that described his character adversely other than ad hominim attacks that lacked corroboration. Most of the negative things I saw came from the Peikoff wing at that time. I do know that he experimented with hypnotism which Rand and her close followers did not approve of. None of his writings document "embracing New Age mysticism" although some of his lectures, made prior to the split, did contain some curious sarcasm. After leaving New York and setting up his psychology practice in California, I don't believe that his subsequent writing (much, but not all of which, I've read) contained anything that I would describe as "mysticism." I do think that the original "Judgement Day" book was somewhat self-serving and the subsequent revised edition tempered this to an extent. He did note his second thoughts about the movement that he had fostered and to a great extent created. The "excommunications" by Rand of many of her closest supporters around the time of and shortly after the rift tend to confirm this evaluation. To my knowledge Branden always held the philosophy of Objectivism in high regard.

I agree. However, there was a fair amount of dishonesty including against his own work value. not pretty. However, Rand was no innocent in that relationship

I must agree here. ad hominem is not persuasive

I should add because of the talk (about the book) we watched, we did not then read the book. However, now that I am looking at other talks I will delve in...

it's embedded in db's blog post here: http://hallingblog.com/hayek-vs-rand-pat...
on Harriman-it was a panel discussion. I tried looking it up on youtube and didn't find it easily. however found other talks that I need to watch including one on modern physics...I need more time :)

The break with Branden was not over a "heartbreaking dissolution of a relationship". He negated his own accomplishments.

Knock off the gratuitous smears. Your ignorant personal attacks don't belong here.

His early The Evidence of the Senses was very interesting, but I haven't seen the Hayek paper. Is it posted at the AS website? (If you don't happen to know now I can hunt it down myself.)

What Harriman talk did you hear and what important issues were avoided? The McCaskey issue is very important for several reasons, both for the way it was mishandled and the kinds of historical points he raised. I found Harriman's book to be very good, but not in all the ways he thought of it himself.

When I first heard those lectures (on vinyl!), Basic Principles of Objectivism, back in 1972 I thought them so important that I painstakingly transcribed each of them with my hunt-and-peck typewriting (non)skills. My "booklet," right behind me in one of my many bookcases, measures about 2-inches thick. For a number of years (c. 1973-2009) until the publication of The Vision of Ayn Rand, I may have had the only "hard copy" of those lectures.

When Branden became a US citizen in 1975, I was privileged to attend a reception for the newest US citizen, hosted by the fledgling Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County, at which Dr. Branden also registered to vote as a Libertarian. The date was December 5, 1975, as inscribed by Branden on the flyleaf of his book, The Psychology of Self-Esteem. I also became a founding member of my local LP region that same year.

I still have my boxed set of those vinyl records.

I am not at all ashamed of saying that those lectures, back in 1972, literally saved my life.

Doctor Branden, I owe you an enormous debt of gratitude. Thank you immensely for having existed.