Landmark Education as a non-profit
Posted by:
Elaine
()
Date: July 06, 2008 01:15PM
I just did the Landmark Forum - am still a bit mystified by the experience, and would rather not talk about what I saw about myself in there - suffice it to say that some things I saw as 'just the way they are' aren't so anymore, particularly with regards to my husband.
The only thing that bothers me is why the organization is for-profit, instead of non-profit. There was a lot of people who seemed to be volunteering their time to be there, without proper remuneration (e.g. money), yet they were convinced they were getting more out of their participation than they were putting in (e.g. their time vs. the benefit).
I understand if a non-profit (e.g. Red Cross, United Way, etc.) solicits volunteers - but at least their intentions are more clear, e.g. stated as non-profit, so at least people wouldn't feel 'ripped off' by volunteering their time, knowing that someone's making a profit off their free labor. With Landmark Education, their motivation is profit, yet there's no appropriate division of profits amongst people who volunteer their time (as small or as large as that may be).
The only way to get paid at Landmark, is to actually work for them (I asked), and from what I could glean, they run a pretty tight ship, e.g. frugal office settings, etc, so I'd assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that their employees aren't really paid all that well.
This just begs the question - why not incorporate as a 501(c)(3) corporation?
Thank you.
Elaine
The only thing that bothers me is why the organization is for-profit, instead of non-profit. There was a lot of people who seemed to be volunteering their time to be there, without proper remuneration (e.g. money), yet they were convinced they were getting more out of their participation than they were putting in (e.g. their time vs. the benefit).
I understand if a non-profit (e.g. Red Cross, United Way, etc.) solicits volunteers - but at least their intentions are more clear, e.g. stated as non-profit, so at least people wouldn't feel 'ripped off' by volunteering their time, knowing that someone's making a profit off their free labor. With Landmark Education, their motivation is profit, yet there's no appropriate division of profits amongst people who volunteer their time (as small or as large as that may be).
The only way to get paid at Landmark, is to actually work for them (I asked), and from what I could glean, they run a pretty tight ship, e.g. frugal office settings, etc, so I'd assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that their employees aren't really paid all that well.
This just begs the question - why not incorporate as a 501(c)(3) corporation?
Thank you.
Elaine
Re: Landmark Education as a non-profit
Posted by:
elena
()
Date: July 07, 2008 12:02AM
Quote
Elaine
I just did the Landmark Forum - am still a bit mystified by the experience, and would rather not talk about what I saw about myself in there - suffice it to say that some things I saw as 'just the way they are' aren't so anymore, particularly with regards to my husband.
The only thing that bothers me is why the organization is for-profit, instead of non-profit. There was a lot of people who seemed to be volunteering their time to be there, without proper remuneration (e.g. money), yet they were convinced they were getting more out of their participation than they were putting in (e.g. their time vs. the benefit).
I understand if a non-profit (e.g. Red Cross, United Way, etc.) solicits volunteers - but at least their intentions are more clear, e.g. stated as non-profit, so at least people wouldn't feel 'ripped off' by volunteering their time, knowing that someone's making a profit off their free labor. With Landmark Education, their motivation is profit, yet there's no appropriate division of profits amongst people who volunteer their time (as small or as large as that may be).
The only way to get paid at Landmark, is to actually work for them (I asked), and from what I could glean, they run a pretty tight ship, e.g. frugal office settings, etc, so I'd assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that their employees aren't really paid all that well.
This just begs the question - why not incorporate as a 501(c)(3) corporation?
Thank you.
Elaine
My guess would be that they'd have to open the books. Cults are about secrecy as much as anything else. I doubt they'd want you to know where the money is really going.
Oh, and as an aside, don't jump to any conclusions regarding you marital situation. Landmark has insidious ways of making relationships problematic in the hopes that they will double their recruitment by getting the spouse in. Few marriages survive with one party involved and the other not.
Also, if the only thing that bothers you is their for-profit status, you've got more problems than any three-day seminar will solve. Landmark is derived from scientology, despite their many protestations. Werner Erhard was a con-artist. You might want to read "Outrageous Betrayal" for the rest of the story.
Ellen
Re: Landmark Education as a non-profit
Posted by:
Regularjoe
()
Date: July 07, 2008 01:38AM
First, don't jump to any decisions. What you are feeling is much like the rush you feel at a football game. Trust me, it will pass. If you and your hubby have some issues to work out, that's fine. Just take it slow.
Second, don't ever assume that being a 501 c3 makes something legit. The only philosopica {sp}l difference between a profit and not for profit is that a "for profit" has one goal, to make money. Hold seminars, sell fried chicken, clean up pet poo, it doesn't matter. As long as it is done to make money for the shareholders, it's fine. A "not for profit" has a mission statement that it has to follow. If you are a group that teaches adults to read and you run an answering service on the side to generate income, you would have to pay tax on the answering service because it is "outside the scope" of your mission statement. From a "mind-set" level, that the only difference.
From a structural level, the BIG downside to a 501c3 is the requirement for a board of directors. You have to be able to control the board to make sure then bend to your will. Very tricky. It is far easier to control a simple "s corp". It is your company, run it any lawful way you wish. In the long run, you are better off paying the taxes.
As for Landmark, there is noting so awful about wwhat they teach in and of itself. These are very old ideas that do help some people refocus their thinking. It is basically existentialism (I know I spelled that wrong) and a little nihilism. The problem is the way they teach things. It is a mind game. They suck you in and start exploiting you. You do their work for free In return they give you "free classes" that just suck you in more. Landmark has stolen years and thousands of dollars from people.
Be careful.
Regular Joe
Second, don't ever assume that being a 501 c3 makes something legit. The only philosopica {sp}l difference between a profit and not for profit is that a "for profit" has one goal, to make money. Hold seminars, sell fried chicken, clean up pet poo, it doesn't matter. As long as it is done to make money for the shareholders, it's fine. A "not for profit" has a mission statement that it has to follow. If you are a group that teaches adults to read and you run an answering service on the side to generate income, you would have to pay tax on the answering service because it is "outside the scope" of your mission statement. From a "mind-set" level, that the only difference.
From a structural level, the BIG downside to a 501c3 is the requirement for a board of directors. You have to be able to control the board to make sure then bend to your will. Very tricky. It is far easier to control a simple "s corp". It is your company, run it any lawful way you wish. In the long run, you are better off paying the taxes.
As for Landmark, there is noting so awful about wwhat they teach in and of itself. These are very old ideas that do help some people refocus their thinking. It is basically existentialism (I know I spelled that wrong) and a little nihilism. The problem is the way they teach things. It is a mind game. They suck you in and start exploiting you. You do their work for free In return they give you "free classes" that just suck you in more. Landmark has stolen years and thousands of dollars from people.
Be careful.
Regular Joe
Re: Landmark Education as a non-profit
Posted by:
pauker
()
Date: July 07, 2008 01:47AM
To comment on part of Elena's last statement, seeing the non-profit 'issue' is at least a key into seeing one of the truly rotten things that binds most (all?) LGATs together. They use and abuse their graduates, conning them into doing all their advertising work for them (gratis), as well as into covering for the needs of most of their office and logistics staff. This keeps the company's expenses low, and net profits high -- yet with what they charge folks, they could easily afford to advertise, pay for more of their staff and still be roling in dough. And the con is that the grads have been convinced that they won't Keep IT if they Got IT, unless they can Give IT Away and Share IT by volunteering on staff, bringing lots of guests to 'events' and enrolling everyone they can. Sound familiar?
That's one of the main rubs for people and a reason many come to ultimately distance themselves from est and Landmark (and PSI, Impact, Lifespring, whomever) even those who got some useful stuff out of these trainings. To the leaders of these LGAT companies, the graduates are simply considered as too integral part of the business model for boosting the bottom line. Once the hypocrisy of it all begins to sink in -- between the business model and how "staffing" and "enrollment" are actually spun -- that's often the beginning of a larger awakening process for a graduate.
Soon, you'll be finding yourself questioning all KINDS of 'stanky' things going on, especially if you volunteer a lot at events and your local Landmark office. The closer to the inner circles that you'll get at Landmark or with any LGAT, the 'stankier' it seems to get. Unfortunately, you don't have to go in all that deep before things start to get rancid.
That's one of the main rubs for people and a reason many come to ultimately distance themselves from est and Landmark (and PSI, Impact, Lifespring, whomever) even those who got some useful stuff out of these trainings. To the leaders of these LGAT companies, the graduates are simply considered as too integral part of the business model for boosting the bottom line. Once the hypocrisy of it all begins to sink in -- between the business model and how "staffing" and "enrollment" are actually spun -- that's often the beginning of a larger awakening process for a graduate.
Soon, you'll be finding yourself questioning all KINDS of 'stanky' things going on, especially if you volunteer a lot at events and your local Landmark office. The closer to the inner circles that you'll get at Landmark or with any LGAT, the 'stankier' it seems to get. Unfortunately, you don't have to go in all that deep before things start to get rancid.
Re: Landmark Education as a non-profit
Posted by:
elena
()
Date: July 07, 2008 06:27AM
Just to add, and perhaps counter the notion that the Landmark "teachings" are mostly benign, fairly ordinary and standard motivational and self-improvement stuff -- if, and only if, you are able to tease apart the toxic thread that ties them together which was Werner Erhard's own mind as he picked and chose from the "many disciplines" he supposedly studied. He selected the stuff that made sense to him, he being an uneducated and unprincipled opportunist without much going for him save his superficial charm and looks. His character flaws were multitude and he was more interested in money and status than any "enlightenment" he sought to disperse. It doesn't take much to alter the course of a life and toying with the minds of people surprisingly doesn't seem to bother any of the people who join up with his organisation. For most of us, it's sort of a chore to mature out of narcissism. Anything that increases conceit, selfishness, self-centeredness, or arrogance, even slightly, can have disastrous consequences over time, as I think you can imagine. The natural narcissism we all harbor to some degree is all too often twisted into the malignant kind by programs like Landmark. Watch out. It can wreck your life in ways you don't even know exist.
Ellen
Ellen
Re: Landmark Education as a non-profit
Posted by:
Sulalee
()
Date: July 09, 2008 08:27AM
Elena, thanks for the wonderful insight into the connection between Landmark and narcissism.
Re: Landmark Education as a non-profit
Posted by:
elena
()
Date: July 10, 2008 02:45AM
You bet.
It's not for nothing they were called "est-holes."
Tom Wolfe famously labeled it the "Me Decade" in his essay in New York Magazine in the 1970s.
[nymag.com]
"...The various movements of the current religious wave attempt very nearly the opposite. They begin with . . . “Let’s talk about Me.” They begin with the most delicious look inward; with considerable narcissism, in short. When the believers bind together into religions, it is always with a sense of splitting off from the rest of society. We, the enlightened (lit by the sparks at the apexes of our souls), hereby separate ourselves from the lost souls around us. Like all religions before them, they proselytize—but always on promising the opposite of nationalism: a City of Light that is above it all. There is no ecumenical spirit within this Third Great Awakening. If anything, there is a spirit of schism. The contempt the various seers have for one another is breathtaking. One has only to ask, say, Oscar Ichazo of Arica about Carlos Castaneda or Werner Erhard of est to learn that Castaneda is a fake and Erhard is a shallow sloganeer. It’s exhilarating!—to watch the faithful split off from one another to seek ever more perfect and refined crucibles in which to fan the Divine spark . . . and to talk about Me."
Ellen
It's not for nothing they were called "est-holes."
Tom Wolfe famously labeled it the "Me Decade" in his essay in New York Magazine in the 1970s.
[nymag.com]
"...The various movements of the current religious wave attempt very nearly the opposite. They begin with . . . “Let’s talk about Me.” They begin with the most delicious look inward; with considerable narcissism, in short. When the believers bind together into religions, it is always with a sense of splitting off from the rest of society. We, the enlightened (lit by the sparks at the apexes of our souls), hereby separate ourselves from the lost souls around us. Like all religions before them, they proselytize—but always on promising the opposite of nationalism: a City of Light that is above it all. There is no ecumenical spirit within this Third Great Awakening. If anything, there is a spirit of schism. The contempt the various seers have for one another is breathtaking. One has only to ask, say, Oscar Ichazo of Arica about Carlos Castaneda or Werner Erhard of est to learn that Castaneda is a fake and Erhard is a shallow sloganeer. It’s exhilarating!—to watch the faithful split off from one another to seek ever more perfect and refined crucibles in which to fan the Divine spark . . . and to talk about Me."
Ellen
Re: Landmark Education as a non-profit
Posted by:
pauker
()
Date: July 10, 2008 04:46AM
I, too, have been enjoying Elena's insights on this thread. And I'm very glad she brings up the narcissism subject, 'cause it needs to be discussed. I'm an old, former esthole from WAAY back, and I can assure you, we were every bit as insufferable and self-absorbed as any 21st century, card-carryin' "Landmark-hole" (Thank GOD a couple of people in my life then were gutsy enough to tell me I was being so arrogant. Ultimately, that even helped.) And Elena was so right when she mentioned what a chore it can be trying to outgrow one's own narcissism. My life almost completely fell apart before I outgrew mine.
To me, the narcissism thing is a part of one of the biggest cons in the whole LGAT industry -- not just Landmark. They all teach a disguised form of malignant narcissism; disguised precisely because its dressed in the clothing of altruism. They play on almost everyone's desire to make a positive contribution in something in their lives. But by tugging at their/our heartstrings (and our recently mushed-out brains) over that desire, they can easily convince graduates to believe that they're out 'making a difference', 'having an impact' in the world, transforming society, saving humanity, choosing empowering, outta-the-box paradigm shifts for earth's Gaia, or WHATEVER -- when in real life so many just walk around behaving in often hideously self-absorbed ways. Shit, we were as bad as the old Ayn Rand Objectivists. If it sounds like I'm boasting about that, I'm not. It was horrible.
Mark Twain once said, "History doesn't repeat itself: it rhymes." It certainly is rhyming in my life these days, as my Daughter recently announced to me that she just finished an Impact seminar: the 1st course in their series called Quest. She's currently riding the 'wave' of the hypo-manic high that comes from being a new quest-hole, and she certainly seems to have ingested a gallon or two of their Kool-Aid so far. In the meantime, I'm waiting out her 'zen-like high' (which is what WE used to prefer calling it, too) to see what positive might be 'left-over' afterwards. And all the while I'm hoping like hell she didn't inherit a genetic pre-disposition for bi-polar disorder. I've just seen to many people coming out of LGATs with full blown manic episodes over the years. That could even make great fodder for another provocative thread -- how the post seminar high is akin to hypo-mania, and how that can go on to stoke full-blown mania. But I digress...
To me, the narcissism thing is a part of one of the biggest cons in the whole LGAT industry -- not just Landmark. They all teach a disguised form of malignant narcissism; disguised precisely because its dressed in the clothing of altruism. They play on almost everyone's desire to make a positive contribution in something in their lives. But by tugging at their/our heartstrings (and our recently mushed-out brains) over that desire, they can easily convince graduates to believe that they're out 'making a difference', 'having an impact' in the world, transforming society, saving humanity, choosing empowering, outta-the-box paradigm shifts for earth's Gaia, or WHATEVER -- when in real life so many just walk around behaving in often hideously self-absorbed ways. Shit, we were as bad as the old Ayn Rand Objectivists. If it sounds like I'm boasting about that, I'm not. It was horrible.
Mark Twain once said, "History doesn't repeat itself: it rhymes." It certainly is rhyming in my life these days, as my Daughter recently announced to me that she just finished an Impact seminar: the 1st course in their series called Quest. She's currently riding the 'wave' of the hypo-manic high that comes from being a new quest-hole, and she certainly seems to have ingested a gallon or two of their Kool-Aid so far. In the meantime, I'm waiting out her 'zen-like high' (which is what WE used to prefer calling it, too) to see what positive might be 'left-over' afterwards. And all the while I'm hoping like hell she didn't inherit a genetic pre-disposition for bi-polar disorder. I've just seen to many people coming out of LGATs with full blown manic episodes over the years. That could even make great fodder for another provocative thread -- how the post seminar high is akin to hypo-mania, and how that can go on to stoke full-blown mania. But I digress...
Re: Landmark Education as a non-profit
Posted by:
elena
()
Date: July 10, 2008 11:04PM
Hi Pauker,
You wouldn't be the first to make the connection between Ayn Rand and Werner Erhard.
You might enjoy this:
Iron Maiden; JOURNALS OF AYN RAND. Edited by David Harriman with
foreword by Leonard Peikoff . Dutton: 728 pp., $39.95:[Home Edition]
GARY KAMIYA. The Los Angeles Times. (Record edition).Los Angeles,
Calif.: Jan 4, 1998. pg. 10
Like heavy metal music, Kamikaze piloting and chugging bottles of
Boone's Farm Apple wine, Ayn Rand is one of those experiences that is
best appreciated by the very young. There may be some mature souls who
find themselves stomping along to her brazen one-note samba, but her
ideal readers are college sophomores who are trying to reinvent
themselves as jutting-jawed Heroes of Reason. You see them here and
there, the intense ones, clutching their copies of "Atlas Shrugged"
like backstage passes to the World Superiority Tour '97.
I was as high-strung and prone to self-aggrandizement as the next
19-year-old, but I avoided Rand. I had the idea that her work was
artistically tacky, philosophically rigid and vaguely scary, a kind of
literary precursor of est. Besides, all my rebellious uberteen
energies went into worshiping what I took to be a higher-grade seducer
of youth, Nietzsche. Recently, however, I read Rand's two major works,
"The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged," which may make me the only
non-Rand-disciple over 25 ever to voluntarily wade through 1,900 pages
of The Master. I cannot say that the experience was a pleasurable one,
but it has increased my store of information: I now know that her
novels are artistically tacky, philosophically rigid and vaguely
scary.
Rand may not be the worst novelist ever to pick up a pen, but she is
without a doubt the worst novelist ever to inspire a cult following
and sell zillions of books. Her novels are awe-inspiringly bad,
ludicrous on a heroic scale. They are comic books with Wagnerian
dialogue--like Danielle Steel channeling Milton Friedman, with some
fake Nietzsche-chips sprinkled on top. Their plots are
bottom-of-the-pile Hollywood schlock worthy of serving as fodder for
"Mystery Science Theatre 3000," complete with melodramatic courtroom
scenes, planes crashing near the SuperRand Fortress of Solitude and
heroes rushing in to pull their leader off a high-tech torture
machine. Rand's characters are clanking robots whose mouths jerk
mechanically as philosophical speeches appear in balloons behind them.
As for that dialogue, it is made of the finest hardwood veneers. A
sample 2-by-4: "You, the heir of the d'Anconias, who could have
surpassed all his ancestors of the miraculous hand that produced,
you're turning your matchless ability to the job of destruction. . . .
Yet you and I were the kind who determine the fate of the world."
What keeps you turning the pages, however, is that these books are not
just incredibly bad, they are incredibly weird. Their aridity, their
lack of development, psychological depth and flexibility is so
absolute that it is fascinating: You keep waiting for something light,
something human, something different to appear, and it never does.
Rand's formula is a rigor mortis-like adherence to her icy first
philosophical principles, combined with grandiose wish-fulfilling
plots. The results are simultaneously banal and hysterical: like
Aristotle (the only philosopher she respected, despite his many
"errors") crossed with Mickey Spillane (her favorite contemporary
novelist).
Rand's works have a bizarre tone, at once smug and shrill,
sadomasochistic and sentimental. Her psychosexual ventings can be best
observed in the sex scenes in "The Fountainhead," which read like a
cross between a Harlequin romance and the woollier ravings of the
Marquis de Sade. Take this unusual come-hither speech delivered by the
heroine, Dominique Francon, after she has intentionally caused Mighty
Rand Hero No. 1 and super-Wrightian-architect Howard Roark to lose an
important commission: " 'You know that I hate you, Roark. I hate you
for what you are, for wanting you, for having to want you. I will
fight to starve you, to strangle you on the things you won't be able
to reach. I have done it to you today--and that is why I shall sleep
with you tonight. . . . I have hurt you today. I'll do it again. I'll
come to you whenever I have beaten you--whenever I know that I have
hurt you--and I'll let you own me. . . . What do you wish to say now
?'
'Take your clothes off.' "
Well, whatever turns you on. But after 700-odd pages of this kind of
stuff--or, more commonly, of characters who bear an uncanny
resemblance to Ayn Rand's authorial voice constantly saying to each
other "I love you because in my rational calculation you are worthy of
my lofty respect"--one begins to grow somewhat restless.
Rand's defenders might object that hers are novels of ideas, formal
experimentations more like philosophical arguments than conventional
works of fiction, and so should be judged by different standards.
Certainly Rand's novels contain eloquent arguments for her central
ideas--in particular, her exacting individualism (an important
intellectual source of contemporary libertarianism) and her critique
of altruism. But even novels of ideas are not necessarily
philosophical arguments: To succeed as fiction, they must--like such
exemplary works as Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov," Mann's "Dr.
Faustus," Stendhal's "The Red and the Black" and Melville's "Moby
Dick"--embody their ideas in characters that have an imagined
existence independent of those ideas. It is the imagination, open to
irrationality and irony, to chance and humor, that is the true
laboratory in which ideas are tested in fiction.
But Rand's talents were purely cognitive. As her prosaic cookie-cutter
journals indicate, she had little imagination and no humor. Her books
are reenactments of giant chess games in which the characters are mere
pieces and the outcome is foreordained. One of her countless vile
"second-handers" (Randspeak for a parasitic person who derives all her
values from what others think) is no more going to be revealed to have
hidden virtues than a pawn is going to start moving like a knight. In
the Rand universe, the bad guys always wear black hats and have
ignoble faces, often with weak, ugly mouths. (To give her her due,
Rand does write excellent gargoyles, and some of her villains--in
particular the bizarre, effete archvillain Ellsworth M. Toohey--are
weirdly memorable.)
Rand may be the only fiction writer ever to denounce irrationality as
evil, and reading too much of her work can make you feel like a POW
deprived of dreaming sleep by sadistic captors. Her
hyper-rationalistic, Manichean credo prevented her from even trying to
imagine exceptions to her tenets: If a Randian hero were to have an
affair with an "unworthy" woman, or a villain were to turn out to be a
great artist, her entire system would fall apart. Philosophically, her
arguments can be potent; in fictional terms, they are completely
tautological. She is the great enemy of collectivism, but in certain
ways, her works resemble their exact ideological opposites: novels of
Socialist Realism, the "boy-meets-tractor" schlock cranked out by
Stalinist party hacks in the Soviet Union.
Grandiose, intense, bombastic, hypnotic, sterile, it is a fascinating
body of work, larger than life and twice as clumsy, and the reader is
bound to wonder what sort of person could have created it.
Unfortunately, if not particularly surprisingly, the recently
published "Journals of Ayn Rand" sheds very little new light on that
subject or, for that matter, on any other. Indeed, it's hard to
imagine what audience, outside of Rand scholars or acolytes interested
in the minutiae of how Rand composed her books, these journals will
appeal to.
"Journals of Ayn Rand" consists of a chronological presentation,
starting in 1927 and ending in 1966, of most of Rand's unpublished
work. It includes early material written when she was working as a
Hollywood screenwriter, notes to herself written before and during the
writing of her novels "We the Living," "The Fountainhead" and her
magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," as well as extensive notes for a
never-published philosophical treatise titled "The Moral Basis of
Individualism," a defense of the House Unamerican Activities
Committee's investigation of Hollywood Communists (Rand's testimony
before HUAC is also included) and late notes for her last proposed
novel, "To Lorne Dieterling" (which was never written).
In his introduction, editor David Harriman, who appears to have done a
creditable job of selection but whose evident status as a True
Believer renders him insufficiently critical, writes "this book
presents AR's working journals--i.e., the notes in which she developed
her literary and philosophical ideas. Notes of a personal nature will
be included in a forthcoming authorized biography." Alas, if ever a
book needed "notes of a personal nature," it's this one. There are a
few items of interest here but, for the most part, it's tedious
inside-baseball stuff, mere construction scaffolding, a pale
simulacrum of her novels.
A writer's journal can reveal an intellectual odyssey, provide
valuable insights into how major works are written, recount the
writer's quirks and wrong turns and inspirations; it can also achieve
its own literary greatness. Rand's journals do none of these things,
for three reasons. First, she had no intellectual odyssey. As Rand
herself proudly proclaimed, and as her sensitive former disciple
Barbara Branden demonstrates in her remarkable biography "The Passion
of Ayn Rand," Rand's literary and philosophical ideas were formulated
very early in her life and never changed substantially. "I have been
asked whether I have changed in these past twenty-five years," Rand
writes in her introduction to the 25th anniversary edition of "The
Fountainhead." "No, I am the same--only more so." How do you spell
r-e-p-r-e-s-s-i-o-n?
That Rand held essentially the same views all her life is shown in the
"Journals" by notes she wrote when she was 23, for a never-written
novel called "The Little Street." "Show that the world is monstrously
hypocritical," she exhorts herself. "That humanity has no convictions
of any kind. That it does not know how to believe anything. That it
has never believed consistently and does not know how to be true to
any idea or ideal. That all the 'high' words of the world are a
monstrous lie." A bit later, in notes about the novel's hero, she
writes, "Passionate. Intensely proud. Superior to the mob and
intensely, almost painfully conscious of it. Restless. High-strung. An
extreme 'extremist.' A clear, strong, brilliant mind. An egoist, in
the best sense of the word."
These pronouncements about the vileness of the world and the
how-dare-you-approach-me-varlet hero are Randian to the core: They
embody a vision from which Rand never deviated. Harriman argues that
"The Little Street" "was not a novel she could have written; to her,
the purpose of fiction writing is not to denounce that which one
despises, but to exalt that which one admires." But Rand's novels,
though putatively celebratory, overflow with bile: ostensibly
"joyous," they are spectacularly weighed down by the spirit of
gravity, by hatred and contempt for mankind. (The "happy ending" of
"Atlas Shrugged," in which a handful of noble spirits leave the world
to stew in its corrupt juices while they pursue their superior
destinies in a Rocky Mountain fastness, is a fairy tale that only
heightens the pervading sense of despair.)
The second reason that Rand's journals aren't interesting is that her
fiction--expository, told not shown, with authorial finger always
pressing blatantly on the moral scales--is virtually indistinguishable
from her nonfiction. Her journals are simply weaker, less polished
versions of her novels: There's not enough difference between the two
forms to make the informal one interesting. Reading her notes on the
character of Howard Roark or John Galt, or on Galt's notoriously
interminable speech, is like reading an earlier, slightly less elegant
version of a complex mathematical proof that was later published in a
professional journal: There's really no point. Of course, these
reasons pale beside the third one, which is that Ayn Rand is just not
a very good writer--and the journals of a mediocre novelist hold
limited appeal.
Yet it would be wrong to deny that there is a burning core in Rand's
work: an intense apprehension of the possibility of living without
illusion, without the comforts of religion or of group thinking, in
some icy region far above the flabby, flat compromises most of us make
sooner or later. Even through her inept fictional constructions, this
fire can be felt.
But in the end, Rand's flame burns in a void. Her work is an endless
hall of mirrors, reflecting only an enormous eye and empty space. For
all of her Nietzschean praise of "the Earth," Rand took no delight in
the things of this world; she never learned, in his phrase, to "stop
bravely at appearances." A chill instinct, at once noble and callow,
led her to separate herself from mankind, but she was unable to forget
those she despised and go her own way. To feel superior to others is
to allow them to define the terms of one's identity: The master cannot
be aware of the slave without ceasing to be the master. By a
tremendous irony, Rand, the self-willed one, the enemy of all borrowed
thoughts, was walled into a nutshell by other people.
She once wrote, "one of the most effective lines in 'The Fountainhead'
comes at the end of Part II, when in reply to Toohey's question: 'Why
don't you tell me what you think of me?' Roark answers: 'But I don't
think of you.' " Rand always did think of those she despised, she
despised too much--and that is why her books resonate not with music
but with the clang of useless iron.
Credit: Gary Kamiya is the executive editor of Salon Internet
(http://www.salonmagazine.com)
You wouldn't be the first to make the connection between Ayn Rand and Werner Erhard.
You might enjoy this:
Iron Maiden; JOURNALS OF AYN RAND. Edited by David Harriman with
foreword by Leonard Peikoff . Dutton: 728 pp., $39.95:[Home Edition]
GARY KAMIYA. The Los Angeles Times. (Record edition).Los Angeles,
Calif.: Jan 4, 1998. pg. 10
Like heavy metal music, Kamikaze piloting and chugging bottles of
Boone's Farm Apple wine, Ayn Rand is one of those experiences that is
best appreciated by the very young. There may be some mature souls who
find themselves stomping along to her brazen one-note samba, but her
ideal readers are college sophomores who are trying to reinvent
themselves as jutting-jawed Heroes of Reason. You see them here and
there, the intense ones, clutching their copies of "Atlas Shrugged"
like backstage passes to the World Superiority Tour '97.
I was as high-strung and prone to self-aggrandizement as the next
19-year-old, but I avoided Rand. I had the idea that her work was
artistically tacky, philosophically rigid and vaguely scary, a kind of
literary precursor of est. Besides, all my rebellious uberteen
energies went into worshiping what I took to be a higher-grade seducer
of youth, Nietzsche. Recently, however, I read Rand's two major works,
"The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged," which may make me the only
non-Rand-disciple over 25 ever to voluntarily wade through 1,900 pages
of The Master. I cannot say that the experience was a pleasurable one,
but it has increased my store of information: I now know that her
novels are artistically tacky, philosophically rigid and vaguely
scary.
Rand may not be the worst novelist ever to pick up a pen, but she is
without a doubt the worst novelist ever to inspire a cult following
and sell zillions of books. Her novels are awe-inspiringly bad,
ludicrous on a heroic scale. They are comic books with Wagnerian
dialogue--like Danielle Steel channeling Milton Friedman, with some
fake Nietzsche-chips sprinkled on top. Their plots are
bottom-of-the-pile Hollywood schlock worthy of serving as fodder for
"Mystery Science Theatre 3000," complete with melodramatic courtroom
scenes, planes crashing near the SuperRand Fortress of Solitude and
heroes rushing in to pull their leader off a high-tech torture
machine. Rand's characters are clanking robots whose mouths jerk
mechanically as philosophical speeches appear in balloons behind them.
As for that dialogue, it is made of the finest hardwood veneers. A
sample 2-by-4: "You, the heir of the d'Anconias, who could have
surpassed all his ancestors of the miraculous hand that produced,
you're turning your matchless ability to the job of destruction. . . .
Yet you and I were the kind who determine the fate of the world."
What keeps you turning the pages, however, is that these books are not
just incredibly bad, they are incredibly weird. Their aridity, their
lack of development, psychological depth and flexibility is so
absolute that it is fascinating: You keep waiting for something light,
something human, something different to appear, and it never does.
Rand's formula is a rigor mortis-like adherence to her icy first
philosophical principles, combined with grandiose wish-fulfilling
plots. The results are simultaneously banal and hysterical: like
Aristotle (the only philosopher she respected, despite his many
"errors") crossed with Mickey Spillane (her favorite contemporary
novelist).
Rand's works have a bizarre tone, at once smug and shrill,
sadomasochistic and sentimental. Her psychosexual ventings can be best
observed in the sex scenes in "The Fountainhead," which read like a
cross between a Harlequin romance and the woollier ravings of the
Marquis de Sade. Take this unusual come-hither speech delivered by the
heroine, Dominique Francon, after she has intentionally caused Mighty
Rand Hero No. 1 and super-Wrightian-architect Howard Roark to lose an
important commission: " 'You know that I hate you, Roark. I hate you
for what you are, for wanting you, for having to want you. I will
fight to starve you, to strangle you on the things you won't be able
to reach. I have done it to you today--and that is why I shall sleep
with you tonight. . . . I have hurt you today. I'll do it again. I'll
come to you whenever I have beaten you--whenever I know that I have
hurt you--and I'll let you own me. . . . What do you wish to say now
?'
'Take your clothes off.' "
Well, whatever turns you on. But after 700-odd pages of this kind of
stuff--or, more commonly, of characters who bear an uncanny
resemblance to Ayn Rand's authorial voice constantly saying to each
other "I love you because in my rational calculation you are worthy of
my lofty respect"--one begins to grow somewhat restless.
Rand's defenders might object that hers are novels of ideas, formal
experimentations more like philosophical arguments than conventional
works of fiction, and so should be judged by different standards.
Certainly Rand's novels contain eloquent arguments for her central
ideas--in particular, her exacting individualism (an important
intellectual source of contemporary libertarianism) and her critique
of altruism. But even novels of ideas are not necessarily
philosophical arguments: To succeed as fiction, they must--like such
exemplary works as Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov," Mann's "Dr.
Faustus," Stendhal's "The Red and the Black" and Melville's "Moby
Dick"--embody their ideas in characters that have an imagined
existence independent of those ideas. It is the imagination, open to
irrationality and irony, to chance and humor, that is the true
laboratory in which ideas are tested in fiction.
But Rand's talents were purely cognitive. As her prosaic cookie-cutter
journals indicate, she had little imagination and no humor. Her books
are reenactments of giant chess games in which the characters are mere
pieces and the outcome is foreordained. One of her countless vile
"second-handers" (Randspeak for a parasitic person who derives all her
values from what others think) is no more going to be revealed to have
hidden virtues than a pawn is going to start moving like a knight. In
the Rand universe, the bad guys always wear black hats and have
ignoble faces, often with weak, ugly mouths. (To give her her due,
Rand does write excellent gargoyles, and some of her villains--in
particular the bizarre, effete archvillain Ellsworth M. Toohey--are
weirdly memorable.)
Rand may be the only fiction writer ever to denounce irrationality as
evil, and reading too much of her work can make you feel like a POW
deprived of dreaming sleep by sadistic captors. Her
hyper-rationalistic, Manichean credo prevented her from even trying to
imagine exceptions to her tenets: If a Randian hero were to have an
affair with an "unworthy" woman, or a villain were to turn out to be a
great artist, her entire system would fall apart. Philosophically, her
arguments can be potent; in fictional terms, they are completely
tautological. She is the great enemy of collectivism, but in certain
ways, her works resemble their exact ideological opposites: novels of
Socialist Realism, the "boy-meets-tractor" schlock cranked out by
Stalinist party hacks in the Soviet Union.
Grandiose, intense, bombastic, hypnotic, sterile, it is a fascinating
body of work, larger than life and twice as clumsy, and the reader is
bound to wonder what sort of person could have created it.
Unfortunately, if not particularly surprisingly, the recently
published "Journals of Ayn Rand" sheds very little new light on that
subject or, for that matter, on any other. Indeed, it's hard to
imagine what audience, outside of Rand scholars or acolytes interested
in the minutiae of how Rand composed her books, these journals will
appeal to.
"Journals of Ayn Rand" consists of a chronological presentation,
starting in 1927 and ending in 1966, of most of Rand's unpublished
work. It includes early material written when she was working as a
Hollywood screenwriter, notes to herself written before and during the
writing of her novels "We the Living," "The Fountainhead" and her
magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," as well as extensive notes for a
never-published philosophical treatise titled "The Moral Basis of
Individualism," a defense of the House Unamerican Activities
Committee's investigation of Hollywood Communists (Rand's testimony
before HUAC is also included) and late notes for her last proposed
novel, "To Lorne Dieterling" (which was never written).
In his introduction, editor David Harriman, who appears to have done a
creditable job of selection but whose evident status as a True
Believer renders him insufficiently critical, writes "this book
presents AR's working journals--i.e., the notes in which she developed
her literary and philosophical ideas. Notes of a personal nature will
be included in a forthcoming authorized biography." Alas, if ever a
book needed "notes of a personal nature," it's this one. There are a
few items of interest here but, for the most part, it's tedious
inside-baseball stuff, mere construction scaffolding, a pale
simulacrum of her novels.
A writer's journal can reveal an intellectual odyssey, provide
valuable insights into how major works are written, recount the
writer's quirks and wrong turns and inspirations; it can also achieve
its own literary greatness. Rand's journals do none of these things,
for three reasons. First, she had no intellectual odyssey. As Rand
herself proudly proclaimed, and as her sensitive former disciple
Barbara Branden demonstrates in her remarkable biography "The Passion
of Ayn Rand," Rand's literary and philosophical ideas were formulated
very early in her life and never changed substantially. "I have been
asked whether I have changed in these past twenty-five years," Rand
writes in her introduction to the 25th anniversary edition of "The
Fountainhead." "No, I am the same--only more so." How do you spell
r-e-p-r-e-s-s-i-o-n?
That Rand held essentially the same views all her life is shown in the
"Journals" by notes she wrote when she was 23, for a never-written
novel called "The Little Street." "Show that the world is monstrously
hypocritical," she exhorts herself. "That humanity has no convictions
of any kind. That it does not know how to believe anything. That it
has never believed consistently and does not know how to be true to
any idea or ideal. That all the 'high' words of the world are a
monstrous lie." A bit later, in notes about the novel's hero, she
writes, "Passionate. Intensely proud. Superior to the mob and
intensely, almost painfully conscious of it. Restless. High-strung. An
extreme 'extremist.' A clear, strong, brilliant mind. An egoist, in
the best sense of the word."
These pronouncements about the vileness of the world and the
how-dare-you-approach-me-varlet hero are Randian to the core: They
embody a vision from which Rand never deviated. Harriman argues that
"The Little Street" "was not a novel she could have written; to her,
the purpose of fiction writing is not to denounce that which one
despises, but to exalt that which one admires." But Rand's novels,
though putatively celebratory, overflow with bile: ostensibly
"joyous," they are spectacularly weighed down by the spirit of
gravity, by hatred and contempt for mankind. (The "happy ending" of
"Atlas Shrugged," in which a handful of noble spirits leave the world
to stew in its corrupt juices while they pursue their superior
destinies in a Rocky Mountain fastness, is a fairy tale that only
heightens the pervading sense of despair.)
The second reason that Rand's journals aren't interesting is that her
fiction--expository, told not shown, with authorial finger always
pressing blatantly on the moral scales--is virtually indistinguishable
from her nonfiction. Her journals are simply weaker, less polished
versions of her novels: There's not enough difference between the two
forms to make the informal one interesting. Reading her notes on the
character of Howard Roark or John Galt, or on Galt's notoriously
interminable speech, is like reading an earlier, slightly less elegant
version of a complex mathematical proof that was later published in a
professional journal: There's really no point. Of course, these
reasons pale beside the third one, which is that Ayn Rand is just not
a very good writer--and the journals of a mediocre novelist hold
limited appeal.
Yet it would be wrong to deny that there is a burning core in Rand's
work: an intense apprehension of the possibility of living without
illusion, without the comforts of religion or of group thinking, in
some icy region far above the flabby, flat compromises most of us make
sooner or later. Even through her inept fictional constructions, this
fire can be felt.
But in the end, Rand's flame burns in a void. Her work is an endless
hall of mirrors, reflecting only an enormous eye and empty space. For
all of her Nietzschean praise of "the Earth," Rand took no delight in
the things of this world; she never learned, in his phrase, to "stop
bravely at appearances." A chill instinct, at once noble and callow,
led her to separate herself from mankind, but she was unable to forget
those she despised and go her own way. To feel superior to others is
to allow them to define the terms of one's identity: The master cannot
be aware of the slave without ceasing to be the master. By a
tremendous irony, Rand, the self-willed one, the enemy of all borrowed
thoughts, was walled into a nutshell by other people.
She once wrote, "one of the most effective lines in 'The Fountainhead'
comes at the end of Part II, when in reply to Toohey's question: 'Why
don't you tell me what you think of me?' Roark answers: 'But I don't
think of you.' " Rand always did think of those she despised, she
despised too much--and that is why her books resonate not with music
but with the clang of useless iron.
Credit: Gary Kamiya is the executive editor of Salon Internet
(http://www.salonmagazine.com)
Re: Landmark Education as a non-profit
Posted by:
pauker
()
Date: July 11, 2008 02:08AM
Ah yes:
Est-holes and Land-holes,
and Quest-holes and RAND-holes.
Put us all together and whaddaya got? A small, hole-y poem at the VERY least. :-)
Ok, I admit it. When my Sister and I were college sophomores we were a Rand-holes, too. (Personally, it sure made it hell gettin' dates 2nd semester!) I have a strong feeling that a whole lotta Rand-holes (and former ones) morphed into est-holes if Scientology didn't lure 'em in first. After her Rand phase, my Sister was 1st drawn to est, and then I took it 6 months later. Ironically, Sis turned to est for help after experiencing her 1st manic episode, not really knowing what it was she was 1st enduring (she simply never went to get that first episode diagnosed). She wanted to get better. She didn't know est was gonna exacerbate the problem.
Geez, what a tragic path to follow: Rand to LGAT to mania. That's what happened to my Sister. After doing some genealogical research, locating bipolar disorder a couple of generations back and then extrapolating a likely genetic proclivity towards the disease, I saw how lucky I was to have avoided that tragic path, quite likely by the skin o' my teeth. I hope I can help my Daughter (currently an Impact Quest-hole, to be frighteningly blunt) escape the fate of my Sister, for I quite likely passed that pre-disposition on to my little girl. Its scary.
Its a good thing I have some est/forum type threads where I can post. Over at the Impact thread I've seen too many of their trolls to do anything other than be in read-only mode.
Est-holes and Land-holes,
and Quest-holes and RAND-holes.
Put us all together and whaddaya got? A small, hole-y poem at the VERY least. :-)
Ok, I admit it. When my Sister and I were college sophomores we were a Rand-holes, too. (Personally, it sure made it hell gettin' dates 2nd semester!) I have a strong feeling that a whole lotta Rand-holes (and former ones) morphed into est-holes if Scientology didn't lure 'em in first. After her Rand phase, my Sister was 1st drawn to est, and then I took it 6 months later. Ironically, Sis turned to est for help after experiencing her 1st manic episode, not really knowing what it was she was 1st enduring (she simply never went to get that first episode diagnosed). She wanted to get better. She didn't know est was gonna exacerbate the problem.
Geez, what a tragic path to follow: Rand to LGAT to mania. That's what happened to my Sister. After doing some genealogical research, locating bipolar disorder a couple of generations back and then extrapolating a likely genetic proclivity towards the disease, I saw how lucky I was to have avoided that tragic path, quite likely by the skin o' my teeth. I hope I can help my Daughter (currently an Impact Quest-hole, to be frighteningly blunt) escape the fate of my Sister, for I quite likely passed that pre-disposition on to my little girl. Its scary.
Its a good thing I have some est/forum type threads where I can post. Over at the Impact thread I've seen too many of their trolls to do anything other than be in read-only mode.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.