Do you still believe in ghosts? Gods? Christ?

Here is what Casey said in 2005:

__________________________

The repeated claim that this book represents the "official" position of the Ayn Rand Institute is particularly amusing to me. When Valliant, a good friend of mine, wrote Part I of the book, he knew that the Ayn Rand Institute took a dim view of even mentioning the Brandens. When he published that part, on my own website, we both believed that doing so would jeopardize what relationship he had had with Leonard Peikoff. I can personally vouch for the fact that Jim did not consult with Peikoff or anyone else associated with ARI about the content of his book—at all, ever.

__________________________

I think it's interesting that we now know Peikoff was the editor of PARC contrary to what Jim and Casey said.

I’m not obsessed with the topic. I just think that after 15 years we now know who the mystery editor of PARC was, a bow has been tied. I’m not a fan of Peikoff but it’s sad he thought Jim’s hectoring comments should been inserted within Rand’s diaries.

are you still so obsessed with this stuff enough to bang on and on about it? All that says to me is you are truly a man without a life or any investment in the world which is now unfolding around you.

To me you’re an alien life form stuck in some irrelevant time warp.

People change their views all the time so I assume her change was philosophically motivated, although at some point she may have realized she didn't have a future in academia or the ARI world.

The best piece I've done recently is my discussion of Valliant's claim that Peikoff edited PARC.

http://aynrandcontrahumannatur...

4. Speaking of Objectivists turned liberals, Dr. Diana Hsieh took her website down stating that it no longer reflects her current beliefs. Based on her Twitter feed it seems that she is more or less a left winger. She actually has become a union organizer. I don’t know of any studies, but most Objectivists who leave the movement seem to turn libertarian or conservative.

Wasn’t she one of the lemmings who made a big song and dance about voting for Obama in 2008? Most Objectivists lean left because they’re more anti Christian than anti anything else, hence they distance themselves too self-consciously from the conservative/Republican movement.

And speaking of self conscious, Diana’s statement: I've decided to remove Philosophy in Action from active circulation. My philosophical views have changed dramatically in recent years, and my life is much better for it. It's time for me to leave this work in the past. My heartfelt thanks to the many folks who've helped and supported me on this strange and difficult path of life.

It is normal for people’s philosophical views to change over the years... I’ll probably end up a complete mystic myself, as I have an innate feel for Spinoza’s god and I’m a total tree hugging, hymn loving, cultural Christian, but Rand was quite clear that her philosophy was the "philosophy for living on Earth,” - material, egoistic, 100 percent reason based - and what a magnificent philosophical reference point is that for humans in possession of a rational mind?!

It only becomes a pickle for someone when they throw themselves into the thinking of another human being with cult-like abandon. Diana will probably spend the rest of her life blaming Rand’s philosophical shortcomings for her own lemming-like tendencies - and then need to publish those thoughts too in yet another journal. In fact, that statement of Diana’s is almost identical to the ghastly woman’s smug question to Rand in the famous Phil Donahue interview... “Years ago I used to think your philosophy was proper but now that I’m more educated...”

Rand was a total gift to us philosophically and painstakingly earned her place in the court of the gods. I do wish those who have learned so much from her would treat her influence with far more respect... but no, it’s all about their own silly little lives and petty self-conscious musings.