Nathaniel Branden on "My Years With Ayn Rand"

I am fascinated with the relationship between Rand and Branden--and he was 18 years her junior? Maybe his self-esteem issues at the time played a role in his being in the relationship with her for so long. I'm trying to learn from the experiences of others. Branden's self-esteem books may help me stay out of trouble..

Ms. Rand was hot, brilliant and compellingly committed to freedom. She was a tour de force who survived one of the great evils of our time - Stalin and his fellow travelers. Couple that with the always embarrassing fantasy for the younger man for the older, experienced and attractive women and the rest is history. And then if she acts like she wants you bad enough it is very difficult to get her out of your mind.

I have been wondering, how a woman could hold on to a guy 18 years younger for so long...so she must be beautiful.. Well, then I thought that Braden probably had such poor self-esteem at the time that maybe that was one of the reasons why he clung to her for so long. I'm just trying to learn from the experiences of others...I've always had poor self-esteem, which is getting better, but I could end up in a situation like that. Looking for approval and acceptance..

As I see it, the law of identity does not tell you *where* a something may exist, but simply states if something exists, then that something is part of existance.

It is like saying "a dog is a dog" or "I am Myself"

No but consider the meaning of the law of no excluded middle: it is the case that facets of our being at the quantum level can be measured as both there and not there.

Identity and contradiction make perfect sense, but to say there is no possibility that it could be both and neither at the same time is anthropomorphic ontology where you compare the rules of thought with empirical experiences.

"it is the case that facets of our being at the quantum level can be measured as both there and not there."

It was my point that it does not matter *where* a something may be located at any one time; just because a something may not be present at a specific location is not proof, in itself, that the something is non-existant.

I.E., I do not think that quantum physics contradicts reality, because if it did, it wouldn't exist in the first place, and further discussion is rendered redudant.

You still haven't caught my point: I agree with what you've just said but I'm talking about excluded middle and location not the corallaries of in establishing existence.

Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism explains what I mean.

"I agree with what you've just said but I'm talking about excluded middle and location not the corallaries of in establishing existence."

As I see it, they are all important in discussing if we are determine which is which, and if some statement excludes the other one.

In essence, my point was that "a dog is a dog" regardless if it sits in my lap or sleeps on my carpet - its location does not change its existance/identity.

All I can say is never argue with an aspie...

They just go all cyclical on key notions and don't grasp your point.

you make sense.