Yesterday I temporarily joined an unmoderated Randian discussion list (temporarily in order to discuss my friend Chris Sciabarra, who is currently in the hospital undergoing surgery for a serious kidney ailment). I haven't been on one of these lists in a while and now I remember why! One of the first messages I read was from someone who said he likes Chris' work even though "I don't agree with him on everything..." I have seen this phrase so often in Randian circles that a few years ago I began to wonder about it. Is there some special value to be found in agreeing with someone on everything? Does this phrase assume that "agreement on everything" is a kind of default case, requiring caveats if full agreement does not obtain? What would agreement on everything even look like or feel like? Would agreement on everything require an identity of minds? Heck, I don't think even that could be true, because I know that I don't even agree with myself on everything (at least historically -- e.g., I have been known to change my mind about things). Reminds me of those bumper stickers that read "Ayn Rand Was Right" -- about everything??? Even when she contradicts herself?

Today's quote from Victor Hugo: "Nothing equals the power of voluntary deafness in fanatics." (William Shakespeare, III.1.iii)

Peter Saint-Andre > Journal