A few comments, understanding that I'm handicapped by not having read the book you're referring to:

You might find some of them provocative, because at a basic philosophical level they're challenging the Cartesian dualism that emotion is the enemy of reason...and we know where you stand on that debate. They make a good case that in fact human intelligence arises from emotion and is sustained by it.

"Enemy of reason" is not a valid way of putting it. Emotions are not useless or evil, or even an invalid way of making decisions in limited cases, but reason has to have the deciding vote when it comes down to a conflict between the two.

An integrated reasoning mind is ideally supposed to have emotions that are consistent with that reasoning mind--that was Rand's theory. In real life, unfortunately, you have a lot more "ape vs. angel" things going on, even in the best people, and people have to make tough decisions on who to listen to. Incidentally, anybody who tries to tell me all of Rand's emotions were 100 percent in coordination with her reason is blowing smoke.

Emotions and other primitive functions may be essential to developing a child's brain. On the other hand, we don't put children in charge of nuclear reactors, either.

Again, it's not cricket for me to criticize a book I haven't read, but it does sound a bit like one of those theories that try to find patterns in things that really don't have them ("Ages of Man" kind of things).

I don't know exactly how mature societies develop. Primitive cultures, like the ancient people of Iceland, some American Indian tribes, and others developed quite sophisticated governing systems that had high levels of individual rights. Yet nations like the Soviet Union, who first put a man in space, are little different than tyrannies of thousands of years ago. It's obvious there's more to it than just how long a culture has been around or how "modern" it is.

I agree that the human mind has gone far beyond it's basic primate nature (thank goodness). It's all about cultural evolution now. Unfortunately, the primate is still in there, and has to be constantly dealt with. It's a volitional process, which leads to an entire new area of discussion (and a bit more Ayn Rand if we're not careful). The tension is always there, but reason can win out if we decide, individually, to do things that way.

From the Star Trek episode "Taste of Armageddon." Anan 7, an inhabitant of a planet that has institutionalized war and casualties, speaking to Captain Kirk:

"There can be no peace! Don't you see – we've admitted it to ourselves! We're a killer species; it's the same with you and your General Order 24!"

"All, right - it's instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings, with the blood of a million savage years on our hands. But we can stop it! We can admit we're killers, but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes. Knowing that you're not going to kill...today."

Another example is negative: The human mind goes off the rails when it's completely cut off from the support of human society. See Ted Kaczinksy.

On the other hand, some of the finest thinking of our species has come from people who have gone off on their own to contemplate things in the absence of human society. Thoreau comes to mind. I'm sure you can think of many others.

I know it seems a bit mystical, but I don't think it's too spacey to think of human society as a "field" that we create and maintain, and in which human minds are embedded as nodes rather than being completely distinct and isolated entities. Something like this may be the source of Jung's "collective unconscious" as well as the persistence of archetypes and myths and other shared thoughts.

Uh oh, now you've done it. Think SDAI will read this? ;)