No need to feel silly - who can really say if this interpretation of it is correct beside the writer themself?

​

I think your interpretation is valid - just because mine might make more sense, it isn't really the common one if you look through this thread, and so it may be that the writer really did have that baffling take. *shrugs*

The article doesn't unpack this, but I would almost have to ASSUME that the context is about your own ideas, not when examining the ideas of others. Even though the instruction is to "take it literally," my HOPE would be that taking it literally wouldn't be broadly applicable to your actual understanding of someone else's idea, but rather as a process whereby you visualize what the literal expression of that might look like in order to critically think about it.

​

But honestly, its hilarious and ironic to me that the most coherent interpretation of this piece interpreting Rand's intent requires that you do NOT take it literally. LMAO.