tps_fan

There's certainly more to add in response. I was just thinking about how many (maybe all?) of the members of ARI's Speakers Bureau are academic professionals. Likewise, the people who speak at ARI's annual Summer conference have normally trained with (or had the equivalent to) ARI's graduate (academic) center and have cut their teeth by teaching at various universities. I also have to mention Dr. Gary Hull in specific. I seem to recall that he got a bit of a break in getting a position at Duke. That isn't to say that he didn't deserve it or that he shouldn't have taken advantage of it. Think of the fact that if he _hadn't_ taken that position it would be unlikely that he would now be in the position of helping the founding of Founder's College. I also have to mention that while I generally tend to agree with noumenalself, I have to respectfully disagree with his assessment of Dr. Hull's speaking skills. I don't know what prompted NS to make the evaluation which he did, but my experience has been decidedly different. To this very day(!), I still cherish one of the very first classes I ever took under an Objectivist academic. I attended GH's "Integration" class, and now I wish I had my notes with me. I think it was one of the best classes which I have ever taken hands down. A further point is this: People are only starting to witness Objectivism... being taught by Objectivists! I think as more people such as Tara Smith, Eric Daniels, and John Lewis make their respective ways through academia things are going to change for the better. For example, students won't just get the content of Objectivism, they will be getting a better understanding of Objectivist _methodology_. In my mind, that is where some hidden gold is. I'm betting that if Ayn Rand were to live another decade or so, she might have very well spent more time mining her own work (and I don't think that this would exclusively amount to studies in Induction either!)

QUOTE Our major trouble is that students do not always want to give the books up. Many students say their parents are reading it and will give it back when they are done. -------------------- Oh man that is LOL funny and (of course) "most excellent". Man, I would like to meet these families. Fighting over who gets _A.S._ in the home! Are you kidding me? Where is this happening?!?

...as if there were any doubts that he _isn't_ a conservative..... (After all, consider who mentored him and who he wrote for before he started _The Colbert Report_.) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_...stephen_colbert Truth be told, I think that _this_ is funnier than his show ever was.

I think I can add a bit more to the very good advice which has already been offered here. At the risk of sounding like a run-of-the-mill talk show psychologist(!), I think that you need to focus more attention on _how_ you make your evaluations. As goal achievement is the means to happiness, objective values are the ends that a person should pursue. Naturally, when I mention _objective_ values, I wish to make a distinction. You have to focus on acquiring the things which not only help you survive but additionally help you to thrive. For a work-related example, there are certain specific questions which you could work on. How does your current work fit in with your plans for your ideal career? Do you need to get additional resources? Do you have proper home support viz. friends, family, proper food and shelter, etc.? How's your health? Remember that life-improvement is a _derivative_ pursuit that rests on top of a foundation of survival methods. There are a number of common general false choices that are important to rise above. Choosing between omnipotence and impotence is what the religious types advocate. Also, choosing between the short-term and the long-term misses an important point. Further, obediently following whims versus self-denial is another choice that will undercut a person's self-esteem. The real alternatives involve recognizing one's strengths, having an overall worthwhile life agenda, and developing an adaptive awareness. A person has to make use of his virtues in order to pursue his most cherished values. As the others have stated, the process is gradual and it requires honesty, but it also requires the willingness and ability to learn and work in a manner that is both managable and challenging. While Ayn Rand certainly offered great ideas with psychological implications, her life's work was of a different nature. Additionally, I am compelled to mention some Objectivist experts who offer top-notch normative advice. Tara Smith has been writing about applied ethics. Psychologists such as Dr. Ellen Kenner and Dr. Ed Locke have also written about virtue. There are others of note as well, but my point in mentioning Objectivist experts is that they offer information on how to develop better methods for living. As far as your immediate situation is concerned, anyone here can only ultimately speculate on your specific needs without getting much more personal information from you. I can only say that if I were you, then I would likely keep introspecting with an attention to trying to better clearly understand what would be some of the more desirable and achievable near-term changes that altogether target those personal life areas that seem to be lacking. You have to be willing to narrow your focus and change your priorities so that you can develop a more serious approach. In turn, that also means being more aggressive viz. forcing yourself to study more, and learn how to ask better questions, etc. Jean Moroney has been developing a program in this very respect. She has gone through contemporary research on thinking methods. From that she has been honing those ideas into a more uniformly consistent and self-reinforcing method. I hope that this gets you thinking _and then_ acting accordingly!

Hey, South County! Wake up! I am soooo tired of (on the one hand) seeing the usual cover band and metalhead posts in local musicians' forums and a lack of wanting to create new music (on the other hand.) I know that this is still a long shot, but I am hoping to find at least one other Objectivist musician in Southern California who is available and willing to work on a new musical project. That's it. I am not so exclusive in my discrimination that I'm against working outside of my comfort zone. I don't care if you want to make chamber music or pop/rock music; I'm interested in assisting a good and solid effort. I'm more interested in working with someone who 1) dreams of doing professional work and 2) is ready and willing to work. I'm still developing my own material and my skill set, and I haven't web published anything for several reasons including the subpar quality of myspace.com and some other sites as far as presentation of work is concerned. I'm more interested in intention and drive... chops certainly matter, but they aren't the totality of what makes a musician. Give me somethin' to chew on!!!

Speaking of Winter 2004....!!!! Mr. Swig, do you remember this thread? (My comments are halfway down the page.) Aside from Mr. Swig and I and others warning this forum accordingly, what I really want to say is that Dr. Peikoff was right ...and still is 5 years later! I think that it is very telling that this weekend it came out that an American solider who recently returned from Iraq has been commanded to be redeployed _against his will_. ...and (wait for it) he's facing a court martial if he doesn't return to fight again in Iraq. (I haven't yet found the exact same story on the WWW, but I saw the reference on TV likely via a PBS station.) In other words, 2 years later the backdoor draft is still in effect. Are there any Objectivists who till think that Pres. Bush is a Republican fighting for core American values?!? Nevermind Jack Wakeland, I would like to see evidence that the "vote for Bush again" Objectivists are starting to understand that Dr. Peikoff was right ...because he was evaluating the issue by essentials. e.g. 1) that Iran is (still) the essential threat to America 2) that American soldiers' individual rights are also protected by the Bill of Rights as civilians are to be and 3) war for sacrifical causes is always wrong. Let's not forget that, several months ago, the news reported that a country openly admitted to doing research in deveopment of nuclear power, and that country was Iran. This isn't an appeal to authority; it's an appeal to the facts of reality interpreted in proper context.

...but this isn't an accurate depiction. The philosophy is what it is, and the academic world is as it is. There isn't a need to cave in on Ayn Rand's definitions because those definitions are based on reality. Even dictionaries can be wrong if they are written by people who are not entirely concerned with and aware of the facts and context which they reference. Therefore, there is _not_ any middle ground to want or to use. The view of Objectivism as a dogma is itself not objective. The problem isn't with the philosophy; the problem is with the academic interpretation of the philosophy. It's the academics' hostility to core Objectivist concepts which needs to change, and these are concepts everyone ultimately depends on for their respective survival. There is a way to communicate with academics (or the press), but it does _not_ require or benefit from compromising on principles. This isn't the sort of thing that should be compromised; compromise in this case means "selling out". Is it any surprise that people who call for moral sacrifice also want epistemic sacrifice as well?!? Objectivism has adversaries in the form of any number of interest groups (whether they appear to be friendly or not), but the overriding principle is always the same: Just say what the philosophy is, and say how it applies. _This_ is what Dr. Peikoff et al. have been doing. Frankly, it's more beneficial than any other overall approach.

Okay, thanks for the assistance.

I've twice tried to add my blog via the external link option, and the link doesn't work. My profile shows the correct address to be linked to, and the pseudonym link looks correct, but when I click the link it just goes to a blank page. I'm using standard blog hosting and editing tools, so it shouldn't be the case that I set something wrong there. Any help appreciated....

First of all, I certainly don't support the TOC, but then I never have and never would. They seemed foppish as soon as I first read some of their material online about a decade ago. I think it's bizarre that anyone would ever take them seriously anyway. That leads me to another point... To rephrase an epigram: "Live by a fallacy, die by a fallacy." While the TOC or for the matter anyone else claiming to be an Objectivist authority who fails to communicate and represent criticial aspects of Objectivism will offer no benefit to either the _Atlas Shrugged_ story nor to Objectivism, those supposed authorities can be disregarded. In short, if someone new to Ayn Rand's work considers an argument which happens to be an irrational appeal to authority, then they might just actually get the ignorance that they deserve.... unless they do the right thing and reconsider and _then_ disregard said argument. Keep in mind, that regardless of the quality of ideas, it takes time to ingest and integrate (or misintegrate) ideas. The quality of the understanding of (the relevant) ideas depends on what work someone new to Ayn Rand's ideas is willing to do. ..and that is something that no one else, not even a thinktank has any direct control over. (Thank goodness!)

Objectivists _very much_ believe in the power and importance of motives. Motives are the reasons guiding a person to action, and those reasons are contextual. Here's an example comparing two possible voters: A Libertarian and a Republican might have both voted for John Kerry in the last Presidential election, but they could have different reasons. There are some Libertarians who oppose American self-defense due to "killing innocents." On the other hand, a Republican might very well have voted for John Kerry (to oppose George Bush) because GB didn't do enough for American self-defense. American gov't still fails to deal with the root cause of Islamic threats to peaceful countries. The root cause is Muslim state sponsorship of terrorism in ideology (thought) and paramilitary and military attacks (practice). The motives of the voters in the above case are completely different, yet they would be voting the same way. Why does this matter? It matters because these actions aren't happening in a social vacuum. These same two people will likely vote on other issues, they will discuss their politics with other people, they have different systems of thought giving rise to different conclusions. The Libertarian Party is rife with people who fundamentally disagree, so it's no surprise that people have a hard time trying to figure out what the LP is actually _for_. As for an actual alternative... Some Objectivists work and hope to educate people so that eventually the Republican Party will become more consistent with Capitalist theory. That's a long way off, but it may be one of the better long-term options. It's _certainly_ better than supporting the Libertarian party!

I've now read up to part of page 6 of this thread. If anyone reads page 3, then they will see that the situation is more serious than what was originally indicated. The posts on page 4 make it obvious that NJJamesHughes should never moderate for this website again. Posts on page 6 make it apparent that (as I had suspected) this forum has not only been trolled but is under attack by a concerted takedown attempt. It's unclear from my vantage as to the degree that NJJamesHughes is involved with this, but what needs to be reiterated is that people who troll and/or do worse shouldn't simply be completely banned.... they should be reported to their ISPs. Loss of Internet service altogether (for TOS agreement violations) for trolls and DOS attackers _will_ do the trick. (nods)

Considering how quickly this thread has grown to a great length and that I've only just now read the first 2 pages of this thread, I'll try to be brief. I have to chime in with some of the other posters by stating that (although I apparently don't agree with everything which Mr. Speicher posted or at least in the manner which he posted) he far more often than not offered _many_ well-reasoned and well-informed posts. I think that there are times when he literally was the sole person giving Objectivism and/or Ayn Rand proper reference/representation. If he no longer feels comfortable posting here, then it truly is already a major loss for this forum. Now, given the confusion as to what's transpired, I would like to see Betsy's suggestions about software changes that make posts salvagable by moderators and/or original posters implemented. Moreover, I really think it would be appropriate for a full (if brief) explanation as to the whys and wherefores of this situation to be posted on the front of the forum area (if not at the mainpage of the website.) That is, a poster _must_ be allowed means to defending/representing himself. If the handling of Mr. Speicher's posts are anything remotely true as to how he depicted it, then I have to say that I find this is entirely unprecedented as far as I have known in my use of the Internet (of about 10 years), and I find this experience to be rather bizarre and unjustified. I hope that this situation gets rectified _and_ that an elaboration will be easily available to _anyone_ who comes across this forum. I think the most important and essential point to be made in this regard is that if any moderator has any issue with a post, then that original poster should be immediately and clearly notified of what the issue is in a way that the poster must be able to access i.e. send a resolution scenario to the poster via e-mail.

Hey BlackSabbath, I am a new fan of NIGHTWISH. You must also know about SYMPHONY X? It's funny, with all the styles that Objectivists listen to these days, I keep coming across the occasional prog or prog-metal fans. Still, there's very little mention of that type of music here... in an Objectivist forum!!! What gives? I LOVE KING CRIMSON and other bands of that sort. You have _got_ to check out Lana Lane and AYREON!!!!

Jlew, have you heard of GOBLIN?!

Christopher, I know that most of that stuff is basic-level, but that theory post was RIGHTEOUS! I think I sorely needed that. I've never seen such a concise overview! If you're starting a list of some sort, then I want in! Keep up the great work!

Hope this helps...just skimmed this thread. 2nd of all, I can not reach the main page as of tonight. I actually web searched to hack in i.e. I just went to the main site plus "/forum" 1st of all, and more interestingly, about 1 day and a half ago. I reached the main page, but the links there didn't work. I wish I had saved a copy of the main page, but what I remember is that there was a bunch of stuff related to syndicating the page... and not much else. I tried accessing the forum, and I noticed that the link went to an "XML" i.e. extended mark-up language page, but again the link failed. (I didn't even try the RSS stuff...) It just looks like things are under development (without a whole lot of warning!)

Let's keep it simple: Freemasonry and related philosophies are comprised by: Metaphysics of chaos Episteme of Subjectivism Ethics of Hedonism Politics of International Socialism This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Objectivism (although it seems to relate to objectivism of the New Age type. BTW, "New Age" is a term and title coined by Masons.) Why would an Objectivist be interested in a philosophy that promulgates racism (see Judge Hugo Black), Occultism/mysticism (see E.A. Aleister Crowley and Albert Pike.) It's pure bullocks.

What was David Koresh guilty of?

In re-reading this last post of mine, I still feel compelled to further clarify... I actually didn't mean to imply that you, Ed, had a particular agenda advocating for or against either Rand or Peikoff just based on this thread. On a related but _different_ note: "I don't fear what Ayn's enemies do as much as what Ayn's supporters fail to do, (and I want to stress that ARI _has_ succeeded... and in so doing has achieved what others have _not_)! 'The road to Hell is paved...'" I really was not making reference to anyone in particular with this paragraph. It's just that (as an aside) I _would_ like to see Objectivists be more aggressively active in advocating on behalf of Rand's work. The most general point that I wanted to make was that both Peikoff and Rand _have_ asserted their respective priorities in what they focus on within their writing (as well as in other venues, of course.)

(rubs hands together) ohhhh, yes..... SOON!

At the risk of getting ahead of myself, I think your question could be generalized and re-phrased as "Why didn't Ayn spend more time debunking her opposition?" As a general answer to both your question and my new one, I offer it in two parts: 1) For a person who wrote 4 novels, a play, several short stories _and_ created an entirely new and superior philosophy to boot, I'd say that she had to keep her eyes on her priorities and, in turn, this means 2) She was more concerned with asserting the positive by elaborating her philosophy rather than with rejecting the negative by focusing heavily on differentiating her philosophy in toto from her opponents' work. Now on to OPAR: If you hold on a moment(!) and go back, I think that you'll find that you glossed over the book that last time! For example, just in Ch. 4: Objectivity _alone_ there are two relevant sections: one on context and another on hierarchy. Context and hierarchy are ultimately anathema to both Rationalists and Empiricists, but in partcular, the Rationalists would reject hierarchy for fear that their ordained premises i.e. their baseless presumptions could be replaced by something better tied to (and suited for) reality, and the Empiricists would reject context for fear of premises that don't directly follow from their (narrow) observations. (The older-guard Objectivists are watching me closely here at this point. :-P ) Of course, both the Rationalists and the Empiricists do not abide by the rules of valid induction. As Dr. Peikoff might put it, neither group has "flooded the senses" enough and followed through accordingly to draw the right conclusions. (You're just itching for me to give an example to concretize these points, right? Me too!) I guess one of the wiser things that I can (and should) state is that hierarchy and context are not divorced from each other!!!! Think of the events leading up to the train crash in _Atlas Shrugged_. Doesn't it make a difference _what kind_ of people are on the train? Well, there's some context! Doesn't it make a difference that Dagny's company is suffering from "brain drain" _before_ the crash? Well, there's some hierarchy! These are the SAME EVENTS leading up to the inevitable result. You can't partition out and drop an aspect of the story either "out of hierarchy" or "out of context" and expect the same resulting conclusion to that scenario!!! (In case, anyone is wondering, you can analyse her essays and find the same type of considerations for epistemic integrity.) Returning to your original question, here's another version of my question for you: Why would she (separately) focus on other Modern philosophies at the expense of developing her own work when she can "feed one bird" while killing off the others at the same time. "Objectivism provides for its own defense." You _can_ use Objectivism to reject Modernism (which is part of what ARI does.) Again, I refer to the mortality of human life. What more would someone expect of Ayn given what she _did_ achieve? ...same for Peikoff, Binswanger, Hull, et al. I don't fear what Ayn's enemies do as much as what Ayn's supporters fail to do, (and I want to stress that ARI _has_ succeeded... and in so doing has achieved what others have _not_)! "The road to Hell is paved..."

Aside from the previously mentioned means, there are a few others: Believe it or not, search engines have gained flexibility in this regard. The respective web presences of Yahoo, AOL, MSN, etc. have several portals e.g. personals, groups, forums, etc. That leads me to what turns out to be a website which is really hitting its stride: meetup.com In fact, I would suggest searching this site for locating people for most any interest. You'd be surprised at the number of groups that are forming for even the more arcane or obscure interests. Ayn Rand and Objectivism are actually fairly well recognized. Plus, I guess I should also mention The Atlasphere website which while featuring essays and announcements is heavily oriented to networking. It's still some tough going, but at least there are many more online services than there were even 3 to 5 years ago.

....and finally per 3) I was right; my memory held up after all. Two months ago, the National Guard's deployment was extended. What I didn't know is that Rumsfeld _also_ called for an extension back in Dec. 2003. http://www.hotbot.com/default.asp?query=ir...omi&prov=HotBot I think this is disgusting. Again, I ask does a 1 year contract require 2 years of service? Does a 1/2 year contract require a full year of service? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, I have to add one more point which I consider to be the crux of the argument against how Bush has handled the war in Iraq, and this actually goes back to what both Drs. Peikoff and Brook said over the past 2 years. I contend that the war in Iraq has been administered in two stages. The first started with the "Shock and Awe" strikes...., (I had to sift through a bunch of liberal anti-war b.s. to try find some half-way decent references...) http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0130/p06s01-woiq.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/...ain537928.shtml http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/books%20-%20...20-%20Dec%2096/ and it ended when the coalition forces were tracking down members of Hussein's family. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.war.main/ http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/22/sprj.irq.sons/ ...so this part of the campaign ran from January to July 2003. ...but then things changed... the body count for U.S. troops surged. http://icasualties.org/oif/ Even this site divides the campaign in a similar way: http://icasualties.org/oif/time.aspx note the difference: a couple hundred dead up to May 2003 (even nearly a month after Hussein statue falls) ....and.... about ONE THOUSAND dead from June 2003 up to today http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops..._casualties.htm Bush has indicated _no exit strategy_ except that we'll leave "when the job is done" in effect. We are now living in the time of "peacekeeping" operations where U.S. forces are to be sacrificed. ...and for what? For the Iraqi people?.... for Middle East liberation?.... but not for us Americans or more to the point for those families who are left to grieve over the victims of 9/11/01???? Over 1000 dead, that's about a 1/3 of the number killed on 9/11/01. What purpose is Bush trying to serve now when we've long since toppled the Hussein regime.... and Saddam himself is in captivity? As far as I'm concerned, this is now a repeat of the war in Vietnam in altruistic essence.

Also: per 1) What about what Bush said about stem-cell research, partial-birth abortions, and human cloning? Didn't Ayn Rand specifically refer to what Presidential speech means? That it amounts to a political mandate...; that it can't be considered casually?! per 2) Isn't it true that the Patriot Act gives the feds the authority to search library records without due process? Wasn't there something about redefining what "terrorist" means in disfavor to free speech? I just found these.... haven't read yet though.... Examples of Non-Terror Cases and the Patriot Act Photographer Arrested "Under Patriot Act" http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl?sid...247&mode=thread Webmaster Sherman Austin, jailed under PATRIOT Act, released to halfway house http://news.phaseiii.org/article3180.html "Anyone who uses the public libraries around Charlottesville is likely to read about the USA Patriot Act and one of its unusual secrecy provisions before borrowing a book or browsing the Internet. http://www.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Sep/961.html Shopkeeper deported from South Carolina under PATRIOT Act killed in Pakistan http://www.unknownnews.net/030929dead.html INS & FBI Harresed and Jailed Foreign Students! http://www.peacenowar.net/immigrantRights/...%2002--News.htm Jailed Without Cause http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067317/ ARTISTS SUBPOENAED IN USA PATRIOT ACT CASE http://www.gnutellanews.com/article/12403 Imprisoned by the Patriot Act http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=140_0_2_0_C per 4) ...or the question of which altruistic philosophy Republicans are likely to endorse? ...and which is the continuency that Bush depends on? I know that someone on behalf of the Bush administration has already spoken at a Christian Coalition function....