Nathaniel's lectures on Basic Principles of Objectivism

[chuff]

Wow, this thread is truly incredible.

I started reading at page one and got so excited about getting involved with this effort that I sent private messages to two people that posted here, pleading with them to involve me somehow (I do transcription work occasionally)!

Only when I read on did I realize that two years ago the work was completed!

I have read OPAR and am interested to see what differences there are between that and this.

All that's left to do now is get the book.

[Brant Gaede]

Wow, this thread is truly incredible.

I started reading at page one and got so excited about getting involved with this effort that I sent private messages to two people that posted here, pleading with them to involve me somehow (I do transcription work occasionally)!

Only when I read on did I realize that two years ago the work was completed!

I have read OPAR and am interested to see what differences there are between that and this.

All that's left to do now is get the book.

Hi, Chuff. Welcome to OL. The very nice guy that made the post prior to yours, Chris, died a few months later. We miss him.

I took BPO partially by tape transcription and the rest live in NYC in 1968. That was quite the culture back then. Lots of live Rand exposure.

Please, tell us more about yourself and what you think about what.

--Brant

[Reidy]

One difference you'll find between the lectures and OPAR is over the issue of privacy lying. See #109 in a related thread.

[chuff]

Wow, this thread is truly incredible.

I started reading at page one and got so excited about getting involved with this effort that I sent private messages to two people that posted here, pleading with them to involve me somehow (I do transcription work occasionally)!

Only when I read on did I realize that two years ago the work was completed!

I have read OPAR and am interested to see what differences there are between that and this.

All that's left to do now is get the book.

Hi, Chuff. Welcome to OL. The very nice guy that made the post prior to yours, Chris, died a few months later. We miss him.

I took BPO partially by tape transcription and the rest live in NYC in 1968. That was quite the culture back then. Lots of live Rand exposure.

Please, tell us more about yourself and what you think about what.

--Brant

I don't anticipate much excitement on your part to learn that I don't favor Kelley's position on the "open system" issue.

My interest in the book comes from an enthusiasm at the prospect of learning more about the growth of the philosophy and the look of its first cohesive formulation.

[anthony]

Wow, this thread is truly incredible.

I started reading at page one and got so excited about getting involved with this effort that I sent private messages to two people that posted here, pleading with them to involve me somehow (I do transcription work occasionally)!

Only when I read on did I realize that two years ago the work was completed!

I have read OPAR and am interested to see what differences there are between that and this.

All that's left to do now is get the book.

Hi, Chuff. Welcome to OL. The very nice guy that made the post prior to yours, Chris, died a few months later. We miss him.

I took BPO partially by tape transcription and the rest live in NYC in 1968. That was quite the culture back then. Lots of live Rand exposure.

Please, tell us more about yourself and what you think about what.

--Brant

I don't anticipate much excitement on your part to learn that I don't favor Kelley's position on the "open system" issue.

My interest in the book comes from an enthusiasm at the prospect of learning more about the growth of the philosophy and the look of its first cohesive formulation.

"Open" vs "Closed", is pretty much moot and settled as far as I'm concerned. (Which counts for nothing, but everything to me.)

It is both.

The issue boils down to 'de facto' vs 'de jure', I reckon.

OF COURSE Objectivism is Rand's, by right and trademark; any further add-ons should be stipulated as such, and be named something else.

That's the academic side - which makes me very pleased I am no formal intellectual with vested loyalties either way.

De facto, I am an 'end-user' of Objectivism, and will integrate it as honestly as I can, taking also from Kelley and Branden those answers to the few (but serious) doubts I have had regarding the application of O'ism to my life.

After all, it is the application that matters, and OF COURSE for each and every individual the system is as open as is his or her life. And each can call himself Objectivist without fear of copyright infringement.

For sure, Kelley's explosive "Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand - T'N T [] in Objectivism" will be an invaluable read for me.

Tony

[9thdoctor]

My interest in the book comes from an enthusiasm at the prospect of learning more about the growth of the philosophy and the look of its first cohesive formulation.

Welcome to OL. I gather you’re the same Chuff I’ve interacted with a bit on OO. On that silly religion thread. Here’s a bit of material on how I came to the attitude I have:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9839&view=findpost&p=119008

One of these days I’ll write something more autobiographical about it, that is, about my own “conversion”.

You can get the Branden lectures on audio here:

http://thecultureofreasoncenter.com/category/downloads-media/ayn-rand-f-objectivism/objectivism-nonfiction-lectures/the-basic-principles-of-objectivism/

I prefer the book, for underlining, margin notes and such. Compared to Peikoff, I think you’ll find that Branden is the better communicator.

I don't anticipate much excitement on your part to learn that I don't favor Kelley's position on the "open system" issue.

These things have a way of changing. In my opinion Peikoff (in F&V) rationalized an expulsion that was carried out for an unstated reason: Kelley spoke at a LFB event, and LFB at that time was promoting Barbara Branden’s biography. Peikoff himself appeared at a LFB book signing just a few years earlier (promoting The Ominous Parallels), so the fact they promote Murray Rothbard books (and whomever else Peter Schwartz was soon to denounce) isn’t the reason. There’s a video of him, I have it on VHS, at the Ford Hall Forum in the early 90’s, where a questioner asks how to tell what libertarians are ok to talk to, since Peikoff had just appeared on Brudnoy’s program, a radio host who used the libertarian label for himself. One of these days I’ll hook up the VCR to the computer and upload it to YouTube, it only lasts a couple minutes. “That’s a very unfriendly question” is how his snarling reply starts, and it only goes downhill from there.

[chuff]

My interest in the book comes from an enthusiasm at the prospect of learning more about the growth of the philosophy and the look of its first cohesive formulation.

Welcome to OL. I gather you’re the same Chuff I’ve interacted with a bit on OO. On that silly religion thread. Here’s a bit of material on how I came to the attitude I have:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9839&view=findpost&p=119008

One of these days I’ll write something more autobiographical about it, that is, about my own “conversion”.

You can get the Branden lectures on audio here:

http://thecultureofreasoncenter.com/category/downloads-media/ayn-rand-f-objectivism/objectivism-nonfiction-lectures/the-basic-principles-of-objectivism/

I prefer the book, for underlining, margin notes and such. Compared to Peikoff, I think you’ll find that Branden is the better communicator.

I don't anticipate much excitement on your part to learn that I don't favor Kelley's position on the "open system" issue.

These things have a way of changing. In my opinion Peikoff (in F&V) rationalized an expulsion that was carried out for an unstated reason: Kelley spoke at a LFB event, and LFB at that time was promoting Barbara Branden’s biography. Peikoff himself appeared at a LFB book signing just a few years earlier (promoting The Ominous Parallels), so the fact they promote Murray Rothbard books (and whomever else Peter Schwartz was soon to denounce) isn’t the reason. There’s a video of him, I have it on VHS, at the Ford Hall Forum in the early 90’s, where a questioner asks how to tell what libertarians are ok to talk to, since Peikoff had just appeared on Brudnoy’s program, a radio host who used the libertarian label for himself. One of these days I’ll hook up the VCR to the computer and upload it to YouTube, it only lasts a couple minutes. “That’s a very unfriendly question” is how his snarling reply starts, and it only goes downhill from there.

Yes I'm the selfsame Chuff.

Also, I'd love to know:

1. How to hook up my VCR to a computer to upload VHS tapes and

2. How that question is answered objectively.

Thanks for the reply!

[9thdoctor]

Yes I'm the selfsame Chuff.

Also, I'd love to know:

1. How to hook up my VCR to a computer to upload VHS tapes and

2. How that question is answered objectively.

Thanks for the reply!

I just hook up the VCR to your video and sound cards, I have some movie maker software that came with my system that lets me select “line-in” or whatever for the input source, so hit play on the VCR and that’s it, it makes a file out of it. The quality was only fair the one time I did it, but you don’t need HD when it’s just Leonard Peikoff getting piqued. The main hassle is extricating the VCR from where it’s at now, that’s a lot of trouble.

I think I left out important connecting points earlier, on the open system thing. I’ll just mention here Peikoff’s behavior in the McCaskey case, and ask you whether the content of his email is consistent with the “closed system” view:

“M attacks Dave’s book, and thus, explicitly or implicitly, my intro praising it as expressing AR’s epistemology”.

Ahem, on a subject she didn’t develop, while contradicting her on basic stuff (look into the “First Level” “Balls Roll” issue). It’s closed, except when Peikoff’s talking, that’s the policy he operates by.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't anticipate much excitement on your part to learn that I don't favor Kelley's position on the "open system" issue.

That's true, except you could have said the contrary and it'd still have been true. I simply don't care what anyone's position on this matter is per se. I do care about the revealed particulars and generally, not always, avoid ideological arguments. Ideological arguments are won in one's own head and seldom lost. Same for the other guy. So it's blah, blah, blah and blah, blah blah and nothing changes. Therefore, it's rational to just state your position and go on from there. Then someone else might see the light and adopt it instead of deploying defensive intellectual energy.

--Brant

[PDS]

I don't anticipate much excitement on your part to learn that I don't favor Kelley's position on the "open system" issue.

That's true, except you could have said the contrary and it'd still have been true. I simply don't care what anyone's position on this matter is per se. I do care about the revealed particulars and generally, not always, avoid ideological arguments. Ideological arguments are won in one's own head and seldom lost. Same for the other guy. So it's blah, blah, blah and blah, blah blah and nothing changes. Therefore, it's rational to just state your position and go on from there. Then someone else might see the light and adopt it instead of deploying defensive intellectual energy.

--Brant

Brant: there's a lot of wisdom in that comment of yours.