Understanding Objectivism Deleted Lecture


Donovan A.

Recommended Posts

Roger; Thanks for the explanation about the missing lecture.

I miss add that I found Reisman-ARI split very strange. Reisman alway struck as the most rigid and orthodox of the people from the NBI days. That he would get the boot was always odd.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK -- not to name names, but I think some folks have gone way off the reservation in their speculations about the missing lecture in Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" course.

First of all, the missing lecture is a guest lecture by Edith Packer.

My best guess, judging from the misleading list of contents to lectures 7-12, of which there are only 7-11 now contained in the set, is that Packer's lecture was #10 and that it dealt with introspection and emotions.

The reason her lecture is no longer in the set is, undoubtedly, because of the breakup between ARI and Packer and her husband, George Reisman. As is nearly always the case with evictees from the ARIan heartland and those former Objectivist authorities demonized by the ARIan principals, Packer and Reisman have been consigned to the Memory Hole.

It's true that the deletion of Packer's material from the UO set may actually instead be due to legal issues. Packer may even have objected to Peikoff continuing to include her lecture with his set. However, I think that both reasons most likely coincide in this case. Peikoff legally ~can't~ include her lecture, and he ~doesn't want to~ include her lecture.

Thankfully, her excellent lectures are still available -- probably including the one now deleted from UO -- from the Thomas Jefferson School. There is a lot of good material there, some free -- including a "protected" PDF file of Reisman's mammoth book on capitalism -- and some for purchase. You will ~not~ run out of material there to educate yourself with. I recommend it highly.

I also recommend ARI's book service highly. There is a huge amount of valuable material to study. Some of it will soon be out in book form. Don't deny yourself the value of this material by falling into the same narrow, pinched, spiteful attitude that all too many of the ARIan folk have wrapped themselves in. (Sadly, some of the principals at TAS have turned up their noses at some of the more recent offerings from Peikoff & Co. Their loss, IMO.)

REB

Roger,

Thanks for the lead. It seems I misjudged the situation due to the link I posted and the fact that a lecture is missing from the UO course. It appeared as if the lecture was deleted because Peikoff changed his mind philosophically. It may be that Peikoff agrees with the content in the withdrawn lecture, but no longer wishes to endorse Edith Packer. That being the case, I must withdraw my previous statement. I would like very much to obtain the missing lecture. Could you help me out with this?

Thank you so much,

Donovan

Edited by Donovan A.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donovan -

It does say something about the "Closed System" viewpoint, in which certain annointed ones speak ex cathedra.

Bill P

Edited by Donovan A.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK -- not to name names, but I think some folks have gone way off the reservation in their speculations about the missing lecture in Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" course.

First of all, the missing lecture is a guest lecture by Edith Packer.

My best guess, judging from the misleading list of contents to lectures 7-12, of which there are only 7-11 now contained in the set, is that Packer's lecture was #10 and that it dealt with introspection and emotions.

The reason her lecture is no longer in the set is, undoubtedly, because of the breakup between ARI and Packer and her husband, George Reisman. As is nearly always the case with evictees from the ARIan heartland and those former Objectivist authorities demonized by the ARIan principals, Packer and Reisman have been consigned to the Memory Hole.

It's true that the deletion of Packer's material from the UO set may actually instead be due to legal issues. Packer may even have objected to Peikoff continuing to include her lecture with his set. However, I think that both reasons most likely coincide in this case. Peikoff legally ~can't~ include her lecture, and he ~doesn't want to~ include her lecture.

Thankfully, her excellent lectures are still available -- probably including the one now deleted from UO -- from the Thomas Jefferson School. There is a lot of good material there, some free -- including a "protected" PDF file of Reisman's mammoth book on capitalism -- and some for purchase. You will ~not~ run out of material there to educate yourself with. I recommend it highly.

I also recommend ARI's book service highly. There is a huge amount of valuable material to study. Some of it will soon be out in book form. Don't deny yourself the value of this material by falling into the same narrow, pinched, spiteful attitude that all too many of the ARIan folk have wrapped themselves in. (Sadly, some of the principals at TAS have turned up their noses at some of the more recent offerings from Peikoff & Co. Their loss, IMO.)

REB

Roger,

Thanks for the lead. It seems I misjudged the situation due to the link I posted and the fact that a lecture is missing from the UO course. It appeared as if the lecture was deleted because Peikoff changed his mind philosophically. It may be that Peikoff agrees with the content in the withdrawn lecture, but no longer wishes to endorse Edith Packer. That being the case, I must withdraw my previous statement. I would like very much to obtain the missing lecture. Could you help me out with this?

Thank you so much,

Donovan

Hi, Donavan. I'm not positive about the content of the missing lecture, but my best guess is that it's the one on introspection and emotions and that is sold from the TJ School website as an individual lecture dating from 1985. In any case, you won't "go wrong" by ordering this lecture. I heard it long ago, and I remember it being quite good--and relevant to the overall theme of Understanding Objectivism.

As for whether Peikoff has engaged in philosophical air-brushing of ideas he has once held, then abandoned, I don't think he's any more guilty or innocent than other Objectivists, including Rand herself. A positive point (though it reveals something I think he changed for the worse) is his saying in "Objectivism, the State of the Art" (about 1989?) that he used to believe that perception was objective, then Rand talked him out of it, so he stopped applying the objective-subjective-intrinsic trichotomy to perception. I think this was dead wrong, and I say so, with extensive argumentation, in my Fall 2007 essay in JARS. I won't repeat all that here. The main point in this context is that Peikoff wasn't afraid to admit that he had made (what he and Rand thought was) an error, then (did what he thought would) correct it. I don't think intellectual dishonesty is his worst problem, if it's even a significant problem at all.

The Closed Objectivism view, and the airbrushing of reality and Memory Hole syndrom that we have all seen boatloads of egregious examples of, is a very pernicious problem for the movement. A former leader of the Students of Objectivism at a Michigan university, Roderick Fitts, wrote a five-piece article basically ~defending~ Closed Objectivism, and though its poorly argued, it is well worth discussion of a number of the points it attempts to make. Perhaps we can start another thread on it? I'd certainly chime in.

All 4 now,

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to sound grumpy, but pretending what was wasn't is even worse then not being able to admit to a mistake. Considering all the in-fighting, pretty soon all the old lectures will be blank. I remember hearing Rand's Fiction Writing course in New York. If one of the Brandens was on the tape, they'd been erased with long pauses and silences. It was laughablle because everyone knew it was the Brandens. Like the communists, Peikoff tries to rewrite history. Then he complains when no one takes him seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I don't get it. Twice I tried to downoad Reisman's Capitalism at the Jeffesron School, a huge file, and have done so, and twice I have gotten a blank one page pdf. I have never had a problem downloading a pdf. Can anyone help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to sound grumpy, but pretending what was wasn't is even worse then not being able to admit to a mistake. Considering all the in-fighting, pretty soon all the old lectures will be blank. I remember hearing Rand's Fiction Writing course in New York. If one of the Brandens was on the tape, they'd been erased with long pauses and silences. It was laughablle because everyone knew it was the Brandens. Like the communists, Peikoff tries to rewrite history. Then he complains when no one takes him seriously.

We aren't sure why the Branden material was deleted. There was some legal wrangling back then among interested parties resulting in settlements causing this or that. There may have been more involved than obliviating Nathaniel and Barbara Branden.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

You mean like when their voices were dubbed over on the writing class tapes?

What else could have been going on if not "obliviating Nathaniel and Barbara Branden"?

Even if you look at the legal aspects, try doing that to a famous actor, then sell the product, and see if you don't get your ass sued big time.

And where on earth did you uncover the word "obliviate"?

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

You mean like when their voices were dubbed over on the writing class tapes?

What else could have been going on if not "obliviating Nathaniel and Barbara Branden"?

Even if you look at the legal aspects, try doing that to a famous actor, then sell the product, and see if you don't get your ass sued big time.

And where on earth did you uncover the word "obliviate"?

:)

Michael

I don't know. Did I make it up? Maybe. Too drunk to deal with the rest now.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I meant to make obscure as opposed to make obvious. Therefore "obliviate" means to make obvious in an attempt to make obscure. In any case I can't find it in my Random House dictionary. I'll try my Oxford after I go to sleep and wake up. Has a new word/concept been born? I won't pay child support, but will take the credit.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

You mean like when their voices were dubbed over on the writing class tapes?

What else could have been going on if not "obliviating Nathaniel and Barbara Branden"?

Even if you look at the legal aspects, try doing that to a famous actor, then sell the product, and see if you don't get your ass sued big time.

And where on earth did you uncover the word "obliviate"?

:)

Michael

What else could have been going on (by the dubbing over NB's and BB's voices)?

Seems obvious to me. NB and/or BB could have asked for and/or sued for a share of the proceeds of selling the tapes, since their ideas (comments, questions) were recognizably theirs and revenues were being generated from the product containing them. Wipe them out or obscure or ~obliterate~ them, and the problem is ~obviated~. :)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who would be more paranoid about being sued for such things than the very people who tried to use legal challenges to shut down the Brandens? Hmmmm? Live by the sword, die by the sword. So, air brushing out the Brandens allows them to sidestep any such difficulties or complications.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems obvious to me. NB and/or BB could have asked for and/or sued for a share of the proceeds of selling the tapes, since their ideas (comments, questions) were recognizably theirs and revenues were being generated from the product containing them. Wipe them out or obscure or ~obliterate~ them, and the problem is ~obviated~. :)

Roger,

Your thinking is logical on this, maybe based on an Objectivist idea of intellectual property, but not legal.

Imagine if every person asking a question in a Q&A at a lecture needed to sign a release. Just getting to them at a packed sold out event (like Rand's Ford Hall Forum lectures) would be really difficult. Few recorded lectures would get sold.

Using recorded questions from the public at a Q&A or during a lecture without formal permission more than satisfies the fair use provision. ARI knows all this. That is why it never even asked the questioners at Rand's lectures for a release, even if it knew who they were.

ARI sold Rand's recordings for years without a worry in the world.

So I stand by my affirmation. ARI does not have a shred of integrity in its historical handling of the Brandens. It uses practices that are blatantly hypocritical when judged against Objectivist ethics, especially that part about faking reality.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant: "We aren't sure why the Branden material was deleted. There was some legal wrangling back then among interested parties resulting in settlements causing this or that. There may have been more involved than obliviating Nathaniel and Barbara Branden."

No legal issues were involved, and there were no settlements. What was involved was the desire that Nathaniel and Barbara Branden cease to exist, and that they never had existed.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

You mean like when their voices were dubbed over on the writing class tapes?

What else could have been going on if not "obliviating Nathaniel and Barbara Branden"?

Even if you look at the legal aspects, try doing that to a famous actor, then sell the product, and see if you don't get your ass sued big time.

And where on earth did you uncover the word "obliviate"?

:)

Michael

Perhaps by thinking "obliterate" and typing in an uncontrolled fashion?

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to sound grumpy, but pretending what was wasn't is even worse then not being able to admit to a mistake. Considering all the in-fighting, pretty soon all the old lectures will be blank. I remember hearing Rand's Fiction Writing course in New York. If one of the Brandens was on the tape, they'd been erased with long pauses and silences. It was laughablle because everyone knew it was the Brandens. Like the communists, Peikoff tries to rewrite history. Then he complains when no one takes him seriously.

We aren't sure why the Branden material was deleted. There was some legal wrangling back then among interested parties resulting in settlements causing this or that. There may have been more involved than obliviating Nathaniel and Barbara Branden.

--Brant

What further evidence would you view as being required before being convinced that the intend was to erase the Brandens from the memory of the Objectivist community? Given the erasures from the fiction writing course as merely one of many examples - consider the Objectivism Research CD-ROM as another example, and the ostentatious efforts in so much of what has been written by those in the ARI camp to avoid citing either Nathaniel or Barbara.

What else could explain the pattern?

Bill P

Edited by Bill P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody said it didn't exist.

But that was strongly implied in the comments:

And where on earth did you uncover the word "obliviate"?
I don't know. Did I make it up? Maybe.
In any case I can't find it in my Random House dictionary.

It's clear that the existence of the word was doubted, so I thought it would be appreciated that I could remove that doubt. It seems I was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly,

I know I looked it up before making my post. I could not find it in the Free Dictionary, so I Googled it. Then I got the same definition you got and saw it made sense. This is why I used the word "uncover" in the banter rather than "invent" or something like that.

Actually, from Brant's responses, it looks like it was a mistake.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now