Are days numbered for the "Objectivist" CD-ROM?


Robert Campbell

Recommended Posts

Some participants here are no doubt familiar with the CD-ROM put together by Phil Oliver and sold by the Ayn Rand Bookstore.

I'm not an enthusiast of this CD-ROM because, expense and user interface issues aside, it promotes the Leonard Peikoff Institute agenda by constricting the scope of "Objectivism" to works by Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff alone.

Apparently there is now some kind of squabble going on between Mr. Oliver and Dr. Peikoff that may bring an end to their current arrangement some time next year.

This being an intramural contest among ARIans, there are the usual edifying charges and countercharges, accompanied by at least one formal declaration of disassociation.

If it does go out of production, I won't miss the CD-ROM. One that included all of Rand's published work, plus everything by other authors who published in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist, would be a whole 'nother batch of data, but the Leonard Peikoff Institute isn't going to sponsor anything like that.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some participants here are no doubt familiar with the CD-ROM put together by Phil Oliver and sold by the Ayn Rand Bookstore.

I'm not an enthusiast of this CD-ROM because, expense and user interface issues aside, it promotes the Leonard Peikoff Institute agenda by constricting the scope of "Objectivism" to works by Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff alone.

Apparently there is now some kind of squabble going on between Mr. Oliver and Dr. Peikoff that may bring an end to their current arrangement some time next year.

This being an intramural contest among ARIans, there are the usual edifying charges and countercharges, accompanied by at least one formal declaration of disassociation.

If does go out of production, I won't miss the CD-ROM. One that included all of Rand's published work, plus everything by other authors who published in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist, would be a whole 'nother batch of data, but the Leonard Peikoff Institute isn't going to sponsor anything like that.

Robert Campbell

I wonder if Diana even halfway realizes how silly she sounds: insulated and isolated, unappointed sword and banner bearer for Leonard Peikoff.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I wrote an email Sunday to Barbara about this. Here is part:

A discussion ensued on TheForum and on OO and probably at other places. One OO poster (John McVey) was helpful to put all this in perspective.

Here is my speculation:

1. Phil Oliver nurtured this project for a long time and did it in full on spec without authorization from ARI. If Oliver did all that work on Rand's works, and most all of it was automatic, I see no reason why he did not include the other authors in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist, or the print books. Once he presented ARI with the project (complete and ready for press), he mentioned (in a post on TheForum) that it took years of negotiating afterwards with Peikoff to get the rights. I speculate that the problem was over the inclusion of the other authors, especially NB and you, and that Peikoff wanted his own two books included. And I speculate that Oliver finally threw in the towel in order to not lose everything.

2. This product will be available until March 2008. There is nothing legally to stop anyone from buying 20,000 or so of these CD's before then and reselling them for years afterwards. They simply will not be able to make new copies, but they will be entitled to sell all 20,000 or so units as the copyright owner will have been paid for them.

3. I do not expect to see a new product anytime soon to replace it. Incredibly, although it was brought up partially in jest, I think Peikoff is really more concerned about having the book on acid-resistant paper and stocked in caves (for the end of the world) than on a digital support (like CDROM) that requires electricity and specialized equipment to read it. I think he is literally imagining doom and destruction and Ayn Rand's work being discovered in a cave and thereafter saving mankind.

4. Obviously, part of the problem was ARI's excommunication of the Speichers for supporting Tracinski over Peikoff and Oliver's continued presence on The Forum.

5. I bet the backstage goings-on about this are quite a soap opera.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laure,

I have no idea what's been going on backstage.

But Mr. McVey's post did give me the impression that Dr. Peikoff is anticipating some apocalyptic event, after which Ayn Rand's works will have to be recovered from caves.

The way Mr. McVey abbreviates The End of the World as We Know It suggests that participants on that forum are used to talking about apocalyptic events.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

weird weird weird.

First off, when I first heard about the CD-ROM, I was thrilled. At the time I did not have copies of the TON, TO, or the ARL, and getting the CD would be an alternate to getting them (and other, later AR-related books I didn't have).

But then I read the website on it, and found that ALL non-AR & LP stuff was left out. Disappointing, and making it very unappealing to me. (am not a researcher, so searching, etc is not of big importance to me). Thankfully I was able to find a set of the 3 hardback reprints of TON, TO, and ARL on eBay for REAL cheap.

This whole mess about the CD seems sadly typical of the Oist world. Had had never heard of these other two forums (The Forum and OO). I thought the fighting between OL, SOLOP and ROR was bad enough...

Since getting back into the Oist world, I've read stuff by and about Diana Hsieh. All I'll say she's a real piece of work...

I have no idea who this Besty Speicher is or her connection in the Oist world. I thought it strange that one of the threads I read on The Forum claims that TOC viciously attacks LP & ARI (not aware of that). The same thread had someone denouncing 'Oist' forums that 'allow' 'vicious' attacks on Valliant. Riiight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael B,

Some people here could tell you a lot more about Betsy Speicher than I can. Here's the condensed version: she was, for many years, a hanger-on of the Ayn Rand Institute, a regular participant in discussion forums, and a reliable denouncer of anything and anyone not favored by the leadership of ARI.

Last fall, however, she refused to go along with Leonard Peikoff's pronouncement that if one truly understands Objectivism, one will see right off that the threat of a Christian theocracy far outweighs the threat posed by "liberal" or Left-wing politics in the United States, and one will therefore march to the polls and pull the lever for the Democrats.

Meanwhile, sensing an opportunity to benefit from the next schism, Ms. Hsieh appointed herself Pit Bull in Chief for the poor, set upon, misunderstood Dr. Peikoff.

So now Ms. Speicher is frequently denouncing some of her erstwhile allies, including Dr. Peikoff. Some months after Ms. Speicher was banned from commenting on Ms. Hsieh's blog, the ban has been generalized to anyone who posts on Ms. Speicher's forum.

Weird weird weird is right.

Although no one who works for The Atlas Society much likes the Ayn Rand Institute, public "attacks" by TAS or its spokespersons are rare.

Will Thomas got into a flap with the ARIans a few years ago because he obtained a list of ARI-affiliated Objectivist clubs and sent them a form letter encouraging them to affiliate with TAS, partly on the grounds that a "more open" intellectual atmosphere would be beneficial to their members. He made a few claims about the way classes are taught at ARI's Objectivist Academic Center that apparently came from a defector. Some ARIans have asserted that the claims were false. (No one but current or former ARIans has any way of knowing whether they were or not.) That's about it. During the summer event in 2006, Will Thomas spoke about Objectivist orthodoxy in a highly circumspect fashion; in fact, he was not entirely critical of the Leonard Peikoff Institute.

Robert Bidinotto has been outspoken over the years in his criticism of ARI, which he thinks sets a bad example, and of Leonard Peikoff in particular. But he has not presented these judgments in TOC/TAS publications.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ARI's modus operandi could be easily compared to Jehovah's Witnesses' disfellowship policy or Scientology's "fair game" policy for heretics. Unfortunately, these intimidation tactics work. The only effective antidote is public exposure. Part of the reason Chris Sciabarra became a target was that he was good at doing the exposing.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert-

FWIW am aware of LP & the 'vote democrat' thingie. Have also observed Ms. Hsieh in action on various other forums. While I don't know Ms. Speicher, am aware of the various people who have run afoul of the ARIans (and by extension, Ms. Hsieh).

Well reasoned criticisms do not equal 'vicious attacks'. I thought the statements of the poster 'oldsalt' on The Forum a bit, well, silly, as this person tries to ascribe the same kinds of actions I see from the so called 'Oist Orthodoxy' to the 'non-Orthodoxy' (ie TAS/TOC, et al).

Oh, if it helps, here is a like to the "Better things to do" article previous mentioned: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--3-Be..._Things_Do.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael B,

Thank you for the link to David Kelley's article. I read it when it was new, but that was over a decade ago and the context is different now.

By and large, I agree that it is better for the principals at TAS not to take public shots at ARI. Sometimes, though, this policy has led to controversial decisions, e.g., Bob Bidinotto's choice not to run a review of Jim Valliant's book in the New Individualist. Precisely because Mr. Valliant's book is so badly argued, and so patently guided by a presupposition that Ayn Rand was perfect, I still think it needs a response.

Jim,

You're right about publicity being the best weapon against institutions that use collective shunning as a punishment for heresy.

That's why I think the recent article in the Chronicle about Texas State's refusal to accept Anthem Foundation money for a faculty position is so important. A faculty member at Texas State cited Andrew Bernstein's public penance for publishing in JARS as a reason for not bringing an ARI-affiliated intellectual on board. What's more, when asked about it by the reporter, Bernstein defended his public penance--in terms that will strike most academics as completely nutty.

Robert Campbell

PS. As everyone would expect, there's been a lot of talk over on the orthodox Objectivist boards about John Lewis being turned down for tenure. Has there been any discussion of the Texas State turndown?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert C,

Just a point of clarification.

The New Individualist is not being written for Objectivists. It is an outreach publication, written and published for a much wider readership of what I refer to as "sense-of-life individualists." Put another way: TNI is not "about Objectivism"; it's about the world -- as seen through Objectivist eyes.

For that reason, I avoid running articles and reviews about the fine points of Objectivist philosophy -- or that focus on arcane matters that could only be understood by, or of interest to, people within the Objectivist movement. This means I exclude arguments over internal movement controversies -- such as the relative accuracy of various biographical accounts of Rand's life, or the subtleties of Objectivism as either an "open" or "closed" system. There are plenty of other forums that deal with such topics -- ad nauseum, in my view.

Instead, my aim is to produce an Objectivist-based publication that (for once) can and will be read and understood by people who have never heard of Objectivism let alone the even more obscure schisms and personalities that pockmark the history of the movement. For it's only by reaching non-Objectivists that our influence on the culture can grow.

Therefore, the exclusion of such discussions from the pages of TNI does not constitute evasion and should not be "controversial." I've been quite outspoken in my own views of "movement" issues, but in more appropriate forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael B,

By and large, I agree that it is better for the principals at TAS not to take public shots at ARI. Sometimes, though, this policy has led to controversial decisions, e.g., Bob Bidinotto's choice not to run a review of Jim Valliant's book in the New Individualist. Precisely because Mr. Valliant's book is so badly argued, and so patently guided by a presupposition that Ayn Rand was perfect, I still think it needs a response.

Well, I recently put up a review of PARC on Amazon, very short and to the point. Short and to the point is all that should be done, IMHO!

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prof. Campbell,

I think Texas State was correct to refuse the Anthem Foundation's offer. In this respect, I commend Dan Barnes' excellent piece of philosophical detection on Founders College --

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.c...d-contrast.html

I just saw this. Wow! Even as an Objectivist, maybe your kid would want to study something else like math, science, engineering or God forbid architecture :-).

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil,

I also think Texas State should have turned down the Anthem Foundation deal.

But the orthodox surely believe that Texas State should have accepted the deal. So where are their comments on it?

Chris G,

I knew Shoshana Milgram years ago. She taught courses at Virginia Tech on detective novels, on science fiction, and on lots of other topics. Two novelists not in the Randian canon I recall her saying positive things about were Gautier and Zamyatin. A quick check of the Virginia Tech website shows that Shoshana Milgram Knapp, still listed under her married name, has recently taught a Masters' level course on Adultery in 19th Century English Novels and a senior (undergraduate) seminar on The Self-Justifying Criminal in Literature. Pretty obviously not derived from Ayn Rand's list of personal preferences.

Despite her longstanding ARI affiliation, I cannot see her taking the Founders College Novels I and II curricula seriously.

Jim,

There are history of science courses in the Founders curriculum, among other things.

I'm not planning to spend much time on the Founders site. But just looking up the advanced undegraduate Philosophy course descriptions, I promptly came up with three that were obviously written by a Randian. In fact, only a Peikovian would have written a description of an epistemology course using the word "reduction" with this particular meaning. (See the passages in bold).

Philosophy 303: Advanced Epistemology

Once we know something, what can we do with that knowledge? This course introduces students to advanced subjects in the study of human knowledge. It investigates the role of context and hierarchy in the use of knowledge, the influence of skepticism and mysticism, the idea of reduction, and the theory of propositions.

Philosophy 304: Meta-Ethics and Values

This course investigates the precursor to ethical theory, meta-ethics. Students cover a discussion of the relationship between metaphysics and ethics, the role that life plays in creating values, the alternate theories of meta-ethics, and the place of meta-ethics in the philosophic tradition.

[...]

Philosophy 307: Consciousness

This advanced course in metaphysics investigates the nature of consciousness and its relationship to existence. It includes advanced discussion on perception, concepts, free will, and a theory of personal identity.

I'm surprised Greg Nyquist didn't spot these.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I think that the ARIans have not commented on the Texas State situation because they don't want to draw attention to the fact that the ARI has rather restrictive policies on what its members must believe, etc.

One might think that the actions of a large state-operated secular university would be of greater significance than those of a relatively small private school, but apparently it doesn't support Peikoff's claim of the grave threat of the religious right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert:

>I'm surprised Greg Nyquist didn't spot these.

Hi Robert,

I actually wrote the Founders piece(s). I did spot these and other pretty clear markers in the philosophy courses, but haven't had time to follow up on them, as I was checking out the Literature and Drama stuff, which was more clear cut. Plus I thought I'd let Prof Garmong respond, but thus far he appears to be reluctant to. But I will try to get something up about it this week.

Plus anyone who's ever attempted to fomat a table in Blogger knows the true meaning of pain...;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

Here is something I found.

This is the description of FC's Grammar and Writing Course:

"Nonfiction writing is a form of communicating one’s ideas clearly. Contrary to popular myth, good writing is neither 'inspirational' nor 'mystical.'”

Here is Rand's The Art of Fiction on page 2:

"What is colloqually called 'inspiration' . . . is actually the subconscious summing up of the premises and intentions you have set for yourself. . . . Most writers today . . . take the attitude of the worst medieval mystics."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

Sorry, I didn't realize that you had written the blog entry on Founders College and its lit and drama courses.

Even without a sample reading list, the language used in those philosophy course descriptions is a dead giveaway.

I hope you hear back from Dr. Garmong. I kind of wonder whether you will, though.

Robert Campbell

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