[Roger Bissell]

Dear OL comrades:

Following is the text of an email I received yesterday (Dec. 31) in response to a proposed mini-series of lectures on applied logic for the 2008 Summer Seminar. Note the salutation, as well as my reply, which is appended.

Happy Frickin' New Year. Bah, humbug...

REB

Quote

Subject: Summer Seminar 2008: Proposal not accepted
Date: 12/31/2007 5:33:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: wthomas@atlassociety.org
To: REBissell@aol.com

Dear name:

Thanks for your proposal to give a presentation at the 2008 Summer
Seminar. Unfortunately, I was unable to accept your proposal
Tetrachotomies – Who Needs Them? .

This proposal sits on the bubble because 1) you are not a professional
philosopher 2) you have not published on this subject to my knowledge
and 3) I'm not sure if this thesis is insightful or rationalistic.I fear
it is a bit of both. I was with you in the outline through part 1, but
in parts 2 and 3 I couldn't immediately figure out what you were getting
at. Perhaps further written exposition would help. 4) It is hard to fit
courses into the program.

I hope you will attend the Summer Seminar nevertheless. It will be held
June 28–July 5, 2008 at the University Place Hotel and Conference Center
in Portland, Oregon, with ancillary services on the campus of Portland
State University there. Full program information will posted in January
at www.AtlasEvents.org, TAS’s events website. The program includes time
for participants to give sessions that are not part of the official
program, and you would be welcome to give your presentations there if
you liked.

I wish a prosperous New Year and well in all things.

Regards,

-- Will

[my reply]

Quote

To whom it may concern:
Dear name:

Thanks for your proposal to give a presentation at the 2008 Summer
Seminar. Unfortunately, I was unable to accept your proposal
Tetrachotomies – Who Needs Them? .

I think I'm safe in assuming you were addressing your comments to me,
though it is fairly rare that I go by my nickname "name."

Thanks for getting back to me. I'm sorry my proposal doesn't meet your
criteria.

I hope you have a very enjoyable and productive Summer Seminar.

Best wishes for the New Year,
Roger B.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Ellen Stuttle, on Jan 9 2008, 09:44 PM, said:

James Heaps-Nelson, on Jan 9 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

Let's be honest, if some the people here didn't hate Linz there would be no beef.

Wrong, Jim. I would have a beef with that thesis no matter who was presenting it. As I've already said I think three times, I consider the thesis a reversion to the bad old days of using the aesthetic response as a morals exam. I objected to that then, strenuously. I object to it now, strenuously.


Ellen

___

Have you objected to other TAS music presentations online?

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Ellen Stuttle, on Jan 9 2008, 09:44 PM, said:

James Heaps-Nelson, on Jan 9 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

Let's be honest, if some the people here didn't hate Linz there would be no beef.

Wrong, Jim. I would have a beef with that thesis no matter who was presenting it. As I've already said I think three times, I consider the thesis a reversion to the bad old days of using the aesthetic response as a morals exam. I objected to that then, strenuously. I object to it now, strenuously.

I hope you realize that you have now accused those with whom you disagree of being dishonest -- albeit in a gentler way than MSK's accusation against you, an accusation to which everyone, including me, who has commented has objected. Thanks for now turning tables and accusing us (albeit in a gentler way). How enchanting.

Ellen

___

TAS usually runs a slate of forums whereby presenters present their views. You disagree with the concept and content of the presentation. 2 years ago Michael Shapiro gave a brilliant presentation suggesting conceptual alternatives to the standard "Objectivist" recieved wisdom about good music, so they present a reasonable diversity of viewpoints in this area.

Jim

[Ellen Stuttle]

James Heaps-Nelson, on Jan 9 2008, 06:07 PM, said:

Have you objected to other TAS music presentations online?

The only previous TAS music presentations I've been aware of have been ones to which I didn't object -- which isn't to say that there might not have been some to which I would have objected had I known of them. I haven't been following details of all the presentations. At the 2 conferences I attended, Doug Wagner [sic, te-he; meant Wagoner] presented. Fine with me.

Ellen

PS: I'm sitting here giggling at the typo. I'll have to tell Doug I did that; he'll be entertained.
___

This post has been edited by Ellen Stuttle: 09 January 2008 - 05:35 PM

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Ellen Stuttle, on Jan 9 2008, 10:31 PM, said:

James Heaps-Nelson, on Jan 9 2008, 06:07 PM, said:

Have you objected to other TAS music presentations online?

The only previous TAS music presentations I've been aware of have been ones to which I didn't object -- which isn't to say that there might not have been some to which I would have objected had I known of them. I haven't been following details of all the presentations. At the 2 conferences I attended, Doug Wagner presented. Fine with me.

Ellen

___

Fair enough. I asked the question because in the event you had objected it would have bolstered your statement.

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Ellen Stuttle, on Jan 9 2008, 10:31 PM, said:

James Heaps-Nelson, on Jan 9 2008, 06:07 PM, said:

Have you objected to other TAS music presentations online?

The only previous TAS music presentations I've been aware of have been ones to which I didn't object -- which isn't to say that there might not have been some to which I would have objected had I known of them. I haven't been following details of all the presentations. At the 2 conferences I attended, Doug Wagner [sic, te-he; meant Wagoner] presented. Fine with me.

Ellen

PS: I'm sitting here giggling at the typo. I'll have to tell Doug I did that; he'll be entertained.
___

How is Doug? I'm hoping to see him at a seminar soon if not this year.

Jim

[Ellen Stuttle]

James Heaps-Nelson, on Jan 9 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

TAS usually runs a slate of forums whereby presenters present their views. You disagree with the concept and content of the presentation. 2 years ago Michael Shapiro gave a brilliant presentation suggesting conceptual alternatives to the standard "Objectivist" recieved wisdom about good music, so they present a reasonable diversity of viewpoints in this area.

I think there are some viewpoints they should not present as invited, subsidized talks. And this one (the Linz music talk) is one. Contradicts their whole mission. I said before, if it were given as a participant-sponsored session, 'nother issue.

Ellen

___

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Ellen Stuttle, on Jan 9 2008, 10:41 PM, said:

James Heaps-Nelson, on Jan 9 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

TAS usually runs a slate of forums whereby presenters present their views. You disagree with the concept and content of the presentation. 2 years ago Michael Shapiro gave a brilliant presentation suggesting conceptual alternatives to the standard "Objectivist" recieved wisdom about good music, so they present a reasonable diversity of viewpoints in this area.

I think there are some viewpoints they should not present as invited, subsidized talks. And this one (the Linz music talk) is one. Contradicts their whole mission. I said before, if it were given as a participant-sponsored session, 'nother issue.

Ellen

___

Sure, that's a reasonable position to take. You probably feel as strongly about this as I did about the ether talk.

Jim

[Ellen Stuttle]

James Heaps-Nelson, on Jan 9 2008, 06:40 PM, said:

How is Doug? I'm hoping to see him at a seminar soon if not this year.

Jim

Actually, I haven't been in touch with him for some while myself, and I haven't had time for participating on A2, of which he's the list administrator.

He's busy; doesn't often have time for posting there, though he just did post some things the last few days. I gather that he's well and happy. I hope that impression is correct. ;-) Doug's a great guy.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

James Heaps-Nelson, on Jan 9 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

Sure, that's a reasonable position to take. You probably feel as strongly about this as I did about the ether talk.

Jim

I would say so, yes. And of course Larry and I did object to the ether talk, too. Along with the "inappropriateness" of its being slated, it presented a nuisance for Larry answering it. ;-)

Cheers, Jim.

E-

___

[Roger Bissell]

Jonathan, excellent analysis/argument -- and Ellen, I agree with your comments, too.

And here's another point: suppose someone ~were~ able to give a knock-down argument for Romantic music being "objectively superior" to other music. That is, suppose music theory/aesthetics were developed to the point that we could accurately ascribe meaning to the content of Romantic music and show that it presents an experience and view of life/the world that was so important and pro-life &c, that no other form of music could match it in value. Would that mean that anyone who doesn't "get it is a moron"?

I don't think so!

I think we're all familiar with Rand's article, "What is Capitalism?", in which she carefully distinguished between "philosophically objective" and "socially objective" value. (See p. 24 of Capitalism the Unknown Ideal.) Well, consider how that applies to Romantic music vs. the other kinds or styles of music.

To paraphrase Rand:

Quote

[BISSELL CHANNELING RAND] Suppose it could be rationally proved that Rachmaninoff is objectively of immeasurably greater value to man (to man at his best) than Elvis Presley. But if a given man's intellectual or aesthetic potential can barely manage to enjoy Elvis Presley, there is no reason why his meager earnings, the product of his effort, should be spent on music he cannot appreciate--or on subsidizing the Classical/Romantic music industry, if his own musical needs do not extend beyond the range of "Love Me Tender."....Elvis Presley may well make a greater fortune than Sergei Rachmaninoff--even if it could be rationally demonstrated that "Variations on a Theme of Paganini" is aesthetically more valuable than "You Ain't Nothin' but a Hound Dog." But--valuable to whom?....The only thing that a capitalist system requires of an Elvis Presley fan is the thing that nature requires: rationality, i.e., that he live and act to the best of his judgment.

Considering how Rand badgered the Blumenthals (and others) for their enjoyment of Beethoven, Mozart, etc., it seems that she was not clearly considering the implications of her own very important essay on the nature of the objective. At least in that respect, Lindsay seems like a chip off the old shoulder!

REB

[william.scherk]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Jan 9 2008, 12:26 AM, said:

William even called me an asshole, but that wasn't much of an explanation.

I take back the asshole, replace it with censorious ultimator . . .

If it is any consolation that you are getting gang-banged, Michael, find it in your naturally sunny disposition. My two ruddy points were that a ) you are on the same side agin Randbash with JHN and b ) you can curb your Nurse Nasty schtick if you want. We want you to, yer ferenz aka known associates/OLying scumbarracudas, so get up on the Empire loveseat and give it a think, couldja?

Yes, JHN could concede an error, if he was feeling gracious, but there is nothing to prevent you from issuing a small, strategic, (and not contigent, sour, grudging) apology for going all hyena on him.

Blame it on your lateen blood/soul/sense of la lucha, mon.

Be big, Michael, big as a Grand Duchy. If not, you might get a reputation for playing high-stakes morality marbles instead of running a grand and thoughtful saloon.

Now Phil, whom I have eviscerated on SOLO in the spirit of Saloon Roast, he should be also consoled by your magnanimity. I can usher in a new dawn by uttering a complete and unconditional apology to Phil Coates: Sir, I feel bad for calling you Miss Grundy on SOLO and for doing a Hockey Hit on you in the year before La Linziatta red-buttoned you.

MSK, you only behaved like an arsehole a censorious ultimator in hectoring JHN. It is only one aspect of your mind/body, which aspect includes a control knob, we presume.

All your compatriots is saying is turn that knob down a titch.

NB -- My interest in TAS-LINZarama 2008 includes written questions such as "What is your current opinion of Scumbarra, yer kassiness, and do you expect to name BB explicitly as Evil Witch of the O-enemies, while at the podium? Or what? You gonna name names, big guy?"

[Robert Campbell]

I've attended several music talks at TAS events over the years, including two by Doug Wagoner. They were all good.

I've also given two myself.

The primary attitude of the talks I gave, as well as the talks I've attended, has been, "This is here to enjoy. If you want to learn more about it, here are some ways to orient yourself."

Not a smear, trace, or homeopathic attenuation of aesthetic policing.

Michael Shapiro gave a tremendous talk on Mussorgsky's music in 2006. I was not at the Summer Seminar last year, so I didn't hear that one.

I chalk Mr. Shapiro's recent comment to Mr. Perigo up to naivete. I doubt Mr. Shapiro knows anything about Mr. Perigo's recent behavior.

If he did know, he would realize that when Mr. Perigo declares that anyone who doesn't share his tastes is a moron, he is not joking--he is saying exactly what he believes.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan, on Jan 9 2008, 03:28 PM, said:

Over on SOLOP, Mark Hubbard is upset about this post of mine. He says that he has tried to post his comments here, but didn't succeed.

Jonathan (and anyone else interested),

This is a technical issue.

Our new member procedure is totally automated with several checks against spambots. This makes it a bit sluggish for the approval of new member process, but at least forum members are not subject to a barrage of tantalizing offers of refinancing their houses, offshore casinos, Britney, Paris and others having sex, and penis enlargement.

The insinuation that OL's automatic processes are something sinister is nothing new over on SLOP. One guy once complained that OL's search function was turned off to non-members because we were somehow in an evil conspiracy to keep OL's contents from being easily accessed by SLOPPERS. He gave the Google site search code with a big "Ah Ha!" fanfare.

In his case, I was actually grateful someone noticed, since this had been automatically set that way when the new forum software was installed after the site had been hacked and the data bases deleted. We had so much work reconstructing the site that a detail like that slipped through the cracks, so any help, regardless of the source, was welcome. (I admit that it was hard to feel grateful about something coming from SLOP, but right was right.)

In the case of Mr. Hubbard's woes, however, I have nothing to be glad or sad about. He merely goofed and adopted the SLOP mentality of bash, then think (but the second part can be dismissed if there is a cold beer around).

EDIT: I forgot to mention that new members sometimes have trouble posting and clearing their browser cookies usually fixes the problem.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

william.scherk, on Jan 9 2008, 08:30 PM, said:

Yes, JHN could concede an error, if he was feeling gracious, but there is nothing to prevent you from issuing a small, strategic, (and not contigent, sour, grudging) apology for going all hyena on him.

William,

Why on earth would I do something silly like that? JHN has just come out of the closet on SLOP and has made a declaration of activism in favor of Perigo. He wants to rally the troops with email campaigns, petition TAS, the whole kit and caboodle. See here. My nose smelled a rat before and I said it stunk. It still does. The crap he posted over here was a form of activism in favor of Perigo and nothing more.

Activists lie to sell their bill of goods to the unwilling. That's just what they do. Why on earth should I apologize for pulling the covers off?

I don't care if he lies about OL. I just don't want to pay for the platform for him to do it. He can lie about OL over there, for instance, or anywhere else he pleases. Just not here. Otherwise I will get even nastier than I was before. OL is not an appropriate venue for Perigo lackeys. Over there, they will gladly pay for him to bash OL. He should take advantage of the resource.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have to vent.

I wonder when all the boneheads will get it through their thick skulls that spouting off crap in drunken rages is not issuing a difference of opinion and it is not rational passion.

It's crap. It's embarrassing.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Jan 9 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

william.scherk, on Jan 9 2008, 08:30 PM, said:

Yes, JHN could concede an error, if he was feeling gracious, but there is nothing to prevent you from issuing a small, strategic, (and not contigent, sour, grudging) apology for going all hyena on him.

William,

Why on earth would I do something silly like that? JHN has just come out of the closet on SLOP and has made a declaration of activism in favor of Perigo. He wants to rally the troops with email campaigns, petition TAS, the whole kit and caboodle. See here. My nose smelled a rat before and I said it stunk. It still does. The crap he posted over here was a form of activism in favor of Perigo and nothing more.

Activists lie to sell their bill of goods to the unwilling. That's just what they do. Why on earth should I apologize for pulling the covers off?

I don't care if he lies about OL. I just don't want to pay for the platform for him to do it. He can lie about OL over there, for instance, or anywhere else he pleases. Just not here. Otherwise I will get even nastier than I was before. OL is not an appropriate venue for Perigo lackeys. Over there, they will gladly pay for him to bash OL. He should take advantage of the resource.

Michael

I admit I had a higher opinion of him before this. I've no use for a Perigo soldier. Perigo at TAS is a stake through TAS's heart. I doubt if Perigo cares about TAS one way or the other no matter what he says; he's a user. He'll use TAS and not look back. As for Jim, what's in it for him? Selfless nothing? I completely don't understand such a person. Michael called him a liar and so exposed he decamped to his real camp? But why would anyone with self-esteem, brains and knowledge want to be in such a nothing place as SOLOP? Pitiful. Even the best poster, Philip Coates was kicked out. Even too the best Lindsay defender, Ross Eliot. SOLOP is really just one guy with his finger on a delete-poster button who wants everyone to know it.

--Brant

Edit: I just reread it again: repulsive.

This post has been edited by Brant Gaede: 10 January 2008 - 12:06 AM

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Jan 9 2008, 10:46 PM, said:

JHN has just come out of the closet on SLOP and has made a declaration of activism in favor of Perigo. He wants to rally the troops with email campaigns, petition TAS, the whole kit and caboodle. See here. My nose smelled a rat before and I said it stunk. It still does. The crap he posted over here was a form of activism in favor of Perigo and nothing more.

I don't agree that he was in any "closet," that there was any "rat" to smell. I think he's wrong about the invite to Perigo. But I sure have to agree with this hope he expressed in the post which follows the one you linked:

Quote

Young Objectivists should be able to choose without pressure which path to trod.

Part of independent thought is making one's own mistakes. ;-)

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen Stuttle, on Jan 9 2008, 11:26 PM, said:

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Jan 9 2008, 10:46 PM, said:

JHN has just come out of the closet on SLOP and has made a declaration of activism in favor of Perigo. He wants to rally the troops with email campaigns, petition TAS, the whole kit and caboodle. See here. My nose smelled a rat before and I said it stunk. It still does. The crap he posted over here was a form of activism in favor of Perigo and nothing more.

I don't agree that he was in any "closet," that there was any "rat" to smell. I think he's wrong about the invite to Perigo. But I sure have to agree with this hope he expressed in the post which follows the one you linked:

Quote

Young Objectivists should be able to choose without pressure which path to trod.

Part of independent thought is making one's own mistakes. ;-)

Ellen
__

There's always pressure, fact of life, take out this Utopian stuff. The entire world of human relationships is conflicting pressures. Young Objectivists need to get slammed around a bit so they can toughen up. Don't go that Hitler/Nazi way you little twirp!

--Brant

[Greybird]

Robert Campbell, on Jan 9 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

[...] The primary attitude of the talks I gave, as well as the talks I've attended, has been, "This is here to enjoy. If you want to learn more about it, here are some ways to orient yourself."

Not a smear, trace, or homeopathic attenuation of aesthetic policing.

Ah, but Robert, you forget the basic principle of homeopathic remedies that comes into play here: The more that a substance is diluted, even unto parts per quadrillion — the MORE potent it supposedly becomes, not LESS.

So your watering down the esthetic content just means that you're actually searching more and far more yet into the Gentle Listeners' souls, mmmwaahuu hahahahahahahahaha! {evil cackle}

Just getting into the sectarian spirit {extremely rueful smile}

(By the way, my paternal grandfather was both an M.D. and a homeopath. After examining what I doubt did any damn bit of good for my father's phlebitis, or my own, I'd say that any claims of homeopathic success going beyond the placebo effect border on the whim-worshipping rewriting of reality ... just getting the required O-epithets in there.)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Brant Gaede, on Jan 10 2008, 01:37 AM, said:

Ellen Stuttle, on Jan 9 2008, 11:26 PM, said:

J H-N said:

Young Objectivists should be able to choose without pressure which path to trod.

Part of independent thought is making one's own mistakes. ;-)

There's always pressure, fact of life, take out this Utopian stuff. The entire world of human relationships is conflicting pressures. Young Objectivists need to get slammed around a bit so they can toughen up. Don't go that Hitler/Nazi way you little twirp!

Brant, this time I have to say "Shame on you." Weren't you around? -- I believe you were -- in the days when anathema was heeped (interesting, inadvertent but I like it, pun on Heaps) on the heads of anyone who expressed the thought that just maybe Nathaniel Branden wasn't the Devil Incarnate? I was. I had such anathema heeped on my head by many. O'ist pressure is a fearsome thing (imitating a line from Young Frankenstein).

James Heaps-Nelson, I feel entirely sure from my own reading of his stuff on line (frustrating as I find his frequent vagueness, as I said on a different thread) and my knowledge of his background, is honest and upright and not someone on whom to dump. Furthermore, I feel that I understand why a number of the young ones are just sick up the gazoo of endless issues pertaining to the split and why they today might see Linz as bold, adventuresome, etc., just as a number of youngsters back then saw Nathaniel. You -- and I of course -- see Linz as a thorough fraud and Nathaniel as much better than AR said he was; but this doesn't mean youngsters today share our perspective. Nathaniel today has become rather an embarrassing old person talking of things such as ESP, really offputting to someone with Jim's background.

I think Jim is wrong about Linz. But I sympathize with where I feel he's coming from.

Ellen

___

This post has been edited by Ellen Stuttle: 10 January 2008 - 04:56 AM