BASIC PRINCIPLES BOOK ANNOUNCED

[Roger Bissell]

Although I and my wife played a role in bringing BPO from recorded lectures to the printed page, we have not yet been able to see a final copy because we have been "on the road" since the book reportedly started arriving in purchasers' mail. We trust that the printing errors that some have found are minor and do not detract from the overall value of its contents.

Unfortunately, it was not possible to capture all of the oral delivery style, with its inflections and verbal nuances, that Branden used to such great effectiveness in his audio presentations of these lectures. I am thinking here, in particular, of Branden's droll recounting of the illogic of religionists' attempts to explain the existence of evil while at the same time maintaining that God is both all-good and all-powerful. (from Lecture 4, "The Concept of God."). Even so, a perceptive reader should be able to capture Branden's meaning. I personally regard that lecture as one of the most concise, tightly-reasoned, and devastating, refutations of belief in God that has ever been delivered in oral format. Of course, there are books that have gone much farther in analyzing the meanings and impact of religion (e.g., George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God), but in stating the essentials of the argument, this lecture by Branden has no peer.

While doing the transcription, it was obvious to me that the value of the text could could be greatly enhanced with the use of footnotes and annotation. Some references to events and personalities of the mid-nineteen sixties may seem puzzling to younger readers. Although I have not yet seen the finished product to verify this, it was my understanding that bringing the text fully up to date would require so much additional annotation that the resulting expanded size of the book would have been prohibitive. Maybe a second edition, or a supplement, will be issued that can address these issues.

Anyway, thanks to all that have complemented those responsible for the book. We all felt that these lectures had so much historical value and were so effective in their presentation of the case for Objectivism, that it was imperative that they be available to the wider potential audience of the printed format. Most of all, thanks to Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden and of course, Ayn Rand, who made these lectures possible.

Personally, I would like to see a volume doing a thorough critique of both NB's and LP's books on Objectivism. I envision eight sections--one for each of the 5 main branches of philosophy, one of NB's forte: psychology, one on LP's forte: history of philosophy, and one on the relevance of their works for the future.

Secondly, I apologize as sincerely and deeply as I can for the horrendously error-ridden index of The Vision of Ayn Rand, and I hereby announce that I am in the process of re-doing it -- i.e., DOING IT RIGHT this time. I will post it here, there, anywhere it makes sense to post it, and I will make it available to Jim Peron @ Cobden Press for (what I hope will be) future editions of the book.

Best to all for the holidays,

REB

Roger -

Don't feel too bad about the index. You led in an accomplishment. Many waited 40 years or more for this publication.

Just think what it would have been like if you had been trying to get Rand's approval of the work (pre-schism, of course). From the tales of LP's experiences on Ominous Parallels, it might have taken 400 years!

Bill P

Although (as explained above), I have not yet had the opportunity to examine the published book, I will not let that minor deficit stop me from adding a comment about this Index issue, anyway (after all, it is sort of an Objectivist tradition to comment on the contents of books not yet read....).

I know Roger was sort of given (drafted?) the assignment at the last minute to create an Index for The Vision of Ayn Rand. Creating an index is a very time-consuming and intensive amount of work, with or without some of the software programs designed to assist with such a project. Not only did Roger supervise the whole transcription project, he also transcribed the great majority of the lectures himself, plus editing or correcting what others contributed. So, to also have to create an Index in the eleventh hour is above and beyond the call of....well, duty.

To make a few comparisons within the Objectivist tradition, some of Rand's nonfiction books did not have indexes (e.g.,FNI, ITOE). Peikoff's OPAR came with an Index, but it was so inadequate that an expanded or supplementary index was created for the second edition of Gary Hull's pamphlet, an "Examination/Study Guide" to OPAR. Unfortunately, this additional index was never incorporated into later printings of OPAR, itself (I think Hull's pamphlet is still available through ARI's Ayn Rand Bookstore). Footnotes, Bibliography, and other annotation were included in OPAR, but it was at a bare minimum (compare, for example, with the exemplary annotation that Chris Sciabarra uses in his masterful, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical).

Jerry, I appreciate your kind words and helpful context-keeping comments.

Just so everyone knows--I was not paid for constructing an index, nor were any of us paid for our transcription work. It was, and is, a labor of love. It (the index) just should have been done more carefully.

Also, just so everyone knows--even ~fixing~ the index is going to take about 50 hours of labor. (That is based on the trial-run of fixing I have done so far: 10% of the index has taken right at 5 hours of my time.) Based on that, I estimate that the original construction of the index took approximately 100 hours of labor. It was not terribly difficult, just horrendously tedious.

As I told Jim and Nathaniel and Barbara, I am ~not~ good at doing that kind of thing, but they persuaded me to do it anyway, because there was no one else to do so. So, Jerry, you are essentially right: I was more or less "drafted." But since I judged it to be a very worthy cause, I willingly plunged in, with the results we are now sadly aware of.

I sent the following email to Jim, Nathaniel, and Barbara earlier this evening (Saturday). The next step is up to them...REB

Jim, thank you for appraising us of the situation with the index. I am painfully aware of the problem...actually, problems.

(1) The bold, underscore for definitional entries did not make it from my index file into the published index.

(2) The page numbers are off by from 4 to 8 pages between the index and the text.

I know how the latter problem happened. It was due to my being a novice at preparing indexes, and to my work not being proof-read to make sure it was accurate. So, I will accept about 50% of the responsibility for this unpleasant flaw in Nathaniel's book.

More specifically, it happened because of two things:

(1) I was using a file that had the pagination starting with the Foreword, whereas the book has it beginning with Lecture 1. That threw the index's page numbers 8 pages off right from the start, so that anything lower than 8 in the index refers to one of the pages of the Foreword (which are in small Roman numerals). That 8-page error persisted for nearly 200 pages.

(2) I converted the text file from PDF to a Text file, then dumped that in Microsoft Word and used Word to automatically create an index, which I then edited down substantially. At two points in the text, I edited out some formatting trash, which apparently shrank down the number of pages, which again threw the pagination of the index file out of sync with the text. So, it gained back 2 pages, then 2 pages more, so that before page 300 it was only 4 pages off.

So, that is how it happened, more or less.

I agree that the best course now is to create a corrected index and send it out to the customers--both future and present ones, actually. [Also, I think the corrected index should be posted here and there (where appropriate) on the Internet, so that people can download and print it out for themselves, if they wish.] And when a second edition is made of the book, it obviously should be corrected in the book itself.

I could understand if you -- or Nathaniel -- would want no further part of my dubious skills in remedying this problem. But I am willing and able to fix the problem, now that I understand there is one and what it is.

I have started repairing the index, and I am about 10% done with it at this point (somewhere in the "c" entries). I basically take each term or phrase and enter it in the Find window of the PDF file Jim sent me, and like magic, the ~correct~ page numbers are provided with each occurrence of the term or phrase. It is not at all difficult, just incredibly tedious -- as was the original, flawed preparing of the index.

If we had had a paid proof-reader, who was not operating on the assumption (as you and I were) that I knew completely what I was doing, this could have been prevented. Now that I know completely what I am doing, I can fix it -- and so can anyone else, if you would rather have someone else do it.

So, you and Nathaniel put your heads together and decide whether you want me to proceed with the fixing of the index. I'll be happy to plug away at it, and I guarantee you that the new version will be 99.99+% more accurate than the first one!

Again, my regrets for the way the index turned out. We should have done better.

Best,

Roger B.

[Dragonfly]

With today's software it shouldn't be so difficult to create an index that is invariant under page transformations. Some years ago I translated a fairly technical handbook on statistics with many hundreds of pages. I made an index for that book by using the Word function for index generation, checking the text and marking important words for inclusion in the index. It was a fairly complex index, with subcategories and crossreferences, but it was insensitive to changes in page numbering. The pages in my Word file were of course quite different from those of the final book, but that was no problem, the index-referencing system could be translated without problems to the software for typesetting the book.

[Greybird]

Ye gods, Roger, you're being absurdly hard on yourself. To have the pagination be off by several pages due to inclusion, or not, of the added foreword was the kind of organizational glitch that is almost inevitable on such a multi-volunteer project. Formatting garbage is inevitable when hammering any file from PDF to Word or back again. And this one-off project may not have justified the purchase of specialized software.

If anyone ought to be even half this perturbed at such dropped stitches, I'd say it's Jim Peron, who apparently had the coordinating role that was intended to prevent them. Yet with the number of hats he wears, I wouldn't have chosen to berate him about it, either.

All I can say, even in advance of an inevitable purchase — wherein, I admit, I'll now be waiting for a reworked index — is that you deserve profound thanks for being a principal spark plug, and for even taking on these roles in the first place. As do all of the other volunteers, but especially Barbara for that gracious foreword.

You've helped reclaim an influential body of work from the absurd Objectivist oral culture, for genuine and adept use and study. Thus bringing it closer to, say, the random-access utility of bound manuscripts under the Roman Empire. It's still about 18 centuries behind, but it'll fully catch up to at least the Industrial Revolution, one of these decades {rueful smile}

[Alfonso Jones]

Ye gods, Roger, you're being absurdly hard on yourself. To have the pagination be off by several pages due to inclusion, or not, of the added foreword was the kind of organizational glitch that is almost inevitable on such a multi-volunteer project. Formatting garbage is inevitable when hammering any file from PDF to Word or back again. And this one-off project may not have justified the purchase of specialized software.

If anyone ought to be even half this perturbed at such dropped stitches, I'd say it's Jim Peron, who apparently had the coordinating role that was intended to prevent them. Yet with the number of hats he wears, I wouldn't have chosen to berate him about it, either.

All I can say, even in advance of an inevitable purchase — wherein, I admit, I'll now be waiting for a reworked index — is that you deserve profound thanks for being a principal spark plug, and for even taking on these roles in the first place. As do all of the other volunteers, but especially Barbara for that gracious foreword.

You've helped reclaim an influential body of work from the absurd Objectivist oral culture, for genuine and adept use and study. Thus bringing it closer to, say, the random-access utility of bound manuscripts under the Roman Empire. It's still about 18 centuries behind, but it'll fully catch up to at least the Industrial Revolution, one of these decades {rueful smile}

Well put. Roger deserves our congratulations and our thanks. He was a major drver in making this happen.

Bill P

[klnielsen]

Mr. Bissel, Mr. Biggers, Mr. Peron, Drs. Branden and everybody,

I am just grateful to have this book, thanks all. I don't care about the index or any other perceived problems, the value of having it to study outweighs all of that. Objectivism is really helping me get my life together and I am glad to have this work made accessible to me. There are always tradeoffs involved in getting a product out, and a little roughness is a lot better than not having it at all. If I come across a cultural reference I'm not familiar with there is always Google.

[Jerry Biggers]

Roger,

Please!!!

IF I were the pretender to the role of Objectivist POPE, (a role which has already been pre-empted), I would have already appointed you to SAINTHOOD for what you have accomplished!!!

However, despite the best (or not-so-best) efforts of the current Papist pretender, there is not (yet) an Objectivist Church. So you are safe. Anyway, the current Papist pretender would most likely assign you to a quite different category than sainthood for your efforts.

Back to the issue. The index errors are not a big thing. For example, the publisher could insert a loose-leaf page "errata" with details on overcoming the page numbering offsets. For copies already sold, they could either send that extra page in the mail, or by email, or direct purchasers to a website where a corrected index would be available for downloading.

And/or we could correct the problem in the next printing. No big deal.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Alfonso Jones]

Roger,

Please!!!

IF I were the pretender to the role of Objectivist POPE, (a role which has already been pre-empted), I would have already appointed you to SAINTHOOD for what you have accomplished!!!

However, despite the best (or not-so-best) efforts of the current Papist pretender, there is not (yet) an Objectivist Church. So you are safe. Anyway, the current Papist pretender would most likely assign you to a quite different category than sainthood for your efforts.

Back to the issue. The index errors are not a big thing. For example, the publisher could insert a loose-leaf page "errata" with details on overcoming the page numbering offsets. For copies already sold, they could either send that extra page in the mail, or by email, or direct purchasers to a website where a corrected index would be available for downloading.

And/or we could correct the problem in the next printing. No big deal.

Well put!

Bill P

[Roger Bissell]

Roger,

Please!!!

IF I were the pretender to the role of Objectivist POPE, (a role which has already been pre-empted), I would have already appointed you to SAINTHOOD for what you have accomplished!!!

However, despite the best (or not-so-best) efforts of the current Papist pretender, there is not (yet) an Objectivist Church. So you are safe. Anyway, the current Papist pretender would most likely assign you to a quite different category than sainthood for your efforts.

Back to the issue. The index errors are not a big thing. For example, the publisher could insert a loose-leaf page "errata" with details on overcoming the page numbering offsets. For copies already sold, they could either send that extra page in the mail, or by email, or direct purchasers to a website where a corrected index would be available for downloading.

And/or we could correct the problem in the next printing. No big deal.

Well put!

Bill P

Jerry, a saint, I ain't! But a perseverant good-guy--yeah, that's more my speed. :-) I appreciate the fact that not everyone wants to kick a gift horse in the nuts. (So to speak.)

I also appreciate ~everyone's~ kind words and consoling thoughts about this. I've gotten over my initial mortification and depression about it and am back to some semblance of normal. <sigh>

As for the current Objectivist ruling creatures, they can just scratch their mad places, as far as I am concerned.

As for the index fix, Jim Peron has said the obvious solution is to redo the index, which I have about 20% completed at this point. He intends to print it up as a booklet and mail it out with subsequent purchases. I think I will also upload it to my own web site, perhaps also here.

Lots of work lies ahead, folks. Let's get to it! (But be sure to stop and smell the roses, coffee, etc., along the way.

Happy 2010, all.

REB

[Chris Grieb]

Roger,

Please!!!

IF I were the pretender to the role of Objectivist POPE, (a role which has already been pre-empted), I would have already appointed you to SAINTHOOD for what you have accomplished!!!

However, despite the best (or not-so-best) efforts of the current Papist pretender, there is not (yet) an Objectivist Church. So you are safe. Anyway, the current Papist pretender would most likely assign you to a quite different category than sainthood for your efforts.

Back to the issue. The index errors are not a big thing. For example, the publisher could insert a loose-leaf page "errata" with details on overcoming the page numbering offsets. For copies already sold, they could either send that extra page in the mail, or by email, or direct purchasers to a website where a corrected index would be available for downloading.

And/or we could correct the problem in the next printing. No big deal.

Well put!

Bill P

Jerry, a saint, I ain't! But a perseverant good-guy--yeah, that's more my speed. :-) I appreciate the fact that not everyone wants to kick a gift horse in the nuts. (So to speak.)

I also appreciate ~everyone's~ kind words and consoling thoughts about this. I've gotten over my initial mortification and depression about it and am back to some semblance of normal. <sigh>

As for the current Objectivist ruling creatures, they can just scratch their mad places, as far as I am concerned.

As for the index fix, Jim Peron has said the obvious solution is to redo the index, which I have about 20% completed at this point. He intends to print it up as a booklet and mail it out with subsequent purchases. I think I will also upload it to my own web site, perhaps also here.

Lots of work lies ahead, folks. Let's get to it! (But be sure to stop and smell the roses, coffee, etc., along the way.

Happy 2010, all.

REB

Roger; Thanks for all your very fine work on this project. I'll guess I'll have to buy the book. You're a great prize to the Objectivist movement and OL. Thanks!

[jaybird3rd]

Roger Bissell: I must agree with the prevailing sentiment here. As I've begun exploring the Objectivist corpus of literature, I've found the over-reliance on the so-called "oral tradition" to be a strange and frustrating anachronism. In an age of print-on-demand technology and MP3 downloads, some of the most important resources are still available only through mail order, on CDs and cassette tapes, for hundreds of dollars. This is a serious barrier to entry into the world of Objectivism, and the best possible way to surmount it is to do the hard work of parsing this material into books. Despite its ups and downs, I think this project has been an outstanding and groundbreaking beginning, and I think it can only make other similar projects that much easier; here's hoping that Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking is among them!

I don't consider the errors in the index to be serious enough to prevent me from enjoying the book just as it is. I think a corrected index offered as a supplement is a fine solution. In fact, I might as well make a virtue of necessity and say that I rather like the idea of having a removable index; it will be easier for me to use this way, particularly for a book of this size. However, although I'm sure you've considered this already, one thing I would strongly recommend is to flag the index terms in the actual text and to let the computer generate the index for you instead of building it manually; this will allow the computer to update the index automatically if the pagination changes again. It is possible to do this in Microsoft Word, although the very best tool to use would probably be a document preparation system such as LaTeX, which is very popular among academic writers (and book typesetters!) for just these kinds of tasks.

Edited December 30, 2009 by jaybird3rd

[Alfonso Jones]

Roger Bissell: I must agree with the prevailing sentiment here. As I've begun exploring the Objectivist corpus of literature, I've found the over-reliance on the so-called "oral tradition" to be a strange and frustrating anachronism. In an age of print-on-demand technology and MP3 downloads, some of the most important resources are still available only through mail order, on CDs and cassette tapes, for hundreds of dollars. This is a serious barrier to entry into the world of Objectivism, and the best possible way to surmount it is to do the hard work of parsing this material into books. Despite its ups and downs, I think this project has been an outstanding and groundbreaking beginning, and I think it can only make other similar projects that much easier; here's hoping that Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking is among them!

I don't consider the errors in the index to be serious enough to prevent me from enjoying the book just as it is. I think a corrected index offered as a supplement is a fine solution. In fact, I might as well make a virtue of necessity and say that I rather like the idea of having a removable index; it will be easier for me to use this way, particularly for a book of this size. However, although I'm sure you've considered this already, one thing I would strongly recommend is to flag the index terms in the actual text and to let the computer generate the index for you instead of building it manually; this will allow the computer to update the index automatically if the pagination changes again. It is possible to do this in Microsoft Word, although the very best tool to use would probably be a document preparation system such as LaTeX, which is very popular among academic writers (and book typesetters!) for just these kinds of tasks.

Agreed on the oral tradition. There are several levels of possible improvement to the current information distribution system.

1) Make the audio material available via mp3 download. This reduces supplier costs, improves availability to the customer (lead time to receive) and eliminates shipping/handling costs. (For someone like me, living in Shanghai, China, this is a significant improvement.)

2) Publish as physical books. This can be a time-consuming process. (Ask Roger and then stand back as he itemizes what had to be done, . . . --- transcribe, proof, agree on revisions, decide on extent to which document should be the speech or should be more in the tone of a book, ...)

3) Publish as ebooks (Kindle or otherwise). Involves much but not all of the work of #2.

I think:

current state < 1 < 3 < 2

though I would like have ebook availability (3) also in addition to paper (2).

Of course, even the current state is an improvement over having to attend a lecture or conference and take notes to get the information.

Bill P

[Reidy]

(Sorry if this is redundant; I haven't been following the thread in detail.)

In the taped lectures I heard in the mid-60s, #4 (god) was by Peikoff, #17 (philosophy of art and its application to literature) by Rand and #18 (visual art) was by Rukavina (later Sures). Presumably what's in the book isn't the same text. Where / when do the current texts come from?

[Alfonso Jones]

(Sorry if this is redundant; I haven't been following the thread in detail.)

In the taped lectures I heard in the mid-60s, #4 (god) was by Peikoff, #17 (philosophy of art and its application to literature) by Rand and #18 (visual art) was by Rukavina (later Sures). Presumably what's in the book isn't the same text. Where / when do the current texts come from?

They come as transcriptions of the Audio CDs currently available from The Atlas Society. No Peikoff, no Rand on these...

Now for historical reasons it would be good to know the date of the recordings. Hopefully someone will respond with that information.

Bill P

[Chris Grieb]

My guess is that they are the first lecture series Nathaniel gave when the tape transcription service was set up in 1961 or '62. I heard the lectures Reidy mentioned when I took Basic in 1966. My guess would be that Peikoff gave the "God" lecture before he expelled to Denver which I think was in '65.

[Jerry Biggers]

Chris and Reidy: Oy!! Again with this! I believe that both of you mentioned the same issue (Peikoff doing the "Concept of God" lecture in an NBI version of BPO) in comments #47 and 48 in the thread, Nathaniel's Lectures on Basic Principles of Objectivism, in the same OL section. I responded that N. Branden, not Peikoff, gave that lecture at NBI in New York in 1967-68, and also by tape transcription in Washington, D.C. How do I know?

1) I was there in both instances. Not convincing enough? Please continue, and

2) I still have the original NBI brochure announcement for that course indicating that N. Branden was giving that lecture. Perhaps if someone has a document from NBI from 1968 or earlier, indicating Peikoff also gave that lecture, they could share it with us(You know, "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours.")

3) "The Philosophy of Objectivism" course that Peikoff created after the demise of NBI does not contain a lecture on the Concept of God with the main arguments used in the original BPO course. In fact, he glosses over the whole topic. In any case, Peikoff's discussion is not similar in either style or the number of arguments with the NBI BPO course. This course is still available on tape or CD - check for yourself. If you think I am incorrect, please give examples of extensive parallel quotations from both sources which shows more than passing similarity.

4) Peikoff's later book, OPAR, which he says derived from his earlier audio course, also does not show similarity with the NBI BPO Lecture on the Concept of God. And now that BPO is in print, you can directly compare discussions of the God concept from both sources.And, finally,

5) Barbara Branden, herself, weighed in on this issue -Did Peikoff do a BPO lecture for NBI on the Concept of God- her answer: NO, Peikoff did not. See her exact words in comment #61 of the above-mentioned thread.

So, based on the above, and especially Barbara's statement, if Peikoff ever did give that lecture at some NBI event, he probably was been just reading the lecture previously prepared by Nathaniel, or maybe improvising on it. But he sure did not write that lecture, and it sure isn't the one included in The Vision of Ayn Rand(or in the previous CD/cassette sets.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Jerry Biggers]

As for the origins of the lecture set used for The Vision of Ayn Rand: Most of the lectures are directly from NBI versions. Some appear to have been re-recorded when they were issued on LP records and cassettes by Academic Associates (now defunct) in 1969. They were later available on cassettes from Audio Forum (and still are) and also through Laissez Faire Books (who also brought out a CD version). Later, The Atlas Society/The Objectivist Center issued them in a CD set (about 8 or so years ago) which was directly based on The Academic Associates LP set (the only difference being that one lecture, "The Psychology of Sex," was moved to be in sequence with the other lectures dealing with psychological topics).

[Roger Bissell]

Chris and Reidy: Oy!! Again with this! I believe that both of you mentioned the same issue (Peikoff doing the "Concept of God" lecture in an NBI version of BPO) in comments #47 and 48 in the thread, Nathaniel's Lectures on Basic Principles of Objectivism, in the same OL section. I responded that N. Branden, not Peikoff, gave that lecture at NBI in New York in 1967-68, and also by tape transcription in Washington, D.C. How do I know?

1) I was there in both instances. Not convincing enough? Please continue, and

2) I still have the original NBI brochure announcement for that course indicating that N. Branden was giving that lecture. Perhaps if someone has a document from NBI from 1968 or earlier, indicating Peikoff also gave that lecture, they could share it with us(You know, "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours.")

3) "The Philosophy of Objectivism" course that Peikoff created after the demise of NBI does not contain a lecture on the Concept of God with the main arguments used in the original BPO course. In fact, he glosses over the whole topic. In any case, Peikoff's discussion is not similar in either style or the number of arguments with the NBI BPO course. This course is still available on tape or CD - check for yourself. If you think I am incorrect, please give examples of extensive parallel quotations from both sources which shows more than passing similarity.

4) Peikoff's later book, OPAR, which he says derived from his earlier audio course, also does not show similarity with the NBI BPO Lecture on the Concept of God. And now that BPO is in print, you can directly compare discussions of the God concept from both sources.

And, finally, 5) Barbara Branden, herself, weighed in on this issue -Did Peikoff do a BPO lecture for NBI on the Concept of God- her answer: NO, Peikoff did not. See her exact words in comment #61 of the above-mentioned thread.

So, based on the above, and especially Barbara's statement, if Peikoff ever did give that lecture at some NBI event, he probably was been just reading a lecture previously prepared by Nathaniel, or maybe improvising on it. But he sure did not write that lecture.

Here is some more data, pro and con. My good friend Bill Dwyer, who heard the Basic Principles course beginning in October 1963 in San Francisco, says he definitely heard Leonard Peikoff deliver the #4 Concept of God lecture. He does not know whether Leonard was reading his own material or delivering it as a stand-in for Nathaniel, for some reason. However, it was on ~tape transcription~ that he heard Leonard give this lecture, so it had been recorded by Leonard some time previously.

On the other hand, I looked through The Objectivist Newsletter section of announcements for 1962 through 1965, and I did not find any mention of Peikoff taking part in the series. However, this proves nothing, since the course Bill heard by tape transcription was likely recorded ~before~ the first issue of The Objectivist Newsletter came out in January 1962.

We should note that there ~was~ mention of Rand delivering lecture #17 on the esthetics of literature in early 1963. An electronic copy of a flyer for the course sent to me previously by Jerry showed Rand specifically speaking on "The nature and purpose of art--Art as the expression of one's 'sense of life'--The esthetics of literature." So this was clearly a lecture on what we would term "The Objectivist Esthetics," with a specific application to literature.

In the same flyer, lecture #18 was described as "The esthetics of the visual arts: painting and sculpture," and there was ~no~ mention that it was given by Mary Ann Rukavina (later Sures). My guess is that Nathaniel gave that lecture, though it's possible that Rukavina delivered it, and that her name was left out of the brochure. This is quite possible, since Barbara Branden's name was not included along with the name and description of ~her~ guest lecture on Efficient Thinking. But if that's true, then Leonard Peikoff could ~also~ have had ~his~ name omitted from the brochure as guest lecturer on The Concept of God.

It's also worth noting that my friend Bill Dwyer, who attended ~all~ the lectures in that San Francisco series, did not recall ~either~ Rand or Rukavina giving those lectures, while he distinctly ~did~ remember Peikoff giving lecture #4.

Bill also distinctly remembered Nathaniel giving lecture #19, "The Neurosis of the Intellectual," which was dropped from the series when the LP recordings were made in the late 1980s--1960s. (That lecture was still being presented by tape transcription as late as 1967.)(Just for reference and information, that lecture was described as being about: "Why many male intellectuals feel impractical, inefficacious, unmasculine qua intellectuals--The effect on their work and their lives--The wider social consequences.")

Regardless of who is correct about this, in general and in detail, memory is a funny thing. While three intelligent people who took the course in the 60s vividly remember Leonard giving lecture #4, Barbara avers that he did ~not~, and there is no physical documentation to establish otherwise, except for the indubitably flawed brochure Jerry Biggers sent me. (Flawed because it omitted Barbara's name as guest lecturer, while including Rand's -- and presumably also omitting Rukavina's and thus plausibly Peikoff's also.)

What difference it makes, I don't know, since Leonard is not making a big deal about it one way or the other. That said, I will make no more about it either.

REB

[Chris Grieb]

Chris and Reidy: Oy!! Again with this! I believe that both of you mentioned the same issue (Peikoff doing the "Concept of God" lecture in an NBI version of BPO) in comments #47 and 48 in the thread, Nathaniel's Lectures on Basic Principles of Objectivism, in the same OL section. I responded that N. Branden, not Peikoff, gave that lecture at NBI in New York in 1967-68, and also by tape transcription in Washington, D.C. How do I know?

1) I was there in both instances. Not convincing enough? Please continue, and

2) I still have the original NBI brochure announcement for that course indicating that N. Branden was giving that lecture. Perhaps if someone has a document from NBI from 1968 or earlier, indicating Peikoff also gave that lecture, they could share it with us(You know, "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours.")

3) "The Philosophy of Objectivism" course that Peikoff created after the demise of NBI does not contain a lecture on the Concept of God with the main arguments used in the original BPO course. In fact, he glosses over the whole topic. In any case, Peikoff's discussion is not similar in either style or the number of arguments with the NBI BPO course. This course is still available on tape or CD - check for yourself. If you think I am incorrect, please give examples of extensive parallel quotations from both sources which shows more than passing similarity.

4) Peikoff's later book, OPAR, which he says derived from his earlier audio course, also does not show similarity with the NBI BPO Lecture on the Concept of God. And now that BPO is in print, you can directly compare discussions of the God concept from both sources.

And, finally, 5) Barbara Branden, herself, weighed in on this issue -Did Peikoff do a BPO lecture for NBI on the Concept of God- her answer: NO, Peikoff did not. See her exact words in comment #61 of the above-mentioned thread.

So, based on the above, and especially Barbara's statement, if Peikoff ever did give that lecture at some NBI event, he probably was been just reading a lecture previously prepared by Nathaniel, or maybe improvising on it. But he sure did not write that lecture.

Here is some more data, pro and con. My good friend Bill Dwyer, who heard the Basic Principles course beginning in October 1963 in San Francisco, says he definitely heard Leonard Peikoff deliver the #4 Concept of God lecture. He does not know whether Leonard was reading his own material or delivering it as a stand-in for Nathaniel, for some reason. However, it was on ~tape transcription~ that he heard Leonard give this lecture, so it had been recorded by Leonard some time previously.

On the other hand, I looked through The Objectivist Newsletter section of announcements for 1962 through 1965, and I did not find any mention of Peikoff taking part in the series. However, this proves nothing, since the course Bill heard by tape transcription was likely recorded ~before~ the first issue of The Objectivist Newsletter came out in January 1962.

We should note that there ~was~ mention of Rand delivering lecture #17 on the esthetics of literature in early 1963. An electronic copy of a flyer for the course sent to me previously by Jerry showed Rand specifically speaking on "The nature and purpose of art--Art as the expression of one's 'sense of life'--The esthetics of literature." So this was clearly a lecture on what we would term "The Objectivist Esthetics," with a specific application to literature.

In the same flyer, lecture #18 was described as "The esthetics of the visual arts: painting and sculpture," and there was ~no~ mention that it was given by Mary Ann Rukavina (later Sures). My guess is that Nathaniel gave that lecture, though it's possible that Rukavina delivered it, and that her name was left out of the brochure. This is quite possible, since Barbara Branden's name was not included along with the name and description of ~her~ guest lecture on Efficient Thinking. But if that's true, then Leonard Peikoff could ~also~ have had ~his~ name omitted from the brochure as guest lecturer on The Concept of God.

It's also worth noting that my friend Bill Dwyer, who attended ~all~ the lectures in that San Francisco series, did not recall ~either~ Rand or Rukavina giving those lectures, while he distinctly ~did~ remember Peikoff giving lecture #4.

Bill also distinctly remembered Nathaniel giving lecture #19, "The Neurosis of the Intellectual," which was dropped from the series when the LP recordings were made in the late 1980s. (That lecture was still being presented by tape transcription as late as 1967.)(Just for reference and information, that lecture was described as being about: "Why many male intellectuals feel impractical, inefficacious, unmasculine qua intellectuals--The effect on their work and their lives--The wider social consequences.")

Regardless of who is correct about this, in general and in detail, memory is a funny thing. While three intelligent people who took the course in the 60s vividly remember Leonard giving lecture #4, Barbara avers that he did ~not~, and there is no physical documentation to establish otherwise, except for the indubitably flawed brochure Jerry Biggers sent me. (Flawed because it omitted Barbara's name as guest lecturer, while including Rand's -- and presumably also omitting Rukavina's and thus plausibly Peikoff's also.)

What difference it makes, I don't know, since Leonard is not making a big deal about it one way or the other. That said, I will make no more about it either.

REB

Roger; I don't want to make a long reply but when I first signed up for Basic in 1965 in Pittsburgh I attended only the first three lectures but I remember people in the class mentioning the Peikoff would be giving the "God" lecture.

Jerry; Would you at least acknowledge that Reidy and I are not making things up when we report that Peikoff gave the "God" lecture. As Roger has pointed out Mary Ann Sures's lecture about the visual arts was never mentioned in the NBI brouchure.

Can't we all just get along.

[Reidy]

Mr. Biggers:

Please understand that I meant no offense in asking about these lectures. Your careful attention to my previous posts is flattering. I, too, was on the NBI mailing list from 1962 on, and, as you rightly observe, their advertising material didn't mention the guest speakers, at least not Peikoff or Sures; I didn't know about the latter until the tapes started rolling. As Bissell has pointed out, these were taped lectures for national distribution, not stand-ins in a live series, so presumably the lecturers were reading their own words. The local NBI rep told me that the god lecture was Peikoff's adapatation of a college term paper. He was something of a comedian in those days, as Branden was not, and the material is unmistakably his own. Rand's lecture later found its way into one of her essays; her imaginary re-writing of a conversation between Roark and Keating was even funnier in her accent than on the page. The visual art lecture showed up in part in "Metaphysics in Marble," an article Sures wrote in The Objectivist after Branden's departure. Like Barbara Branden, she gave an independent course at NBI in the topic of her guest lecture in the Basic course.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Reidy

[Alfonso Jones]

Mr. Biggers:

Please understand that I meant no offense in asking about these lectures. I, too, was on the NBI mailing list from 1962 on, and, as you rightly observe, their advertising material didn't mention the guest speakers, at least not Peikoff or Sures; I didn't know about the latter until the tapes started rolling. As Bissell has pointed out, these were taped lectures for national distribution, not stand-ins in a live series, so presumably the lecturers were reading their own words. The local NBI rep told me that the god lecture was Peikoff's adapatation of a college term paper. He was something of a comedian in those days, as Branden was not, and the material is unmistakably his own. Rand's lecture later found its way into one of her essays; her imaginary re-writing of a conversation between Roark and Keating was even funnier in her accent than on the page. The visual art lecture showed up in part in "Metaphysics in Marble," an article Sures wrote in The Objectivist after Branden's departure. Like Barbara Branden, she gave an independent course at NBI in the topic of her guest lecture in the Basic course.

I wonder to what extent there was a specific marketing plan around the idea of featuring topics or speakers in the BPO course which tied to those speakers/topics in full-length courses. I was part of an executive education operation for about 17 years, and we often worked off that model - a hub course which had high volume, and featuring a session or two on each of several topics which had their own courses. So participants could take the hub course, and decide the special topic was of interest - and then sign up for the other course(s) also. Of course, these sessions wouldn't be included in the hub courses unless they are relevant, but the positioning was critical. And the way the speaker was introduced ("Course owner for our new course in YYY"), positioned, etc..

Does anyone know about the NBI strategy in this regard?

Bill P

[Chris Grieb]

Mr. Biggers:

Please understand that I meant no offense in asking about these lectures. I, too, was on the NBI mailing list from 1962 on, and, as you rightly observe, their advertising material didn't mention the guest speakers, at least not Peikoff or Sures; I didn't know about the latter until the tapes started rolling. As Bissell has pointed out, these were taped lectures for national distribution, not stand-ins in a live series, so presumably the lecturers were reading their own words. The local NBI rep told me that the god lecture was Peikoff's adapatation of a college term paper. He was something of a comedian in those days, as Branden was not, and the material is unmistakably his own. Rand's lecture later found its way into one of her essays; her imaginary re-writing of a conversation between Roark and Keating was even funnier in her accent than on the page. The visual art lecture showed up in part in "Metaphysics in Marble," an article Sures wrote in The Objectivist after Branden's departure. Like Barbara Branden, she gave an independent course at NBI in the topic of her guest lecture in the Basic course.

I wonder to what extent there was a specific marketing plan around the idea of featuring topics or speakers in the BPO course which tied to those speakers/topics in full-length courses. I was part of an executive education operation for about 17 years, and we often worked off that model - a hub course which had high volume, and featuring a session or two on each of several topics which had their own courses. So participants could take the hub course, and decide the special topic was of interest - and then sign up for the other course(s) also. Of course, these sessions wouldn't be included in the hub courses unless they are relevant, but the positioning was critical. And the way the speaker was introduced ("Course owner for our new course in YYY"), positioned, etc..

Does anyone know about the NBI strategy in this regard?

Bill P

Bill P; I have been having similar thoughts. By having Peikoff and Sures give lectures in their fields their taped lectures would have greater interest. Apparently NBI did not get Greenspan abroad with this idea.

[Jerry Biggers]

Roger, Chris, Peter, Bill.-

First of all, I am not implying that those who have claimed to remember Peikoff giving "The Concept of God" lecture at one time or another during the existence of NBI were fabricating or making-up the story. I am not questioning anybody's integrity. And there is now too many that claim to have heard Peikoff deliver that lecture at different places and times.

On other hand, there does not seem to be any NBI document or announcement from that time that lists Peikoff in that role. Barbara Branden, who ran NBI and contracted with the lecturers, seems to have categorically denied that Peikoff ever did that lecture (from #61 in "Nathaniel's Lectures on the Basic Principles" thread:

"He definitely did not write this, or any other of the Basic Principles lectures. - Barbara").

Some time ago, when The Objectivist Center first issued BPO on CDs, I corresponded with Russ LaValle, who was on their staff, and apparently supervised the production of the CD set. I had asked him about some of the BPO lectures that were listed on an NBI brochure from 1967 but were not included in the Academic Associates record albums and later TOC CD sets (the same issue mention above in Roger's response) Russ, in turn, queried Nathaniel Branden about this. Branden's reply was that the BPO lectures were periodically revised and updated during the ten years that they were offered through NBI, and that during that time, some lectures and/or lecturers were substituted or revised.

However, since my question to Mr. LaValle did not mention Leonard Peikoff as a BPO lecturer (because I was referencing only lectures listed on the NBI BPO brochure that I had), Dr. Branden's response cannot be construed as verifying or denying Peikoff as a participant.

In regard to the current Basic Principles, whether on CD or now in print in The Vision of Ayn Rand, I see no reason to question that Nathaniel Branden is the author of "The Concept of God" lecture. As I have said above, one need only compare discussions of that issue in Peikoff's CDs and book, with Branden's CDs and (now) book to see that their structure, style, and argumentation are very different.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Roger Bissell]

Roger, Chris, Peter, Bill.-

First of all, I am not implying that those who have claimed to remember Peikoff giving "The Concept of God" lecture at one time or another during the existence of NBI were fabricating or making-up the story. I am not questioning anybody's integrity. And there is now too many that claim to have heard Peikoff deliver that lecture at different places and times.

On other hand, there does not seem to be any NBI document or announcement from that time that lists Peikoff in that role. Barbara Branden, who ran NBI and contracted with the lecturers, seems to have categorically denied that Peikoff ever did that lecture (from #61 in "Nathaniel's Lectures on the Basic Principles" thread:

"He definitely did not write this, or any other of the Basic Principles lectures. - Barbara").

Some time ago, when The Objectivist Center first issued BPO on CDs, I corresponded with Russ LaValle, who was on their staff, and apparently supervised the production of the CD set. I had asked him about some of the BPO lectures that were listed on an NBI brochure from 1967 but were not included in the Academic Associates record albums and later TOC CD sets (the same issue mention above in Roger's response) Russ, in turn, queried Nathaniel Branden about this. Branden's reply was that the BPO lectures were periodically revised and updated during the ten years that they were offered through NBI, and that during that time, some lectures and/or lecturers were substituted or revised.

However, since my question to Mr. LaValle did not mention Leonard Peikoff as a BPO lecturer (because I was referencing only lectures listed on the NBI BPO brochure that I had), Dr. Branden's response cannot be construed as verifying or denying Peikoff as a participant.

In regard to the current Basic Principles, whether on CD or now in print in The Vision of Ayn Rand, I see no reason to question that Nathaniel Branden is the author of "The Concept of God" lecture. As I have said above, one need only compare discussions of that issue in Peikoff's CDs and book, with Branden's CDs and (now) book to see that their structure, style, and argumentation are very different.

Jerry, thanks for your additional comments. Two points:

1. I agree with you: it's clear that the version of Lecture 4 we heard on the Academic Associates LPs and the later cassettes and CDs was written by Nathaniel. The connection between it and the preceding lectures is stylistically seamless. The interpolated material from Leonard's term paper on the origin of the concept of God is just as clearly written in another, distinctly different style.

2. The brochure you sent me does not prove that Leonard did not (at that time) give Lecture 4, any more than it proves that Mary Ann Rukavina did not give Lecture 18 on the visual arts, or that Barbara did not give lecture 5 on efficient thinking. ~None~ of them were mentioned. As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

With that, I retreat once more into my cubicle, where I am doing penance for my shortcomings by redoing the index to Nathaniel's lectures. :-/

REB

[Jerry Biggers]

Roger, Chris, Peter, Bill.-

First of all, I am not implying that those who have claimed to remember Peikoff giving "The Concept of God" lecture at one time or another during the existence of NBI were fabricating or making-up the story. I am not questioning anybody's integrity. And there is now too many that claim to have heard Peikoff deliver that lecture at different places and times.

On other hand, there does not seem to be any NBI document or announcement from that time that lists Peikoff in that role. Barbara Branden, who ran NBI and contracted with the lecturers, seems to have categorically denied that Peikoff ever did that lecture (from #61 in "Nathaniel's Lectures on the Basic Principles" thread:

"He definitely did not write this, or any other of the Basic Principles lectures. - Barbara").

Some time ago, when The Objectivist Center first issued BPO on CDs, I corresponded with Russ LaValle, who was on their staff, and apparently supervised the production of the CD set. I had asked him about some of the BPO lectures that were listed on an NBI brochure from 1967 but were not included in the Academic Associates record albums and later TOC CD sets (the same issue mention above in Roger's response) Russ, in turn, queried Nathaniel Branden about this. Branden's reply was that the BPO lectures were periodically revised and updated during the ten years that they were offered through NBI, and that during that time, some lectures and/or lecturers were substituted or revised.

However, since my question to Mr. LaValle did not mention Leonard Peikoff as a BPO lecturer (because I was referencing only lectures listed on the NBI BPO brochure that I had), Dr. Branden's response cannot be construed as verifying or denying Peikoff as a participant.

In regard to the current Basic Principles, whether on CD or now in print in The Vision of Ayn Rand, I see no reason to question that Nathaniel Branden is the author of "The Concept of God" lecture. As I have said above, one need only compare discussions of that issue in Peikoff's CDs and book, with Branden's CDs and (now) book to see that their structure, style, and argumentation are very different.

Jerry, thanks for your additional comments. Two points:

1. I agree with you: it's clear that the version of Lecture 4 we heard on the Academic Associates LPs and the later cassettes and CDs was written by Nathaniel. The connection between it and the preceding lectures is stylistically seamless. The interpolated material from Leonard's term paper on the origin of the concept of God is just as clearly written in another, distinctly different style.

2. The brochure you sent me does not prove that Leonard did not (at that time) give Lecture 4, any more than it proves that Mary Ann Rukavina did not give Lecture 18 on the visual arts, or that Barbara did not give lecture 5 on efficient thinking. ~None~ of them were mentioned. As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

With that, I retreat once more into my cubicle, where I am doing penance for my shortcomings by redoing the index to Nathaniel's lectures. :-/

REB

I am contemplating sending Leonard a copy of The Vision of Ayn Rand with a note asking him if he would like to:

1) sign his name to the "God" lecture (No, not as a god, but as the lecturer); and

2) Upon reading the BPO book, and thus invoking fond memories of those halcyon days, would he like to offer any corrections to his OPAR? (Citing the proper attributions, of course).

[Chris Grieb]

Roger, Chris, Peter, Bill.-

First of all, I am not implying that those who have claimed to remember Peikoff giving "The Concept of God" lecture at one time or another during the existence of NBI were fabricating or making-up the story. I am not questioning anybody's integrity. And there is now too many that claim to have heard Peikoff deliver that lecture at different places and times.

On other hand, there does not seem to be any NBI document or announcement from that time that lists Peikoff in that role. Barbara Branden, who ran NBI and contracted with the lecturers, seems to have categorically denied that Peikoff ever did that lecture (from #61 in "Nathaniel's Lectures on the Basic Principles" thread:

"He definitely did not write this, or any other of the Basic Principles lectures. - Barbara").

Some time ago, when The Objectivist Center first issued BPO on CDs, I corresponded with Russ LaValle, who was on their staff, and apparently supervised the production of the CD set. I had asked him about some of the BPO lectures that were listed on an NBI brochure from 1967 but were not included in the Academic Associates record albums and later TOC CD sets (the same issue mention above in Roger's response) Russ, in turn, queried Nathaniel Branden about this. Branden's reply was that the BPO lectures were periodically revised and updated during the ten years that they were offered through NBI, and that during that time, some lectures and/or lecturers were substituted or revised.

However, since my question to Mr. LaValle did not mention Leonard Peikoff as a BPO lecturer (because I was referencing only lectures listed on the NBI BPO brochure that I had), Dr. Branden's response cannot be construed as verifying or denying Peikoff as a participant.

In regard to the current Basic Principles, whether on CD or now in print in The Vision of Ayn Rand, I see no reason to question that Nathaniel Branden is the author of "The Concept of God" lecture. As I have said above, one need only compare discussions of that issue in Peikoff's CDs and book, with Branden's CDs and (now) book to see that their structure, style, and argumentation are very different.

Jerry, thanks for your additional comments. Two points:

1. I agree with you: it's clear that the version of Lecture 4 we heard on the Academic Associates LPs and the later cassettes and CDs was written by Nathaniel. The connection between it and the preceding lectures is stylistically seamless. The interpolated material from Leonard's term paper on the origin of the concept of God is just as clearly written in another, distinctly different style.

2. The brochure you sent me does not prove that Leonard did not (at that time) give Lecture 4, any more than it proves that Mary Ann Rukavina did not give Lecture 18 on the visual arts, or that Barbara did not give lecture 5 on efficient thinking. ~None~ of them were mentioned. As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

With that, I retreat once more into my cubicle, where I am doing penance for my shortcomings by redoing the index to Nathaniel's lectures. :-/

REB

I am contemplating sending Leonard a copy of The Vision of Ayn Rand with a note asking him if he would like to:

1) sign his name to the "God" lecture (No, not as a god, but as the lecturer); and

2) Upon reading the BPO book, and thus invoking fond memories of those halcyon days, would he like to offer any corrections to his OPAR? (Citing the proper attributions, of course).

Jerry; Don't hold your breath on getting any response from Peikoff.