Without suggesting that a preference for one group or the other would in any way compromise my own intellectual independence and honesty, some might reasonably wonder which, if either, of the two main Objectivist organizations I am more comfortable with. Am I more “at home” with The Ayn Rand Society (ARI) or The Objectivist Center (TOC—now The Atlas Society/TAS)? Does either of these groups, more than the other, provide an outlet for my work or an encouraging forum for my ideas?

Well, over the past 20 years, I have been more deeply involved with TOC/TAS than with ARI, though with neither of them very closely during the past five years or so. More importantly, I have supported both of them financially and morally in the past, and I buy products from both of them, and I cheer when either of them does good work and boo when they fall noticeably short of what I'd like to see them do.

On the one hand, my wife Becky and I have attended a number of ARI events, and I have participated in several of the discussions, which have appeared in the videos marketed by Second Renaissance. I have studied a number of Peikoff's lecture courses, including Philosophy of Education, Principles of Grammar, DIM Hypothesis, Objectivism through Induction, Induction in Physics and Philosophy, Objectivism the State of the Art, Understanding Objectivism, Integration in Epistemology and Ethics, Judging and Feeling Without Being Moralistic, Writing: a Mini-Course, The Art of Thinking, Introduction to Logic, two series on History of Philosophy, and the 1976 Objectivism lectures. I have transcribed and studied carefully at least half a dozen of these courses. I also have heard several of Harry Binswanger's lecture series, several of Pat Corvini’s lecture series, and assorted lectures by Lisa Van Damm and Stephen Siek. And I have read Peikoff's and Binswanger's works, as well as many essays in the various Objectivist periodicals. I stopped subscribing to The Intellectual Activist in the mid-1990s, but I started up again under Tracinski’s editorship; and I subscribe to The Objective Standard. I’ve also been a contributor to the Ayn Rand Society of the American Philosophical Association and have read numerous of their papers as well as the ARS anthology on meta-ethics. Last but not least, I have read the four volumes of ARI-affiliated essays on Rand’s novels. ARI's work is very important to me, though not without some qualification.

On the other hand, I have attended four TOC Advanced Seminars, a TOC Graduate Seminar, and two joint seminars of The Atlas Society (formerly TOC) and Free Minds, and I have presented on aesthetics, philosophy of mind, music, and politics to four of them. Three of my presentations were later published in expanded form in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, and more of them are slated for future issues. One of them, a revised version of my interpretation of Rand’s aesthetics views, was to have been a monograph for TOC, with commentaries by Michelle Marder Kamhi and John Hospers, but TOC unexpectedly pulled the plug due to funding problems. I have read Kelley's works, including his book on the virtue of benevolence (which I agree with) and a BETA version of his and Will Thomas's Logical Structure of Objectivism, as well as various other lectures by Kelley on epistemology. I also participated in a cyberseminar on propositions during the 1996-97 academic year sponsored by TOC. TOC's work is very important to me, though not without some qualification.

I really couldn't say whether the TOC leaders regard me as an Objectivist, or as some odd sort of fellow-traveler working within “the Objectivist tradition.” I think it's likely the ARI leaders regard me (if they regard me at all) as some sort of "anti-Objectivist," a term that seems to have been pioneered by Diana Hsieh, a recent convert from the Kelley/TOC faction to the Peikoff/ARI group. (I also heard from one friend that Harry Binswanger told her in an email that he thought I was “crazy.” Heh, yup, crazy old Anti-Objectivist Roger Bissell, that’s me!)

But if you want to know where I truly feel at home, it is with people who want to explore ideas and take a chance on questioning their cherished beliefs, as well as with those who believe that it is more likely one will discover truth when one calmly and carefully considers more than one perspective on an issue. For that reason, I truly feel at home—with encouragement and an outlet for my work—with Chris Sciabarra and Bob Campbell at the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. And I say that without qualification.

So, am I a TOC-ist? Am I an ARI-ist? Neither. I'm a critical supporter of each—and an enthusiastic supporter of JARS and the dialectics writings of Chris Sciabarra, as well as the psychology writings of Nathaniel Branden (with some reservations regarding his positions on "anomalous perception" and mind and body as "manifestations of an underlying reality"). Though Chris and Nathaniel have generously sent kudos my way in the past, they have not offered nor have I sought their endorsement of my overall perspective. As I said, I'm an Independent Objectivist. I’m quite happy with that label—curiously, a lot happier than others seem to be that I am using it.

[An earlier version of these comments was posted December 13, 2005 on the SOLO Passion web site.]