TOC 2008 SUMMER SEMINAR SCHEDULE

[Jerry Biggers]

"The principals are good, well-meaning people with enormously high intelligence. I like all of them and have enormous respect for them as intellectuals, as thinkers, as Objectivist writers or speakers.

The basic problem is the gap between the Businessman and the Intellectual. My assessment over a dozen years is that the TAS principals are all -primarily- intellectuals with a great deal of hubris about their knowledge of how to run a complex enterprise" -Phil

I have no doubt about the integrity, knowledge, and the intelligence of the principals at TAS. However, there must be some sort of organizational problem that would explain the slow (or lack of?) growth in membership, declining summer seminar attendance, and similar problems in gaining interest or support in academia. It is difficult to quantify these factors because TAS does not publicize their membership or financial figures.

An exception appears to be The New Individualist, which has greatly improved in size, layout,and editorial content. It appears to be trying to supplant Reason magazine (which, while libertarian, has pretty much abandoned its original Objectivist orientation). In fact, at the Atlas Shrugged 50th Anniversary conference, TNI editor Robert Bidinotto, stated at the start of his presentation, that "TNI is now doing what Reason should have been doing" (paraphrase).

It is hard to argue with TNI's success (- and I am not inclined to), but I feel that there is also a need for a more theoretical journal (along the lines of The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist) that explicitly discusses, expands, and applies Objectivist concepts. To a certain degree, The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies does that, although it is more a journal to critically discuss Objectivist philosophy. Its purpose is not to advocate.

Of course, a theoretical journal is unlikely to garner major public support, but it might create more interest in academia and among college students and the intellectually oriented. And incidentally, wasn't that the original goal of the Institute for Objectivist Studies? Hmm, I wonder what happened to that organization?

Edited April 23, 2008 by Jerry Biggers

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

Your comments about 2006 reminded me of a more recent incident:

At the Atlas Shrugged celebration in Washington, DC, last October, Doug Rasmussen made a special point of mentioning of several academics who are either "neo" or are working in areas next door to Objectivism.

Doug thought it was necessary because David Kelley had apparently employed a Peikovian definition of Objectivism in some earlier remarks to the effect that there were hardly any Objectivists in academia.

Surely there is more to TAS's worldview than Peikovianism minus the intolerance...

Robert Campbell

Robert,

What, exactly, is a neo-Objectivist? Is that a non-ARIan? A non-TASian? I gather that Rasmussen meant that term to apply to him, and others who agree with most of the general outline of Objectivism, but might not agree with every point or application made by Ayn Rand. (Of course, if she was a deity and therefore perfect, we would have to be be ARIans, and not "neos." But some of us don't worship at that altar.)

I do not see where Tibor Machan, for example, has strayed from the Objectivist philosophy, although he may apply it differently in his analysis of political and economic issues(e.g., talking to libertarians and conservatives, etc.). Maybe I have not been paying close enough attention?

If the TAS worldview is actually sort of a "closeted" Peikovianism (arrghh!), then why are they fraternizing with "deviationists" such as Machan, Rasmussen, Den Uyl, Eric Mack, Seddon, Campbell, etc? ;)

- Jerry

Edited April 22, 2008 by Jerry Biggers

[Greybird]

Surely there is more to TAS's worldview than Peikovianism minus the intolerance ...

The latter equation results in, eh, approximately zero, so having anything "more" wouldn't be too difficult.

I'd suggest that it's not fruitful to see "TAS's worldview," whatever that might be, as equivalent to "Kelley's worldview." If nothing else, TAS is reasonably heterodox, unlike ARI.

It can put up both with Kelley and Thomas building up analysis of logical structures, and Bidinotto tearing down men of integrity with smear-graphics on magazine covers ... well, I didn't say that being heterodox was necessarily a good thing, now, did I? {rueful smile}

Edited April 22, 2008 by Greybird

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry,

Sorry to be confusing--it was Will Thomas who called Tibor Machan a neo-Objectivist. I don't believe that Tibor calls himself that. Doug Rasmussen doesn't use the O-word at all, and hasn't for a couple of decades, even with a modifier in front.

Although TAS invites all kinds of deviationists to speak--including me, on occasion--the house conception of honest-to-Rand Objectivism remains quite orthodox. It's Peikovian in the sense that it includes the "premoral choice to live," "survivalism" instead of "flourishing," the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion (in some form), distrust of the method of hypothesis, maintaining that today's Aristotelians all believe in the "golden mean," etc.

In his 2006 talk on Objectivist sectarianism, Will Thomas said that the Peikoff Institute offers more rigorous education "in Objectivism" than TAS does. Well, the OAC does offer a pretty rigorous treatment of Peikovianism. I doubt that any other interpretations need apply over there.

Similarly, when the TAS Graduate Seminar met last summer to discuss moral knowledge, Tara Smith's latest book was on the reading list. And her work is Peikovian in all but the tiniest details.

According to the TAS house definition, Tibor is far enough off the Peikovian line on some epistemological issues to merit the neo prefix.

Greybird,

I was being purposely provocative in speaking of Peikovianism minus the intolerance.

But Peikovianism has plenty of technical content; it is not just a fusillade of rhetoric. And "Fact and Value" actually departs from some of Leonard Peikoff's own epistemological formulations.

Robert Campbell

[Greybird]

[...] Peikovianism has plenty of technical content; it is not just a fusillade of rhetoric.

I've yet to see any topic where Peikoff et filii make a substantive achievement that isn't a half-borrowed exposition of, a relatively unsupported riff upon, or a misformed restatement of, one of Rand's insights. I certainly didn't see one in Parallels or OPAR. Nor have I in any of the orthodox hangers-on, from Binswanger to Schwartz to Locke.

(I admit that I don't have the depth of understanding of physics to fully evaluate Lewis Little, nor his proselytizer, the late Stephen Speicher. And that I haven't read Tara Smith. If they've struck their own genuine chords, beyond borrowing them from Peikoff, I'd like to know what they are.)

And "Fact and Value" actually departs from some of Leonard Peikoff's own epistemological formulations.

Why limit this assessment? It fails on grounds of ethical shallowness, strategic blunders, tactical imbicility, and lack of simple courtesy, as well.

Since Peikoff can't hew to keeping his own arguments straight — under the weight of his imitation of Moses' fulminations — in that pivotal essay, I'd say that my assessment of "zero" remains justified.

To me, the late, great Chuck Heston showed more power, clarity, and personal flair, in one semi-hammed-up declamation before Pharaoh, than is present in the whole of Peikoff's written work.

[Newberry]

Gosh, you guys.

I am happy to lecture at TAS, and I kind of hope I won't be seen as speaking for anyone or any movement other than persuading people about values in the visual arts, thereby enriching their lives.

Cheers,

Michael

[Newberry]

BTW, for the articles I am writing for TNI, so far, I have complete freedom to choose the content and how I present it. The only editing for the magazine has been grammatical. A life-long theme of mine is to learn from the past and innovate into the future, and I hope I communicate that in my art column.

I have had little trouble in getting my proposals accepted at TAS. Perhaps there aren't many art intellectuals in the objectivist world? ;) But I think it is more that my proposals have been founded from the artist outwards. For example I have lectured on Kant's aesthetics, but not from a philosopher's angle. Rather from the visual artist's angle, demonstrating how many of Kant's aesthetic ideas translate into visual art/postmodern art. (I don't attempt to discuss my views as a professional on literature, music (the exception being a few online rants about Mario Lanza ;)), or architecture.) For those of you who don't know me I began selling my work at 17, supplemented income with tennis gigs, taught part-time for a few years at a great art institution, and for the rest lived off sales of my work--this qualifies me reasonably well in the art field.

I would think that Roger B. would be warmly received if his proposals were musical based, I know I would be front and center for those presentations.

Edited April 22, 2008 by Newberry

[Jonathan]

A life-long theme of mine is to learn from the past and innovate into the future, and I hope I communicate that in my art column.

I've always been a little confused about your recurring use of the work "innovate" in regard to your art. Would you mind giving some examples of art techniques or concepts which you've actually introduced as something new? Here's the problem: Any time that I've seen you write about your innovations, you seem to be referring to techniques or concepts that you've used or have begun experimenting with, but, from what I've seen, they're always things that have been used by artists for centuries. Have I been misunderstanding you and what you think are your innovations?

J

[Chris Grieb]

Michael N.; This is perhaps not the place but I enjoyed your article about the artist Jeff Larson in the latest TNI.

I continue to impressed by TNI. Don't remind me of the Ron Paul issue.

Edited April 22, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Philip Coates]

*Execution is the problem*

> My assessment over a dozen years is that the TAS principals are all -primarily- intellectuals with a great deal of hubris about their knowledge of how to run a complex enterprise. Unlike, say, a Yaron Brook, they didn't spend ten years in business, learning how to get the nuts and bolts of running an organization right. Nor do they fully grasp the crucial importance of focusing on the nuts and bolts before one focuses on the next speech or op ed or magazine article.

I'd like to amend my remarks above:

The 'hubris' part was perhaps hasty or over-stated. It is partly inference, partly personal contact. And it does vary with the individual. For example, I know Ed H. well and he doesn't show signs of hubris or unwillingness to listen and learn or of being a know-it-all. And with some of the other principlas, I don't really have enough of a sampling or enough contact to be as certain as my statement claimed. So I don't want to psychologize or paint with too broad a brush.

I just watched George Schultz on Charlie Rose being asked as a former top official in the Nixon and Reagan administrations what he thought of the Bush Administration. He said they had many good ideas but the problem (with Katrina, with Iraq, with Social Security, with various domestic plans and projects) was in *execution* (carrying out or administering or implementing the ideas properly, systematically, effectively.)

It instantly occurred to me that this was even better as a good one-word statement of where TAS has shortcomings than it is as a summary of the failures or mistakes of the Bush Administration:

The idea to conduct summer conferences, to publish a book on the Logical Structure of Objectivism, to develop graduate students and a new generation, to expand, to grow financially are all sound. But, for whatever combination of reasons, be it hubris, be it lack of business experience, they haven't executed a number of these plans very well.

[Newberry]

Phil,

That was a really good post.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

I have had little trouble in getting my proposals accepted at TAS. Perhaps there aren't many art intellectuals in the objectivist world? ;) But I think it is more that my proposals have been founded from the artist outwards. [...] I would think that Roger B. would be warmly received if his proposals were musical based, I know I would be front and center for those presentations.

Is that so! Harumph.

Among my proposals for the 2006 Summer Seminar in Orange, California were a music performance-lecture session and a music philosophy session. The former was accepted (though poorly recorded). The latter was rejected. Here is the proposal for that session (which I ended up presenting as a Participant Sponsored Session to a small, but quality, group of folks):

Brief Description of

Emotion in Melody – How to Recognize It

By Roger Bissell

This presentation, consisting of lecture and musical examples, identifies the emotional connotations of the two primary dimensions of melody (tonality and melodic motion) and how they interact to produce four basic melodic types, each with a distinctive emotional meaning. Numerous examples include melodies that incorporate more than one melodic type for emotional variety and drama and melodies that have multiple levels of emotional meaning. Special attention will be given to the emotional content of the melodies of Ayn Rand’s “tiddlywink” music as well as that of some of her classical favorites.

Outline:

1. definitions (music, melody, emotion)

2. emotion embodied in art—actions of dramatic characters, melody as metaphor to dramatic action of characters (quasi-gesture etc.)

3. Cooke’s Hypothesis: major=optimism/happiness, minor=pessimism/unhappiness, upward melodic motion=striving, downward melodic motion=“acceptance”

4. 4 melodic types in re major/minor and up/down, examples from Am. popular songs and classical music themes (esp. sonata movement themes).

5. layers of melodic types—shorter-length vs. longer-length

6. 8 two-layer melodic types, examples from Am. popular songs and classical music.

7. a look at Rand’s tiddly-wink music

Doesn't this sound like a lecture you would have liked to attend? Perhaps, Michael, you -- or anyone else reading this -- would like to speculate as to why this "musical based" proposal was not "warmly received" by the program chairman (or committee?)....

Would you suppose the reasons to be any different than those according to which my tetrachotomy proposal was rejected for the 2008 Summer Seminar? (I don't have a Ph.D. -- I don't have a university position -- I haven't published on this subject -- It smacks of "rationalism" --It's controversial and doesn't present a canonically Objectivist view.)

To put it simply (hopefully, not over-simply) -- they welcome me playing the trombone and singing, but they would rather I didn't do philosophy. My musical performance provides them with artistic program filler. On the other hand, my philosophical ideas (including those about music)...well, you fill in the blanks (cribbing from the preceding paragraph as necessary).

When I consider that they would entertain, even for a week or two, someone like Leslie Perigo lecturing on why people who don't like Musical Romanticism are "idiots," and not accept the idea of my lecturing on the melodic-harmonic basis of emotion in music, I feel inexorably drawn to the conclusion that they are hopeless.

Thank God I have the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies as an outlet for my ideas. My second major essay employing tetrachotomies and a new perspective on the "objective" -- this time to the understanding of the mind-body problem -- is in the editorial stages for publication in the Spring 2008 issue, and a third essay is being developed on Rand's epistemology for Spring 2009.

So nya-nya-nya-boo-boo to some, and best wishes to others. (You know who you are!)

REB

[Wolf DeVoon]

The idea to conduct summer conferences, to publish a book on the Logical Structure of Objectivism, to develop graduate students and a new generation, to expand, to grow financially are all sound. But, for whatever combination of reasons, be it hubris, be it lack of business experience, they haven't executed a number of these plans very well.

Hey, all fixed up real good. They hired a career bureaucrat. All mo better now, pretty soon you betcha.

[jordanz]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. The schedule this year looks outstanding. I bought my tix last week.

[Chris Grieb]

Jordan; I look forward to seeing you and Rita in Portland.

[Jerry Biggers]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. The schedule this year looks outstanding. I bought my tix last week.

Umm, well, let's see. Try this:

1. Please go to the Atlas Society website. Kindly review their listings of the topics and the speakers at the previous Summer Seminars (I believe they list a number of them in detail). In particular, review the listings and speakers for 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, and any earlier seminars.

2. Now, compare past seminars to the agenda for this summer's seminar. What has changed? Who is now missing? And Why? Also, why has attendance been steadily declining?

3. Then, review the postings in this section to get a good sense of what other Objectivists have said about this (and previous) Summer Seminars. For that matter, check out all the posts in the TAS section, many of which bear upon the same issues.

That should show you some of the reasons for discontent, and for concern about TAS direction.

But, perhaps you are not convinced. Repeat Steps 1 - 3, above.

Then, please explain why the 2008 Summer Seminar is equivalent to past seminars. And while you are doing that, please give YOUR answers to the questions in number 2, above.

[Newberry]

Among my proposals for the 2006 Summer Seminar in Orange, California were a music performance-lecture session and a music philosophy session. The former was accepted (though poorly recorded). The latter was rejected. Here is the proposal for that session (which I ended up presenting as a Participant Sponsored Session to a small, but quality, group of folks):

Brief Description of

Emotion in Melody – How to Recognize It

By Roger Bissell

This presentation, consisting of lecture and musical examples, identifies the emotional connotations of the two primary dimensions of melody (tonality and melodic motion) and how they interact to produce four basic melodic types, each with a distinctive emotional meaning. Numerous examples include melodies that incorporate more than one melodic type for emotional variety and drama and melodies that have multiple levels of emotional meaning. Special attention will be given to the emotional content of the melodies of Ayn Rand’s “tiddlywink” music as well as that of some of her classical favorites.

Outline:

1. definitions (music, melody, emotion)

2. emotion embodied in art—actions of dramatic characters, melody as metaphor to dramatic action of characters (quasi-gesture etc.)

3. Cooke’s Hypothesis: major=optimism/happiness, minor=pessimism/unhappiness, upward melodic motion=striving, downward melodic motion=“acceptance”

4. 4 melodic types in re major/minor and up/down, examples from Am. popular songs and classical music themes (esp. sonata movement themes).

5. layers of melodic types—shorter-length vs. longer-length

6. 8 two-layer melodic types, examples from Am. popular songs and classical music.

7. a look at Rand’s tiddly-wink music

Doesn't this sound like a lecture you would have liked to attend? Perhaps, Michael, you -- or anyone else reading this -- would like to speculate as to why this "musical based" proposal was not "warmly received" by the program chairman (or committee?)....

REB

Roger,

Wow. That sounds like an awesome talk! I would have been first in line to see and hear it. Also, I think it would have added immeasurably to my personal musical experience. I would guess for others as well.

Though I couldn't speculate on the context of the rejection, I have never discussed the programming with TAS decision makers--though, some years ago, I once offered David Kelley that I and others in arts could offer advice on the aesthetics program. I thought it a good idea, for example, to have Susan McClosky cultivate speakers for a literature program. Maybe this is something to bring up again this year?

Michael

[jordanz]

*snip*

But, perhaps you are not convinced. Repeat Steps 1 - 3, above.

Then, please explain why the 2008 Summer Seminar is equivalent to past seminars. And while you are doing that, please give YOUR answers to the questions in number 2, above.

I've gone every year since 2000. If you don't like the program, don't go. I think it looks great and am looking forward to it. I also renewed my Sponsorship of TAS.

[Jerry Biggers]

*snip*

But, perhaps you are not convinced. Repeat Steps 1 - 3, above.

Then, please explain why the 2008 Summer Seminar is equivalent to past seminars. And while you are doing that, please give YOUR answers to the questions in number 2, above.

I've gone every year since 2000. If you don't like the program, don't go. I think it looks great and am looking forward to it. I also renewed my Sponsorship of TAS.

You apparently prefer to not answer my questions, or respond to postings of many others on TAS issues.

Anyway, as I originally said, (paraphrasing Fox News) "We present the facts, YOU decide." If you like the program agenda, then by all means, go. Enjoy. Hopefully, there will be many attendees. Please let us know how many showed up (not counting the staff and faculty, of course). Also, what your own opinion is of its quality, after it has ended.

By the way, I did not (nor have others) disparage the faculty selection. What I did say, was that some prominent and well-known Objectivists who presented at previous seminars, were not included. And, perhaps not coincidentally, this has resulted in the exclusion from discussion of some current key issues of contention in Objectivism and the movement.

To each, his own. "Some prefer MacDonalds burgers. Others prefer Lawry's Prime Rib." Whatever.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Jerry Biggers

[Chris Grieb]

Jerry; I'm with Jordan on the Summer Seminar.

I think there way the glitch with regard to Lindsay was handled but I looking forward to many of the talks and I am planning two PSS's.

Watch this space.

[jordanz]

You apparently prefer to not answer my questions, or respond to postings of many others on TAS issues.

* snip *

By the way, I did not (nor have others) disparage the faculty selection. What I did say, was that some prominent and well-known Objectivists who presented at previous seminars, were not included.

You see bogeymen where I don't. I don't think that there is anything dark about who was/wasn't included in the seminar.

[Jerry Biggers]

You apparently prefer to not answer my questions, or respond to postings of many others on TAS issues.

* snip *

By the way, I did not (nor have others) disparage the faculty selection. What I did say, was that some prominent and well-known Objectivists who presented at previous seminars, were not included.

You see bogeymen where I don't. I don't think that there is anything dark about who was/wasn't included in the seminar.

Bogeymen?? "Boogie," maybe, but probably not until at the closing banquet dance. The other type of bogeymen will have to wait for the Democrat/Republican party conventions.

I didn't say anything "dark" occured during the selection of presenters. I am sure that Wil Thomas assembled what he thought was the best roster. However, I still maintain that some prominent Objectivists from past conferences were left out this time and that sufficient issues have been raised by other posts about the selection process, and that these issues cannot just be brushed-off.

We cannot resolve this issue here (and anyway, you don't see that there is an issue). So, enjoy the conference. Perhaps, after it is over, you can share with those of us who cannot attend, your estimate of how the week went.

[Chris Grieb]

I will share my thoughts and views on the Summer Seminar while it is going on.

I will ask Will Thomas about the selection process of lecturers.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Chris Grieb