Off to Vegas for Free Minds 09 & Freedom Fest

[Dragonfly]

Have you considered creating a blog, where you could publish it yourself ad get responses from people interested in the issues? If you're right, word would quickly spread and you'd have the audience you should have.

Why do I have the feeling that this will never happen?

[DavidMcK]

Was the topic you were writing or lecturing on (preparatory to your work on induction) causality? This is basically metaphysical with aspects of epistemology.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I've had a different experience than Phil with David Kelley, but I've had a different problem. Finding time for philosophy between work, marriage and long discussions with my brother about Objectivism and science related topics. I once asked Ed Hudgins about whether they would be interested in some of my takes on neuroscience related topics (definitely as an amateur and not a professional)and when I saw the hoops you had to run through to set the stage for a conference presentation, I simply concluded I'd choose a different venue. I gave my neuroscience and On Intelligence book review talk at AZ Objectivists. I got an attendance of 30 pretty knowledgable people and helpful comments so my future presentations will be with them. The other thing is they make room for longer presentations so it's easier to really address a topic.

I've found several of the Summer Seminars extremely important for my intellectual development, but I've never worried about attention from David Kelley. I think he's one of the nicest, most engaging people you'll ever meet, but I just have more intellectual intersection with other people over the years like Ken Livingston, Jay Friedenberg, Marty Lewinter, Lyman Hazelton and Walter Donway over the years.

David Kelley actually encouraged me to attend an Advanced Seminar review session in 2005 for Jason Walker's paper on Reductionism and has been nothing but encouraging generally. Same with Will Thomas. I'm acutely aware of how busy I generally am and usually don't have a lot of time to spend with people and expect others to be the same way.

I think TAS simply doesn't stay with a coordinated topic long enough to generate momentum. They are very good at hosting stimulating and provocative idea generating topics for which I've been extremely grateful, but they seem to fall down on followup and capitalizing on opportunities. I think one of the solutions to that is to try to find "viral" activities and people interactions that are self-sustaining.

One thing I would recommend to TAS is to keep tackling interdisciplinary topics which are best-suited to their colloquium style. Cognitive Science, Complexity Theory, Philosophy of Law etc.

One recommendation I'd make for the future is to host a neuroeconomics colloquium from an Objectivist perspective and invite Michael Shermer to talk about topics from his Mind of the Market book, invite people with an Austrian perspective like Mario Rizzo or others and try to get a big-time academic in decision theory like Colin Camerer to attend.

Also, find a way to encourage people long term. Phil's experience is not unique and I'm saddened to hear about it.

Jim

[Philip Coates]

Thanks everyone. ---> After I've had breakfast and maybe a short jog to wake my mind up (it's hot and humid in Florida even at 10 am) I will try to wrap this long personal history up in Part 4. And then address what I plan to do (including responding to the suggestions of Barbara, James, and Robert. And addressing where I think Peikoff and Kelley are coming from with regard to what I've experienced. . .

[Hopefully my analysis will be helpful to those others who have struggled / are struggling to break through, gain a hearing, make an impact.]

[Philip Coates]

> Was the topic you were writing or lecturing on (preparatory to your work on induction) causality? This is basically metaphysical with aspects of epistemology. [David Mc K]

YES!!! It was causality! (more coming...)

[Robert Campbell]

A couple more issues left over from Phil's post #25:

<>2. [Rasmussen] [she] was incomplete regarding many things. Here is a list of some:

[…]

•Establishing the exact character of rights

==> What a bizarre and foolish criticism!! That's -exactly- what one of her main contributions is. A clear definition. Better than many previous thinkers. An explanation of how rights arrive. A defense of rights as inalienable. A listing of what rights there are. A rebuttal of 'rights inflation'. A discussion of how they are applied and should exist in today's world. A connection between ethics and politics.

What do you suppose the point of Liberty and Nature was? Or of Norms of Liberty?

If Ayn Rand had done the entire job of accounting for rights, there'd have been no need for any of this work by others.

•A serious attempt to note her intellectual and philosophic sources

==> She and other Objectivists refer back to the -major- systems - Plato, Aristotle, Kant, skepticism in its various forms. They occasionally discuss other philosophies, such as pragmatism, existentialism, logical positivism in order to indicate where they go astray. It's not clear that Rand feels she learned from these people and from other philosophers besides Aristotle (also, John Locke). If you have a -specific- debt to a thinker she did not acknowledge, that would be worth pointing out. Again, you have to be SPECIFIC not vague and floating.

Ayn Rand's debts to Aristotle alone have been examined in detail by Doug Den Uyl and Doug Rasmussen (in their 1984 book, particularly), Chris Sciabarra, Roderick Long, and others. There is much more to them than she acknowledged in her own writings.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

You? Rasmussen? are falling into the trap of those who don't want Objectivism taken seriously. Find something Rand didn't cover and trumpet it. Use it as a reason for not having to seriously study Objectivism. "Oh well, she wasn't a serious philosopher. There are huge holes in her ideas. Sloppy."

Since the intellectual, elite (and university) culture is overwhelmingly hostile to Rand's ideas, they would *love* to have an excuse to not have to read her in depth:

"See...even her supporters, even those who are specialists in her ideas say she's flawed. Seems to be the Sarah Palin of philosophy."

Phil,

You're assuming that from the standpoint of academic philosophy, incompleteness is a "flaw"—if not grounds for instant dismissal of a thinker or system.

Quite the contrary is true. None of the philosophers currently enjoying good standing in academia could be said to have offered complete philosophical systems. Many have (or have had) a far narrower focus than Ayn Rand did. Think, for instance, of John Rawls or Daniel Dennett or Willard van Orman Quine.

What most philosophers who are well-regarded in academia have provided is detailed explications for the views they advance, and detailed arguments for them.

Saying that Objectivism is incomplete isn't going to deter any academic from taking it seriously.

What will deter the academics is a sense that key arguments are missing, or inadequately explicated. Especially if they see Randians consistently unwilling to specify what Ms. Rand never got around to spelling out.

I'm not saying you personally are not working on this, but the emphasis of those who want to advance truth (and Oism is largely 'truth' in this regard) should be to explain, concretize, defend the truth (Oism) in those areas where it's clear.

Build on it. Expand it.

Read up on what has been done in grammar on propositions and then build on that. I did this years ago in regard to induction and if I ever publish it, people can tell me if there are flaws and if not I would expect them to build on. If Peikoff ends up doing good work in this area, critics should point that out and then shore it up, build on it, concretize it, etc.

With all due respect, if Leonard Peikoff were going to do good work in this area, wouldn't he have done it by now? The focus on Mill's methods and causality that you recall as part of his teaching was already in place in his lectures on logic, in 1974. As was an interest in hypothesis-testing that seems to have faded since then.

In fact, Leonard Peikoff is going to be 76 this year, he is semi-retired, and he handed off his induction project several years ago to David Harriman (who, to give him his due, has completed several chapters). Judging from both Dr. Peikoff and Mr. Harriman's past work, the completed project will be significantly compromised by their shared antipathy to the physics of the last century.

If you want it done right, you'll have to do it yourself

The number of things which there are to criticize in Oism are hugely less than the areas where there are things to build on. This little 'practical wisdom' thing is an example. The technical meaning to the Greeks is not important if one is not doing a study of the Greeks but of Oism, if it possible to discuss the topic in simple and current English, and if one simply wants to point out that Rand + Peikoff + Branden + Locke (his work on goal-setting) the Oist Psychotherapists (Edith Packer and others) said use reason and observation to acquire practical knowledge on which to choose specific values and goals and as concrete context for the Oist virtues.

This has been done by R+P+B+L+PH: Countless examples, issues, contexts!! (The mistake of course, is leaving this heavily in the 'oral tradition'.)

It would be a mistake to simply say, well, Rand didn't cover it all in her essays so there is a 'hole' there. When you talk about major gaps in Oism, Mr. Rasmussen, perhaps yourself, and others better have extensive knowledge of perhaps a dozen contributors coming up with applications, elaborations, insights over a fifty year period.

Notice your assumption that all of the significant contributions come from self-declared Objectivists, all of them "inside the fold" at one time or another (though Nathaniel Branden was expelled early on, and Edith Packer was booted much later on, after she and Edwin Locke became the replacements for Dr. Branden and Allan Blumenthal).

What makes you think that Doug Den Uyl (author of The Virtue of Prudence) is any less a contributor?

What makes you think that Doug Rasmussen is any less of one? Or, for that matter, that I'm any less of one?

You're insisting that those who have never been "inside the fold" must respond to the work of those who have been, but not the other way around.

Once Ayn Rand laid down her body of work, anyone who takes the ideas seriously has been in a position to explore their implications and add value.

This was already true during Ayn Rand's lifetime. Even then, her personal vetting of someone's work was not proof of quality. She vetted both Nathaniel Branden's statements about arbitrary assertions, and Leonard Peikoff's. Dr. Peikoff's were not an improvement over Dr. Branden's.

And since 1982, she hasn't been able to vet anyone's work.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

Robert, you raise many points worth responding to, but I have to finish the track I'm posting on right now. :-)

[Philip Coates]

Part 4.

Continuing from this point: "Should I have offered my theory of induction? I tested this by offering a preparatory topic...a heavily philosophical and theoretical topic where I had original and important insights. And on which my talk on induction would build...If this was accepted...then perhaps I was wrong about...'credentialitis' and I would the year after offer my theory of induction." ==>

My topic -- and I proposed it for -both- the summer seminar and the more 'scholarly' advanced seminar -- was causality. A taxonomy or classification of all the types of cause and effect relationships which exist in the universe. In physical reality, in biology, in the mind. In every discipline. It was turned down flat. With no 'encouragement'. Neither a claim that it either was basically invalid or that I should improve it in any specific way and resubmit it.

( A taxonomy of causal forms is important for many reasons. It lies at the base of many sciences. Not just because inductive generalizations rest heavily on identifying cause and effect relationships in reality - although that is reason enough to give it a hearing. It's also an original topic, not the nth rehash of the same perennial topic youi see at summer conferences and in Oist discussions. And, at least at the advanced seminar, one of the purposes is for people to present ideas they are working on and subject them to constructive comment, critiques, etc.)

What I learned at IOS/TOC/TAS is that -- if you read between the nuanced lines of repeated turn downs, and no encouragment --- there was NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in giving a hearing, in really exploring even on the surface whether I had anything valuable to offer on a 'heavy' philosophical or theoretical topic. A fundamental topic in philsophy or in Objectivism. (Topics outside of philosophy like my talk on ancient Greece or Heros, yes. Applications yes, on the back bench. Theory, no.) Absolutely no interest in whether I could be developed into a major asset. They would **never** admit this, because it goes against the whole "openness" thing, but actions speak loudest and clearly all of the heavy lifting is reserved for the "big boys", the professionals, not for amateurs. Hubris. They probably think they can do it infinitely better ... when and if they ever get around to it. Kelley might address it, or Will Thomas or Stephen Hicks. Academics or Ph.D.s. Or, at the Advanced Seminar, a graduate student or promising undergraduate philosophy major who seems bright or has interned at TAS might do some preliminary exploration or feel around the edges.

Not 'independent scholars'. No matter how thoroughly they understand Objectivism. Or at least not me. . .

. . . Okay that 's enough. Having given my thumbnail "four part personal history" as background, I'll return to the original question of why I sat on a theory of induction for decades.

And whether I'll continue to do so.

[Philip Coates]

I also find it interesting that Barbara Branden was invited to give a 'movement' talk on Objectivist Rage but has not given/ been encouraged to give? a talk on Efficient Thinking - a more 'heavy' or at least philosophical / epistemological topic about which she gave an entire, well-received course at NBI. Maybe "excerpts from a forthcoming book on thinking" or some such title.

Many people apparently thought it was if not the best, at least the most personally useful course at NBI

I hope I'm not inaccurate in the above case, but I have repeatedly noticed the 'heavy topics' being reserved for the academic clique.

Being shelled by an RPG once is coincidence. Five or ten times is enemy action.

So maybe I should feel better...except for the dents in my helmet.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I also find it interesting that Barbara Branden was invited to give a 'movement' talk on Objectivist Rage but has not given/ been encouraged to give? a talk on Efficient Thinking - a more 'heavy' or at least philosophical / epistemological topic about which she gave an entire, well-received course at NBI. Maybe "excerpts from a forthcoming book on thinking" or some such title.

Many people apparently thought it was if not the best, at least the most personally useful course at NBI

I hope I'm not inaccurate in the above case, but I have repeatedly noticed the 'heavy topics' being reserved for the academic clique.

Being shelled by an RPG once is coincidence. Five or ten times is enemy action.

So maybe I should feel better...except for the dents in my helmet.

Phil,

I agree with you that TAS gets academic disease about heavy topics. Both ARI and TAS have a top-down model for the movement instead of an open source

model. But the open source model has its problems, too. Just look at the internet :-). One of the problems with the academic establishment is that they are insulated from market pressure to perform. One of the best mechanisms for dealing with this is participant reviews. If an academic gives a boring useless lecture, they should be subject to bad reviews.

One of the biggest metrics for selecting professors at Harvey Mudd was student reviews. The faculty were a notoriously terrible judge of both teaching ability and scholarliness of applicants. You didn't want a boring academic windbag. You wanted a dynamic person who cross-fertilized between industry and academia and tested their theories in reality. The other thing Harvey Mudd had was a very activist biology professor who discreetly went around encouraging past their prime professors to go emeritus.

If you look at really top-tier universities like MIT, Carnegie Mellon, UCSD and University of Washington, they are quickly dumping the academic only label and emphasizing innovation.

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

As a followup to my previous post, most big corporations have something approaching academic sclerosis. Too bad our government saw fit to bail out a bunch of the dinosaurs. Market panics should be a good mechanism for clearing out the dead wood. Now we have a full financial establishment insulated from their mistakes as well.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

I second the idea of you writing for JARS.

Also, here is a public invitation to you I have not discussed with anyone. I'm willing to take a bet on you from the hints and glimpses I have seen. I am curious to see what grows.

(The last time I did something like this, I regretted it and had to clean up a huge mess. But I am stubborn and I sense value in you and my hardhead itch needs scratching real bad right now.)

Barbara had a good idea about you making a blog, but I understand the intimidating reality of creating an audience from scratch, especially if you are not in the business of doing that. But I have one. A great many people in your target audience read OL and post comments.

Kat and I have a small place here on OL called "Corners of Further Insight" that has the writings of a series of authors, including Roger and Robert. I'm willing to open a "Phil Coates Corner" if you are interested.

The idea would be to have a place where you could present your ideas and test them out with people in your universe without having to chase an audience. By being online and on a regularly read forum with a small but select audience, it would be easy to search and promote.

This is not to replace a formal thing like publication (in JARS hint hint) or presentations in seminars or stuff like that. It is more rough than that, more geared towards working out specific facets of theories—with the input of peer interaction—than making polished presentations (although sometimes this happens). A space like that is made to sum together with other forces, not be the whole shebang. My own interest is to get you going—to give you a point of reference you can fall back on and point to.

Let me know what you think. If you don't want that, no hard feelings and I won't mention it again (especially not as a jab if we bicker). If you do, it's yours. At this stage of OL, there is no money involved on either side. (I have some ideas for later, but they are still in the planning stage.)

btw - This would never mean you would have to agree with me or even like me. Nor the contrary. I just want to see you producing.

Michael

[Newberry]

Phil, go for it.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Newberry

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

What I learned at IOS/TOC/TAS is that -- if you read between the nuanced lines of repeated turn downs, and no encouragment --- there was NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in giving a hearing, in really exploring even on the surface whether I had anything valuable to offer on a 'heavy' philosophical or theoretical topic. A fundamental topic in philsophy or in Objectivism. (Topics outside of philosophy like my talk on ancient Greece or Heros, yes. Applications yes, on the back bench. Theory, no.)

Not giving you a shot at talking about varieties of causality? That was a really poor decision...

And you've been offering to give such a talk for how many years?

Absolutely no interest in whether I could be developed into a major asset. They would **never** admit this, because it goes against the whole "openness" thing, but actions speak loudest and clearly all of the heavy lifting is reserved for the "big boys", the professionals, not for amateurs. Hubris. They probably think they can do it infinitely better ... when and if they ever get around to it. Kelley might address it, or Will Thomas or Stephen Hicks. Academics or Ph.D.s. Or, at the Advanced Seminar, a graduate student or promising undergraduate philosophy major who seems bright or has interned at TAS might do some preliminary exploration or feel around the edges.

Not 'independent scholars'. No matter how thoroughly they understand Objectivism. Or at least not me. . .

Yes, it is hubris.

And not just because of the implied (or not-so-implied) negative judgment of independent scholars.

Though you really should compare notes with Roger Bissell. His work on music took around 30 years to get published in a journal (it was JARS, I shall shamelessly add). He never did get a slot on the IOS/TOC/TAS program to talk about music, the way he was able to at the Free Minds event just concluded. And his work on logic probably took even longer than his work on music (again, it first came out in JARS—and Will Thomas still wouldn't invite Roger to give a talk on the subject when he had two articles in press).

Many of the topics deemed "academic" seem to have been reserved for David Kelley, Will Thomas, Stephen Hicks, and perhaps a designee or two—even though all of those folks have finite time and multiple responsibilities. They've had some excellent grad students go through their system (Alex Cohen and Jason Walker, at present) but the numbers have always been tiny, and the attrition rates high. Some of their grad students have washed out entirely. Others have decided that their academic careers would move faster and get farther without the "Rand" label, or have calculated that the Ayn Rand Institute would offer them greater prospects of employment.

The model whereby David Kelley and Will Thomas teach advanced Objectivism to those few who are deemed ready to receive this teaching is not viable.

Robert Campbell

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Phil,

What I learned at IOS/TOC/TAS is that -- if you read between the nuanced lines of repeated turn downs, and no encouragment --- there was NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in giving a hearing, in really exploring even on the surface whether I had anything valuable to offer on a 'heavy' philosophical or theoretical topic. A fundamental topic in philsophy or in Objectivism. (Topics outside of philosophy like my talk on ancient Greece or Heros, yes. Applications yes, on the back bench. Theory, no.)

Not giving you a shot at talking about varieties of causality? That was a really poor decision...

And you've been offering to give such a talk for how many years?

Absolutely no interest in whether I could be developed into a major asset. They would **never** admit this, because it goes against the whole "openness" thing, but actions speak loudest and clearly all of the heavy lifting is reserved for the "big boys", the professionals, not for amateurs. Hubris. They probably think they can do it infinitely better ... when and if they ever get around to it. Kelley might address it, or Will Thomas or Stephen Hicks. Academics or Ph.D.s. Or, at the Advanced Seminar, a graduate student or promising undergraduate philosophy major who seems bright or has interned at TAS might do some preliminary exploration or feel around the edges.

Not 'independent scholars'. No matter how thoroughly they understand Objectivism. Or at least not me. . .

Yes, it is hubris.

And not just because of the implied (or not-so-implied) negative judgment of independent scholars.

Though you really should compare notes with Roger Bissell. His work on music took around 30 years to get published in a journal (it was JARS, I shall shamelessly add). He never did get a slot on the IOS/TOC/TAS program to talk about music, the way he was able to at the Free Minds event just concluded. And his work on logic probably took even longer than his work on music (again, it first came out in JARS—and Will Thomas still wouldn't invite Roger to give a talk on the subject when he had two articles in press).

Many of the topics deemed "academic" seem to have been reserved for David Kelley, Will Thomas, Stephen Hicks, and perhaps a designee or two—even though all of those folks have finite time and multiple responsibilities. They've had some excellent grad students go through their system (Alex Cohen and Jason Walker, at present) but the numbers have always been tiny, and the attrition rates high. Some of their grad students have washed out entirely. Others have decided that their academic careers would move faster and get farther without the "Rand" label, or have calculated that the Ayn Rand Institute would offer them greater prospects of employment.

The model whereby David Kelley and Will Thomas teach advanced Objectivism to those few who are deemed ready to receive this teaching is not viable.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

Excellent summary of the status quo. TAS must delegate and take some chances with academic subject matter or the output will be puny which was one of the complaints that David Kelley had when he started IOS.

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Phil,

I second the idea of you writing for JARS.

Also, here is a public invitation to you I have not discussed with anyone. I'm willing to take a bet on you from the hints and glimpses I have seen. I am curious to see what grows.

(The last time I did something like this, I regretted it and had to clean up a huge mess. But I am stubborn and I sense value in you and my hardhead itch needs scratching real bad right now.)

Barbara had a good idea about you making a blog, but I understand the intimidating reality of creating an audience from scratch, especially if you are not in the business of doing that. But I have one. A great many people in your target audience read OL and post comments.

Kat and I have a small place here on OL called "Corners of Further Insight" that has the writings of a series of authors, including Roger and Robert. I'm willing to open a "Phil Coates Corner" if you are interested.

The idea would be to have a place where you could present your ideas and test them out with people in your universe without having to chase an audience. By being online and on a regularly read forum with a small but select audience, it would be easy to search and promote.

This is not to replace a formal thing like publication (in JARS hint hint) or presentations in seminars or stuff like that. It is more rough than that, more geared towards working out specific facets of theories—with the input of peer interaction—than making polished presentations (although sometimes this happens). A space like that is made to sum together with other forces, not be the whole shebang. My own interest is to get you going—to give you a point of reference you can fall back on and point to.

Let me know what you think. If you don't want that, no hard feelings and I won't mention it again (especially not as a jab if we bicker). If you do, it's yours. At this stage of OL, there is no money involved on either side. (I have some ideas for later, but they are still in the planning stage.)

btw - This would never mean you would have to agree with me or even like me. Nor the contrary. I just want to see you producing.

Michael

Michael, thank you. Phil has a whole bunch of stuff that has probably been sitting around in notebooks for years. For that matter, TAS does too. I think Carol Diehl has the only recordings of the first 5 Summer Seminars.

Jim

[Barbara Branden]

I also find it interesting that Barbara Branden was invited to give a 'movement' talk on Objectivist Rage but has not given/ been encouraged to give? a talk on Efficient Thinking - a more 'heavy' or at least philosophical / epistemological topic about which she gave an entire, well-received course at NBI. Maybe "excerpts from a forthcoming book on thinking" or some such title.

Many people apparently thought it was if not the best, at least the most personally useful course at NBI

Phil, I was not invited to give my talk on Objectivism and Rage; I suggested it -- and had to battle Will Thomas to have it approved. And you are correct; I have not been invited to speak on efficient thinking.

Barbara

[Philip Coates]

Thanks, everyone.

Barbara and others, Will Thomas, not David, is the one responsible for turning down ideas/proposals for the seminar but I'm sure he has the final say. The tendency, after someone has given a great talk, is that for some reason they don't have them back the next year. Not a "regular". This not only applied to Barbara (once again, her Objectivist Rage speech was rated a or the top speech at that conference, but I remember others. David and Will speak every year. Molly Hayes gave a great talk a number of years back--hasn't been back to speak.

Now in some cases, perhaps the speaker for whatever reason didn't want to speak the very next year, or didn't have a topic, or there was a falling out (like with Perigo), but that's usually a bit unlikely. And certainly not for *every one of these well-received speakers*. But it seems to not just be me. I can't get inside the heads of the TAS leaders.

Over time, Will never said to me: great ideas, we'll do it next year... He has always given me a reason for not accepting any of my theoretical talks. The reasons changed each time: we received a similar proposal. Too much competition this year, try next time. The proposal is not quite right for us. I find flaws in your ideas on causality. I wish we had a venue that was appropriate for your interesting kind of work. And now I'm sure they would say they lack money, can't do a conference. Here's my favorite: Even though your attendees ratings were well-received or even ranged *from good to excellent*, that is ***a few percentage points lower*** than the superb ratings normally received in the philosophy category, ther applications category. Etc., etc., etc.

So I read between the lines and stopped proposing that kind of talk. If I proposed something on the history/lessons of classical Greece, that would be - and was - accepted.

My last installment follows in a few minutes....

[Philip Coates]

Part 5 - CONCLUSION.

***Giving Up on the Objectivist Market. Seeking a Different Audience***

The reason for my sitting on my solution to the problem of induction for so many years (and causality, and much more):

One reason is that it was technically difficult and long and required new concepts. I knew no one would want to wade through endless pages by a nobody unless they already had reasons to respect him, his mind on other issues. (And within Objectivism I never wanted to present it to some tiny backwater group of people who didn't have the epistemology or the intellect or who were obtuse or quarrelsome or would drop it down the memory hole.)

But mostly, I had (mistakenly) thought that Objectivism was objectively! the proper venue for such a discovery. And after the Peikoff years, I thought surely David Kelley would want to hear of it (even if there turned out to be some holes, his mantra was openness and debate). So I thought after my well-received concretization work, surely... Then, after my applying and defending his benevolence work... THEN after I proposed causality two different years to two different venues (summer conf, adv scholars seminar) surely....now would be the time and the groundwork would have been laid. And people would be saying, "Hey, Phil Coates has some original and important insights in philosophy. Maybe he doesn't have a Ph.D. from Princeton, maybe some rough edges?, but...."

I only wish Ayn Rand were alive and I could have shown it to her. She would have gotten it immediately. And she wouldn't have cared about the source. Or the timing.

In a way my bad experiences with offering my ideas and papers and talks to the Peikoff wing and then the Kelley wing of Objectivism has been a blessing in disguise. It hastened the realization that my proper audience is not Objectivists or their movement. Or venues which have them as a primary audience. That includes blogs and journals (JARS, TAS "Monographs", The Objective Standard, The New Individualist, OL). I would not at present be willing to present my theory of induction to a summer conference, even if asked.

I will leave out a discussion of the flaws or limitations of the Oist audiences, but concentrate on the most important issue to me:

There is an intellectual division of labor and each person must choose what most inspires and interests him. It's perfectly valid to be a popularizer of Objectivism, writing for a general audience. Andy Bernstein [google him] is an example. Or a teacher, a developer of lecture series for Objectivists [Leonard Peikoff]. Or someone who explains and defends and elaborates upon Objectivism [Tara Smith]. Or an op ed writer on politics [Ed Hudgins]. Or somebody who someday may systematize a book on Objectivism [David Kelley].

None of these is my objective.

I have a number of topics which are not strictly speaking purely Objectivist topics. And which deserve the widest possible audience. Induction and causality and concretization are three examples from my own work. There is a potential audience which is perhaps ten thousand times larger than every Objectivist on the planet for such topics, properly presented: the open, intelligent, well-read, intellectual upwardly mobile layman. Part of this is what publishers call "the education market". The market for "think books".

Fortunately, I have not been locked into the 'movement' lingo and jargon and style of lecturing so that I can only present my ideas in the hard-to-follow-for-outsiders style of most? almost all? "movement intellectuals". Most of what they write is way too abstract, too floating, too unconnected to the knowledge and concerns of the intelligent layman. It lacks color, vividness, emotion, empathy. And non-geeky writing skills.

Unsurprisingly, they have acquired no wide audience among those who have not read or do not lean toward Rand.

What I'm working on now are books (and maybe articles or lectures spinning off from them.) Induction will follow in due course, but that is not the most 'accessible' of topics, so some of my other works will come first. The widest name for them is "books on how to use reason". They include lessons from history, textbook materials, aspects of clear thinking, and other psychological-selfhelp-epistemological topics. But they are mostly applied works. Even a taxonomy of causality is a bit too esoteric until I establish a name for myself. Jim is right I do have -thousands- of pages of journal notes on these topics. It's a question of finding a niche and an audience among the millions of readers who would be hungry for such materials.

What I'm doing is analogous to those people who were exposed to Objectivism and who have become syndicated columnists or book writers about economics or politics. Except those are not my areas of (primary) interest. Mine are (loosely speaking) epistemology and psychology.

(I find it offensive when people like Kelley or Peikoff who have announced they are working on a years-long writing project are pestered over and over with the same repetitious question every single time they appear anywhere: "Is your book DONE? Are you THERE YET?" It would drive me **nuts**. My version is Don't Ask. I Won't Tell. . . .Unless you plan to help. I will make a single exception: if your million dollar check is in the mail, I will be willing to send you a report every two years.)

[anonrobt]

Part 5 - CONCLUSION.

***Giving Up on the Objectivist Market. Seeking a Different Audience***

The reason for my sitting on my solution to the problem of induction for so many years (and causality, and much more):

One reason is that it was technically difficult and long and required new concepts. I knew no one would want to wade through endless pages by a nobody unless they already had reasons to respect him, his mind on other issues. (And within Objectivism I never wanted to present it to some tiny backwater group of people who didn't have the epistemology or the intellect or who were obtuse or quarrelsome or would drop it down the memory hole.)

But mostly, I had (mistakenly) thought that Objectivism was objectively! the proper venue for such a discovery. And after the Peikoff years, I thought surely David Kelley would want to hear of it (even if there turned out to be some holes, his mantra was openness and debate). So I thought after my well-received concretization work, surely... Then, after my applying and defending his benevolence work... THEN after I proposed causality two different years to two different venues (summer conf, adv scholars seminar) surely....now would be the time and the groundwork would have been laid. And people would be saying, "Hey, Phil Coates has some original and important insights in philosophy. Maybe he doesn't have a Ph.D. from Princeton, maybe some rough edges?, but...."

I only wish Ayn Rand were alive and I could have shown it to her. She would have gotten it immediately. And she wouldn't have cared about the source. Or the timing.

In a way my bad experiences with offering my ideas and papers and talks to the Peikoff wing and then the Kelley wing of Objectivism has been a blessing in disguise. It hastened the realization that my proper audience is not Objectivists or their movement. Or venues which have them as a primary audience. That includes blogs and journals (JARS, TAS "Monographs", The Objective Standard, The New Individualist, OL). I would not at present be willing to present my theory of induction to a summer conference, even if asked.

I will leave out a discussion of the flaws or limitations of the Oist audiences, but concentrate on the most important issue to me:

There is an intellectual division of labor and each person must choose what most inspires and interests him. It's perfectly valid to be a popularizer of Objectivism, writing for a general audience. Andy Bernstein [google him] is an example. Or a teacher, a developer of lecture series for Objectivists [Leonard Peikoff]. Or someone who explains and defends and elaborates upon Objectivism [Tara Smith]. Or an op ed writer on politics [Ed Hudgins]. Or somebody who someday may systematize a book on Objectivism [David Kelley].

None of these is my objective.

I have a number of topics which are not strictly speaking purely Objectivist topics. And which deserve the widest possible audience. Induction and causality and concretization are three examples from my own work. There is a potential audience which is perhaps ten thousand times larger than every Objectivist on the planet for such topics, properly presented: the open, intelligent, well-read, intellectual upwardly mobile layman. Part of this is what publishers call "the education market". The market for "think books".

Fortunately, I have not been locked into the 'movement' lingo and jargon and style of lecturing so that I can only present my ideas in the hard-to-follow-for-outsiders style of most? almost all? "movement intellectuals". Most of what they write is way too abstract, too floating, too unconnected to the knowledge and concerns of the intelligent layman. It lacks color, vividness, emotion, empathy. And non-geeky writing skills.

Unsurprisingly, they have acquired no wide audience among those who have not read or do not lean toward Rand.

What I'm working on now are books (and maybe articles or lectures spinning off from them.) Induction will follow in due course, but that is not the most 'accessible' of topics, so some of my other works will come first. The widest name for them is "books on how to use reason". They include lessons from history, textbook materials, aspects of clear thinking, and other psychological-selfhelp-epistemological topics. But they are mostly applied works. Even a taxonomy of causality is a bit too esoteric until I establish a name for myself. Jim is right I do have -thousands- of pages of journal notes on these topics. It's a question of finding a niche and an audience among the millions of readers who would be hungry for such materials.

What I'm doing is analogous to those people who were exposed to Objectivism and who have become syndicated columnists or book writers about economics or politics. Except those are not my areas of (primary) interest. Mine are (loosely speaking) epistemology and psychology.

(I find it offensive when people like Kelley or Peikoff who have announced they are working on a years-long writing project are pestered over and over with the same repetitious question every single time they appear anywhere: "Is your book DONE? Are you THERE YET?" It would drive me **nuts**. My version is Don't Ask. I Won't Tell. . . .Unless you plan to help. I will make a single exception: if your million dollar check is in the mail, I will be willing to send you a report every two years.)

You have my sympathy, Phil - and I quite concur with the direction you've decided to take... it has been the same with me regarding enlarging on 'Objectivist aesthetics', and is why never tried to get a talk on that over the past several years at the summer gatherings [aside from Newberry being the unofficial 'official' spokesperson of that arena of thought] - much better to put out the ideas at artist gatherings, and in a format that they can grasp from their perspective, and from which the better artists readily see how such thinking can improve their renderings and creativity...

[Robert Campbell]

The reason for my sitting on my solution to the problem of induction for so many years (and causality, and much more):

One reason is that it was technically difficult and long and required new concepts. I knew no one would want to wade through endless pages by a nobody unless they already had reasons to respect him, his mind on other issues. (And within Objectivism I never wanted to present it to some tiny backwater group of people who didn't have the epistemology or the intellect or who were obtuse or quarrelsome or would drop it down the memory hole.)

But mostly, I had (mistakenly) thought that Objectivism was objectively! the proper venue for such a discovery. And after the Peikoff years, I thought surely David Kelley would want to hear of it (even if there turned out to be some holes, his mantra was openness and debate). So I thought after my well-received concretization work, surely... Then, after my applying and defending his benevolence work... THEN after I proposed causality two different years to two different venues (summer conf, adv scholars seminar) surely....now would be the time and the groundwork would have been laid. And people would be saying, "Hey, Phil Coates has some original and important insights in philosophy. Maybe he doesn't have a Ph.D. from Princeton, maybe some rough edges?, but...."

Phil,

You still have an opportunity with JARS. Wny not use it?

I only wish Ayn Rand were alive and I could have shown it to her. She would have gotten it immediately. And she wouldn't have cared about the source. Or the timing.

Maybe. It would have been nice if Ayn Rand saw your work and responded to it affirmatively. But she rejected good work by others, drove off some potential allies, and accepted the support of some second-handers (as Mark Skousen frankly called the members of her latter-day entourage), so you really don't know what she would have done.

I have a number of topics which are not strictly speaking purely Objectivist topics. And which deserve the widest possible audience. Induction and causality and concretization are three examples from my own work. There is a potential audience which is perhaps ten thousand times larger than every Objectivist on the planet for such topics, properly presented: the open, intelligent, well-read, intellectual upwardly mobile layman. Part of this is what publishers call "the education market". The market for "think books".

The only "purely Objectivist topics" are those that pertain to the internal dynamics of Rand-land. Even those presumably have some broader implications; for instance, illustrating, in the worst case, how atheists who emphatically reject traditional religions can end up developing a substitute religion of their own.

Insofar as Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political theory, or esthetics are worth a damn, they are of concern to a much wider audience than self-declared Objectivists. How could they not be?

Fortunately, I have not been locked into the 'movement' lingo and jargon and style of lecturing so that I can only present my ideas in the hard-to-follow-for-outsiders style of most? almost all? "movement intellectuals". Most of what they write is way too abstract, too floating, too unconnected to the knowledge and concerns of the intelligent layman. It lacks color, vividness, emotion, empathy. And non-geeky writing skills.

Unsurprisingly, they have acquired no wide audience among those who have not read or do not lean toward Rand.

There you go again, Phil, chiding other writers over what you think they are doing wrong. If you think you can outwrite the "movement" types, then go do it.

Most academic psychologists write rather poorly; some write horribly. If you're a psychologist, and you think you can write better, you don't take their standard of performance as an excuse for not trying to publish in psychology journals. You write better, and get your stuff published.

What I'm working on now are books (and maybe articles or lectures spinning off from them.) Induction will follow in due course, but that is not the most 'accessible' of topics, so some of my other works will come first. The widest name for them is "books on how to use reason". They include lessons from history, textbook materials, aspects of clear thinking, and other psychological-selfhelp-epistemological topics. But they are mostly applied works. Even a taxonomy of causality is a bit too esoteric until I establish a name for myself. Jim is right I do have -thousands- of pages of journal notes on these topics. It's a question of finding a niche and an audience among the millions of readers who would be hungry for such materials.

What I'm doing is analogous to those people who were exposed to Objectivism and who have become syndicated columnists or book writers about economics or politics. Except those are not my areas of (primary) interest. Mine are (loosely speaking) epistemology and psychology.

But doing one thing doesn't preclude doing another. It's not as though publishing in a scholarly venue will prevent you from publishing in the textbook market or the self-help area.

I just picked up a book called Stoic Warriors, by an academic philosopher named Nancy Sherman. The cover photo is a group of soldiers; the blurbs feature comments from national security experts and retired military officers. The reference section is full of academic philosophy articles, including a long list of items by Nancy Sherman. Writing for one audience hasn't disqualified her from writing for another.

(I find it offensive when people like Kelley or Peikoff who have announced they are working on a years-long writing project are pestered over and over with the same repetitious question every single time they appear anywhere: "Is your book DONE? Are you THERE YET?" It would drive me **nuts**. My version is Don't Ask. I Won't Tell. . . .Unless you plan to help. I will make a single exception: if your million dollar check is in the mail, I will be willing to send you a report every two years.)

If you're in a leadership position, and you announce that you're embarked on some Big Project, you're going to have to bear the burden of expectation. Nothing new about that.

If you're not in a leadership position, or you spend more time delivering and less time announcing, the burden will be much lighter

Both Dr. Peikoff and Dr. Kelley have a further problem with diminishing returns. Can anyone explain how spending 14 years on The Ominous Parallels made it a better book than spending 2 or 3? From the evidence of the 1999 "beta" version of The Logical Structure of Objectivism, is one entitled to conclude that the project needed another 10 years (and counting...) to be ready for publication?

Robert Campbell

[algernonsidney]

Phil, I was not invited to give my talk on Objectivism and Rage; I suggested it -- and had to battle Will Thomas to have it approved.

It's a miracle that a true believer like Thomas approved it at all.

[Robert Campbell]

Barbara,

I didn't realize that Will Thomas had opposed your proposal to talk about "Objectivism and Rage."

But it makes sense in light of something he said to me two years later, when he was defending his decision to invite Lindsay Perigo to talk about what's wrong with Objectivism.

He said that Mr. Perigo had made way too big a deal out of Jim Valliant's book and the supposed malfeasance of TheBrandens: '"Aren't we past that yet?"

He probably thought it was his fault (on account of allowing your talk on that topic) that Mr. Perigo stomped off in 2006.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

I also find it interesting that Barbara Branden was invited to give a 'movement' talk on Objectivist Rage but has not given/ been encouraged to give? a talk on Efficient Thinking - a more 'heavy' or at least philosophical / epistemological topic about which she gave an entire, well-received course at NBI. Maybe "excerpts from a forthcoming book on thinking" or some such title.

Many people apparently thought it was if not the best, at least the most personally useful course at NBI

Phil, I was not invited to give my talk on Objectivism and Rage; I suggested it -- and had to battle Will Thomas to have it approved. And you are correct; I have not been invited to speak on efficient thinking.

Barbara

I'd guess that was out of natural human conceit: what do already efficient(?) thinkers need with a talk on efficient thinking?

--Brant