Philip Coates Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 > a high-ranking Objectivist Jedi Knight like youI like it!!! That's my new title: "HROJK Philip Coates". Bow when you say that.Sounds like someone saying "Your Excellency" in Hungarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 > a high-ranking Objectivist Jedi Knight like youI like it!!! That's my new title: "HROJK Philip Coates". Bow when you say that.Sounds like someone saying "Your Excellency" in Hungarian As in goulash? B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Phil,I'm largely in agreement with Jonathan here.There is no reason, at this point in history, for anyone to have to take a bunch of Leonard Peikoff lecture courses (or their equivalent) in order to understand Objectivism properly.The main value of Peikoff courses (and I say this having taken several of them) is to document some aspects of Objectivism that have remained needlessly obscure.Remember that Dr. Peikoff published a big book on Objectivism 18 years ago. Had he and his top disciples gotten with the program, by 2009 they could have had a slew of books and articles in print about even the most recondite and esoteric aspects of Objectivism. (I was going to say that cutting-edge work on Objectivism might still have a publication lag—but the Peikovians think it's all a closed system, so there hasn't been a cutting edge since 1976, or whenever it was that Ayn Rand stopped adding new stuff.)That's not how they went about it, and it hasn't been the way David Kelley, Will Thomas et al. have gone about it.The advantage that the Objectivist Academic Center confers on ARI is not that OAC training produces people who understand Objectivism better. Anyone who has been around Rand-land for a while and thought about the issues can easily ask the top OAC graduates questions about Objectivism that they won't be able to answer. A fortiori for questions about philosophical issues more generally.Rather, what OAC does is aid in the selection of recruits (because only people who are convinced that The Truth will be imparted to them in installments are likely to make the requisite investments of time, money, and putting up with the social constraints), increase the likelihood that those who complete the course will function like hardened cadres, using the same rhetoric and producing answers in the same narrow, predictable range.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 > There is no reason, at this point in history, for anyone to have to take a bunch of Leonard Peikoff lecture courses (or their equivalent) in order to understand Objectivism properly.1. In order to properly assess this, you are hereby required to take the following SIX COURSES: History of Ancient Philosophy, History of Modern Philosophy, skip Philosophy of Objectivism if you've assimilated OPAR (except then you won't get the benefit of the question periods!), Logic, The Art of Thinking, and finally - the best one of all - Understanding Objectivism.2. Take them in that order. Since they are expensive, Jonathan, aka "Moneybags", will pay for each one. I will attest to their value and award a Merit Badge after each one.3. Produce a twelve page summary of each course, to be printed in Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (I understand you know someone there). The summary should be full of praise for every formulation and insight. And in particular for the brilliant questions of HROJK during the Q&A after every single damn lecture. You can tell which ones they are because they are always prefaced by a deep, exasperated, long-suffering sigh and the words, "Yes, PHIL???"4. Kneel before HROJK. [i left out several courses because I know you're a quick study.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Joking aside, On the necessity of orderly, systematic, hierarchical courses: I've often noticed that people who don't see this, who are critical of such courses haven't taken the several series of courses I mentioned. Robert, to his credit, admitted he had not systematically gone thru them while Jonathan completely dodged the question so he could go on the attack. What that suggests is that J didn't have the integrity to admit that he was critiquing a product which I highly praised but which he had no direct knowledge of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 On the topic of TAS, it strongly looks from the Sherrie G post as if they are about to do another example of 'tacking' or every few years major direction shift. Is it necessary to point out what that implies, what the problem is therein? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Philip:Yes indeed. Would it really matter if this organization was repeating past behavior, once again.I am reasonably sure that Kelly's Hero's is not in the top 200 Objectivist movies, but Donald Sutherland plays a 60's hippy type guy as a tank brigade [?] commander, who tells his mechanic who keeps the brigade running, "Moriarity! Man how many times have I told you about the negative waves man!"Let us just give them a chance.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Subject: Public support and private suggestions? Or public critique?> "Let us just give them a chance." [Adam]TAS has been in existence since 1989. It is now 2009. For most of those two decades I very much felt the same way (give them a chance to change strategy or tactics, hire new people, to "grow", to gain experience and find their footing, then to slowly make an impact, attract a bigger base of supporters, make alliances, develop a fresh new cadre of young intellectuals and enthusiasts and graduate students and writers and teachers.In other words to build a movement. Or at least a major publishing blitz.And I BIT MY TONGUE FOR YEARS, held off on public criticism. I made -private- suggestions, offered ideas or assistance during or at the end of conference week, in emails, private conversations. My reasoning was to not unnecessarily add to dissension in the ranks or dissatisfaction or discourage financial supporters.At a certain point in time, though, especially if there is not a response to even -reasonable- ideas and offers of support, I think you can see how frustration would build.I'm amazed they haven't used, drawn on as a resource the two people who had proven they were enormously successful at building an Objectivist movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Heaps-Nelson Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 (edited) Subject: Public support and private suggestions? Or public critique?> "Let us just give them a chance." [Adam]TAS has been in existence since 1989. It is now 2009. For most of those two decades I very much felt the same way (give them a chance to change strategy or tactics, hire new people, to "grow", to gain experience and find their footing, then to slowly make an impact, attract a bigger base of supporters, make alliances, develop a fresh new cadre of young intellectuals and enthusiasts and graduate students and writers and teachers.In other words to build a movement. Or at least a major publishing blitz.And I BIT MY TONGUE FOR YEARS, held off on public criticism. I made -private- suggestions, offered ideas or assistance during or at the end of conference week, in emails, private conversations. My reasoning was to not unnecessarily add to dissension in the ranks or dissatisfaction or discourage financial supporters.At a certain point in time, though, especially if there is not a response to even -reasonable- ideas and offers of support, I think you can see how frustration would build.I'm amazed they haven't used, drawn on as a resource the two people who had proven they were enormously successful at building an Objectivist movement.Phil,I think you have the wrong focus with TAS. Their successes are harder to quantify because they take the shape of individuals who own and execute their own projects like Josh Zader with the Atlasphere, Stephen Hicks with his entreneurship center, Doug Clements with his Lost Liberty Hotel, and Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger with Wikipedia. I've encouraged my brother to do the same thing with his system dynamics study and lifelong project. You are taking the wrong tack with TAS. Don't focus on David Kelley or Ed Hudgins. They both have a blind spot with education and development of talent and don't do it effectively. Take your education ideas directly to Ashwin Vasan who's spearheading a new effort to launch Objectivist outreach in India. In fact, I'm sure they could use your help in that effort and there's very little resistance because David and Ed will be too busy working on their website project.Also, participate with ARI on the projects they are doing effectively. You could establish a local Rand books to teachers initiative. It's too easy to fall into the trap of kvetching. I know I've done it and it doesn't lead to anything but frustration to the extent that you engage in it. It's also the wrong psychology with Objectivists. Most Objectivists don't take negative criticism well, so why not leverage what they are already doing right?I think that Nathaniel and Barbara do have a lot to add, but what I think they can most effectively help with is advice to TAS on how to get stuff published which they have both done spectacularly effectively. I think that both TAS and ARI are blessed to have leaders, Yaron Brook and David Kelley, that we should cherish as Objectivists and the reason is a simple one and it's a lesson that all leaders should take to heart. They both have exemplary personal lives. Jim Edited August 6, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 > Their successes are harder to quantify because they take the shape of individuals who own and execute their own projects like Josh Zader with the Atlasphere, Stephen Hicks with his entreneurship center, Doug Clements with his Lost Liberty Hotel, and Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger with Wikipedia.I don't think TAS brought these about or had anything to do with these independent undertakings by individuals.> Take your education ideas directly to Ashwin Vasan who's spearheading a new effort to launch Objectivist outreach in India. In fact, I'm sure they could use your help in that effort and there's very little resistance because David and Ed will be too busy working on their website project.That's very interesting! I *would* want to volunteer help, time, and energy to this project as I think India is perhaps the most promising place for the spread of Objectivism on earth right now. Do you know a way to contact him directly via email? You could reach me thru OL's mail capability if you don't have my personal email address.I don't really want to find out about the project and offer my help through a third party (like TAS) or an intermediary. And I just spent a frustrating half hour trying to google him, get contact information, etc. with no success. Nor does this project, if it's beyond the wishfulness stage, appear to have a readily googleable webpage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Heaps-Nelson Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Phil,I sent you a PM.Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Heaps-Nelson Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 >> Their successes are harder to quantify because they take the shape of individuals who own and execute their own projects like Josh Zader with the Atlasphere, Stephen Hicks with his entreneurship center, Doug Clements with his Lost Liberty Hotel, and Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger with Wikipedia.> I don't think TAS brought these about or had anything to do with these independent undertakings by individuals.No, but TAS made it possible for me to meet all these people and hear about their projects. TAS needs to restart or give a higher profile to their affiliated local clubs and Scholar's Directory. Those were things that happened and that I benefitted from when Don Heath was Director of Operations.Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 > made it possible for me to meet all these people and hear about their projectsI would never have heard about the Indian Objectivism thing had you not mentioned it.> Those were things that happened and that I benefited from when Don Heath was Director of Operations.He was very good for them and helped them grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Jim,Take your education ideas directly to Ashwin Vasan who's spearheading a new effort to launch Objectivist outreach in India.I think that both TAS and ARI are blessed to have leaders, Yaron Brook and David Kelley, that we should cherish as Objectivists and the reason is a simple one and it's a lesson that all leaders should take to heart. They both have exemplary personal lives.Two really good points!Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyglassblue Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Subject: Public support and private suggestions? Or public critique?....Take your education ideas directly to Ashwin Vasan who's spearheading a new effort to launch Objectivist outreach in India. In fact, I'm sure they could use your help in that effort and there's very little resistance because David and Ed will be too busy working on their website project....JimHi Jim:The TAS trustees have been intensely involved with our strategic initiative. [And I should point out it is precisely because we recognized our shortcomings that we took on a professional consultant (who is also a life-long Objectivist and has previously spoken at SumSem)]. The trustees have met for many months every single week and are actively engaged in specific and new operational, strategic, and fund-raising activities. These trustees are successful, savvy businessmen, including Cliff Asness (aka "the hedge fund king"), who believe TAS is worth investing their money and expertise in. Ashwin is one of these trustees who became most prominently involved with the TAS initiative and he has discussed his Asia interests with us, and us with him. Ashwin is currently starting up his own business as well (and so is quite busy.)David and Ed are not working on the web project. Just a point of clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 About TAS phones:We recently moved to a suite of offices on the 8th floor and our phones are not up yet. We had the space built out according to our specifications, and as it turns out, per our building management, there’s a new DC law that requires all cabling to be removed by office tenants when they move—so the next party to move in has to have everything re-cabled again—every single wire. Thanks to our business manager we were able to get this done for a nominal fee. Our IT is up and running, and our new phone system is next.Of course it is the stupid, insane DC government. I am of course not surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 > And I should point out it is precisely because we recognized our shortcomings that we took on a professional consultant (who is also a life-long Objectivist and has previously spoken at SumSem)[sherrie]It's not lost on me that you have been addressing Jim (and not me) re my several posts and detailed questions and interests (wanting to help with India, etc.) But this and the great committment and effort of the trustees sounds very much like good news. And I certainly hope it works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Heaps-Nelson Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 (edited) Subject: Public support and private suggestions? Or public critique?....Take your education ideas directly to Ashwin Vasan who's spearheading a new effort to launch Objectivist outreach in India. In fact, I'm sure they could use your help in that effort and there's very little resistance because David and Ed will be too busy working on their website project....JimHi Jim:The TAS trustees have been intensely involved with our strategic initiative. [And I should point out it is precisely because we recognized our shortcomings that we took on a professional consultant (who is also a life-long Objectivist and has previously spoken at SumSem)]. The trustees have met for many months every single week and are actively engaged in specific and new operational, strategic, and fund-raising activities. These trustees are successful, savvy businessmen, including Cliff Asness (aka "the hedge fund king"), who believe TAS is worth investing their money and expertise in. Ashwin is one of these trustees who became most prominently involved with the TAS initiative and he has discussed his Asia interests with us, and us with him. Ashwin is currently starting up his own business as well (and so is quite busy.)David and Ed are not working on the web project. Just a point of clarity.Sherrie,Thanks for the update and your terrific work on The New Individualist. I hope that this new set of ventures works out for TAS. I have enough intersection of intellectual interest with several people involved with TAS that I will continue to soldier on in open system Objectivism regardless of the outcome. In any case there are a lot of new developments with affiliated people that have kept my interest. I've most recently had a chance to read Jay Friedenberg's terrific new book on Dynamical Psychology. I've even been tempted (but fortunately not yet given in :-)) to dust off my old math books and give some of the dynamic systems mentioned more thorough review.My concern is a different one than Phil's. Given that TAS is an open system organization, what new avenues of inquiry does it want to explore? I don't think it's enough to simply invite people to give seminar talks about random topics. You have to have recurring themes that keep groups of people working on long term projects. Choosing the right avenues of exploration is vitally important. I have my own ideas about what avenues I think are most fertile (cognitive science including neuroscience and complex systems). It's OK if TAS disagrees with these, but they need to know what intellectual direction they are taking.Jim Edited August 7, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Heaps-Nelson Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 (edited) Sherrie,I hope TAS will take Phil up on his offer to help with an Asia initiative. It will be important as TAS gets their plans matured and implemented that they leverage the help of people who have the knowledge and skills to do what needs to be done.Jim Edited August 7, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyglassblue Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 > And I should point out it is precisely because we recognized our shortcomings that we took on a professional consultant (who is also a life-long Objectivist and has previously spoken at SumSem)[sherrie]It's not lost on me that you have been addressing Jim (and not me) re my several posts and detailed questions and interests (wanting to help with India, etc.) But this and the great committment and effort of the trustees sounds very much like good news. And I certainly hope it works out.Hi Phil: My post to Jim addressed several things outside the scope of his comments and within yours...I simply hit reply on the last post I saw. So, no need to read anything into that. I'm pretty busy and haven't responded to everything here; sometimes it's because some of the comments that I read are so generalized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbara Branden Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 At the bottom of this page is the statement: "Currently hiding posts below points. Change threshold?" What does that mean?Barbara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Barbara,It looks to me as though the new software for the site allows readers to give posts positive or negative rating points.Since no one seems to be using the rating points, it doesn't matter what point threshold you set in your profile—at least, if it's 0 or less. You're still going to see all of the posts.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 10, 2009 Author Share Posted August 10, 2009 Robert,To be honest, I might disable this thing if I can find the time. The forums where I have seen ratings (and not just Objectivists ones), people tend to become very nasty and petty with this feature. And the core ideas get lost in the fight for points.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Robert,To be honest, I might disable this thing if I can find the time. The forums where I have seen ratings (and not just Objectivists ones), people tend to become very nasty and petty with this feature. And the core ideas get lost in the fight for points.MichaelMichael: Please do disable this feature. We don't need to encourage some of our worst features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Robert,To be honest, I might disable this thing if I can find the time. The forums where I have seen ratings (and not just Objectivists ones), people tend to become very nasty and petty with this feature. And the core ideas get lost in the fight for points.MichaelMichael: Please do disable this feature. We don't need to encourage some of our worst features.Does this have to do with the red and green numbers in the profiles?I have never even figured out how to vote lolAdam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now