Alfonso Jones

Wishing all on OL a Happy New Year! As we get ready to go to the airport to make the trip back to Shanghai (through Detroit, on Delta!!!) I wish you well. Bill P

Not allowed. According to the Shi'ite Objectivists, Objectivism is a Closed System. Nothing can be added or taken away. It is as the Mistress made it. Ba'al Chatzaf That is the way the Orthodox see it, of course. Of course, Rand herself said there was work to be done in working out the system. Bill P

Adam - She has wandered beyond the pale of rational discussion long ago, and sees no sign of returning. I see no benefit in even attempting discussion with her. When Xray wants to treat others with some respect and read what they say before pretending to "explain how they are wrong" she will modify her behavior. AFTER SHE CHANGES HER BEHAVIOR I will consider responding to her or acknowledging her existence. Until then - I won't waste any more time on Xray. I agree, it's a sad situation for a human to engage in the sort of behavior we have seen consistently from Xray. Bill P You were just plain wrong in assuming in your initial post: However you slice it, there is no restriction whatsoever in terms of "another post" (after the first one in the new cycle) becoming possible only after some time has elapsed. Any attempt on your part at trying to backpedal on this is futile. I will not even take the time to outline, painstakingly, the many errors you have made in this post, again, Xray. I will instead point out: If you are actually correct in your claim at the end - - - then you have absolutely nothing to complain about, even though you have continued to complain for so long and with such emotional volume. (Unless you just want to complain because the status message doesn't give you a complete discussion and description of the algorithm and the implications of your recent posting history in the light of the algorithm. Which would be a very silly request, indeed.) So - if you think your last few sentences are correct - - then it's time for you to realize that you don't have anything of significance to complain about (except for things of your own doing - and for those you should complain to yourself). Bill P

Adam - She has wandered beyond the pale of rational discussion long ago, and sees no sign of returning. I see no benefit in even attempting discussion with her. When Xray wants to treat others with some respect and read what they say before pretending to "explain how they are wrong" she will modify her behavior. AFTER SHE CHANGES HER BEHAVIOR I will consider responding to her or acknowledging her existence. Until then - I won't waste any more time on Xray. I agree, it's a sad situation for a human to engage in the sort of behavior we have seen consistently from Xray. Bill P

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

Agreed. My response to the critics is very different if they show an appropriate tone, instead of playing silly little "gotcha games." I imagine Michaelangelo finishing the Sistine Chapel and someone walking by as he is taking a last look at the work before he is finished, and telling him "You blew it, Mike! You didn't shave this morning and your beard is scraggly!" I think criticism should be in proportion. Rand's most serious shortcomings, in my assessment, are in the area of psychology / human relations. I think it would be unrealistic to expect anyone to innovate with equal success in areas of epistemology, ethics, politics, economics, psychology, . . . Bill P

Xray - What arguments which cannot be refuted? You are demonstrating, in painfully verbose posts, your inability to understand some very simple things - such as the working of a "no more than 5 posts in any given period of length 24 hours." You can go on at length about this, but until you demonstrate that you have grasped what would be obvious to an elementary school student, you are just parading what is either: 1) An impressive ability to AVOID concentrating for a 15 second period to understand or 2) A willful attempt on your part to manipulate and deceive From the standpoint of the reader, it is difficult to tell which is the case. Your repeated protestation that you understand leaves us thinking that either you are clueless, or #2 applies. I incline to #2 as the best current explanation for your bizarre behavior. Bill P

Brant - Now (and I know you're aware of this, just a reminder...) take a look at the airbrushing thread on OL, and see how much more widespread this practice is, since after Rand's death. It makes me furious. These people are attempting to play Orwellian memory hole games to eliminate the Brandens and other excommunicated ones from Objectivist history. The net result is a massive contamination of the source documents. Rand scholarship is going to be set back a good amount by these practices, I predict. Bill P

I'll second the motion, and urge folks to support The Atlas Society. Bill P

Given her reaction to a one-line change in a play and her obsessiveness on the script for the movie The Fountainhead, I agree that they would surely have experienced her rage - full blast. Bill P Yeah, but if she had edited her answers she'd have made similar changes. --Brant Brant - I've looked at many of these changes carefully. Many of them make the material no more clear. Some make it worse. A few make obvious improvements and are of the sort which should have been dealt with using footnotes or parentheses. Not by just obscuring what Rand actually said. Understand - I look at such things to a large extent from the viewpoint of a researcher (I've been a Professor for all but 4 years of the time since 1978.). This sort of finagling with the actual words makes research on Rand's speeches/Q&A sessions very difficult. It makes Mayhew's book virtually useless for such purposes. I wonder how many other full-time professors are on OL, besides Campbell and I. Regards, Bill P

Given her reaction to a one-line change in a play and her obsessiveness on the script for the movie The Fountainhead, I agree that they would surely have experienced her rage - full blast. Bill P

Robert - You should speak with some people who interviewed rock musicians for Rolling Stone or Crawdaddy for examples of some very generous rewriting. Based on the amount of listening I did to Rand speaking in Q&A and other extemporaneous contexts, I would think that she probably needs significantly fewer "sic"s than the overwhelming bulk of other speakers. Bill P

Tony - Should be, should be. I wish Rand had spent a bit more time occasionally TALKING ABOUT benevolence. She was on a mission to destroy the credibility of the notion of unchosen obligations. This sometimes led, in my view, to a starkness ("we don't use the word 'give' in the valley" (paraphrase)) which I hope no self-conceived Objectivist emulates. (Ditto for some of the post-coital philosophy talk from Galt, . . .) Sometimes we have to remember the different between a NOVEL and a prescription for living. Time to reread Branden's "Benefits and Hazards" essay again. Bill P (smiling) Ah yes. If only... another decade of her incisive mind, perhaps less of Rand the Revolutionary, and more of Rand the Gracious (as we have glimpsed her, portrayed by Barbara Branden, and other biographers)... who can tell? In a lesser-known quote, she said "I haven't nearly said everything yet. I do have a complete philosophical system, but the elaboration of a system is a job that no philosopher can finish in his lifetime. There is an awful lot of work yet to be done." [Garth Ancier interview 1976] Oh well, we'll just do the work for ourselves. And, doing the work for ourselves - - that's not that bad of a deal. Rand went so far, explored so much and offered so much insight. It would be lacking in grace to obsess with criticizing her for what she didn't get done. Our job - - as you say, to get it done ourselves!!! Enough for a lifetime and more. Bill P (smiling)

I agree, Michael. Dragonfly is a careful thinker. Dragonfly - I'm glad you are here on OL. Bill P

Actually, this is in the "finest tradition" of 19th century journalism. Journalists frequently "cleaned up" the language and delivery of inept populist politicians, making them appear to sound like statesman, at the expense of literal accuracy. Even now, there are at least four "original" copies of the Gettysburg Address, none of which agree with one another, let alone with what was published in the newspapers. Steve - I'm glad you put "finest tradition" in quotes. I would argue that in a large number (probably the great majority, but I haven't made a count) of the cases Rand's original words were better than Mayhew's cleaned up version. That is, that Mayhew only made things less clear (or moved Rand off of her aim.) (I'm reminded of a seminar I attended at the University of Florida years ago. At the end, as we left the room, a fellow professor asked me what I thought about the talk. My response: "The speaker's only contributions were the errors he made and the confusion he created." (By the way - I think someone else used a similar turn of phrase long ago, but haven't been able to find it.) So, in my view, the bulk of the time Mayhew didn't clean up the language and delivery. He made it worse. And Rand was hardly an inept speaker. She was a powerful speaker, great on her feat. On those occasions when a fix is needed (a missing "not," disagreement of subject and verb, etc.... he could have used a footnote to explain (and left the original as is. Remember "sic?" It works. Bill P

The idea that the shooting of the guard by Dagny is just because he was in the way in an action scene where they're rescuing Galt and that this scene has no deeper philosophical meaning is a favorite fairy tale among Objectivists. I shot down that theory already here (scroll down a bit) and here. Not exactly true, in two respects: 1) You did fire at it, but you missed by a mile - - - didn't come near shooting it down. (In fact, what you call the target isn't even there!) You point out at the link that Dagny talked for some time, perhaps two minutes, with the guard. I look at that extended dialogue, and conclude that she was giving him repeated chances. The delay fits well with the idea that she gave him clear chances, endeavoring to show him the choice was making if he continued to bar her entry. The only reason for delay (from Dagny's viewpoint) was to give the guard a chance to choose life. If Dagny just wanted to be brutal and had no concern for the guard's lidw, she could have short the guard before he saw her. 2) It is of course true that Rand makes a philosophical point about the guard. DAGNY DOES NOT. Dagny gives the guard 7 warnings (dialogue in which she makes the threat clear, and he responds by doing nothing. Then she shoots him. Rand (not Dagny) comments: "Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness." Note: This is the narrator's comment, not Dagny's. Dagny has made clear the reason why she shoots - she must get past the guard. Rand comments on this that the guard is suffering the results of not wanting to think or make a decision ("wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness."). Dagny didn't "execute the guard because he didn't want to think." (I have been told that she did in discussions on this subject!) She killed him because he was in the way and wouldn't move out of the way, with Galt's life (as far as Dagny knew) at risk. Bill P

Tony - Should be, should be. I wish Rand had spent a bit more time occasionally TALKING ABOUT benevolence. She was on a mission to destroy the credibility of the notion of unchosen obligations. This sometimes led, in my view, to a starkness ("we don't use the word 'give' in the valley" (paraphrase)) which I hope no self-conceived Objectivist emulates. (Ditto for some of the post-coital philosophy talk from Galt, . . .) Sometimes we have to remember the different between a NOVEL and a prescription for living. Time to reread Branden's "Benefits and Hazards" essay again. Bill P (smiling)

On the guard: I understand the circumstances. I think is was Dr. Johnson who said that Shakespeare would write a pun whenever he could, to the detriment of his plays. I think a parallel observation could be made of Rand and philosophical points: whenever she could illustrate a philosophical point in her novels, she did so, even when it made the action and characterization incredible. This is a case in point. On the doctor: The pertinent point here is that the doctor chose to be a doctor. To quote what Adam said earlier today This is not someone being drafted into a position he did not seek. This is a person who spent the first twenty-five years or more of his life preparing for a profession, and voluntarily assuming the obligations of that profession--obligations represented in cultural terms by the Oaths of Hippocrates, of Maimonides, et al. If he didn't want to participate in a profession whose ethics and culture is based on service to others, then he could have found a different one--biochemical/pharmaceutical research, for instance, whose end result is saving lives, but in a different fashion. Is it slavery to choose to serve others if that is the best way you can express your values? Jeffrey S. Let's start with the guard. YOu indicate that you understand the circumstances. I believe you. We seem to differ in that I regard Dagny's actions as perfectly appropriate under those circumstances: 1) She had reason to believe Galt was being tortured, his life in danger, perhaps dying as she spoke to the guard. 2) She repeatedly warned the guard that he must let her through, or she his life would be forfeit. 3) He chose death, by refusing to let her through. I see absolutely nothing wrong with her actions. if she could have clobbered him over the head with equal risk to herself, to discovery, etc. that would have been more appropriate, of course. (But let's keep a grip and remember this is a novel, not the 1100 news!!!) On the case of Hendriksen: Of course he chose to be a doctor. I do not see where "society" gets the right to decide that certain obligations must accrue to that profession. Would you like to deal with my question I raised on the doctor? What is society decides that doctors should have to work for a salary of USD $25,000 per year, at least 80 hours per week because some fool universal health care plan has been passed and that is the only way to make the budget work? Would you view the existing doctors as being obligated to stay in the profession? Would you maintain that any people entering the profession after the decision about the salary are OBLIGATED to accept the $25,000, and not to campaign for a drastic raise, etc...? I suspect that we understand each other well now. I'll leave you with the last word after this. (That is, I don't see the need for further response from me. I think things are as clear as they are likely to become in this sort of venue.) Bill P

Bill P, it looks like you don't understand "what the algorithm does". According to your "understanding and instructions", the algorithm requires an hourly segmented, esequential correspondence posting coinciding with the posting times of the previous 24 hour framework. Are you sure about this? Well if that is the case, how do you explain this record from my posts: Dec 25 2009 09:29 AM Dec 25 2009 03:50 PM Dec 25 2009 04:14 PM Dec 25 2009 04:36 PM Dec 25 2009 04:40 PM Yesterday, 10:58 AM Hmm, the software does not seem to realize that it is not supposed to allow four posts in less than an hour, but still they are there. How does that mesh with your "algorithm"? The logical inference of your algorithm is that after the 0100 post on Tuesday, no post is possible before 0200 on Tuesday. Wrong. For the algorithm clearly does not impose such a restriction. It's any time after the 0100 post within the 24 hour frame. Does anyone else see what is so hard to understand about a limit of five posts per 24 hour period expressing exactly that, and only that? Is it so hard to understand there is nothing expressed nor implied to prevent the five posts made in five minutes if so desired? In short, your premise is wrong, Bill. For the 'rhythm' you assume the algorithm has here - it does not exist. Speaking of 'posting behavior' - the cascade of recent personal attacks launched against me here (in which you took part as well), doesn't seem to bother you at all. I doubt the TOS of this forum allow a poster telling discussion opponents that they would like to burn them at the stake: Easy to see what the real 'root issue' is, Bill. It is fury in view of arguments which cannot be refuted. Not accurate, Xray. I do not assume that posting must be hourly. Please quote me and show where I state that the posting MUST BE HOURLY OR AT ANY OTHER SET RHYTHM. Reread the posts, carefully. No rhythm is assumed. I gave you one list of hypothetical posting times, which happened to be one post per hour. It could have been one post at 0100, one at 0207, one at 0209, one at 1103 and one at 1927. Or take any other five times for which the range is less than 24 hours, and the same thing will hold. If you like, 0101, 0102, 0107, 0125, 0145. Doesn't matter. Same sort of thing as discussed. I'm not going to attempt to list all collections of five times within a 24 hour time period. I gave you one example. You can create your own, to your heart's content - if you need to look at such a list to move closer to understanding what seems to be obvious to everybvody else. I am finding it hard to believe that you are unable to understand this. This is not so complicated. You are being silly, and not demonstrating any seriousness of purpose in this discussion. Bill P

I don't get it. Does Mayhew think that no one will ever see the original? Song of Russia was shown on TCM in the last two years. Does he also believe that no one will look at Ayn Rand's original statements at Ford Hall Forum. I don't think Mayhew has a very high opinion of his readers. Mayhew also must have a high opinion of himself as compared to Rand, to so consistently think that HIS REWORDING is superior to Rand's original. It's interesting, reading through this thread (THANKS, ROBERT!) to see how often it is just a rewording with no major change in the logical content - - just a rephrasing. To what end? Bill P

Interesting: I had the Doherty book already on my Kindle, in my "to read soon" stack. I have a copy of Nash (Conservative History of . . .) somewhere in the portion of my library which is in storage. As I recall it was very much written from a Kirk/Buckley sort of point of view. (Religious Conservativism) Thanks, Bill P

They come as transcriptions of the Audio CDs currently available from The Atlas Society. No Peikoff, no Rand on these... Now for historical reasons it would be good to know the date of the recordings. Hopefully someone will respond with that information. Bill P

Agreed on the oral tradition. There are several levels of possible improvement to the current information distribution system. 1) Make the audio material available via mp3 download. This reduces supplier costs, improves availability to the customer (lead time to receive) and eliminates shipping/handling costs. (For someone like me, living in Shanghai, China, this is a significant improvement.) 2) Publish as physical books. This can be a time-consuming process. (Ask Roger and then stand back as he itemizes what had to be done, . . . --- transcribe, proof, agree on revisions, decide on extent to which document should be the speech or should be more in the tone of a book, ...) 3) Publish as ebooks (Kindle or otherwise). Involves much but not all of the work of #2. I think: current state < 1 < 3 < 2 though I would like have ebook availability (3) also in addition to paper (2). Of course, even the current state is an improvement over having to attend a lecture or conference and take notes to get the information. Bill P

Thanks to the many responders for what appear to be some very interesting suggestions! Bill P

1) The problem with the shooting of the guard lies in how Rand described Dagny's motivation. She could have grounded it with rising impatience and a decision by Dagny that there was simply no more time to waste. Instead she turns the scene into something to point out a fundamental idea in her philosophy: Dagny doesn't shoot him because she can't wait any more on his dithering, but because he is dithering in the first place. 2) The doctor is, I think, more complicated than you indicate. Doctors still swear the Hippocratic Oath, don't they? Even without a formal oath, a doctor takes on voluntarily an obligation to preserve life when he can do so: it comes not from the fact that he has a large amount of medical knowledge, but from the fact that he was a doctor in active practice (even if he retires afterwards). Refusing to share that knowledge would arguably violate that freely undertaken obligation. Jeffrey S. Two bridges too far. 1) What is the basis for your assertions about Dagny's motivations? Look at her actions after they get into the room to see that she was anxious. Where do you find specific statements of th emotivations which you indicate above? 2) Do you really believe that every doctor has voluntarily taken on an obligation to preserve whenever he can do so? Does this mean to you that every doctor is obligated to never rest - because he/she could instead go somewhere and find an emergency room where he could treat someone? This is an amazing obligation. (Inter alia, I'm not certain that the Hippocratic oath is something taken seriously. I'm not a scholar on the Hippocratic Oath. What version is used? Does it contain the item you mention? And what does it mean (see my question above)? Bill P 1) Go back and read the sentence or two Xray posted. Rand killed off a minor character not because the plot demanded it, but to illustrate a philosophical point. 2) Please do attack (if you must attack) what I say. Otherwise I might mistake you for Xray or Perigo:) What I actually wrote was this: We're not talking about some form of heroic virtue. We're talking about doing or not doing a very minimal action with little or no inconvenience to the doctor, and a self imposed obligation taken on himself at the time he became a doctor. As for the text of the Hippocratic Oath itself, Wikipedia has both the "Classic" and what it claims is a modern version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath Jeffrey S. Obviously, one group of doctors who don't take the oath nowadays would be those who provide abortions. On the guard: Rand killed off a FICTIONAL CHARACTER - not a real person. Note that the text does not say that Dagny killed him for philosophical reasons or to make a philosophical point. She killed him because he was in her way, barring her ability to get to and rescue Galt, and refused to grant her passage. She told him the price would be his life if he did not let her through. And then he did not let her through. I have read the Wikipedia article re the Hippocratic Oath (it was the first place I went to remind myself of the content of the oath). A quick scan convinced me that the oath is something probably used by some doctors as part of a ritual, not one being taken seriously, and hence my comment. It appears we differ in how we view the applicability of that, as well as on how much of a "minimal action with little or no consequences" it would be to surrender this intellectual property won at (presumably) the price of much time and effort spent studying. If the Hippocratic Oath is understood by doctors as you interpret it (I don't think it is, based on the physicians I know)I do not see it as reasonable. If a doctor has the funds to purchase expensive medicine, is he obligated by the Hippocratic Oath to do so for anyone who needs it for life sustenance? I don't think so. I don't know how you turn the Hippocratic Oath into a guide for action. I suspect the actual intent of the portion you are citing is that if a physician physically encounters someone in need of life-sustaining aid, the physician should provide it. Would you view yourselves as having an obligation to take almost all of your wealth and spend it to purchase AIDS medicine for young children suffering from the disease in Africa? Is the only reason why would not take this view that you did not take the Hippocratic Oath? Is the oath really the issue here? Bill P