Donovan A.

I was wondering if a chat function could be added to OL? There have been several technological improvements made to ObjectivismOnline.net, and I believe they have had their chat function for awhile now. I would really like to see OL pick up some of these functions, particularly the chat feature. Does anyone else think this would be nice?

Oh, god no. I am no fan of his. But why vandalize his books? The first thing I do when I buy Rand is rip out that indulgence. To be honest, I haven't read Goodkind's books. I have no idea how consistent his books are with Objectivism. If Goodkind's books are not consistent enough with Objectivism, it would be inappropriate to even ask him if TAS flyers could be included. It certainly would not happen if Goodkind does not approve of TAS. Perhaps TAS flyers could be added to books like The Art of Reasoning or The Evidence of the Senses, etc. The point is that Ayn Rand's books are a premium source of growth for ARI. There is no reason why TAS could not capitalize on this same idea whenever possible.

Reidy, I agree totally about the New Individualist. My biggest problem with the magazine is that it comes across as too playful. I'd like the appearance to become more respectable and serious. I'd like to see valuable articles in a more appropriate cover. The graphics of the magazine detract form its content. I have been digging into the NBI materials and I feel so spoiled by them. Honestly, it's hard for me to find anything that competes with the quality of Ayn Rand and NBI. In some ways, it's good that the summer seminar is canceled. This may help people wake up, and not take things for granted. Does anyone know where Terry Goodkind stands between ARI/TAS? Maybe TAS flyers could go in his books?

Hello all, Don't you think this thread should be more focused on TAS and how we can help restructure the organization? I was very much hoping to go to the TAS summer seminar in 2009 and I am sad to hear that it has been canceled. I agree emphatically that the TAS website needs work, I also think the Objectivism store needs work, and that TAS marketing tactics need to be reevaluated. Look, ARI is the competition, so TAS needs to think about its business model. Of course, for TAS to operate, they need revenue. Summer seminars may not be logical since the cost and the amount of work that is necessary to have them may outweigh the financial benefits. In principle ARI has an authoritative attitude. This means that ARI endorses individuals as their spokesmen. They have a serious academic program (OAC) which certifies individuals as "objectively competent" in Objectivism. ARI spokesmen seem to be advised to not accept speaking arrangements with groups that host TAS speakers, particularly those that host David Kelley. Aside from all of this, there is a serious amount of muckraking directed toward TAS which is produced by many of the ARI adherents. ARI sponsored college clubs seem to be strictly regulated in terms of financial support, and are given license to use ARI materials. In my opinion, it's a waste of time to sell ourselves as Open-Objectivists. Speakers and writers from ARI or any organization are not Ayn Rand, they can never produce an idea, nor an integration that Rand can now endorse. If that is the ARI concept of a closed system, it is most certainly true. So, why speak about Objectivism or write about it? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, they are free to say what they agree with or disagree with, what they think is consistent or not with Ayn Rand's fundamental principles. Anyone who adds to a philosophy, contributes integrations, etc, should take credit in name for their own ideas and give credit where and when it's due. The Objectivist view is that reality is supposed to be the arbiter. So clearly, this means that there are standards to being an Objectivist. The driving philosophical issue between the two organizations is really moral judgment and sanction. What I would like to see from TAS is an structure that provides the resources for individuals to become knowledgeable in Objectivism at all levels. This means acting like a school. We are coming to a point in our culture where schools in Objectivism are needed locally. This goes beyond the framework of college sponsored clubs. In many ways, this is what a church is, it offers education to the general public. A church provides intellectual and moral guidance which is desperately needed. Adults and young adults need a place to go to study Ayn Rand's ideas, they need teachers and want a support group, and friends. TAS should be the head of a giant body of smaller groups which function as businesses.

Does anyone have a copy or know where I can purchase the lecture series: Basic Principles of Objectivist Psychology by Nathaniel Branden. It was given at NBI.

The Culture of Reason Center now has a facebook group. If you live in the DFW area and would like to keep up with our most current events and study sessions please feel free to join: CRC Facebook

Barbara, I am not sure how far along you are on the Efficient Thinking book but I had a thought tonight. Would it be possible to include a cross reference between the book and the audio-lectures? I have to say that I am very pleased with the material in the lectures. I also appreciate the fact that you have written the time of each lecture on each CD. This is very helpful. Best regards, DA

Barbara, I really think you should take legal action. It's probably the only way to objectively demonstrate the injustice which you claim exists. I say claim, loosely, because I have no doubt about your honesty in this matter. - Donovan

Barbara, Why has nobody sued ARI? Have you requested copies of your lectures from them? - Donovan

Barbara, What a disaster. I have heard rumors that ARI has an archive that almost nobody has access to. It's possible that they could be there, or in Peikoff's hands. This makes me sick, but those materials may have been destroyed. Objectivism is supposed to be a philosophy of reason! We should be able to get along, we should be able to cooperate. I can't understand how this could happen.

Where can I find these? I am looking for as many original audio-lectures that were given at NBI as possible! I heard that Alan Greenspan lectured on economics, if this is true are they on tape? Does anyone have a list of all the lectures that were given at NBI? DA

Barbara, are you serious! When will it be published? This is so exciting. On a side note, I was reading in the Objectivist Newsletter that you had done some radio interviews. Are any of them taped? I would love to hear them. DA

Barbara, Thank you for your answer. I thought of writing you, but I figured it was too petty a question to bother you with. I have been wanting to tell you that the audio-lectures on Efficient Thinking are going very well here in Dallas. I have roughly 10-15 students that are interested in attending as regularly as possible. I am very fascinated by the ideas which are presented in the series. I am becoming more aware of my method of thinking and more conscious of my level of alertness. Best regards, Donovan

I am just curious as to the reason for Nathaniel's name change from Blumenthal to Branden. Could anyone explain the reason for the name change? I am also wondering if Allan Blumenthal was related to Nathaniel? Just wondering, Donovan

Did Ayn Rand write or say anything about zoning laws? I thought she was not opposed to zoning laws on the condition that the laws are objective and rational. Maybe I am mistaken?

I recently saw a late showing of the film. I have been a general fan of the Batman movies and cartoons since my teens. I found this film to be philosophically simple and it's message morally depraved. The movie's underling essential premise is that there is a "higher good," the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. A true hero according to The Dark Knight should be: willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good. The message of this film is not justice. To create drama, the movie was focused on a typical philosophical paradox: What to do in the face of a prisoners dilemma? I find this to be a rather boring and uninteresting issue to wrestle with. Another repeating sub-premise of the film and of its villains was to offer an incentive to Batman or the general population to be evil to avoid mass death, a greater catastrophe, or a higher evil. The villains attempt to demonstrate that everyone is morally corrupt. Batman as a character was unclear in his moral self-assessment and he consistently offered mercy to evil as an ethical message of nobility.

Samples of Barbara Branden's Efficient Thinking lecture series are now available on the CRC website. Barbara Branden has given me written permission to host samples. Please enjoy! www.thecultureofreasoncenter.com/

There are many people who read these reviews and essays by the ARI minded people and fall right in. I want to be capable of defending myself and Kelley from injustice. Any help is appreciated. I have taken actions to open communications, to encourage debate and evaluation when it comes to this division. If any of you have a membership with objectivismonline.net there is an opportunity available now to persuade those who are watching the debate. We can win by using logic, reason and by pointing to the truth. False accusations must be challenged. Errors and misrepresentations have power if we allow them to be unchallenged. See this thread: http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.p...1619&st=100

Has there been any response to this: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006/03/dav...chotomy-in.html I could start writing one if nobody has. :frantics:

Michael, I agree with you. I am not in favor of Noodles, other than the pasta variety. I am also unhappy with many things that have come from ARI. I think we can all agree on that.

Hi Michael, Thank you for your reply. I like what you have to say, but I would like to challenge one or two points. I agree that we all have our own natural personality traits. Our genetic makeup is different, our biology is different, our backgrounds differ. I think these things establish our context as you were pointing out. However, I also think that we all have the fundamental ability to introspect, to look at our basic tendencies and ask ourselves if our behavior is helpful or harmful in respect to achieving happiness and promoting our life. I am a big fan of Barbara Branden, my previous post was not intended to be critical. My concern is that as Objectivists that support TAS and Kelley, I think it is very important to be well prepared to deal with the on-slot of misrepresentations, misunderstanding that exists in the Objectivist communities and circles. In reading The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand by David Kelley, I have not found a single sentence that I disagree with. I have found no floating abstractions, no unsupported concretes. On the other hand, I think his paper is taxing for someone that is new to Objectivism. It can be quite easy to think that TAS and Kelley do in fact advocate that ideas hold no moral significance. Such misconceptions I believe are very costly. I would also like to add a non sequitur: I think it is very important that we learn to refrain from attacks against ARI or its more rationalistic members. I agree that this may seem an almost impossible task at times, but I am questioning the rationality behind the use of our time, our thoughts, our efforts. The world all around us is plagued with irrationality, altruism, mysticism, skepticism, etc. The United States could soon be facing serious economic issues, and I am of the opinion that as Objectivists we must learn how to get along. If we cannot get along, what hope is there for the world? We must be good teachers, we must be knowledgeable, we must speak and write with clarity and certainty. - Donovan

I want to point to something I have found on OL. "Ideas aren't evil, only people are evil." http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...hp?showtopic=52 I am trying to understand how this ties in.

First of all I want to thank everyone for your fast replies. I have read the Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand by Kelley and Fact and Value by Peikoff. I did not care for Fact and Value for it's lack of value. I'd like to be clear about who I am and why I am here. My mom picked up The Fountainhead at the age of 19 and I am the 3rd of her three sons. David Kelley was here in Dallas, TX right when all of the split began. I was too young to be involved with all of the philosophical reasons that encompassed the schism. I studied Objectivism informally with my family in High School and it really put a lot together for me. Ultimately though I felt that I needed to live my life, enjoy college and not spend everyday thinking about philosophy and politics; there is more to this, but that is for another day. A few years ago, my older brother reestablished The North Texas Objectivist Society here in Dallas, TX. I of course attended several meetings and started to investigate Objectivism on the internet. I came across a very bright young person online who despite his technical knowledge of the philosophy was nothing but hostile toward David Kelley. His remarks were so hideous, so vicious, my mouth dropped wide open. He demanded that I read Fact and Value and I read it. I also read Barbara Branden's Objectivism and Rage paper and then, Truth and Toleration. To make a long story short, conversations with this new person did not last long. I committed myself to understanding the issues and printed out everything I could find on the issues. In reading the two major papers by Kelley and Peikoff I did not feel that I had enough background in the technical aspects of the philosophy to really understand what all the fighting was about, though I did see quite easily that Peikoff falls into rationalism. I decided to listen to Nathaniel Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism to help me gain more understanding of the philosophy explicitly. Currently, I have 2 lectures remaining to listen to and I have been very pleased with the friends I have made that have attended my study group (The Culture of Reason Center). I apologize for not clearly understanding that Kelley does think that ideas can hold moral significance. There is of course a difference between judging ideas and judging a person's character and actions and I think many people are very confused. I know that in trying to learn about the division in the Objectivist movement I have felt pretty confused, many times. Overall, I think the last thing that is helpful is moral intimidation when trying to sort through complex ideas. If philosophy was so easy and errors so rare, than there wouldn't be much to argue about in the world. To be totally clear then: Kelley does not say in any other papers that you guys know of that he thinks ideas cannot be judged morally? I feel like I have a vague memory of reading something almost informal from Kelley stating "Peikoff thinks you can judge ideas morally, I do not." (quote from memory). This is false then correct? Thanks for the help, Donovan

I am working on a paper with an associate of mine on the nature of ideas. In particular I am interested in finding where David Kelley may have said that he does not think that ideas can be judged morally at all. Am I correct in this understanding or mistaken? If I am correct, where can I find this in his writings? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Donovan