Donovan A.

A postscript to my last post. I am most definitely not assuming that people who have copies of any NBI lectures came to possess them illegally. They might quite innocently have purchased them, or been given them. Nor do I wish these lectures to be turned over to Nathaniel or me, although of course no one else may publish them or rent then out; I simply want to have copies sent to me..

Barbara

Barbara,

Why has nobody sued ARI? Have you requested copies of your lectures from them?

- Donovan

A postscript to my last post. I am most definitely not assuming that people who have copies of any NBI lectures came to possess them illegally. They might quite innocently have purchased them, or been given them. Nor do I wish these lectures to be turned over to Nathaniel or me, although of course no one else may publish them or rent then out; I simply want to have copies sent to me..

Barbara

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.

Blumenthals' lectures on music

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

Donovan, I'm happy that my lectures are going well in Dallas, and delighted that you find them of personal value. But wait until you see the book!

Barbara

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.

One of the basic choices you make in life is whether to master yourself and make yourself positive (by correcting bad habits, learning moral values, changing your social environment, and so forth) or let your innate nature impose itself on all your choices.

We can't choose what is innate. Some people are extroverts and others are introverts. Some have a short fuse and others have a great deal of patience. There are many such personality characteristics that just develop on their own. We don't chose them. We were simply born that way and that's the way we grow.

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

I also really enjoy the Chat feature on ObjectivismOnline.net. Is this something that you guys could add?

Admission: $5.00 per class. All payments are non-refundable. Each payment is due on the day of class. In the event of inclement weather or an emergency, we reserve the right to cancel or reschedule. Lectures are for adults only. Children are not permitted on the premises. Participants are expected to make childcare arrangements. Thank you.

For location address and or any further questions, please call 214-263-2002 or Email: cultureofreasoncenter@gmail.com

This course will run weekly on Friday evenings at 7:00 pm beginning August 22nd 2008

This course includes discussions on the following issues: Why a science of thinking is necessary — the relation between efficient thinking and intelligence — the philosophical base of efficient thinking — the nature of intellectual focusing — the various levels of focusing — the problem of concentration — the nature of the subconscious — the subconscious as a "Univac" — the proper use of the subconscious — the psychology of "inspiration" — the effect of repression on thinking. The nature of the conceptual level of consciousness — the nature of intelligence — the destroyers of intelligence — thinking in essentials — the destructiveness of treating emotions as tools of cognition — the manner in which wishes and fears can distort the thinking process — "emotional-perceptual" thinking. The importance of knowing the source and validation of one's concepts — the role of integration in thinking — forms of the failure of integration — evasion as the sabotaging of consciousness — common aberrations in thinking and consequent mental habits — the inability to think in principles — the misuse of abstractions — the "socialized consciousness" and the destruction of language — failures of discrimination in thinking — the error of intellectual "package-dealing" — the danger of false axioms. Psychological causes of inefficient thinking: the surrender of the will to efficacy; failure of self-esteem; the "malevolent universe" premise; "social metaphysics" — the source and conditions of intellectual certainty.

August 22nd An Introduction to Thinking (50:15)

August 29th An Introduction to Thinking Part 2 (50:54)

September 5th Focusing and Problem Solving (49:30)

September 12th Focusing and Problem Solving Part 2(45:50)

September 19th Automatic Mind Functions (49:50)

September 26th Automatic Mind Functions Part 2 (46:50)

October 3rd Conceptual Level of Consciousness (47:09)

October 10th Conceptual Level of Consciousness Part 2 (46:15)

October 17th Conceptual Level of Consciousness Part 3 (49:10)

October 24th Conceptual Level of Consciousness Part 4 (48:00)

November 7th Emotions As Tools of Cognition (50:50)

November 14th Emotions As Tools of Cognition Part 2 (49:58)

November 21st Language and Definitions (50:00)

December 5th Language and Definitions Part 2 (46:20)

December 12th Common Aberrations in Thinking (50:07)

December 19th Common Aberrations in Thinking Part 2 (45:35)

January 9th The Fallacy of The Stolen Concept (68:39)

January 16th Causes of Inefficient Thinking (53:00)

January 23rd Causes of Inefficient Thinking Part 2 (45:00)

State has no right to intervene as such. Citizen neighbors, doctors, women and children have a right to complain to police, alleging abuse. Families have no special right qua family to be left alone, kids particularly have the right to say 'no' to their parents, teachers, and religious authority.

Does this mean kids have the right to also say yes?

I find this subject to be very difficult. The United States started off as a religious haven for people who faced persecution. Perhaps now our population's attitudes have changed. Therefore, we have a new more modern attitude in regards to religious freedom, and some communities have not kept up with us. Obviously, arranged marriages are problematic since we recognize a man and a woman's right to choose who he or she wants or does not want to marry. However, as far as I know this is not an uncommon practice in the world. Therefore, we should ask what should be done in regards to arranged marriages? Even if it is outlawed, religious families put enormous pressure to have their way.

How many husbands and wives are acceptable? legally and morally?

At what age should a person be able to consent to sex or marriage? Legally and morally?

As Objectivists, it is important to think in principles. To consider the full range and implications of our positions and premises. On one side, we can ask should someone be able to treat their young as property? On the other side, do we grant the same full rights that an adult has to the very young? I think both answers are unacceptable. Children are a special case. Children (which needs to be defined) do not have the right to say "no" to their parents when their parents ask them to eat, to take medicine, go to school, to not take drugs, work, or clean their bedroom. A parent also has the right to use an appropriate (needs to be defined) level of force to discipline their children and ask them obey. Therefore, duties of both the child and the parent must be defined. Our culture in general is up to its eyeballs in religion, mysticism, tribalism and cultism. Common practices, are not necessarily rational or moral. We must be very conscientious in our thinking when it comes to the responsibilities of parents, and the rights of children.

What are the basic fundamental rights of children? At what point can a child demonstrate objectively that he is now an adult? I think to start by approaching the subject only considering age is problematic.

What does it mean to be an adult? In short, I would classify an adult as essentially someone who has the means and the ability to sustain his or her life independently, without aid. Who is responsible for adults that fail in the task of sustaining their own life?

In general I am more concerned about the potential for government abuse of its power. Consider the following questions:

Should the government force parents to give their children vaccinations? If yes, at who's expense?

What if a child dies from a forced vaccination?

Should the government force parents to:

Send their kids to school?

Adhere to a standardized educational program?

Introduce or prohibit the exposure of any particular ideas to their kids?

Is it acceptable to circumcise boys or girls? (I know many men, who wish they had not been circumcised) Should this practice be considered a violation of a child's rights?

If a child gets cancer and the parents wish to use prayer instead of traditional medicine, what should be done? At who's expense?

Should children be allowed to work in dangerous jobs? Coal mines? Logging?

When should a child be free to leave their parents home? Anytime the child wants to? At any age?

Should a child be free to access any information they want? Regardless of the parents values and philosophy? At who's expense?

What happens when two consenting children have sex and the girl becomes pregnant? How is this different than if an "adult" and a "child" conceive a child together? Does the age and sex of the partners involved have any baring on the issue?

If, we accept that prostitution should be legal. At what age or level of maturity would we allow a young person to enter this profession?

Consider the same question in regards to pornography. Can we clearly distinguish the difference between art and pornography? Does that make any difference?

In all of these cases, what is the appropriate response from the state? What are the general rights which the government is essentially bound to protect? Obviously, there can be no right to infringe upon the rights of others. The problem is that these two groups of people (Adults and Children) do not have equal rights. Our laws depend heavily on our ability to consider all of the reasonable variables. This is why different states have different laws regarding these very difficult issues. How we as Objectivists start to affect the culture around us, how we interrelate with the irrationality that exists around every other corner in the world is paramount. What we can demonstrate to the world is why we have something better to offer. That our means, will result in just and moral ends for adults and children alike.

I have obtained permission from Dr. Branden to host audio-samples of his Basic Principles of Objectivism Lectures on The Culture of Reason Center website. Please feel free to enjoy.

www.thecultureofreasoncenter.com

I had 14 attendees last night for The Psychology of Sex. It was a very interesting lecture. Does anyone have any ideas on how I could reach more people? I am hopping to grow my attendance to 30 participants by the end of the year.

Thank you all for being so supportive!

We are growing here in Dallas. And, I am striving to help create change in our culture. We had 16 people attend our first lecture! This has been a very exciting process for me.

I have a written consent from The Atlas Society to offer this course and to charge for it. Any audio-lectures I offer or plan to offer are given with the permission of the author or the copyright holder.

Brant -

I accept your apology. No harm done, though I think it is an unfortunate message to be posted right under my announcement. Especially since this thread is easy to find for someone who googles "Objectivism and Dallas" - For example.

I understand your concerns. For the future, may I suggest asking someone if they have permission, instead of jumping to conclusions?

Best regards,

Donovan

I recently joined the Objectivist Living site and I really enjoy the atmosphere of respect and courtesy which is present here. However, I do think there are some ways that we could capture more participation. Please consider the following ideas:

1. The ability to search for members by location. This could greatly help members who want to find other Objectivists locally.

2. A Sexuality preference option.

3. The ability to search for members by sexual preference.

4. Relationship status option.

5. Local message boards: A place to advertise discussion groups and Objectivist clubs.

Best regards,

Donovan

Friends of Objectivism,

The Culture of Reason Center is currently offering The Basic Principles of Objectivism course. These lectures were given by Nathaniel Branden with the consent and approval of Ayn Rand. Here is your chance to experience this monumental classic. These lectures are digitally re-mastered on CD. Classes are held on Tuesdays from 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. We allow an additional hour after the lectures for discussion. Admission is $5.00 per lecture.

Please review our Syllabus:

The Basic Principles of Objectivism Syllabus

Tuesday January 8th through July 8th, 2008. (All Lectures begin at 7:00 p.m.)

Due to the structure of these lectures, some classes will extend beyond a one-hour lecture period.

Admission: $5.00 per class. All payments are non-refundable. Each payment is due on the day of class. In the event of inclement weather or an emergency, we reserve the right to cancel or reschedule. Lectures are for adults only. Children are not permitted on the premises. Participants are expected to make childcare arrangements. Thank you.

To Register: Please call 214-263-2002 or Email: cultureofreasoncenter@gmail.com

Visit: www.thecultureofreasoncenter.com

January 8th The Role of Philosophy Part 1 and 2

January 15th What is Reason? / Logic and Mysticism

January 22nd The Concept of God Part 1

January 29th The Concept of God Part 2

February 5th Free Will Part 1

February 12th Free Will Part 2

February 19th Efficient Thinking Part 1

February 26th Efficient Thinking Part 2

March 4th Self-Esteem

March 11th The Psychology of Dependence Part 1

March 18th Spring Break - No lecture

March 25th The Psychology of Dependence Part 2

April 1st The Psychology of Sex

April 8th The Objectivist Ethics Part 1

April 15th The Objectivist Ethics Part 2

April 22nd Reason and Virtue

April 29th Justice vs. Mercy

May 6th The Evil of Self-Sacrifice Part 1

May 13th The Evil of Self-Sacrifice Part 2

May 20th Government and the Individual

May 27th The Economics of a Free Society

June 3rd Fallacies About Capitalism Part 1

June 10th Common Fallacies About Capitalism Part 2

June 17th Romanticism, Naturalism, and the Novels of Ayn Rand Part 1

June 24th Romanticism, Naturalism, and the Novels of Ayn Rand Part 2

July 1st The Nature of Evil

July 8th The Benevolent Sense of Life

Thank you,

Donovan A. 214-263-2002

The Culture of Reason Center

The Basic Principles of Objectivism Course is being offered with the consent of The Atlas Society.