Donovan A.

I've recently encountered an interesting perspective/method regarding how to judge what is sanction. I'm not certain that I agree with the perspective/method. I am unfamiliar with the approach being advocated or taught by any major exponent or scholar of Objectivism. I've certainly never seen anything like it espoused by Rand (for whatever that's worth). Due to the nature of the material, I cannot disclose the author or directly quote from the document, but I would like to express the method, so that it can be discussed here. I'm paraphrasing the perspective as follows using my own words and example: To judge the issue of sanction requires thinking in principles. To think in principles means to think in essentials. A great method for thinking in principles is the use of definitions so that one can identify the relevant essentials, such that one identifies the genus and differentia in relation to some particular issue. Example: Christian Music Store Genus - Retail Store Differentia - Music seller - Particularly promoting Christian music/art/values. What would buying music there sanction (if there is an alternative source): Christianity. Has anyone seen or heard of this method of judging sanction issues before; if so, where? What do you think of the method? Do you agree or disagree and why. Best regards, Randall

What Constitutes a Sanction? "In a dictionary definition it has two meanings: one is approval, support, sponsorship. The other one sometimes used in international politics is almost the opposite: like to invoke sanctions against a country means: a blockade or a breach of diplomatic relationship or of trade. But the way I use the word sanction in a moral context is always in the sense of approval or sponsorship." Ayn Rand - A Nation's Unity, Q&A, Track 1 at 2:40 - Thank you Selene. You saved me hours of time.

Thank you Selene! I loaded the Q&A and I'm listening now. I'll post the reference for others, if I find it.

Hi Philip, It's not for school and I'm not a student. The reference would be very helpful if anyone knows where it is. Thanks so much, Randall.

Hello everyone, I'm working on a very important paper. A section of the paper will be dealing with the issue of sanction. In The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand Dr. Kelley defines sanction as follows: "The term [sanction] refers to the action of endorsing or approving something. To sanction is to express a conscious judgment that something is good, right, honorable, legitimate, etc." - CLAR p.34 I recall that Ayn Rand also defined sanction in this way. If my memory is correct, it was during a Ford Hall Forum Question and Answer session. Does anyone know in which Q&A she defined sanction? I remember her stating something like the following (by memory): "What I mean by sanction is moral approval." Your help is greatly appreciated! Best regards, Randall P.S. I have already checked Ayn Rand Answers, the ARI glossary of Objectivist Definitions, the Ayn Rand Lexicon and the Ayn Rand CDROM; none provide an actual definition.

http://www.peikoff.com/2010/12/13/is-it-proper-for-a-doctor-to-perform-a-sex-change-operation-for-a-patient/

I was able to find the complete statement by Peter Schwartz and I consider this part very interesting: - Peter Schwartz, TIA (August 20, 1986)

I'm rather new to studying this very old conflict, but I thought that one area of contention was whether or not Barbara Branden ever met with Ayn Rand at her apartment circa 1981. About a year or two ago, I remember hearing or reading an interview that I thought was done by Valliant which seemed to deny that Barbara met with Ayn Rand again. In 100 Voices, Cynthia Peikoff confirmed that Rand met with Barbara. I also remember reading something by Peter Schwartz that seemed to imply that Barbara meeting Rand again was untrue or unsubstantiated. Partial reposting from MSK: Does anyone have this original statement by Schwartz? Would they be willing to fax me a copy? - Randall

This is absolutely true! I've been keeping my eyes and ears open on the issue for the past two years of studying Rand and the open/closed debate. In some places Rand presents Objectivism as a science, in other places she argues that it is her philosophy which can be claimed as property.

Philip, I agree with the majority of what you said except in reference to email accountability. Considering Peikoff's stature (Phd in philosophy and proclaimed intellectual heir of Ayn Rand, "greatest living philosopher," etc. etc.), he should be held at a higher standard than most people. Isn't there an old saying about a gentleman - he never insults someone unintentionally.

The Culture of Reason Center is proud to announce our new downloadable MP3 product: The Principles of Efficient Thinking by Barbara Branden: $40.00 MP3 Format. Approx. 15.7 Hours

Update: I received a call from Jeff Britting today at 4:15 p.m. He was very friendly and offered me the following link: http://www.aynrand.org/site/DocServer/volume3.pdf?docID=123 Additionally, I was told that he would send me a copy of their researcher's agreement, if I ever wish to discuss gaining access to the archive in the future. Mr. Britting also stated that a new article regarding their policies will be published in the next week or so.

Ted, I'm glad you do have a sense of humor. Do you have a cat?

Ted, That's like saying that except for your sharp disagreement with the essential core of Mayhew's review... you agree entirely with Mayhew's review. Aren't Mayhew's two main points (1) the perfection of Ayn Rand and the Satanicity of TheBrandens? (2) the supposed need for anyone who writes about Ayn Rand or her ideas to agree with all of those ideas? I mean, I am on the same page with Mayhew about Song of Russia being a piece of Communist propaganda (it was propaganda for a wartime ally—which just happened to be the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin). It doesn't follow that I entirely agree with him, except when he goes after TheBrandens... Robert Campbell No, he only mentions them as evul biographers in the first three paragraphs, presumably to establish his orthodox credentials, then once again at the end only as the subject of the affair, about which Mayhew believes Burns wrote to much. Follow the link I provided. The review in its assessment of Burns is accurate. What is evul? I did a dictionary.com search and was unable to find any results. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evul

Update: I still have not received a response from The ARI Archive. My associate also has not received any response. Sent on: Thu, August 5, 2010 4:10:39 PM "To Whom it may concern: Dear Sir, I would like to respectfully request a copy of the visitation and publication policy regarding the ARI archives. Thank you very much. Best Regards, GB (Full Name not Published)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6p8F-tNb14 In Focus Interview 9 (Trials by TV, Jury System) MP3 $2.95

This is a direct link to the Peikoff Podcast: http://www.peikoff.com/2009/12/07/do-you-plan-to-read-either-of-the-new-ayn-rand-biographies/

Robert, where can I find Peikoff's reaction and the article you are referring to in the Objective Standard?

Hi Robert, I personally called ARI today to follow up regarding the email I sent. I understand that what I wrote was informal and in retrospect it probably should have been more formal. However, I do not think what I wrote was rude and or unworthy of a response from Mr. Britting as Ted apparently thinks. If anything, I wish Ted would have offered me a higher level of politeness and courtesy in this thread, especially since he seems to be such a strong advocate. For the record, I sincerely do care about benevolence, civility and respect and I think my history here on OL reflects my commitment. Valliant stated that I should "just drop a line to Jeff Britting, the Archivist, and he will tell you all about it." This did not make me think it was necessary to write a very formal email request. All I was asking for was to see a copy of the access and publication policy. I was not at all under the impression that I needed to formulate my message as if I was writing a University admittance paper. My mistake, no rudeness was intended! That being said, an associate of mine has sent a more formal email request for the policy.

"Access: Our access policy statement is available for the researcher. At present, due to preservation tasks, physical access to the Archives is limited to the Ayn Rand Institute staff and affiliates. However, research inquiries from university-affiliated graduate students and scholars are encouraged and will be accommodated whenever possible. For information on its future opening date, please consult the News & Announcements section for updates." http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ayn_rand_archives_about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA9S6stuApI In Focus Interview 8 (Gambling, Foreign Policy) MP3 $2.95

"Hello there"? That's not a form of address to which I would expect an academic to respond in all seriousness. I'm not an graduate student nor an academic, which is exactly the point. Valliant's claim was that the archives are open to anyone to read. Do you seriously think the friendly greeting I sent Mr. Britting is the reason why I am not getting an answer? By "anyone" you mean even the rude random caller making demands on his time? In what finishing school were you taught that only graduate students and academics should make even a basic attempt at politeness? Your sincerity would be a bit more credible had you shown any yourself when writing to Britting. His time is valuable to him and you made it quite clear you weren't even going to acknowledge that value with an attempt at courtesy. You got exactly the response you invited. I didn't call him, I sent him an email and I don't think my message was rude at all. But if you think my request was impolite or insincere, then I will send him a more formal request. Thank you for your suggestion.

"Hello there"? That's not a form of address to which I would expect an academic to respond in all seriousness. I'm not a graduate student nor an academic, which is exactly the point. Valliant's claim was that the archives are open to anyone to read. Do you seriously think the friendly greeting I sent Mr. Britting is the reason why I am not getting an answer?