PDS

I agree that the name-calling among Objectivists is rather bizarre, especially to the uninitiated. What Objectivism needs is somebody with enough stature to throw the ball over the heads of those in faction-land. Not necessarily Ayn Rand Jr., but somebody with more giddy-up than Peikoff. Until that happens, I suspect the troubles you describe aren't going anywhere.

Mr. Schulman: I have read the lion's share of your book on the link you sent earlier in this thread, and forgive me if you answered this question in the book, but here goes: what is the most significant insight you gained in the 8 hour period of the "mind meld" you experienced? Also, I might add that the mind meld you describe strikes me as somewhat similar to the days after Paul's post-Damascus experience, but the God described in your book seems rather more "puny" than the Voice from the Clouds described by Paul. Just an observation. Fwiw, the Buddhist mystics posit that the Universe is One Energy, that we are part of that Energy, and that this One Energy is, at bottom, benign, i.e., the Energy more or less operates on the Benevolent Universe premise, to use the vernacular of Objectivism. The God described in your book seems more consistent with this Buddhist view than the Judeo-Christian Godhead.

From the article: This story sounds like bunk to me. For one thing, I don't think Einstein was ever an atheist --though his Spinoza-style pantheism came pretty close. For another thing, it is difficult to believe that Einstein would fall for such simplistic pap as the reported version of the Design Argument, or that he hadn't heard the same argument many times before. The story reminds of the many death-bed conversion stories that circulated for decades after the deaths of famous unbelievers. Christians looking to make names for themselves told stories about having converted Voltaire and Thomas Paine from Deism to Christianity, and Robert Ingersoll from agnosticism to Christianity. (Ingersoll, the "Great Infidel," once remarked, correctly, that there isn't a "dime's worth of difference" between agnosticism and atheism.) For those who would like to familiarize themselves with the literature of freethought, I wrote a lengthy bibliographical essay on this subject for Libertarian Review in 1977. It can be found here. (Scroll down to page 12.) My essay contains a section of "Jesus Revisionism" -- a substantial body of literature that questions or denies the historical reality of Jesus. My essay was reprinted, with some minor corrections, in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies. Ghs George: According to the article, Einstein himself called the story bunk: "I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere — childish analogies. We have to admire in humility and beautiful harmony of the structure of this world — as far as we can grasp it. And that is all." And, re the Ingersoll quote, I still love the phrase that "an atheist is an agnostic with his sleeves rolled up."

The hard question, especially when applied to one's own accounts, even more so when applied to the experience of meeting the master of the universe, good old grand old god. In a world that contains ecstatic religious hallucinations from every faith, I simply add Neil to the list of claimants. A big month at OL -- an Intelligent Design crank, an I Met God crank, an anti-Muslim crank and now a Dianetics crank. Engrams, holy spirits, immortal beings, fingers of creation! Onward, upward, Objectivists! Don't forget the "if consenting adults do something I disagree with, one must be a Nazi Doctor crank." Oh wait, he's been around longer than a month, hasn't he? I will say this: I never expected to run into a self-proclaimed Objectivist-Scientologist...

George, appropos of nothing in particular, isn't most of what we consider history "hearsay?"

Einstein weighs in here.

Did he know he was going to die? That would seem important. Also important: what did he say when he didn't think he was about to die ala Brant's comment above.

The picture is obviously of one Ebeneezer Scrooge. Perhaps a metaphor?

Marbury vs. Madison. I am only partially joking.

I think that God having a learning curve is perhaps the most important character trait one can glean from reading the Bible. It not only means that God is capable of making mistakes and learning from them -- which makes God very human -- but it also means that God's type of consciousness is not categorically different from our own, which strongly suggests that being God-like in cognitive powers is what we get to be also if we work at it long enough. Your point is confirmed by many of the writings of Jung. Our subconscious mind is the vast (and largely unexplored) place where such cognitive powers could be tapped.

Let's not forget that God can change. This is the explicit premise of Carl Jung's Answer to Job, and the implicit premise of Jack Miles' God: A Biography, both of which are extraordinary reads. There is also biblical warrant for this, although those verses make many Christians very unhappy. Some of the problems that typically arise when talking about "God" are a product of our assumption that the God who challenged Abraham is the "same" God--in every respect--as described by Mr. Schulman, or, more signficantly, who decided that Jesus was necessary.

I don't know enough about trans-gender issues to know whether what Peikoff is trying to say has any merit. His willingness to compare a doctor operating on patients who voluntarily undergo surgery with a Nazi camp doctor is the pertinent point, i.e., basically anybody who disagrees with him is a beast. What this says about Peikoff personally is far less interesting than what it says about the Objectivist Movement as a whole--assuming there still is such a thing. Peikoff the Cranky Old Man is basically pissing on good people who have spent their lives trying to advance Objectivism (think of an honest hard-liner like Dr. Darryl Wright here), and that is the shame. As for NB, well, he does seem rather quiet about these things, doesn't he? I do wonder why.

If getting at the truth of a something were the most important thing to me, why would I waste time on an Objectivist message board? My goal is strictly altruistic. I'm merely trying to save a few seriously lost and benighted souls. Isn't that nice of me? I am surprised that you believe broad-brush insults are the way to do this.

It’s funny that I’ve read other things by him I disagreed with strongly (anything about Muslims), but this one set me off. Pinnacle of Cultural Corruption? I find that so offensive, I have a visceral reaction to it. I think now I know how Perigo feels when someone says Mario Lanza was no big deal, and that Slayer is better. I don’t like this feeling… I didn’t like Inglourious Basterds very much (only saw it once). Reservoir Dogs is his best, IMO. Inglorious Bastards is best turned off after the chick eats her danish.

This is an excellent, direct question. I look forward to AA's direct answer.

The questions seem almost designed to make Peikoff say stupid things--almost as though somebody knows what Peikoff thinks on such topics and is simply goading him to make an arse of himself. If true, I must give this person his/her propers.

The thread subtitle says “Brace yourself”, that’s called fair warning. If WSS produces something for this one, it’ll probably go even further. I thought you meant "brace yourself" for Peikoff, which was even fairer warning...PDS

Imagine having devoted one's professional/academic life to the Objectivist Movement, only to have LP issuing such clap trap every other month... By the way, I could have done without the visuals in the top you tube video.

Phil mentioned talks between 30-45 minutes, including questions. I agree that 20 minutes is untenable. 30 minutes is cutting it close but not impossible. 40 minutes is fine, however. Or why not take the entire 45 minutes and announce that you will be available for questions during a free period in the evening? I have done the latter many times. The Q&A sessions often ran for an hour or more, and the informal setting, where only those who were truly interested in the topic showed up, invariably produced interesting discussions. They were usually better than formal Q&A sessions, because people had a better opportunity to challenge me. Ghs George: so do you admit or deny that you would qualify as a Charm School Valedictorian? That is the big question...Agreed re your general point. As a trial lawyer, there are very few cases in which an Opening Statement of less than 30 minutes can do justice to an overview of the case. The "sweet spot" always seems to be in the 35-45 minute range.

Bill: Can you state the 3 best reasons to buy this? I am considering it.

Agreed.

I can't imagine a serious topic related to Objectivism that could be covered in 20-30 minutes, and certainly not one I would pay money to hear. I'm with Phil on this one. As for style, well, to each his own. Very few among would qualify as Charm School Valedictorians.

Hear hear to that!

Buffet is an obnoxious braggart and a pretentious ignoramus.

David L. Norton's Personal Destinies would be a good addition to the above suggestions. You can get a flavor for it here.