Ayn Rand Institute Having Financial Problems

[Neil Parille]

According to Brook they lost a big donor.  Rumor is they axes 15 of 50 employees a couple weeks ago.

 

[Peter]

1 hour ago, Neil Parille said:

According to Brook they lost a big donor.  Rumor is they axes 15 of 50 employees a couple weeks ago.

 

I had no idea they had that many employees. Oh well. Now who is going to fund "Holier Than Thou?" 

[Wolf DeVoon]

Dear God, please let this snakepit of second-handers vanish. Thank you.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 hours ago, Neil Parille said:

According to Brook they lost a big donor.  Rumor is they axes 15 of 50 employees a couple weeks ago.

 

Neil,

OK. My gossip antenna is going into overdrive.

Which donor? Do you have a link or something?

 

Maybe this is why Brook went on a rant against David Kelley the other day? (I haven't seen it, but they are discussing it in another thread here on OL--see here.)

Lots of times, big donors to ARI migrate to TAS. I wonder if this happened.

Anyway, from what I keep seeing (and there are some exceptions), people and organizations that make a career out of nonstop bashing President Trump end up losing audience, importance, funding, etc. I don't think President Trump has anything to do with this, either. I think it's a wholesale rejection by the general population of the elitism behind the bashing. When the public walks away, money people start wondering, "What the hell am I doing here? I thought I was in a place that made a difference. But this is turning into nothing more than an expensive hobby." So they bolt.

I think it's a good chance that this is what is happening to ARI.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

I have no information other than what I said. Idon' have much information on TAS. Jennifer Grosman is sympathetic to Christianity, I'm a Christian.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

17 hours ago, Neil Parille said:

Jennifer Grosman is sympathetic to Christianity, I'm a Christian.

Neil,

I, too, am sympathetic for a variety of reasons.

One of them (but not the only one) is that I started reading the holy books of different religions just to see what was in them first hand rather than accepting what others say is in them.

I have read the Bible through once (King James version) and it was quite an experience because I had to keep looking up words.  (Also, I got tickled about a few things, like those who "pisseth against the wall" and things like that. )  

For the second go around, I recently finished the Old Testament, but this time in a study Bible version of the New International Translation (NIV), reading ALL of the study notes as I went along. I dived into the New Testament, got through Matthew and Mark, and stopped for a break halfway through Luke. I decided to take a few weeks off before resuming. The reason is I really get angry when I read about the crucifixion. It totally blows my serenity. I get it and I have been through all the reasons it happened from all the different perspectives, but when I visualize it, I want to spit in disgust. And the four gospels tell the same story, so it goes around four times before I can get on to the other books.

I despise the government--or anyone--doing that crap to people. It's not just evil, it's a mind-numbingly stupid thing to do to a human being. (Don't get me started. ) 

Once I finish this time through, I intend on going through an annotated version of the New Revised Standard Version, which includes the Apocrypha. I don't know why, but I have yet to read the Apocrypha, although I have read some of the things that did not make it into the Bible (Book of Enoch, etc.). So I look forward to reading those books.

Also, I got the audiobook of the dramatized New King James Version (sold under the name The Word of Promise Complete Audio Bible: NKJV) simply because of the cast, which includes Jason Alexander, Joan Allen, Richard Dreyfuss, Louis Gossett, Stacy Keach, Malcolm McDowell Jr., Gary Sinese, and Marisa Tomei. I want to just listen to that one without following along in the text. I'll do that last, so I will be very familiar with everything by then. Besides, the modernized King James translation should make it quite intelligible just in audio, so I think it will be a blast.

One of the reasons I find doing this so valuable is that everything I see in Western culture has taken on a new meaning for me after my first time through. Judaism and Christianity really did undergird some of the chief marvels and advances in our culture. Instead of using this new perspective in lieu of the one I got from Rand, I add them together. It's perfectly possible to use Rand's insights about Attila and Witchdoctor versus Producer and Intellectual to how Christianity has been used throughout history. And that's just one approach. There are several I find valuable.

I think Rand (and Nietzsche) did a disservice by demonizing Christianity. I like how she exposed how it can be used as a weapon of mind control by the power-mongering bad guys (my words, of course ), but I don't like how she glossed over the good stuff that has been done based on it. 

I don't discuss this much because there is a lot of hostility to religion in general in O-Land and I just don't want the hassle of the snark. So I go my own way doing it my way. I know I am much richer for these studies.

As to whether God exists or not, I like Jordan Peterson's answer when he said he doesn't like the question. So many people mean so many things by that question, it's hard to answer it without getting slammed by someone, and getting slammed for something I most likely would not believe in anyway (their vision).

I know reality does not end with what humans can perceive through their senses. Besides, we are an evolving species just like the rest of life. So I am open to new experiences as they arise (and I've had some very interesting and good ones), but I am also at peace with my limitations as a human being before the awe-inspiring vastness of the universe. I live feeling gratitude toward whatever is out there as much as I can manage and I like being this way.

This means I will never hold it against you that you are a Christian, even as you transit throughout O-Land. On the contrary, I am happy for you that you found your spiritual peace.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

It's at one hour 3 minutes.

I'm having a hard time pasting the you tube.

It's the May 29 about racism, blacks and Hispanics.

[Neil Parille]

The donor would have to be Barney, Koch brother or Barney.  My guess is Allison.

Apparently even Britting, the archivist, got axed.  He was one of the few productive people there.

[william.scherk]

Yaron Brook on ARI's "financial challenges":

2 hours ago, Neil Parille said:

It's at one hour 3 minutes.

I'm having a hard time pasting the you tube.

Cued up to Q and A on the institute's finances ...

[william.scherk]

On 6/3/2018 at 4:12 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As to whether God exists or not, I like Jordan Peterson's answer when he said he doesn't like the question. So many people mean so many things by that question, it's hard to answer it without getting slammed by someone, and getting slammed for something I most likely would not believe in anyway (their vision).

Jordan Peterson has had more than one go at a definition of God this week.  Each of the succeeding ones strain my conceptual vocabulary.  Apparently, in an extended conversation with Sam Harris, he figured out what Harris sees as "God."

A fair ways from anything as simple as The Creator of the Universe, The First Cause, but maybe close to other vaguely promising takes:  The Ground of Being. That Ineffable Thing.

Maybe the fun part of understanding Peterson is when he tells people without faith (in gods) that they are fooling themselves. Of course they believe in god/s. Deep Down somewhere.

Here is David Pakman giving a couple of issues a go.  Not as interesting as speculating on the money troubles at ARI, perhaps, but hey.

-- if you think this might be better in a stand-alone topic, press one of the odd little smiley things. Don't. It's irrevocable though changeable.

Edited June 27, 2018 by william.scherk
Name added to first line; cued up video to the theist==atheist claim SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE TRUE BELIEVERS

[Jon Letendre]

On 6/2/2018 at 9:09 AM, Neil Parille said:

According to Brook they lost a big donor.  Rumor is they axes 15 of 50 employees a couple weeks ago.

 

That’s great news! Thanks, Neil.

[KorbenDallas]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Jordan Peterson has had more than one go at a definition of God this week.  Each of the succeeding ones strain my conceptual vocabulary.  Apparently, in an extended conversation with Sam Harris, he figured out what Harris sees as "God."

A fair ways from anything as simple as The Creator of the Universe, The First Cause, but maybe close to other vaguely promising takes:  The Ground of Being. That Ineffable Thing.

Maybe the fun part of understanding Peterson is when he tells people without faith (in gods) that they are fooling themselves. Of course they believe in god/s. Deep Down somewhere.

Here is David Pakman giving a couple of issues a go.  Not as interesting as speculating on the money troubles at ARI, perhaps, but hey.

-- if you think this might be better in a stand-alone topic, press one of the odd little smiley things. Don't. It's irrevocable though changeable.

Peterson is not an Objectivist, if anyone still thinks that he is, or is Objectiv-ish, this video should prove that he is not.

His premise is flawed here, it is based off a conditional that if you are moral, then you believe in god (implicitly/explicitly).  Perhaps he is using the modality if you are moral then you must believe in god.

I'm not sure what his logic is behind this.

Perhaps he's going the neuroscience route and saying we all have a "god center" in the brain (god helmet stuff).  I don't know, but what I do know is I can be categorized as an atheist, I am moral, and I know that I don't believe in god.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

15 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Perhaps he's going the neuroscience route...

Korben,

There is some neuroscience with his ideas, but his main perspective is evolutionary biology and, by extension, evolutionary psychology. Underneath this, he adds Jung, neuroscience and all the rest.

This is the filter through which he sees Christianity, God, etc.

Even disagreeing, an examination of his thinking provides some excellent questions people normally don't ask here in O-Land. Questions they should ask.

Rand herself constantly said check your premises.

Michael

[william.scherk]

I posted my commentary above to a new Topic thread under Metaphysics. 

 

[Peter]

I noticed that Objectivism Online has no button for donations. Are they funded by ARI? They have a lot of "moderators" so maybe their operating and maintenance costs come from those folks. It would be nice to "occasionally" post there, but my account was deleted in 2011 as I mentioned on another thread. I asked to be reinstated on OO, and I would abide by their rules, but I have received no "answer back." I can still read posts there and comment here about those posts. I have no plans to migrate anywhere else and I will continue to donate to Objectivist Living, no matter the outcome.  

I think ARI's "intolerance" policy is their privilege but in a way, not moral either. It could be called "unhealthy debate."  David Kelley is no longer explicitly mentioned as an untouchable, but "toleration-ism" is. What did that Jack Nicholson character say? "You can't handle the truth?" If reason and reality is on ARI's side, why do they fear honest debate? And I am not saying they should tolerate "advertisements" for other sites. 

I remember discussing ARI with Barbara Branden and she was sure much of their intolerance was about money, even though they get some proceeds from sales of Rand's books.  

[Jonathan]

16 minutes ago, Peter said:

I noticed that Objectivism Online has no button for donations. Are they funded by ARI? They have a lot of "moderators" so maybe their operating and maintenance costs come from those folks. It would be nice to "occasionally" post there, but my account was deleted in 2011 as I mentioned on another thread. I asked to be reinstated on OO, and I would abide by their rules, but I have received no "answer back." I can still read posts there and comment here about those posts. I have no plans to migrate anywhere else and I will continue to donate to Objectivist Living, no matter the outcome.  

I think ARI's "intolerance" policy is their privilege but in a way, not moral either. It could be called "unhealthy debate."  David Kelley is no longer explicitly mentioned as an untouchable, but "toleration-ism" is. What did that Jack Nicholson character say? "You can't handle the truth?" If reason and reality is on ARI's side, why do they fear honest debate? And I am not saying they should tolerate "advertisements" for other sites. 

I remember discussing ARI with Barbara Branden and she was sure much of their intolerance was about money, even though they get some proceeds from sales of Rand's books.  

Where did you get the idea that OO was funded by ARI? I haven't seen anything that even remotely suggested that. It has always seemed to me that it was run by a bunch of overzealous kids who frequently got caught out inadvertently advocating the opposite of Rand's Official Objectivism while believing that they were something like the next generation's official representatives and intellectual heirs of Objectivism. I can't see the ARI sponsoring those kids and giving them the free reign to promote some of the really dumb positions they took.

J

[Peter]

Jonathan wrote, “Where did you get the idea that OO was funded by ARI?”

Maybe it was their seemingly official parroting of ARI doctrine and their intolerance? As I mentioned, I am still not sure they ARE NOT funded or sanctioned by ARI. Time will tell. I went looking, but I didn’t find the letter where BB talks about the “money connection” and the rift between ARI and David Kelley but I will keep looking. I did find some personal letters about our cats. Prrrrrrr~ Peter

[Jonathan]

18 minutes ago, Peter said:

Jonathan wrote, “Where did you get the idea that OO was funded by ARI?”

Maybe it was their seemingly official parroting of ARI doctrine and their intolerance? As I mentioned, I am still not sure they ARE NOT funded or sanctioned by ARI. Time will tell. I went looking, but I didn’t find the letter where BB talks about the “money connection” and the rift between ARI and David Kelley but I will keep looking. I did find some personal letters about our cats. Prrrrrrr~ Peter

 

 

Oh, sure, but that's a bit of a logical error. Just because some silly kids are acolyte wannabes of ARI, and try to emulate the authority poses of ARIans, doesn't mean that the ARI supports them, or even has any knowledge of them or interest in them. Seriously, despite the kids' trying to kiss the ARI's ass and to act as if they are Rand's appointed intellectual heirs, I think the ARI's attitude would be to want to not be connected to the dopey little power hungry kiddies. Think of all of the ARI people who cloister themselves and guard their sites and prevent open discourse. Loyalty pledges and all of that kind of weak nonsense. They're not going to support a bunch of ill-informed philosophical rookies misrepresenting Rand in an open forum where members aren't first vetted by loyalty tests and pledges.

J