Nathaniel's lectures on Basic Principles of Objectivism

[Roger Bissell]

Lecture 12 finished -- SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF COMPLETION!!

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Lecture 13 finished -- EIGHTY PERCENT OF COMPLETION!! (four lectures to go!)

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

REB

[Alfonso Jones]

Lecture 13 finished -- EIGHTY PERCENT OF COMPLETION!! (four lectures to go!)

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

REB

Imagine the massive crowd cheering you on . . .

Bill P (Alfonso)

[galtgulch]

Lecture 13 finished -- EIGHTY PERCENT OF COMPLETION!! (four lectures to go!)

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

REB

Imagine the massive crowd cheering you on . . .

Bill P (Alfonso)

Alfonso,

I applaud your endeavor. I own the original recordings from NBI as well as the Barbara Branden lectures on Principles of Efficient Thinking. Not to mention the series of Seminars in which Nathaniel Branden answered questions on a variety of subjects.

I would love to see this published and wonder if you have an idea when that is likely to happen.

I decided to reply to your post which was displaced from being on top by my post on the LA Times thread. I thought you wouldn't mind if I gave your post a "bump."

galt

[galtgulch]

Lecture 13 finished -- EIGHTY PERCENT OF COMPLETION!! (four lectures to go!)

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

REB

Imagine the massive crowd cheering you on . . .

Bill P (Alfonso)

Alfonso,

I applaud your endeavor. I own the original recordings from NBI as well as the Barbara Branden lectures on Principles of Efficient Thinking. Not to mention the series of Seminars in which Nathaniel Branden answered questions on a variety of subjects.

I would love to see this published and wonder if you have an idea when that is likely to happen.

I decided to reply to your post which was displaced from being on top by my post on the LA Times thread. I thought you wouldn't mind if I gave your post a "bump."

galt

bump

[Alfonso Jones]

Lecture 13 finished -- EIGHTY PERCENT OF COMPLETION!! (four lectures to go!)

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

REB

Imagine the massive crowd cheering you on . . .

Bill P (Alfonso)

Alfonso,

I applaud your endeavor. I own the original recordings from NBI as well as the Barbara Branden lectures on Principles of Efficient Thinking. Not to mention the series of Seminars in which Nathaniel Branden answered questions on a variety of subjects.

I would love to see this published and wonder if you have an idea when that is likely to happen.

I decided to reply to your post which was displaced from being on top by my post on the LA Times thread. I thought you wouldn't mind if I gave your post a "bump."

galt

bump

Not my endeavor. REB (go up one post from mine) is the lead on this. I'm not doing anything except cheering.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Roger Bissell]

Lecture 13 finished -- EIGHTY PERCENT OF COMPLETION!! (four lectures to go!)

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

REB

Imagine the massive crowd cheering you on . . .

Bill P (Alfonso)

Alfonso,

I applaud your endeavor. I own the original recordings from NBI as well as the Barbara Branden lectures on Principles of Efficient Thinking. Not to mention the series of Seminars in which Nathaniel Branden answered questions on a variety of subjects.

I would love to see this published and wonder if you have an idea when that is likely to happen.

I decided to reply to your post which was displaced from being on top by my post on the LA Times thread. I thought you wouldn't mind if I gave your post a "bump."

galt

bump

Not my endeavor. REB (go up one post from mine) is the lead on this. I'm not doing anything except cheering.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Hey, Bill -- thanks for the moral support!

Galt: there is no projected publication date yet, but I'm personally hoping to see it in print by year after next (2010).

REB

[Chris Grieb]

Bill P, Galt, and me are all in agreement about your great effort with BPO. It will be a good contribution to the Objectivist corpus.

I would like to suggest there be references to Rand's writings in portions of Basic Principles. Also references to Branden's other writing, Peikoff's and other Objectivists like David Kelley.

Edited August 25, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Roger Bissell]

Bill P, Galt, and me are all in agreement about your great effort with BPO. It will be a good contribution to the Objectivist corpus.

I would like to suggest there be references to Rand's writings in portions of Basic Principles. Also references to Branden's other writing, Peikoff's and other Objectivists like David Kelley.

Worthy suggestions, Chris! I'm not sure how Nathaniel is going to handle the issue of footnoting or referencing, but I do know that he has a number of quotes and references to Rand and others in the bodies of the lectures, and I wouldn't be surprised if he fleshed these out with bibliographic details. I agree that a more inclusive listing of references and resources would be desirable, but that is also Nathaniel's call.

REB

[Philip Coates]

> I'm not sure how Nathaniel is going to handle the issue of footnoting or referencing [Roger]

These taped courses - by NB, by BB, by Peikoff, by Blumenthal, etc. -- should simply be reprinted without rewriting with the word "transcripts of lecture given in year X" clearly on the front. There is a tradition for this - the Feynmann lectures, etc.

Readers are familiar with the concept of reading a speech, making allowances for the form, skipping past the verbal tics, etc. Not exactly a new concept in western civilization or in publishing.

That way the material can be out -quickly- and taken in the spirit intended. And, as NB, BB, LP etc. revisit them they can publish new thoughts or retractions or emendations on the subject.

But that should be a second, separate undertaking. If an attempt is made to convert them to one's present knowledge years later, one would have to junk them and start over perhaps in some cases. Can't rethink or expand all this stuff in the -original- work.

JUST GET IT OUT THERE.

NOW (IF YESTERDAY SEEMS UNREASONABLE).

The only thing is that the audience has changed - they don't know jargon or have 'inside baseball' knowledge of Objectivism, references to Kant, modern art, evasion, psychoepistemology, etc. so explanatory footnotes are needed. Better yet, put them in brackets inside the text.

Especially since these notes would have to be extensive, if one seeks a non-Objectivist (or non-savvy, non-sophisticated) Objectivist audience

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

I'm not worried about Nathaniel getting out a book once he sets his mind to it, nor about how he will handle referencing.

Roger has magnificently spearheaded and coordinated the job of doing the grunt-work to get Nathaniel interested. Once Nathaniel gets revved up, he does a pretty good job of completing and publishing his books. He's actually one of the few from the Objectivist world who does that in any volume.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Phil,

I'm not worried about Nathaniel getting out a book once he sets his mind to it, nor about how he will handle referencing.

Roger has magnificently spearheaded and coordinated the job of doing the grunt-work to get Nathaniel interested. Once Nathaniel gets revved up, he does a pretty good job of completing and publishing his books. He's actually one of the few from the Objectivist world who does that in any volume.

Michael

Michael; Who in the Objectivist world could you be talking about with the last two sentences of your last paragraph. Are you suggesting that is someone who takes fourteen years to complete a book.

[Roger Bissell]

Phil,

I'm not worried about Nathaniel getting out a book once he sets his mind to it, nor about how he will handle referencing.

Roger has magnificently spearheaded and coordinated the job of doing the grunt-work to get Nathaniel interested. Once Nathaniel gets revved up, he does a pretty good job of completing and publishing his books. He's actually one of the few from the Objectivist world who does that in any volume.

Michael

I completely agree, Michael. I have lost count, and some books are retreads with different titles, but I think NB has published close to (if not more than) 20 books over the last 40 years. Not too shabby!

Another prominent person in the "Objectivist world" who was put out possibly even ~more~ books than NB is Tibor Machan. His output has centered in moral and political areas rather than psychology, so between them they've cut a pretty wide swath.

Not surprisingly, neither of them is enmeshed in the stultifying atmosphere of the orthodox Objectivist establishment, though they do make occasional appearances at IOS/TOC/TAS/TBA.

Then there are the three books by Chris Sciabarra, the three books co-written by Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl. And I should mention the four (?) books written by David Kelley.

But I challenge you to name ~one other~ establishment Objectivist who has put out more than ~two~ books since the Rand-Branden split. Unless you count monographs/booklets or edited volumes, there ain't no such animal.

To quote a famous former Brazilian conductor and trombone player: "Dayamm!"

As for my part in all this, I'd say that the "grunt work" has been mostly a labor of love and another opportunity for close, in-depth study of the master, so to speak. Jerry Biggers has been a ~big~ help, covering 25% of the lectures.

The "spearheading," though was a very iffy proposition and probably wouldn't have succeeded without Barbara's timely nudging this past February. I approached NB in February of 2006, and he dismissed the idea then. Two years later made all the difference.

As far as I know, a decision has not yet been made about how/with whom to publish BPO. I suggested to NB that he do it as a "print on demand" book sold via the Internet. Other than the initial $$ outlay, that would seem to involve the least hassle and risk.

So, despite the sense of urgency at the inexorable passage of time and gradual depletion of BPO's primary reading audience, I'd say that we are in good shape for publication VERY SOON, which in the present context will have to suffice.

REB

[Chris Grieb]

Roger; Kaye Nolte Smith wrote several novels but as you noted the output from others as been lacking. I once noted that back in the 60ths several people were supposed to have books they were working on that have never been published.

I must mention George Reisman's book on economics is in size like three books.

[Roger Bissell]

Roger; Kaye Nolte Smith wrote several novels but as you noted the output from others as been lacking. I once noted that back in the 60ths several people were supposed to have books they were working on that have never been published.

I must mention George Reisman's book on economics is in size like three books.

Well, I'm just counting non-fiction books, Chris -- books that can arguably be said to present or be applications or extensions of informed by Objectivism. Reisman counts, of course, and he did have a very good book in the 70s called Government Against the Economy. But I don't care how big the capitalism book was, if he didn't publish the parts separately. (Nathaniel's publishers put out a single volume of his first three post-split books.)

For all the blathering I've done, I have ~no~ books out, but (with outlines based on essays published and projected and talks delivered) I have at least three books in the early stages of development that can reasonably be categorized as Objectivism-related books. I may have to market them myself, but that's just part of the premium I pay for not being either an academic professor or an orthodox toady. Considering how much I like my lifestyle and freedom, it's a reasonable cost.

REB

[Philip Coates]

Roger and Michael, my post was not about NB or about whether or not he or other people have published lots of books - it was about the movement, the 'oral tradition' and the idea of publishing AS TRANSCRIPTS.

Nor did you address the arguments I made for the transcript idea. So I wonder why I posted it if my points are simply going to be ignored or the subject changed without them being engaged?????

This is what I said only a day ago - in post #110. Right above. On this very page.:

"These taped courses - by NB, by BB, by Peikoff, by Blumenthal, etc. -- should simply be reprinted without rewriting with the word "transcripts of lecture given in year X" clearly on the front. There is a tradition for this - the Feynmann lectures, etc."

I then proceeded to discuss the (modified) transcript concept in some depth and how it might be implemented [obviously for lectures by Peikoff, BB and many others in the "oral tradition" not just NB but from BOTH SIDES of the Oist cold war.]

(Once I have to quote and repeat what I clearly stated, I feel an enormous sense of exhaustion and that it may be time to drop out of a thread.)

[Alfonso Jones]

So, despite the sense of urgency at the inexorable passage of time and gradual depletion of BPO's primary reading audience, I'd say that we are in good shape for publication VERY SOON, which in the present context will have to suffice.

REB

Good news. Here's hoping it's pretty much publication as is with only the most trivial editing, as distinct from rewriting, expansion, revision, . . .

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Dragonfly]

It is "Feynman", not "Feynmann".

[Neil Parille]

Leonard Peikoff said in OPAR that he was working on a book on Objectivist epistemology. MA Sures was supposed to write a book on art. Rand of course was going to publish a book on Objectivism.

One wonders if Peikoff's book on the DIM Hypothesis will see the light of day. I do believe that he wants to leave a legacy.

I'd add that the best stuff written about Rand has been the Mayhew collections, in particular because of Milgram's pieces.

-NEIL

Edited August 26, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Roger Bissell]

Roger and Michael, my post was not about NB or about whether or not he or other people have published lots of books - it was about the movement, the 'oral tradition' and the idea of publishing AS TRANSCRIPTS.

Nor did you address the arguments I made for the transcript idea. So I wonder why I posted it if my points are simply going to be ignored or the subject changed without them being engaged?????

This is what I said only a day ago - in post #110. Right above. On this very page.:

"These taped courses - by NB, by BB, by Peikoff, by Blumenthal, etc. -- should simply be reprinted without rewriting with the word "transcripts of lecture given in year X" clearly on the front. There is a tradition for this - the Feynmann lectures, etc."

I then proceeded to discuss the (modified) transcript concept in some depth and how it might be implemented [obviously for lectures by Peikoff, BB and many others in the "oral tradition" not just NB but from BOTH SIDES of the Oist cold war.]

(Once I have to quote and repeat what I clearly stated, I feel an enormous sense of exhaustion and that it may be time to drop out of a thread.)

Goodness sakes, why the hissy fit???

Yes, as I've said previously, NB's lectures are going to be published AS TRANSCRIPTS. He will probably write a foreward and an epilog, and little or nothing else. (He may do footnotes or bibliographic references for the works cited in the lectures.)

Yes, it will be done SOON. But get one thing straight. Except for doing the transcripts with all due speed, and giving NB all the moral support and encouragement I can, I am NOT in control of when or whether the book gets done. That is up to him, as it should be.

Yes, I bloviated a bit in my post, but so frickin' what! You don't??? Reader exhaustion goes both ways, my friend. Also, I was replying to (and amplifying) Michael's comment, not speaking directly to you.

I think it should be clear to most calm readers of this thread that Michael and I were trying to emphasize the point that no one need worry that NB is going to get his BPO lecture book done in fairly short order. He is a man with a record of solid achievement.

And so are certain others (whom I mentioned), all of whom (though I didn't explicitly say it) have eschewed the convenient sanctuary of the "oral/aural" tradition and actually PRODUCED BOOKS! I don't think we salute these folks frequently enough.

Just one last question, Phil -- are you dying of cancer, with just 6 months to live? If so, you will NOT live long enough to see the book become a reality, and you have my sincere condolences. Otherwise, chill man. You're harshing our well-earned buzz here!

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Lecture 14 finished -- EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT OF COMPLETION!! (three lectures to go!)

:cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

:cheer: :cheer:

REB

[TWIMC -- the remaining lectures to be transcribed are #9-11 on the Objectivist Ethics. I am waiting to hear from Robert Campbell to see how much help he needs to do these last three.]

[Alfonso Jones]

Roger and Michael, my post was not about NB or about whether or not he or other people have published lots of books - it was about the movement, the 'oral tradition' and the idea of publishing AS TRANSCRIPTS.

Nor did you address the arguments I made for the transcript idea. So I wonder why I posted it if my points are simply going to be ignored or the subject changed without them being engaged?????

This is what I said only a day ago - in post #110. Right above. On this very page.:

"These taped courses - by NB, by BB, by Peikoff, by Blumenthal, etc. -- should simply be reprinted without rewriting with the word "transcripts of lecture given in year X" clearly on the front. There is a tradition for this - the Feynmann lectures, etc."

I then proceeded to discuss the (modified) transcript concept in some depth and how it might be implemented [obviously for lectures by Peikoff, BB and many others in the "oral tradition" not just NB but from BOTH SIDES of the Oist cold war.]

(Once I have to quote and repeat what I clearly stated, I feel an enormous sense of exhaustion and that it may be time to drop out of a thread.)

Goodness sakes, why the hissy fit???

Yes, as I've said previously, NB's lectures are going to be published AS TRANSCRIPTS. He will probably write a foreward and an epilog, and little or nothing else. (He may do footnotes or bibliographic references for the works cited in the lectures.)

Yes, it will be done SOON. But get one thing straight. Except for doing the transcripts with all due speed, and giving NB all the moral support and encouragement I can, I am NOT in control of when or whether the book gets done. That is up to him, as it should be.

Yes, I bloviated a bit in my post, but so frickin' what! You don't??? Reader exhaustion goes both ways, my friend. Also, I was replying to (and amplifying) Michael's comment, not speaking directly to you.

I think it should be clear to most calm readers of this thread that Michael and I were trying to emphasize the point that no one need worry that NB is going to get his BPO lecture book done in fairly short order. He is a man with a record of solid achievement.

And so are certain others (whom I mentioned), all of whom (though I didn't explicitly say it) have eschewed the convenient sanctuary of the "oral/aural" tradition and actually PRODUCED BOOKS! I don't think we salute these folks frequently enough.

Just one last question, Phil -- are you dying of cancer, with just 6 months to live? If so, you will NOT live long enough to see the book become a reality, and you have my sincere condolences. Otherwise, chill man. You're harshing our well-earned buzz here!

REB

REB -

I can't speak for Phil, but I know that many of us are just excited about this project reaching completion. Are we impatient - yes. I urge you to view it as an indication of the strong interest in the project, not as criticisms. I suspect that may be the root of the motivation for Phil, also.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Roger Bissell]

REB -

I can't speak for Phil, but I know that many of us are just excited about this project reaching completion. Are we impatient - yes. I urge you to view it as an indication of the strong interest in the project, not as criticisms. I suspect that may be the root of the motivation for Phil, also.

Bill P (Alfonso)

OK, Bill, I'll take it in that spirit. I'm impatient, too, but I trust in NB's commitment to preserving the historical record, not bowdlerizing it (or flushing it down the memory hole) as the ortho's are all too apt to do. And I know he wants it published as expeditiously as we do. He is not going to dither or agonize about it. He is a man of action and integrity. If I hadn't been confident about all this from the outset, I'd have never invested all the time and effort that I have in transcribing the lectures.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

> I'm not sure how Nathaniel is going to handle the issue of footnoting or referencing [Roger]

These taped courses - by NB, by BB, by Peikoff, by Blumenthal, etc. -- should simply be reprinted without rewriting with the word "transcripts of lecture given in year X" clearly on the front.

Roger and Michael, my post was not about NB...

Hmmmmm...

Michael

EDIT: btw - I agree with you about the horrible reliance on the oral tradition in Objectivism. I just consider that to be a bit too obvious to analyze in depth. Sort of like saying that the schisms in Objectivism have caused a terrible public image. Who can disagree with either position? Especially seeing that they have been mentioned about 50 gazillion times all over the place in the Objectivist world during decades.

[Alfonso Jones]

REB -

I can't speak for Phil, but I know that many of us are just excited about this project reaching completion. Are we impatient - yes. I urge you to view it as an indication of the strong interest in the project, not as criticisms. I suspect that may be the root of the motivation for Phil, also.

Bill P (Alfonso)

OK, Bill, I'll take it in that spirit. I'm impatient, too, but I trust in NB's commitment to preserving the historical record, not bowdlerizing it (or flushing it down the memory hole) as the ortho's are all too apt to do. And I know he wants it published as expeditiously as we do. He is not going to dither or agonize about it. He is a man of action and integrity. If I hadn't been confident about all this from the outset, I'd have never invested all the time and effort that I have in transcribing the lectures.

REB

REB -

I wouldn't expect anyone to have as many books published as NB has over the years without the ability to get things done, in fact. Which fits perfectly with what you say.

I think that NB preserving the record INTACT will be very valuable. A generation from now, some people employing Orwellian memory holes are going to be regarded with contempt, I expect. Those people may be flushed - not by being deleted from documents, but instead by being forgotten as people lacking in credibility and integrity, or remembered only as bad examples, much as we now remember Nazi book-burners.

Bill P (Alfonso)