Objectivism Reference Center status

[emb021]

All-

(sorry if this is the wrong forum for this)

Does anyone know what happened to the Objectivism Reference Center at www.noblesoul.com/orc? I visited the site today, and its some generic cybersquater site. I checked google to see if its been moved. No info that it has.

I found this a great reference site on Objectivism. Lot of great info on Rand and other objectivist writers (whoever did it was obviously not in the ARI camp, so covered everyone).

I hope its back. It would be a lost not to have this info available.

[Greybird]

The site's main page is available here, in its last revision of 7 February 2006, at the Wayback Machine. Links here will go to other archived pages. Text from the site is still present in Google's cache, as well.

I would like to second Michael Brown's concerns. This useful site is listed many times at OL, especially in the Lists of Links, and unless there's reliable word of its imminent return elsewhere, such links do need to be revised. At least to use the main-page version linked above.

It may be that Richard Lawrence's domain registration simply expired, and he may not have had the money to renew it or his hosting contract. He's no longer listed as the domain owner at Whois.

Lawrence is an old "sparring partner" of mine, but he had been scrupulous in documenting every faction and prominent Objectivist, not just the ones (ARI, et al.) with whom he agreed. And I have to respect that.

He's too ... I'll be less snarky and say "persistent" ... to leave this site off line for very long, if he has the money and attention to devote to it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve and Michael,

I have long been an admirer of Richard Lawrence (see here, for example), but his latest posts on another forum suggest that he has turned into a Branden-hater. See this post in particular (from Wed, 2006-09-06 03:45, called "The Good Break"). Unfortunately you have to scroll to the post and locate it by date and time. Richard's user-name is "RL0919." As of this time, it is on Page 2 of the comments. Here is a quote from that post:

I think their split was one of the best things that ever happened to Objectivism, because Nathaniel Branden was one of the worst things that ever happened to it. The institutionalization of Objectivism as a "movement" (via NBI), the impression of cultism, the prominent association of Objectivism with Branden's "Objectivist psychotherapy" -- the list of ills resulting from Branden's association with Rand is long and depressing.

In a later post on that thread, Richard made it clear that he was taken in by PARC (stating the Hamel's obscure book on Rand bashing the Brandens and Rothbard, In Defense of Ayn Rand, was a precursor of PARC and could be replaced by it). Apparently the siren call of setting up Rand as a goddess by setting up Branden as a devil was too great to resist. He later made an extremely uncharacteristic comment (scroll in the same threat to "RL0919," Fri, 2006-09-08 08:16, "James"). This was one of the last public comments by him as of date that I am aware of, and this was in September of last year (he made a few comments on SOLOP after this one).

Of course O'Connor was a drunk. To this day, gin reclamation teams pump 50 barrels a day from his grave. I have this on good authority from Jeff Walker, who heard the story from Roy Childs, who got it from Rand's dry cleaner.

When my paranoia kicks in, I imagine 1 of 2 scenarios:

1. Richard decided that the negative parts concerning Rand and Objectivism he provided on his site, especially things like the Rand-Branden timeline, were not good for his newly found perspective, so he took the entire site down; or

2. Since SOLOP was overrun with ARI people back then, he received an offer to take the site down (and I have no idea of what he could have been offered other than money or opportunity).

Speculation, I know, but I can't help thinking it is good speculation. I grieve for the loss of objectivity with the removal of the site and for the loss of a serious and valuable independent Rand/Objectivism scholar and promoter if Richard has turned into a true-believer.

Michael

[Greybird]

I have long been an admirer of Richard Lawrence (see here, for example), but his latest posts on another forum suggest that he has turned into a Branden-hater.

He's been that acerbic-to-vicious for at least a dozen years, in h.p.o and elsewhere. It's no "newly found perspective." Many ARIans just don't bother talking about the Brandens very often, period. Not every forum indulges in routine personal sniping, as SOLO and progeny do.

In any event, is this particularly germane to the fact of his domain name having expired? I would still suggest that the links to his root page on OL be replaced by the Wayback Machine link, until the site returns (if ever), so that others here could benefit from his relatively non-partisan Web efforts.

[emb021]

Sad, sad.

I really liked the ORC, and found it a great source of data. For this site to be lost would be tragic. For instance, having just recently obtained the hardbound reprints of the Objectivist Newsletter, Objectivist, and the Ayn Rand Letter, I was looking forward to using the site to figure out what articles got reprinted in her books and what ones didn't.

And I thought I had heard any the possible 'evils' of Branden... So now all the cult-like behavior of the NBI-era (as if it didn't continue afterwards), etc. etc. is all Branden's fault. Riiight.

[emb021]

It appears that ORC is back, but no explaination of what happened.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael.

That's GREAT news. Thank you.

Michael

[RL0919]

It appears that ORC is back, but no explaination of what happened.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I just discovered this discussion and wanted to clear up some of the issues mentioned here.

The Objectivism Reference Center did go offline for some time (I'm not sure of the exact amount of time, but I believe it was several weeks) because I neglected to renew the domain registration. This was simple oversight on my part. It went unnoticed for a while because I busy and not actively visiting or updating the site. (I recently made the first significant updates in six months.) I had to "rescue" the URL from a domain-sitter, but fortunately the site doesn't drive quite so much traffic as to demand an outrageous price.

As someone who dislikes "link rot," I am and should be ashamed of letting the situation occur, but it was absolutely unintentional and unrelated to any other issues mentioned earlier in the thread. I didn't decide to abandon the site. I wasn't offered anything to take it down. I didn't run out of money. I wasn't kidnapped by aliens. I wasn't drugged and tossed into a swimming pool. Etc. I do not care to discuss my opinion of Nathaniel Branden or any other individual at this time, other than to say that it had nothing to do with the outage, either directly or indirectly. Ditto for my views on PARC, SOLO, ARI, or any other letters of the alphabet.

I hope the explanations above help put to rest any speculations regarding this situation.

I'm glad that people find the site useful and hope that the restored version continues to perform a valuable function.

--

Richard Lawrence

Webmaster, Objectivism Reference Center

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Richard,

Thank you for the information. It is very much appreciated.

Please excuse the speculations. Sorry if they caused any discomfort.

(But be careful with aliens. You never know what all is out there... )

Michael

[lei.talk]

unhappily,

the objectivism reference center is down, again.

is richard in good health?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, lei.talk said:

unhappily,

the objectivism reference center is down, again.

is richard in good health?

LT,

I took a look and the site is definitely offline.

I imagine Richard Lawrence forgot to pay his domain or hosting since that was the problem the first time around. He could also be revamping his site (making it mobile-friendly, etc.).

I don't know him personally, so I can't tell you about his health. I haven't heard anything, either.

Unless someone else knows something, we just have to wait for him to appear somewhere.

(Maybe an alien gobbled him up.  )

Michael

[gio]

Damned! This website was so practical!!

[Mark]

The domain noblesoul.com expired and eventually went up for sale.  Some company bought it last year, I forget the name.  

March 21, 2020 the domain changed hands again.  One Anthony Mason now owns it.  On the new website he says he is “the owner and webmaster of the Objectivism Reference Center ...”  However The Objectivism Reference Center is not there.  The main page says the website was last updated January 12, 2021.

Mason says he used to be active on the  humanities.philosophy.objectivism newsgroup and the Atlantis mailing list.

It could be that Mason thinks that by purchasing the domain name he purchased ORC. The website doesn’t mention Richard Lawrence.

 

[Neil Parille]

Lawrence still seems active on wikipedia.  

Years ago I contacted him with links to recent O'ist books and thought that would keep his site current.  He never got back to me or it was non-commital.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mark,

It is still on the Wayback Machine (latest version I could find was for 2019). Here is the front page.  Here is ORC. And here is the page of Richard Lawrence.

On Richard's page, the new owner is presenting it as if he (the new owner) wrote and is interested in Lady Jane Grey, Jack the Ripper, Robin Hood and Jesus of Nazareth. But that is Richard's work.

Except for one difference other than author. There is a big honking ad for a casino in the middle.

I don't think we have to worry about Anthony Mason having been an active member of humanities.philosophy.objectivism newsgroup or the Atlantis mailing list. And I doubt he will be posting much in O-Land.

 

I'll be back with some news in a sec.

Michael

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The news is I've downloaded the site with a program called wget.

The latest WM snapshot is from May, 2019. There are other snapshots after that, but they get weird, then they turn into the new version.

There is an odd little thing about my download, though, because of an excessive number of "index.html" files in the coding, so I will have to go through everything carefully to make sure I got it all.

I already downloaded this site way back when the hard way, meaning I did it page by page.

If anyone wants to know about the process I used this go around, shoot me a message.

Michael

[Peter]

Some background on Richard Lawrence? Peter

From: "Richard Lawrence" To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Emerson: "A foolish consistency... Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 17:10:15 -0700. Roger Bissell wrote: Like Ellen S., Ellen M., and others, I seriously doubt that Rand dismissed R.W. Emerson on the basis of his "foolish consistency" statement alone. I have this vague recollection that she ~did~ discuss it somewhere in print, but my memory is not adequate to recalling where, and I don't (yet) have the Ayn Rand searchable  >CD-ROM.

The original quote from Rand is as follows: 'You might claim -- as most people do -- that you have never been influenced by philosophy. I will ask you to check that claim. Have you ever thought or said the following? "Don't be so sure -- nobody can be certain of anything." You got that notion from David Hume (and many, many others), even though you might never have heard of him. [Several other examples omitted.]

'Some people might answer: "Sure, I've said those things at different times, but I don't have to believe that stuff *all* of the time. It may have been true yesterday, but it's not true today." They got it from Hegel. They might say: "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." They got it from a very little mind, Emerson. They might say: "But can't one compromise and borrow different ideas from different philosophies according to the expediency of the moment?"

'They got it from Richard Nixon -- who got it from William James.'

("Philosophy: Who Needs It" in _Philosophy: Who Needs It_, pp. 4-5, emphasis in original)

The first thing to recognize is that *Rand does not quote Emerson*. Rather, she says that "you" (or "some people") might say various things, and then presents examples of various trite philosophical sayings. For each saying, a person is named who serves as a source for that idea. In the instance at issue, the source is Emerson, but she never claims that Emerson (or any of the other sources) used the exact words that she uses.

As it turns out, Emerson did use the very words that Rand does in the "consistency" saying that she claims he is the source for, although these words are part of a longer sentence in Emerson's original text. This coincidence of phrasing naturally leads many people to believe that she was quoting Emerson, and perhaps misquoting him, since she does not quote the entire sentence. But she was actually not attempting to quote him directly at all. Although she isn't quoting Emerson directly, she still does cite him as the source of the saying. Therefore, some readers might still raise an issue of possible misrepresentation. It is fair to ask: does the saying she quotes accurately reflect what Emerson meant in his original statement? To find an answer to this question, let us turn to the original, and give a fuller context for Emerson's words: 'The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.

But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? It seems to be a rule of wisdom never to rely on your memory alone, scarcely even in acts of pure memory, but to bring the past for judgment into the thousand-eyed present, and live ever in a new day. In your metaphysics you have denied personality to the Deity: yet when the devout motions of the soul come, yield to them heart and life, though they should clothe God with shape and color. Leave your theory, as Joseph his coat in the hand of the harlot, and flee

'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what    to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said to-day. -- 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' -- Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.'

Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self- Reliance" (taken from http://www.online-literature.com/emerson/588/ )

Emerson's comments can be read more than one way. On one reading, one might say that he is simply advising against "foolish" consistency. For example, one should not pursue consistency with one's past statements for its own sake when new evidence suggests that your previous statements were wrong. Those who chastise Rand for misrepresenting Emerson presumably hold to this interpretation.

However, another equally plausible interpretation is available: Emerson may be saying that all efforts at consistency are "foolish." Certainly the sentence, "With consistency a great soul has nothing to do," is not qualified in any way. Moreover, the specific example he gives of inconsistency -- denying personality to God and then ascribing it to Him -- does not involve a change of mind based on new evidence or argument. Rather, Emerson advises indulging in such inconsistency based on "devout motions of the soul." On this understanding of Emerson's meaning, Rand has not misrepresented him at all. In fact, it is those who place emphasis on the modifier "foolish" who misrepresent him, while Rand has correctly captured the essence of 

his meaning.

 

From the text itself, the latter interpretation seems more likely, although I cannot claim it is definitive. In any case the point is surely arguable enough that one cannot justly dismiss Rand's identification of Emerson as the source of the saying as an obvious misrepresentation. And, as discussed above, it is not a misquotation

because it is not a direct quotation in the first place. Richard Lawrence Visit the Objectivism Reference Center

 

From: "George H. Smith To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Emerson: "A foolish consistency...."

Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:39:07 -0500

 

Richard Lawrence wrote:

"However, another equally plausible interpretation is available: Emerson may be saying that all efforts at consistency are "foolish." Certainly the sentence, "With consistency a great soul has nothing to do," is not

qualified in any way. Moreover, the specific example he gives of inconsistency -- denying personality to God and then ascribing it to Him -- does not involve a change of mind based on new evidence or argument. Rather, Emerson advises indulging in such inconsistency based on "devout motions of the soul." On this understanding of Emerson's meaning, Rand has not misrepresented him at all. In fact, it is those who place emphasis on the modifier "foolish" who misrepresent him, while Rand has correctly captured the essence of his meaning."

I disagree with Richard's interpretation for several reasons, not the least of which is its failure to take into account the fundamental theme of "Self-Reliance" from which the passage in question -- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." -- is taken.

Let us first consider the longer passage that Richard himself quotes, which begins: "The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them."

Emerson is clearly referring to how *others* often judge us, namely, on the basis of our past actions and words, and he significantly notes that "we are loath to disappoint them." This is consistent with what Emerson says elsewhere in his essay, e.g.:  "Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist....Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.....I ought to go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all  ways . . . . Few and mean as my gifts may be, I actually am, and do not need for my own assurance or the assurance of my fellows any secondary testimony....What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think."

Emerson is issuing a clarion call for intellectual independence, for exercising one's honest judgment in all matters, regardless of what others may think -- and this is the key to understanding the passage in 

question. After noting that "For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure," Emerson (in the passage I quoted previously), adds: "The other terror that scares us from SELF-TRUST is our consistency; a

reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of OTHERS have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them." (My emphasis.)

 

This leads into his remark about "foolish consistency." In other words, it is foolish to abandon or conceal your frank judgment because others might deem it inconsistent with what you have said in the past.

 

But what if "should contradict yourself" in fact and not merely in the minds of others? Emerson asks, "What then?" Here one needs to understand Emerson's view of "reason," which he thought was capable of ascertaining the truth from many different perspectives. He thought -- and here I agree with him to a certain extent -- that abstract theories can sometimes hinder our appreciation of new truths. As he explains in another essay, our ideas can liberate us, but they can also constitute a "prison" for those who view them fixed, final, and incapable of revision and refinement. Although I think he overstated the point at times, Emerson had a fine sense of the value of spontaneous insights, which he cautioned should not be rejected automatically simply because they do not conform to our preconceived theories. Indeed, a "genius," in Emerson's view, is precisely a person who has the courage to explore the spontaneous insights of his or her own mind, without rejecting them out of hand became they don't conform to conventional patterns, whether of others or oneself.

Note how Emerson concludes his famous saying: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." This is essentially a critique of people who, in Emerson's view, have become so wedded to theoretical (especially metaphysical) schemes that they reject new and potentially valuable insights out of hand because they do not conform those theories.

In short, Emerson's dictum is part and parcel of his call for intellectual integrity. He believed the "self-reliant" nonconformist should express himself honestly and forthrightly, without regard for what others might think. This is essential to what one commentator has called Emerson's stress on "critical self-cultivation." Emerson believed that intellectual excellence is dynamic, not static, and that we should never reach the point where we say to ourselves, in effect, "I now know all I need to know, and my days of innovation and intellectual development are over."

There is more involved here, granted, and I should add that I have never been a fan of Transcendentalism, considered as a technical philosophy (to the extent that it can even be regarded as such). But in expositors like Emerson, Thoreau, and Parker (and this latter was the most theoretical of the three) it does have a very appealing side, namely, its stress on the value of individualism in its myriad forms.

It has often been said that Emerson writes like a sage dispensing pearls of wisdom rather than like a true philosopher. I personally don't care for this style, primarily because it typically lacks careful argumentation, and I think this style can sometimes make it easy to misunderstand what Emerson was trying to say. But, in this case least, I think his intended meaning is fairly clear. There is a reason, after all, why the essay in which this famous passage occurs is called "Self-Reliance."

Richard Lawrence wrote: "I won't argue with that assessment [by Sandra Mendoza]. And he [Ghs] did it without impugning my motives or misrepresenting my arguments. If only I could get such treatment from all my critics ...."

Perhaps I should add that Richard's (and possibly Rand's) interpretation ("Emerson may be saying that all efforts at consistency are 'foolish'") is by no means an unreasonable one, given the ambiguous meaning that Emerson assigned to "reason."

Emerson claimed that the label "Transcendentalism" had been taken from the "transcendental forms" of Immanuel Kant -- though, as Morton White has noted, "he most certainly need not have relied on Kant for that notion" (*Science and Sentiment in America: Philosophical Thought from Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey,* 99).

White says this because, by "reason," Emerson sometimes means the intuitive (as opposed to discursive) apprehension of truth, and this ability was defended even by John Locke and other empiricists, who constituted the school of thought to which Emerson was primarily opposed. (Indeed, the depiction of empiricism by the Transcendentalists was sometimes little more than a caricature.)

But Emerson used "reason" in another sense as well, viz, to refer to a feeling, or sentiment, that justifies moral truths without further argument or justification. And, as White explains, "whenever Emerson spoke of Reason as a faculty exercised in the expression of moral sentiment, he departed from Kant's absolutistic and anti-naturalistic ethics as well as from the rationalistic ethics of Locke and Reid."

White continues: "However, it is a thankless task to pursue the origins and the confused windings of Emerson's views of Reason. It is sufficient for our purposes to note that he thought that moral and religious beliefs are supported by Reason viewed as a faculty of feeling; and therefore that he represented a very influential chapter in the transformation of Lockian Reason from a purely intellectual faculty to one which may be exercised in a person's having sentiments. For Emerson, Reason was primarily a power of the mind to feel moral and religious truth.... [H]e was primarily interested in asserting religious and moral truth without argument." (99-100)

Anyone who adopts this view of "reason" is unlikely to place a high value on the demands of formal logic, and Emerson was no exception. Hence, even though I think my earlier interpretation of the "hobgoblin" passage is correct, given the context of this remark, it is hardly surprising that it has been interpreted as a total disdain for logical consistency.

To some extent Emerson invited precisely this kind of misunderstanding, given his fondness for exalting the spontaneous and intuitive feelings of "reason" over the "understanding" (his term) of particular empirical facts. Ghs

From: "Richard Lawrence" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Emerson: "A foolish consistency...." Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:16:15 -0700. George H. Smith wrote: I disagree with Richard's interpretation for several reasons, not the least of which is its failure to take into account the fundamental theme of "Self-Reliance" from which the passage in question -- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." – is taken.>>

First, it is probably worth noting that I am not wedded to any particular interpretation of Emerson's words. I indicated in my previous post that I consider the point to be arguable, and I certainly do not consider myself an expert on Emerson, especially considering how long it had been since I read any of his works before this issue came up on Atlantis. That said, however, I do not agree that the "fundamental theme" of "Self-Reliance" is a sufficient basis for dismissing the interpretation I offered.

I do agree that "Self-Reliance" is about intellectual independence and "the integrity of your own mind." And in keeping with this theme, Emerson introduces the issue of consistency by discussion how a concern with consistency (and with appearing consistent to others) can interfere with intellectual independence. In all this I am in agreement with what George wrote.

<<But what if  "should contradict yourself" in fact and not merely in the minds of others?>>

This question leads to the difficulty in interpretation of Emerson's comments. If one assumes that his concern about consistency is strictly limited to cases where a person tries to stay consistent with his past statements out of concern for appearances to others, even disregarding new evidence, then there is nothing that I (or Rand, I presume) would find objectionable.

Unfortunately, it is not clear that Emerson's problems with consistency are so limited. He issues very sweeping dismissals of any concern with consistency: "With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall." Nor does he have any positive things to say about consistency, even indirectly. When giving his example about God, Emerson does not suggest that the contradiction between the statements will eventually be resolved in favor of one or the other, or even in a synthesis. He says nothing that implies one should be at all concerned about contradictions.

In effect, rather than arguing, "Consistency can be good, but excessive concern for consistency is bad when it interferes with our intellectual independence," Emerson seems to be saying, "Concern with consistency interferes with our intellectual independence, but we need not be concerned with consistency because consistency is a bad thing." Both of these interpretations maintain a connection to the fundamental theme of the essay, but they are very different in their view of consistency.

Perhaps all this is just an instance where Emerson "overstated the point," as George puts it. As George has discussed in his subsequent posts, often authors can be interpreted in very different ways depending on whether the reading is sympathetic or critical. My preferred interpretation of Emerson (preferred in the sense that I think it is the more likely to be true to his intent) is a "critical" one, although I do understand the sympathetic perspective. Perhaps more important than my interpretation is Ayn Rand's interpretation, which is where this discussion began. Hers was almost certainly very critical. This was her tendency in interpreting most philosophers, and Emerson is no special case in that regard.

My reading of Rand in this case is more sympathetic, although not entirely so. I do not, for example, approve of her curt dismissal of Emerson as a "little mind" (although in a sense he was simply getting what he deserved for his own use of this insulting term). Flip rhetoric is not a good substitute for substantive explanation. However, I also recognize that she was not attempting an exegesis of Emerson in "Philosophy: Who Needs It." She was giving examples of how people who do not think they are influenced by philosophy,  actually are. One of these examples happened to originate with Emerson, and that was the limit of his role in her essay. Richard Lawrence  Visit the Objectivism Reference Center

From: Ellen Moore To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Emerson - "A foolish consistency... Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:41:53 -0500 My view is this, While it is interesting to read George Smith offer his many interpretations of authors he has read, and it is interesting to read the comments of Richard Lawrence in respect to his own interpretations of Emerson, this is a case of Richard being correct in his first post on this topic. As he pointed out, Ayn Rand did not quote the full statement about consistency being a hobgoblin which Emerson wrote, she offered  what Richard said was a "trite" saying that she knew one might hear from anyone who passed such a comment on the street - whether or not the speaker knew the source in Emerson's writing. Neither is there any evidence given so far that Rand "dismissed Emerson on the basis of one single quote, as Sandra opined.  In fact just the opposite view is much more likely.

Emerson was identified philosophically as a Transcendentalist which means he has been rated as a follower of Kantianism, and especially that he emphasized intuition as a means to knowledge, and the importance of the search for the divine. I can see no reason to think that Rand was totally ignorant of the writings of Emerson, any more than she was of Kant, Plato or Aristotle. In fact, because of her admiration for Aristotle, and her antipathy to Plato and Kant, it is very conceivable that when she referred to Emerson as being "a very little mind", she knew exactly what she meant.  It is also clear that she meant it as a retort in kind because of the words that Emerson had written of philosophers in general.

To repeat: Richard Lawrence was right in his assessment of Rand's position in his first comments and his last comments in his second post.  Sandra is wrong in stating her first comment about Rand, and about her response to Richard's first post. Ellen Moore

[Mark]

I enjoyed reading the comments by George H. Smith, who is some kind of genius, on Emerson's essay "Self-Reliance" (he shows what an ignoramus Rand was about the essay) even if I can't see what this has to do with the status of noblesoul.com.

The new owner of the domain has substituted "Anthony Mason" for "Richard Lawrence" in the personal part of the website is concerned, and -- so far -- left out the OCR part.   The blatant plagiarism seems pointless. 

 

[Peter]

Mark, here’s an interesting one from Ghs that has nothing to do with the discussion. Enjoy!

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: A change of pace -- Jefferson on conscience Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:35:23 -0500. While reading once again the letters of Thomas Jefferson -- always a delightful pastime -- I encountered this famous passage, which I thought might provoke some discussion among those Atlanteans who have grown weary of the abortion debate. But first a little background: Jefferson subscribed to a "moral sense" theory, which had numerous defenders among luminaries of the Scottish Enlightenment, such as David Hume. The key text that gave legs to this theory was *Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times,* published in 1711 by Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury (usually called "Shaftesbury"), who as a young boy had been tutored by John Locke. (His grandfather, the First Earl of Shaftesbury, was Locke's patron, who made it possible for the physician Locke to pursue a career writing philosophical works.)

Shaftesbury's *Characteristics* is one of those books that exercised a tremendous influence in its own day, only to forgotten or neglected by later generations of thinkers. (Fortunately, an excellent critical edition of this substantial book was published in 1999 by Cambridge University Press.) In any case, I mention this book primarily because of the impetus it gave to the idea of *conscience,* which became a major topic of discussion among 18th century moral philosophers.

Jefferson and others used "moral sense" as a synonym for "conscience," and this latter is a subject that has not received much attention by admirers of Ayn Rand. I therefore post the following comments by Jefferson in the hope that they will elicit a discussion of conscience, which is a significant topic even for those who (like myself) do not subscribe to the technical features of moral sense theory.

This is an excerpt from a letter that Jefferson wrote to his favorite nephew Peter Carr on August 10, 1787. "Moral Philosophy. I think it lost time to attend lectures on this branch. He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a moral sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, and not the beautiful, truth, &c., as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this; even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules. In this branch, therefore, read good books, because they will encourage, as well as direct your feelings. The writings of Sterne, particularly, form the best course of morality that every was written. Besides these, read the books mentioned in the enclosed paper; and, above all things, lose no occasion of exercising your dispositions to be grateful, to be generous, to be charitable, to be humane, to be true, just, firm, orderly, courageous, etc. Consider every act of this kind as an exercise which will strengthen your moral faculties and increase your worth."

(The author mentioned here is Lawrence Sterne, author of *Tristram Shandy,* published in 9 volumes between 1760-67. This was Jefferson's favorite novel, and it illustrates his conviction that ethics can sometimes be communicated better in works of fiction than through technical works on moral philosophy.) Ghs

[RL0919]

Hello. Richard Lawrence here, again belatedly responding to a thread that I just recently learned was revived. To clear things up from my side, I did not sell the noblesoul.com domain or any of my content to "Anthony Mason" or anyone else. I did take the site down voluntarily and abandon the domain after I realized that I was not likely to give it the time and effort needed to get it current again or otherwise maintain it. It appears that someone else has obtained the domain, which is totally fine by me. However, they have also chosen to repost some of my content, in particular personal essays that I had written, with their own name attached. This is something that I did not approve and only learned about today. I have sent a request to the site's contact email asking that the reused content be taken down.

--

Richard Lawrence

Former webmaster, Objectivism Reference Center (RIP)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Richard,

Great to hear you are well.

I infer you have all your site files. (Which is great. I was downloading them from the Wayback Machine so you could have them just in case the site was taken over without your permission and the site was the only place you stored them. Since I am no techie, I no longer have to keep busting my chops trying to get it right.  )

Here is a friendly suggestion.

Please leave the site as it last was online somewhere as an historical place for posterity. Put a date on when it was active and mention that it is no longer being updated. I don't  know what you could gain from that, but, karma-wise, I do know a hell of a lot of people would be grateful.

It is a wonderful snapshot of a particular era in O-Land.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

It was a one of a kind site.  It's too bad that Richard decided not to keep it update.  If I recall it was around 2009 that he stopped which was when the biographies came out.  There has been a lot since then.

 

[Mark]

RL0919,

Since it served its purpose, I removed my post and your reply from en.wikipedia.org.

I could host a copy of the old ORC on ARIwatch.  Just save your files in a zip file and email it to
comment(at)ariwatch(dot)com
At the top of the main page would be added a  notice saying it is an archive and has nothing to do with ARIwatch.

Such a “live” hosting would have two advantages over using the Wayback Machine
web.archive.org/web/20180628160905/https://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts
— the pages would display more or less instantaneously and I could install a FreeFind search function.  With archive.org the pages take about 20 seconds to display and the search function doesn’t work.