Clubs and Local Groups


Kat

Recommended Posts

Next Ayn Rand Meetup day is Saturday, Dec. 17. Meetings are at 6:00 pm

The Merritt Island group meets at Barnes and Noble at the mall

The Chicago group meets at Clarke's Restaurant on Belmont east of Sheffield. The meeting agendas are posted on Meetup and RoR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sense Of Life Objectivists in Chicago has an event tomorrow.

Here are the details:

What: Sense Of Life Objectivists in Illinois at Chicago

December Meetup

When: Saturday, December 17 at 6:00PM

Where: Clarkes On Belmont

930 W. Belmont Ave

Chicago IL 60657

773-348-5988

Event Description:

Upon what mission did Ayn Rand embark when she chose at a young age to pursue a career in writing? How did her values choices contrast with those of other writers? This month shall ponder those questions through discussion of her essay "The Goal of My Writing" and her short story "The Simplest Thing in the World" in her book THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO.

Learn to use this information to unify the mind, body and emotions of your Authentic Self. See who's coming or update your RSVP:

http://aynrand.meetup.com/70/events/

Want a text message sent to your phone a couple of hours before

your Meetups? Set up your mobile reminders:

http://www.meetup.com/account/sms/

Kat

(btw - The Merritt Island group in Florida meets on the same day)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Becky and I will be going to the Los Angeles Objectivist Network meeting this Saturday night (Jan. 12). The information on it is below. We went to the meeting in November, which discussed how Objectivist had influenced our lives. Tibor Machan spoke at the December meeting (which we couldn't attend because we were out of town). Best to all, REB

================================================================

If you haven't received the e-vite for the December salon, go to

http://www.evite.com/scottsch@alum.mit.edu/LAON_Jan06 and add

yourself. (You only ever have to do this once. This will allow you

to receive updates, RSVP for yourself, and get future e-vites.)

I'm happy to invite you to the first LAON Salon of 2006. By popular

request, Duncan Scott will show interviews from his Objectivist

History Project. One interviewee, John Hospers, is a well-respected

figure in academic philosophy. His discussions with Rand were some of

Objectivism's earliest encounters with academic philosophy. Other

interviewees will include Barbara Branden (a recent interview), and,

depending on interest, Robert Hessen, Nathaniel Branden, Joan Kennedy

Taylor, and Ed Snyder.

Duncan's Objectivist History Project is "a series of video tape

interviews to capture and preserve eyewitness accounts of the birth of

Objectivism." He has been taping interviews since 2003.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan Scott, who will be showing the Objectivist History video clips tonight, is bringing along several special guests, including Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, as well as philosophers John Hospers and John Roger Lee, both associated with Objectivist publications and activities in the past. I wish you all could be there. This is going to be an evening to remember!

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a new year and I have stepped up as leader for the group, temporarily named

Ayn Rand Rational Philosophy of Objectivism Meetup Group - Chicago

Here is the proposed outline for 2006 discussions of Return of the Primitive. I am considering adding other books to the mix depending on the group's interests. We could do a new book every couple of months, stick with Luke's program of Return of the Primitive in 2006, or do both.

Here is my suggested outline:

All months - Discuss Rand's fictional works and how they relate to the ideas presented in the non-fiction works being discussed.

Recommended Reading: Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, We the Living, and Anthem. They are available at www.objectivistbooks.com

January - Return of the Primitive

February - Return of the Primitive

March - Philosophy Who Needs It?

April - Philosophy Who Needs It?

May - Capitalism The Unknown Ideal

June - Capitalism The Unknown Ideal

July - For the New Intellectual

August - For the New Intellectual

September - The Virtue of Selfishness

October - The Virtue of Selfishness

November - Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

December - Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

I would expect the ITOE discussion to continue into 2007.

I am looking forward to a very exciting year for our group. If anyone has ideas for the discussions, please let me know.

Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As promised, here is a report on the Los Angeles Objectivist Network get-together at Bob Barraga's home in Sherman Oaks...

Becky and I motored up from Orange County, using a longer, but quicker route with all car-pool lanes that ended up getting us there right at the starting time for the event, instead of half an hour late as in November. And it was worth it, because we got to enjoy in relaxed fashion the entrance of the guests of honor: Nathaniel Branden (and his new fiancee, Lee), Barbara Branden, John Hospers, and John Roger Lee, along with the presenter for the evening, Duncan Scott.

Duncan is director of the Objectivist History Project, and before I do anything else, I want to plug this project, so here is the pertinent information: The Objectivist History Project, 17010 Sunset Boulevard, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 www.objectivisthistory.org tel. 310-454-9460. If you send them a check for $100 or more to The Objectivist Center and earmark it "OHP" (or perhaps just make out the check to Objectivist History Project), you will get a free copy of Objectivism - A Look Back, a special 45-minute DVD featuring the best of their Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, Joan Kennedy Taylor, Ed Snider, and Robert Hessen interviews, which is available only to project donors. If you give $500 or more, you get a 25% discount on each DVD from their "Members Collection."

OK, sales pitch over -- and full disclosure: I don't get any kickbacks or freebies out of this. It's just for your info and convenience, if you're interested.

Now, the evening -- about 38 people attended, and there were lots of tasty refreshments, including the must-have for these extended gatherings, my favorite: black coffee. :-) We had ample time to socialize, and Duncan's presentation of clips from the project was very enjoyable, but the real treat was the question period.

Nathaniel and Barbara, still the intellectual partners after over 55 years, played off one another's reflections, adding clarifications, corrections, additional reminiscences and insights that were fascinating. One thing that was helpful was hearing their observation that Rand's generosity of spirit gradually eroded as she become more bitter through the 50s and 60s. The aftermath of the publication of Atlas Shrugged really brought her down, and it was only the persistent efforts of Nathaniel in counseling her and the obvious success of the Nathaniel Branden Institute in spreading her ideas that brought her back to active, enthusiastic writing and speaking. Barbara and Nathaniel also concurred in thinking that Rand was a "depressive personality," and that this was not fully clear to most people, because she had so many "resources" to draw on. (Lots of black coffee, maybe? :-)

In addition to not being championed by any major American philosophers, Rand also found herself at loose ends, having finished her life work of portraying her "ideal man" in John Galt. What next? Her subsequent projected novel, primarily an action story, never materialized. Instead, she spent the remaining 25 years of her life writing all those marvelous essays and lectures that we now call "Objectivism." And that's no small thing, balanced against the effective end of her career as a novelist. (I can't imagine no longer being a musician and spending another 25 years of my life doing...what? It would have to be philosophy.)

Nathaniel and Barbara also discussed how they built up NBI when everyone was saying it couldn't be done, and how they ran it from their kitchen table. They were clueless as to what lectures should cost, so they based the $6 original fee for a single lecture on what Albert Ellis (Rational-Emotive Therapy founder; he and Branden debated in the mid-60s) charged for his lectures! Amazing.

Barbara also described how she developed her course on efficient thinking. She did an informal survey of her acquaintances to find out what they did when they were thinking, and what they were actually doing when they said they were thinking but obviously weren't. (I asked Duncan Scott if there were any plans by the Objectivist History Project to get her and Nathaniel's unpublished lectures into printed form, and he said no, they were focusing on the oral history angle. So, I guess someone else will have to pursue this possibility, hmmm? :-k

John Hospers told us of his delight in the early stages of his short-lived relationship (1960-62) with Rand, with whom he first discussed his enormous appreciation of Atlas Shrugged. She just ate up his appreciation of how she ended each chapter with a cliff-hanger, often bigger than the previous one. When they got into other philosophical ideas, the going was tougher. Rand was suspicious of his focus on linguistic clarity (wanting to specify what definition is being used and to not confuse people by straying too far from common usage), and he had some problems with her non-standard use of concepts. He tried to get her to see that there was a real difference in perception and acceptance of "enlightened self-interest" or "long-range self-interest" vs. "selfishness," and that the latter was viewed by most people as pernicious, while simply doing what is right for yourself, like going to the doctor when sick, is in your "self-interest," but hardly "selfish" in any everyday sense of the word. Rand countered that she wanted "selfish" to be extended to all instances of self-interest. Hospers just shook his head. He also pointed out apparent conflicts in her views on sense-perception and value. He challenged her tendency to regard value, on the one hand, as relative to the individual, but, on the other hand, as certain things being the best, regardless of your individual context -- like Rachmaninoff vs. Beethoven, not just for herself but for others. (I didn't bring it up at the meeting, but I speculate here that his questioning her on this led to her later expanding the notion of "objective" so that in addition to the market phenomenon of everyone's relative values ("socially objective"), there was also the standpoint of what was good to the most rational person in a given social context ("philosophically objective"). This appeared only several years later in Rand's 1965 essay "What is Capitalism?" in The Objectivist Newsletter, later reprinted in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal.) Hospers also suggested that attributes and values really are out there in reality in a sense and not just relative to the viewer or valuer. This may have motivated Rand's development of the trichotomy, with the intrinsic (out there) vs. the objective (out there as perceived in here) being used to sort out that kind of question.

The sad note in Hospers' comments came when he told of how his relationship with Rand abruptly ended. He got her an invitation to speak at an aesthetics conference in 1962, and she spoke on "sense of life." He commented afterward, and all observers said they thought he was much gentler and respectful than the typical commentary at such meetings. Nonetheless, she took offense at something he said, and she never spoke to him again. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! Having 6 hour conversations with published philosophers who admire one's novels is such a time-consuming hassle, anyway. Off with his head! [-(

Another clarification came when Branden explained about the term "libertarianism," and how Rand very early on rejected it strictly on linguistic grounds that it was a "real mouthful" and a "made-up word." Still, she was quite sympathetic for a while, until the much-loathed anarcho-capitalist, Murray Rothbard, whom she and Nathaniel had drummed out of the Inner Circle in the late 50s, became a leading light in the Libertarian Movement. Then libertarians became hippies, anarchists, and plagiarists. It probably didn't help that another excommunicated philosopher, John Hospers, wrote the Preamble to the Libertarian Party's Platform and became its first Presidential candidate in 1972!

Someone asked if Rand had ever changed her mind as the result of their efforts. Branden cited Rand's definition of "reason." In Atlas Shrugged, she defined it as the faculty that perceives, identifies, and integrates man's sense data, but after they received a question from an NBI student about the definition, Branden suggested that the definition was wrong, because we don't perceive the our sense data, we perceive reality by means of our sense data. So in "The Objectivist Ethics" and subsequently, Rand defined reason as the faculty that identifies and integrates man's sense data. However, when Branden suggested that she have the publishers of Atlas Shrugged change the definition in future printings, she refused. She simply didn't want to publicly admit that she had made an intellectual error. (What emoticon do I use for tsk-tsk? [-X ) (I note here that this tendency persisted. She defined art as re-creation of reality, yet she stated in "Art and Cognition" that one of the arts, architecture, did not re-create reality, and that another one of the arts, music, re-created reality in a way that she was unable to objectively specify. When Binswanger was putting together The Ayn Rand Lexicon, he asked her about this inconsistency when showing her the entries for the letter "A," and her request was that he not include an entry for architecture in the Lexicon. Yow! To compound the travesty, Binswanger retained an entry for "visual arts," which explicitly included architecture. Double-yow!! #-o )

I'm about out of recollections of the evening, but one more tidbit I will throw in: Branden told me that he has just finished writing a novel and a screenplay. Whether they are about the same story, he didn't say. But that is great news! I hope he gets a publisher and producer soon, and that it is the first of however many more he wants to write. =P~

I guess it goes without saying that the evening was an incredible tankful of emotional fuel for me and Becky -- and everyone there. Makes you want to go out and take on dragons or something. :D

REB

P.S. -- One more thing: Barbara said that Rand had an expanded form of the principle she espoused: "Check your premises -- and examine your implications." In other words, CYA in both directions! O:)

P.P.S. -- Support the Objectivist History Project!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger, thanks for your excellent description of the Objectivist Network meeting. I had a great time!

One correction. You mentioned that Murray Rothbard was drummed out of the Inner Circle -- the Collective. That he ever was a member was a misstatement that Murray spread for years -- so much so that it has become part of the "accepted wisdom" -- but it isn't true. Rand saw him only a handful of times, and never considered him a friend, and he was not present at meetings of the Collective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara, thanks for the correction in re Murray Rothbard. It never did ring true that he would have been that deeply into Rand's good graces, given their respective personalities. But you're right -- like so many, I swallowed the notion that he was "excommunicated," as though he were an accepted member of Rand's close associates.

Michael, I did recall one more detail (though there are probably more lurking in my patchy memory). I think it was Barbara who made the point that Rand really did love Frank, not as the "John Galt" type she made him out to be at times, but as the sweet, gentle, supportive gentleman everyone knew him to be. And that her referring to him as being Galt-like was really a dis-service to him, and that he must have suffered a lack of visibility in that respect (not being seen or appreciated for the good and unique person that he really was).

I have recently heard more than I want to about Nathaniel's supposedly having a mind-body split back in the 60s, in regard to his torn romantic loyalties between Rand and Patrecia, etc. Now, I am wondering if Rand herself didn't have a similar split going on. On one level, the more explicitly philosophic level, she was driving by the image of her ideal man as the rational, productive crusader -- while on the sense of life level, her soul mate and life-long companion was anything but the dashing hero type, but instead the quiet, rock-steady pillar on which she leaned when things weren't going well. I don't know if that's mind-body or reason-emotion, or what, but it sure looks like some kind of split, wouldn't you all agree?

I hasten to add that, unlike some here at objectivistliving.com, I never knew Rand or Frank, so my comments are all to be taken as heavily filtered and sifted over 40 years of hearsay. <sigh>

reb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger, I agree with Michael, thanks for the thoroughness and detail. I also would love to hear more and wish I could have been there to ask ten thousand questions.

On your point about Rand's liking "the rational, productive crusader..the dashing hero" as an ideal man and "the quiet, rock-steady pillar on which she leaned when things weren't going well". I don't think there is necessarily a mind/body split here...neither for her nor for other people. You can have a warrior, a pirate, an Einstein as someone you admire in fiction or on the pages of the newspaper. But what you personally need in your daily life, while not incompatible with that, can be that a certain other constellation of traits are in the ascendant. The same can apply to a man and his needs as to a woman. While I need to see geniuses and unprecedenteded original intellect out there in the world, what I personally need in a woman is that she be intelligent -enough-, but warmth, openness, benevolence, and a predominantly sunny disposition are far more important (at least to me) in person than that she be the second coming (no pun intended) of Aristotle.

While every single one of the characteristics you listed would enhance the value to you of either a mate or a fictional or distant hero, you need some of them more and some of them less in each of these cases. There is an objectively valid difference of stress or emphasis in what you need to focus on somewhere out in the world from time to time and what you need to have by your side and constantly interacting with you.

Not the slightest degree of mind/body dichotomy involved.

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Phil -- I appreciate everything you say, in general terms. But it's clear I need to be more specific, so that my own point is understood.

What I had in mind when I wrote my comments was the affair Rand had with Branden in the 50s. My impression or understanding is that Rand was attracted to Branden because he represented her ideal man on the philosophic level. He was the most rational, intelligent man she knew, the man who understood the world intellectually like she did, so naturally you should have the ultimate intimacy with such a man, if you can, right?

On the other hand, Frank was Rand's ideal man on the sense of life level. He was the man with whom she felt most at home in a global sense, not specifically on the intellectual level, but overall. Emotionally, he was "home base" for her. You don't want to lose that, either! Which is why she wanted Frank's consent to her affair with Branden. She was not at all willing to lose her sense of life ideal man. (We all presume she would not have pursued an affair with Branden, if Frank had said "no.")

So, Phil -- reflect a bit more, if you would, please, on the dichotomy issue. Doesn't it seem to you that Rand had a philosophy/sense of life dichotomy in regard to her "ideal man"?

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remembered one more significant item from the LAON meeting last Saturday night.

Someone asked about the health of the Objectivist movement (or something along those lines), and Nathaniel commented that he saw plenty of people chewing and rechewing what Rand wrote. He mentioned in particular a book on consciousness that someone was writing. (This no doubt refers to Harry Binswangers forthcoming book on consciousness. I have a number of his lecture series, and it looks like it's basically the chewing bit, no real ground-breaking, though Binswanger does do a pretty good job of concretizing his points.)

However, Nathaniel said, where are the people who are applying Objectivism to their career fields? In other words, where are the books that are informed by Objectivism, but that go beyond it, and are not just rehashes of things Rand wrote 40 years ago?

Confession: this comment flipped a switch inside me. Or, it lit a fire under me. Pick your favorite metaphor. Anyway, I have an announcement to make. For details, see my post in the Living Room!

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kat,

You asked me to comment as a teacher on your lesson plan for the first club meeting, but I clicked on your link above and it took me to RoR where it seems you have to be a Florida club member to read it. That's okay, because what I want to say is as a former club leader and multiple Oist club member. This is an unedited "core dump" so forgive me:

The main thing at a first meeting is not intellectual but social and good vibes. It's not school. People have to feel welcomed, noticed, visible, not be talked at until they get to know you. People who walk in and walk out without having had a good conversation with anyone will not likely return in high percentages. A good thing to break the ice is go around the room and have each person introduce self, say something about self, etc. It's okay if that is all you accomplish in your first meeting. You are not in a foot race. More broadly, academic or discussion group formats don't last even in Oist clubs unless you are college age and really don't understand the books. Multipurpose clubs that do lots of different things at different meetings so there is something for everyone ... activism, discussion, a chance to give a talk, a chance to get to know people, listen to tapes, recite poetry, etc... those work. Just because someone is an Oist or student of Oism doesn't mean they came to study. Maybe they do that alone. Maybe they don't think the ringleader or seminar leader knows more. Maybe there is a loudmouth in the group who constantly hijacks it. You can't really crack down on the latter at the first meeting or with people you don't know. Don't do all the talking. Try to form an "executive committee" within the first couple meetings of four or five people and hand out titles like VP, Secy, Treasurer, Social Coordinator, etc. or it will be you doing all the work and being unappreciated. The last title seems a bit social metaphysical or beneath their dignity to many Objectivists, but it's not: You need someone to make a point of greeting and chatting a bit with new people who wander in from time to time in every healthy and hopefully growing club. Most people will gravitate to their existing friends and ignore the totally new people, which is ok for them but disastrous for making lonely and isolated new people feel comfortable and visible. At the end of the first meeting, make sure to ask people with ideas and suggestions to stay a few minutes and make sure to get their contact info. You need a sheet of paper ready for this before the meeting starts. Actually, you need to get everyone at the meeting's contact info (email is bes so contact is not a recurrent hassle, but ask for phone as insurance) at the first meeting so they will know about the next one. And let different EC members be in charge of differfent things, like organizing different meetings. If you have anyone who has ever run a club or seems highly grebarious and warm, latch onto that person. He or she is pure gold.

Did I mention, don't deliver an academic lesson plan at the very first meeting unless you haver already met the attendees and know that is what the overwhelmingly want, regardless of what seems correct to want. Those who are new to an Oist club at first meeting don't yet know what mix of social, intellectual, activist, etc. they want not having yet tried it out, so don't take a poll at first meeting, because they will all say yes, let's discuss every book every time...and when they try it they will just quietly not start showing up. So you have to take the initiative till they can molre clearly see (and discuss) what activities and fomat seem the most fun. Do not over-schedule. Have meetings a bit less frequently than people seem to want rather than a bit more frequently. And have the meetings run shorter than exhaustion not longer. Good idea is short meetings and then those who don't have to get up early or whatever can adjourn to a nearby coffee shop or wherever. Learn about all the free ways to publicize your club. Go around and poster up the colleges. You need young people not just middle-aged fogies (or at least for them to have campus clubs and co-sponsor stuff) because they have the most energy and time and enthusiasm. The name "Ayn Rand Club" is better for attracting people than "Objectivist Club" (unless you want to be small and 'advanced', which I certainly wouldn't, but that's just me.) Why? Because the novel admirers all recognize the name Ayn Rand, but not the jawbreaker that starts with the letter O and could mean a club for goal setting and trying to figure out your life objectives.

Meeting in someone's house, depending on layout and ability for all to hear and be together, is usually more comfortable assuming comfortable chairs and soft seating than in the back meeting room of a restaurant. For a while we had a nice house to meet in in SF and also in LA. Marsha E and Jackie H have good club articles up on the TOC website. I don't agree with everything, but many good points.

Phil C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> My impression or understanding is that Rand was attracted to Branden because he represented her ideal man on the philosophic level. He was the most rational, intelligent man she knew, the man who understood the world intellectually like she did, so naturally you should have the ultimate intimacy with such a man, if you can, right? [Roger]

Oh, I see your point now! If that were actually the sum of her thinking, ignoring the other issues then that's a big mistake on her part.

(Whether one applies the imposing label MBD is less important than just saying it's a mistake...many people confuse friendship or colleagueship or intellectual harmony or admiration with romantic attraction.)

phil...itslateandimtoodamntiredtocapitalizeorpunctuate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Phil for your advice. I think that since several new people have signed up for the group, that it will be a "getting to know you" meeting. I don't consider myself an intellectual, just an organizer, and I am more interested in learning than teaching and so being the leader kind of puts me in an odd position. I do have Luke's discussion questions posted up in the library. I still gotta do some preparing. Dayammm!!! I wish all of Rand's books had annotated teacher's editions. :)

I know that the questions sure do look like a test, but it is a starting point. I hope people are not put off like I was the first time I saw a list of questions like this. I know when I went to the group in Merritt Island, I thought I would get a ruler on the knuckles if I didn't study. :-$ I really don't want so discuss Return of the Primitive for a whole year as laid out in the meeting plans. It is not one of my favorite books by Rand. I hate politics and would rather cover other books over the course of a year. I am giving away copies of Philosophy Who Needs It and would love to find some type of study guide for that as well as her other non-fiction works.

I see this group as being more social and lighter in nature, I would like to however cover Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology over a longer period of time, though. Most of the other books I only want to spend a couple of meetings on. Once this group is up and running smoothly, I'd love to do readings of her plays and have group outings to various places and events. It all really depends on where the group is and wants to be.

Wish me luck,

Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I don't consider myself an intellectual, just an organizer.

Good! Best of luck, Kat. I'm sure you'll do fine. The clubs run by intellectuals who are arrogant about their knowledge of Oism and every little thing and who don't let others participate (or help lead and organize) are the clubs that tend to not last across time. By the way, where are these 'discussion questions' of Luke's you mentioned?

Phil

PS, I think it's a really great idea to be up front a the first meeting and say I'm a little nervous, I'm not an Oist intllctl, I am just feeling my way here, please advise me and help me... and so on. People can understand and empathize and are more likely to pitch in and do things when you need them. You'll need their help if you want to poster up a campus, as I mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started a thread in the library that has the discussion questions for Return of the Primitive if you want to have a look. Here is how Luke has broken out the year's discussion of the book. I also want to publicly thank Luke for being my guide and mentor through this club business. I know he is lurking.

Folks,

We will discuss Return of the Primitive by Ayn Rand throughout 2006. Here is the planned breakdown for discussion:

January: "Introduction," "Foreword" and "The Cashing-In: The Student 'Rebellion'"

February: "The Chickens' Homecoming" and "The Comprachicos"

March: "Apollo and Dionysus"

April: "The 'Inexplicable Personal Alchemy'"

May: "The Age of Envy"

June: "The Left: Old and New"

July: "From a Symposium" and "'Political' Crimes"

August: "Racism" and "Global Balkanization"

September: "Gender Tribalism"

October: "The Philosophy of Privation"

November: "Multicultural Nihilism"

December: "The Anti-Industrial Revolution"

Luke Setzer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kat,

Can you give us details on how the first meeting went? How many people and their age/sex demographics? Did you try any of the ideas from my long post...or that Luke has given, and did they work? Any big pluses? Any downsides? How was the time spent?

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, three of us met for pizza and chit-chatted. Seven people were expected, but again the actual turnout was very disappointing. It was pretty much a getting to know you meeting with a little structure from the questions. Because the new person had not read Return of the Primitive or any of Rand's non-fiction we only covered it in general terms, like the question about compromise. It was good conversation and good company, but again I was disappointed with the turnout.

Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kat, don't be disappointed: there are ways to increase turnout. When I jump-started a club at UCLA, I got a number of people I already knew to poster up the entire campus (and in the less obvious places). In previous years attempts to start a club got a half dozen to show up. My attempt (since I knew how to publicize better) got 35, nearly half of them graduate students since I had carefully postered up every floor of every graduate school department. When I started a club in SF, I got the initial names by putting up a sign up sheet at an IOS one day seminar in town in which Kelley and others came to town and a hundred people showed up...so, I got more than 20 names and contact info in the space of a couple hours. Objectivists are diffuse and scattered so you have to use little tricks like this rather than the usual methods...

The principle is that Oists are very thin on the ground and not often joiners, so one needs more pump-priming, to do more publicity than one might expect to get critical mass at the "start up". Only once you have some numbers and helpers can you relax.... It's hard work.

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Today is the Meetup at Gullivers at 2:00. Hope to see some of you there.

Tuesday is the Danish Cartoon talk at UofC. If anyone is able to attend that one, I'd love to hear about it.

Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now