TAS re-shuffles Staff Leadership

[Jerry Biggers]

The current (March 2009) TAS newsletter, Logbook, announces that David Kelley will be resuming the Executive Director position and that Ed Hudgins will now be "Director of Advocacy and senior scholar." An explanation given for this change is that the TAS Board has been "engaged in a major initiative to overhaul our programs and operations" and Kelley, as Chairman of the board, should be implementing the board's decisions.

Ed Hudgins will now "concentrate on the advocacy work he does best: promoting Objectivist ideas in the media and online."

Another article gives a brief description of a marketing analysis and consultation by Jim Jeck on the TAS business model. He suggested "eliminating the silo-working-style from the functional areas of the organization, outsourcing TAS financial accounting functions," and emphasizing use of TNI and especially the internet to advance 'Open Objectivism'. The newsletter states that the Board of Trustees responded by offering him a position sharing the executive office with David Kelley, enabling him to implement his suggestions for TAS reorganization.

I think that there is a lot more going on here than is described in these brief and terse articles. Does anyone know anymore about these changes? If so, please enlighten us. Lets' hope that the changes will improve the effectiveness of the organization in advocating for Objectivism.

[jordanz]

This seems like a positive change. I like Ed a lot, but for a few years now I've felt that David was not involved enough in TAS. I sent a long email to stating this last year. I was very impressed with the last issue of TNI. Let's hope it continues.

[Ed Hudgins]

Folks - Over on the “Ed Hudgins” thread Phil Coates asked about this and I posted a response that essentially said what was in Logbook but with a few additions. (See below.) As those at the SumSem last year know, this has been an ongoing process to become more efficient. As I say below, and as I hope everyone on our email list or visiting O-Living has noticed, we have new material, much of it from me, posted and going out every week. (If you don’t get those weekly emails or read the “Ed Hudgins” thread regularly, start now! )

The changes in TNI were also planned and discussed at SumSem.

If there were ever a time that a country and culture needed Objectivism it’s now. Watch for more new stuff from us!

Ed

------

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=66847

Hi Phil! Good to hear from you again!

I've been wanting to spend more time on my strengths--advocacy and writing--for some time, and have gotten my wish, but with some additions. At last year's Summer Seminar our executive committee trustees along with David and me discussed our future plans, for focusing more on promoting open Objectivism, for integrating all our efforts, including TNI, more tightly to that purpose, and for putting more resources into web-based promotion. The latest TNI reflects these changes, with more Objectivist context while retaining a lot of the fun cultural stuff. Any thoughts on that issue? The next issue’s in the works and looks real good.

Our consultant Jim Jeck has been working with us and the trustees on our plans for the past year. It made sense for David, as board chairman, to simply step in to carry through on the board plans. In the issue of Logbook, our newsletter for paid-up TAS members, that is in the mail right now, we spell out in detail what’s going on here. The highlights:

Jeck has been brought into TAS in a quasi-managerial position, to share the tasks with David. We've also taken on Nadia Espinoza who's handling a number of administrative tasks.

I'm still involved in the strategic planning and, especially, in fundraising, as before. But, as you have seen, Will Thomas and I, along with Brad Doucet, are producing new material every week for the website and sending out regular email updates. We have other things in the works you'll be seeing soon. I also carry the esteemed and I hope not too-pretentious title of senior scholar, which reflects some of the other things I'll be doing.

David has been completing a revision of his Art of Reasoning book, which his publisher wants to push hard to get into more classrooms. And we’ve brought in Laurie Rice, an extremely intelligent young woman, as an administrative assistant and to work closely with David in his book revision.

[Rich Engle]

I don't need the details to know this is all good. I don't know Kelley but I like his work and he seems to be a decent, reasonable man. And Ed, he's always got it on his sleeve. These guys easily make the cut, and they are good thinkers/writers to boot.

But me, I just compare anything in the movement to Leonard, which can let you put a dress on a pig and make it sexy.

Seriously, though, I think this is very positive. I hope to see more out of Mr. Kelley, too.

[Chris Grieb]

As has been said more than once the culture needs "The Logical Structure of Objectivism." Dr Kelley should complete that book.

We have Tea Parties all over the country on April 15th. Ed Hudgins will be speaking at one of them here. I hope to take part in one here in DC. I hope all OL's will take part.

[Jerry Biggers]

As has been said more than once the culture needs "The Logical Structure of Objectivism." Dr Kelley should complete that book.

We have Tea Parties all over the country on April 15th. Ed Hudgins will be speaking at one of them here. I hope to take part in one here in DC. I hope all OL's will take part.

I thoroughly agree with the comments on the recent changes at TAS as described so far in this thread.

Chris, once again, has hit the nail squarely on its head: The Logical Structure of Objectivism would serve many valuable purposes when it becomes available in a finished, published, book edition. While the (ten-years old) "beta" version on the TAS website provides needed elaboration on concepts and issues within the philosophical system, its current unfinished status impairs its usefulness (as stated in its prefatory remarks) in advancing Objectivism in academic and other intellectual circles.

Issues not yet fully resolved (e.g., "survival vs. flourishing") can be elaborated in appendices. This is fully consistent with the "Open Objectivism" view that the philosophy needs explication or clarification in some areas. This is a strength, not a weakness. After all, we do not accept the "written-in-stone" policy of a certain other camp that cripples any clarification, elaboration, or comment that has not already been stated by Rand.

It is a glaring omission, if not an embarrasment, that the only systematic summation of Objectivism that is in print and readily available in bookstores is Peikoff's OPAR. :cry: ARI scholars have dropped the ball on this issue, and are apparently incapable, or unwilling, to pick it up. This provides a gap and an opportunity for the publication of The Logical Structure of Objectivism that Dr. Kelley should not let pass.

I am at a loss to understand why TAS has not filled this need. What am I missing? Is this not important? I don't get it. :sick:

[Reidy]

This is an odd remark on an Objectivist forum. I thought we pretty well agreed that what someone else needs is not a sound criterion of what one ought to do with one's time and energies. Reminds me of a story. AR and Isabel Paterson were on the phone one night, when AR said [you can look up the rest].

[Chris Grieb]

Reidy; You are of course correct that I would be totally wrong to dictate what projects Dr Kelley should be working on.

[Alfonso Jones]

This is an odd remark on an Objectivist forum. I thought we pretty well agreed that what someone else needs is not a sound criterion of what one ought to do with one's time and energies. Reminds me of a story. AR and Isabel Paterson were on the phone one night, when AR said [you can look up the rest].

LOL, and agreed. Consider how amazing it is that so many of us know that story.

Striking, in fact.

Bill P

[Jerry Biggers]

This is an odd remark on an Objectivist forum. I thought we pretty well agreed that what someone else needs is not a sound criterion of what one ought to do with one's time and energies. Reminds me of a story. AR and Isabel Paterson were on the phone one night, when AR said [you can look up the rest].

Well, I was going to start my reply with some examples of what happened when certain key Objectivists responded with rejection and rage when offered suggestions, but there are so many that could be cited. On the other hand, there are also so many examples of Objectivists (or of Rand's fictional heroes: eg., Galt advising Rearden on the errors of his ways) considering the suggestions of others, and then constructively altering their course of actions.

So, what exactly is wrong with presenting a "sound criterion of what one ought to do with one's time and energies?" I trust that it is not being implied that a knowledgeable Objectivist will, at all times, continue to make only the right decisions, and therefore any constructive suggestions from others are superfluous?

In this case, if David Kelley had not offered a "beta" version of his "forthcoming" book ten years ago, then it might be presumptuous to suggest that he now start such a project (although I do not think that even that would constute an Objectivist "sin"). But, as readers of TAS publications and attendees at many past Summer Seminars know, references have periodically been made, over the last ten years, by TAS staff and by Dr. Kelley, that he was in the process of finishing-up the text.

As has been stated, Dr. Kelley (or anyone else) certainly has the right to decide exactly what he should do with his time. But, in addition, anyone else has the perfect right to offer suggestions and to give reasons why the completion of a previously announced course of action would be beneficial. Of course, any such advice need not be followed (as evidently it has not).

[Alfonso Jones]

This is an odd remark on an Objectivist forum. I thought we pretty well agreed that what someone else needs is not a sound criterion of what one ought to do with one's time and energies. Reminds me of a story. AR and Isabel Paterson were on the phone one night, when AR said [you can look up the rest].

Well, I was going to start my reply with some examples of what happened when certain key Objectivists responded with rejection and rage when offered suggestions, but there are so many that could be cited. On the other hand, there are also so many examples of Objectivists (or of Rand's fictional heroes: eg., Galt advising Rearden on the errors of his ways) considering the suggestions of others, and then constructively altering their course of actions.

So, what exactly is wrong with presenting a "sound criterion of what one ought to do with one's time and energies?" I trust that it is not being implied that a knowledgeable Objectivist will, at all times, continue to make only the right decisions, and therefore any constructive suggestions from others are superfluous?

In this case, if David Kelley had not offered a "beta" version of his "forthcoming" book ten years ago, then it might be presumptuous to suggest that he now start such a project (although I do not think that even that would constute an Objectivist "sin"). But, as readers of TAS publications and attendees at many past Summer Seminars know, references have periodically been made, over the last ten years, by TAS staff and by Dr. Kelley, that he was in the process of finishing-up the text.

As has been stated, Dr. Kelley (or anyone else) certainly has the right to decide exactly what he should do with his time. But, in addition, anyone else has the perfect right to offer suggestions and to give reasons why the completion of a previously announced course of action would be beneficial. Of course, any such advice need not be followed (as evidently it has not).

Jerry -

As one who posted earlier in this thread, I'd like to say . . . I agree.

The phenomenon at hand is that there has been far too much use of "ought" within the Objectivist community, by those who would tell others what music they OUGHT to enjoy (unless they are somehow defective or inferior), etc... That makes us sensitive about the use of "ought."

Interestingly . . . a quick search of the Objectivism Research CD-ROM finds 132 instances of "ought" - - - a great many coming out of the mouths of the heroic figures in Atlas Shrugged.

Regards,

Bill P

[Jerry Biggers]

This is an odd remark on an Objectivist forum. I thought we pretty well agreed that what someone else needs is not a sound criterion of what one ought to do with one's time and energies. Reminds me of a story. AR and Isabel Paterson were on the phone one night, when AR said [you can look up the rest].

Well, I was going to start my reply with some examples of what happened when certain key Objectivists responded with rejection and rage when offered suggestions, but there are so many that could be cited. On the other hand, there are also so many examples of Objectivists (or of Rand's fictional heroes: eg., Galt advising Rearden on the errors of his ways) considering the suggestions of others, and then constructively altering their course of actions.

So, what exactly is wrong with presenting a "sound criterion of what one ought to do with one's time and energies?" I trust that it is not being implied that a knowledgeable Objectivist will, at all times, continue to make only the right decisions, and therefore any constructive suggestions from others are superfluous?

In this case, if David Kelley had not offered a "beta" version of his "forthcoming" book ten years ago, then it might be presumptuous to suggest that he now start such a project (although I do not think that even that would constute an Objectivist "sin"). But, as readers of TAS publications and attendees at many past Summer Seminars know, references have periodically been made, over the last ten years, by TAS staff and by Dr. Kelley, that he was in the process of finishing-up the text.

As has been stated, Dr. Kelley (or anyone else) certainly has the right to decide exactly what he should do with his time. But, in addition, anyone else has the perfect right to offer suggestions and to give reasons why the completion of a previously announced course of action would be beneficial. Of course, any such advice need not be followed (as evidently it has not).

Jerry -

As one who posted earlier in this thread, I'd like to say . . . I agree.

The phenomenon at hand is that there has been far too much use of "ought" within the Objectivist community, by those who would tell others what music they OUGHT to enjoy (unless they are somehow defective or inferior), etc... That makes us sensitive about the use of "ought."

Interestingly . . . a quick search of the Objectivism Research CD-ROM finds 132 instances of "ought" - - - a great many coming out of the mouths of the heroic figures in Atlas Shrugged.

Regards,

Bill P

Bill-

Perhaps I am stating the obvious, but it is characteristic of almost all ideological systems (eg., Objectivism, Marxism, etc.)and most religions, that after they describe how the world works and what is wrong with human behavior, that they then offer suggestions (or commandments) about how believers ought to live in order to make their own lives, and the world, better.

The system developed by Rand, which proclaims that it has solved the "is/ought" problem, naturally follows with a great many "oughts." While this methodology may be one of its strengths, it is also a double-edged sword that can be turned back on its wielders. The problem here is, if Rand's solution to the is/ought dichotomy is thrown-out as invalid, then Objectivism's foundation is undercut, which in turn destroys its distinctiveness as a philosophical justification for liberty, individual rights, and the free market.

But I am straying from the issue that I was originally discussing, the beta version of The Logical Structure of Objectivism. Despite his many statements of his intention to finish this project, he has every right to abandon or delay it for as long as he wishes. In reflection, I think that it was a mistake (or at least, ineffective) for me to bring up this issue in this forum. I should have directed my concerns directly to David Kelley.

Edited April 8, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Alfonso Jones]

Jerry -

My perception based on reading my last post, and your clarification of yours, is that we are in agreement.

If you perceive that to not be the case, please clarify what you perceive to be the specific area of disagreement.

By the way --- I too very much hope that David Kelley will finish up the work on "Logical Structure of Objectivism."

Bill P

Edited April 8, 2009 by Bill P

[Rich Engle]

Perhaps I am stating the obvious, but it is characteristic of almost all ideological systems (eg., Objectivism, Marxism, etc.)and most religions, that after they describe how the world works and what is wrong with human behavior, that they then offer suggestions (or commandments) about how believers ought to live in order to make their own lives, and the world, better.

Heh...you ~think~?