Off to Vegas for Free Minds 09 & Freedom Fest

[Philip Coates]

> "movement intellectuals". Most of what they write is way too abstract, too floating, too unconnected to the knowledge and concerns of the intelligent layman.... [Phil]

>> There you go again, Phil, chiding other writers over what you think they are doing wrong...Most academic psychologists write rather poorly; some write horribly.

There you go again, Robert: Chiding other writers over what you think they are doing wrong.

[Selene]

Papa Michael:

The children are fighting again!

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

Full context!

There you go again, Phil, chiding other writers over what you think they are doing wrong. If you think you can outwrite the "movement" types, then go do it.

Most academic psychologists write rather poorly; some write horribly. If you're a psychologist, and you think you can write better, you don't take their standard of performance as an excuse for not trying to publish in psychology journals. You write better, and get your stuff published.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

Robert, on a more serious note, you said:

" You still have an opportunity with JARS. Wny not use it? "

Even if I were to reverse my decision to try to write for what you call "Randland" (or the Objectivism-familiar universe or for academics or some combination) or to split my focus between that and the general educated layman, I've never even seen a copy of JARS and so can't assess whether it is a good venue.

[Brant Gaede]

Robert, on a more serious note, you said:

" You still have an opportunity with JARS. Wny not use it? "

Even if I were to reverse my decision to try to write for what you call "Randland" (or the Objectivism-familiar universe or for academics or some combination) or to split my focus between that and the general educated layman, I've never even seen a copy of JARS and so can't assess whether it is a good venue.

This is horseshit. Buy a G'damn copy!

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

It's time for some reality checks. Before I dig in, thank you for sharing your story. I really mean that. It took guts to get it out.

Now let's look at some items.

Reality Check No. 1 - Audience

I quite agree with you about trying to reach an audience larger than the Objectivist audience and I fully endorse your attitude toward eschewing Objectivist jargon. The only problem I see is precisely with audience.

Frankly speaking, if your interest is to present your work to an audience larger than the Objectivist movement, you are discussing your work in the wrong place. (Actually you are not, since OL is not part of any "movement," Objectivist or otherwise, but the word "Objectivist" is in the title.) You should be discussing this at other places and telling people in the Objectivist world where to find your work. After all, you inhabit that world and communicate frequently in it.

This leads me to the second part of this reality check: from your posts and from meeting you once, I do not see you as a skilled audience generator. Learning how to obtain an audience is a skill just like any other form of work and I do not detect those skills in you. They are not that hard to learn, either. Say the word and I can point you in some very good directions.

So it is more than reasonable to ask, if you seek exposure to an audience "perhaps ten thousand times larger than every Objectivist on the planet for such topics," how do you expect to get that audience?

And if you are starting to get such an audience, where can one get your work, or at least see something in the works? I, for one, would be interested, not as an Objectivist, but as an "open, intelligent, well-read, intellectual upwardly mobile layman."

As Robert already mentioned above, there is no impediment from one audience to another. Exposure in one place does not exclude exposure in another. Rand herself spoke to the intelligent layman. That's reality.

As an aside, I believe Ayn Rand did an enormous disservice to aspiring writers by making all kinds of pronouncements about what you should and should not do based on her behavior as an already famous author. If you really want to see how Rand did it, you have to look at her life from The Fountainhead on back. She networked with people. She accepted editorial cuts (even in The Fountainhead). She learned about the venues she was submitting to. She accepted editorial guidelines. The whole thing. Just like everybody else does.

Once she had her audience guaranteed (she called it in The Ayn Rand Letter, "acquired a public voice"), she did as she pleased. Just like everybody else does. Her disservice is that she taught her privileged behavior as the proper way to people who had not earned the privileges in the market to behave that way yet.

For as much as I dislike Justin Raimondo, he mentioned something in one of his essays that I can relate to and have not seen discussed very often. Rand once advised him to never let anyone change a single word of what he wrote if he really wanted to be a writer. He took that advice to heart and wasted years out of his career in one rejection after another.

Anyway, back to Phil.

Reality Check No. 2 - Product

You mentioned that you solved the problem of induction, that Rand would have understood this, that you have developed a taxonomy of causality, and all the rest.

Wonderful.

Now the reality problem. How can anyone corroborate any of this? All we have are your claims and evaluations.

Your uncorroborated evaluations will take you up to a point, at least with me, because of your involvement in the Objectivist subculture over the years. But there is a cutoff point. I need to see more before I can agree or disagree with any of it. (That goes for anyone.)

Did you solve the problem of induction? Hell if I know. You say you did. That's something to weigh. You refuse to say how. That's something else to add to the mix. I could go on in like manner for each claim and evaluation you have made about your work. And as I do, so do others.

As they should, too. If we learn something from Rand's writing, it is not to accept anyone on faith.

I find it odd in our subculture that people always preach not accepting anything on faith, but ever since Rand's break with the Brandens (and possibly before), the top people have insisted that Objectivist followers take their word for certain matters—essentially taking them on faith. ("Because of their prestige" and other brands of horse crap.)

I strongly believe it is a mistake for you to emulate this kind of attitude. I, for one, will not take you on faith.

Reality Check No. 3 - Saving the world from an ivory tower

I mentioned to you in an earlier discussion that I have a fundamental difference with you. I presume this difference is still valid, but I am not 100% certain. I do not think the world needs saving in the name of Objectivism or anything else. I consider Objectivism to be a body of ideas and nothing more.

But let's take your premise, that Objectivism can save the world. This means that the chief people in the Objectivist movement are mankind's saviors. That means, in addition to Rand, Leonard Peikoff, David Kelley... and... and... and... dare I say it... Phil Coates?

Am I to presume that you would have saved mankind up to now if it were not for the indifference of Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley? And Will Thomas, for God's sake? (I still have yet to figure out how he, a professor from the People's University of China, got to be considered as a leader in the Objectivist world.)

You can do better than that. And I say that even as I disagree with your premise. You are not a disembodied self in some Ivory Tower. You shit and sweat and your feet stink just like everyone else. The intellectual marketplace will not change for you. It only changes once you have made it. And it's hard to make it. You have to apply yourself. You have to do it and do it and do it and do it and do it to get there.

That's reality.

I have to run, but that's some un-asked-for food for thought for your plate right now.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> This is horseshit. Buy a G'damn copy! [brant]

You have to buy a year's subscription to see JARS - says so right on the website. Nor are the individual articles generally available.

More importantly, there is an explosion of Objectivist-oriented secondary literature. For example, the periodicals: The Objective Standard, JARS, The New Individualist, The Intellectual Activist, etc. Lots of books on Objectivism, Rand. . . I can't subscribe to all of them to see which would be the best venue even if I were trying to make an impact in Oism-world. And I would want to be very careful where I published. To read more than one article or issue and see if the *feedback* people offer is intelligent, useful.

Or out of context, nitpicky, uncomprehending, quarrelsome, dense, reflecting poor understanding or Oism and philosophy.

Robert C said writing for Oist and non-Oist contexts are "not mutually exclusive". Nice in theory. Easy to say. But each of these takes tremendous amounts of TIME.

Plus I'm not impressed with the level of interest and thoughtfulness and fairness in the Oist world. And the *extremely tiny* number of people who would have a substantive response to an entire theory of induction or a detailed taxonomy of causality, who would read it carefully, who have the mental wherewithal... The likelihood is someone would find a tiny nit, then the rest of it would be ignored in favor of the latest acrimonious fight between personalities. It would simply be ignored. Or someone would grab a piece of it and in five years who to give credit to would be forgotten.

Take an example from a theory that WAS original and IS well-respected: Kelley's identification of benevolence as a major virtue. Other than my talk on how to -apply- this, who has built on it? How much has been written? The ARI people - did they understand and accept it? Who on this list has "taken his ideas and run with them". I would expect exactly the same thing to happen with my new theories...and I labor under the additional handicap of not being a known and respected thinker to a whole subculture like David Kelley.

I actually think I'll get a better response to induction, etc. from the well-educated and widely read "intelligent layman".

You may disagree but it's MY decision based on years of interaction in this tiny world (only part of which I spelled out in the 5 part 'personal history' you just read.

[Philip Coates]

By the way, Michael and Robert seem to assume I'm "flying blind" here with regard to knowledge or experience of actually addressing my ideas to an 'internal' audience, not actually plunging into the arena and "testing the waters".

Not only have I spoken at many Oist conferences, but I DID try the "internal" Oist journal and periodical route: I've published in Reality. I've published in Objectivity. Also another academically oriented journal: My article on Hobbes in The Independent Review. Theoretically, you learn from the critiques, additions, insights of the Oist world. From independent scholars. But: not much of a feedback mechanism in those journals.

In the case of "the Independent Review", a major classical liberal journal, the audience was wider than Oism -- the wider classical liberal world. [i've also been published in a professional journal outside of the movement for comparative purposes.]

I forgot: I also (worked on) something for Peter Schwartz in the original Intellectual Activist, was columns editor of The Atlasphere (and a columnist), a contributor to the Daily Objectivist. And probably a few other things I'm not thinking of right now.

I've been *very active* in the 'movement'. For decades. And have a very good idea to what extent it is or is not promising. And receptive to new ideas from those who don't already have a name.

It's crucial to me not just to see my words in print and be read by a dozen or so academics, but to REACH THE BEST MINDS. And have a good (and professional) feedback mechanism for interaction. Not just smoke and mirrors and cranky old men.

However, I -would- carefully read an entire copy of JARS if I saw one at a library or if one of my friends subscribed. Maybe it's better than the other journals??? The idea of having Oist and non-Oist scholars comment on, interact, debate Rand's ideas is an *excellent* one in theory. Of course that all depends on the quality of the thinkers and their ability to rise above the normal academic tendency to have "journalitis", to (i) nitpick, (ii) have tunnel vision and focus on minutia at the expense of the big picture. But I never met anyone who had a subscription (or who commented on it). Have never seen a library in my county or state which subscribed. My guess is it's too tiny in readership to be of use to me.

[Michelle]

For as much as I dislike Justin Raimondo, he mentioned something in one of his essays that I can relate to and have not seen discussed very often. Rand once advised him to never let anyone change a single word of what he wrote if he really wanted to be a writer. He took that advice to heart and wasted years out of his career in one rejection after another.

Agreed, to a degree. But one must remember to draw the line with compromise. Especially with works from an Objectivist viewpoint, which are liable to attract the left's ire. Publishers are primarily in the market to make money, and editors are not there to guarantee that your artistic vision is expertly presented to the public, but to guarantee that the book is marketable. And they WILL try to change more pertinent instances of theme and plot points if they think it might hurt the book a bit in the market.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Michelle R

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michelle,

Balance is the key concept. Reasonableness is, too.

Obviously if an editor is going to butcher your work, you are better off in silence or seeking another venue.

But if you need to cut off a paragraph here or there, or slant the work differently to appeal better to the publisher's demographic—or even change the plot depending on the change, or accept stylistic criticisms to align with the "feel" of a publication or any host of other considerations like that, you are just being stupid by not working through it.

What Raimondo was talking about was an all-or-nothing take-it-or-leave-it approach to getting your submissions accepted when you are a green nobody. (And that is precisely what Rand preached to green nobodies, even as she did not condone that herself from authors when acting as editor of her own publications, The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist.)

There are two errors a green nobody makes here: (1) contrary to being an enemy, many editors are not only quite reasonable, they know a hell of a lot that an aspiring writer needs to learn, and (2) a writer who has not provided any value at all to a publishing venue is not entitled to anything, much less make demands. If you want exposure to the audience a certain publication has earned, it makes perfect sense to follow the guidelines and instructions from the publisher's people in charge of ensuring that its audience remains its audience—while defending your vision, of course.

There is a huge difference between working on a publication and adapting your work so that the exchange of value is fair and selling out your fundamental values.

The image of Roark putting his drawings under his arm and walking out on a commission as "the most selfish thing anyone has ever done" is fit for a master, not an aspiring writer who does not yet know his tail end from a hole in the ground.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Phil, there are seven copies of three issues on sale on Amazon right now. Search under magazines with the full spelling. Nothing on eBay.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's crucial to me not just to see my words in print and be read by a dozen or so academics, but to REACH THE BEST MINDS.

Phil,

More reality food for thought. In order to reach the best minds, you also have to reach a hell of a lot of lesser ones. Getting an audience doesn't work any other way. For anyone.

That's reality.

Michael

[Michelle]

Michelle,

Balance is the key concept. Reasonableness is, too.

Obviously if an editor is going to butcher your work, you are better off in silence or seeking another venue.

But if you need to cut off a paragraph here or there, or slant the work differently to appeal better to the publisher's demographic—or even change the plot depending on the change, or accept stylistic criticisms to align with the "feel" of a publication or any host of other considerations like that, you are just being stupid by not working through it.

What Raimondo was talking about was an all-or-nothing take-it-or-leave-it approach to getting your submissions accepted when you are a green nobody. (And that is precisely what Rand preached to green nobodies, even as she did not condone that herself from authors when acting as editor of her own publications, The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist.)

There are two errors a green nobody makes here: (1) contrary to being an enemy, many editors are not only quite reasonable, they know a hell of a lot that an aspiring writer needs to learn, and (2) a writer who has not provided any value at all to a publishing venue is not entitled to anything, much less make demands. If you want exposure to the audience a certain publication has earned, it makes perfect sense to follow the guidelines and instructions from the publisher's people in charge of ensuring that its audience remains its audience—while defending your vision, of course.

There is a huge difference between working on a publication and adapting your work so that the exchange of value is fair and selling out your fundamental values.

The image of Roark putting his drawings under his arm and walking out on a commission as "the most selfish thing anyone has ever done" is fit for a master, not an aspiring writer who does not yet know his tail end from a hole in the ground.

Michael

Right there with ya, Michael.

I'm just afraid too many Objectivists lose valuable opportunities by adopting a WWRD (What Would Roark Do) attitude. And as you said, most beginning writers are, well, beginning writers, and so the opinions of seasoned editors usually help their work out on an aesthetic level.

But it would not be respectable for a person to change plot elements that are vital to the theme of the work. At that point, seeking another publisher is preferable.

I want to be reasonable without being a pushover with my work, when it gets published, which is one reason why I won't depend upon my writing to support my livelihood until I'm at the point where I have a large built-in audience. It is hard to be principled when you've gone without food for half a week.

[Robert Campbell]

Even if I were to reverse my decision to try to write for what you call "Randland" (or the Objectivism-familiar universe or for academics or some combination) or to split my focus between that and the general educated layman, I've never even seen a copy of JARS and so can't assess whether it is a good venue.

Phil,

All I need's your snail address and I'll put a copy of JARS in the mail for you. Just send a private message here at OL (or use my work email, which you probably have).

Then I'll bug the folks at the office in Port Townsend to send you a couple more.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

However, I -would- carefully read an entire copy of JARS if I saw one at a library or if one of my friends subscribed. Maybe it's better than the other journals??? The idea of having Oist and non-Oist scholars comment on, interact, debate Rand's ideas is an *excellent* one in theory. Of course that all depends on the quality of the thinkers and their ability to rise above the normal academic tendency to have "journalitis", to (i) nitpick, (ii) have tunnel vision and focus on minutia at the expense of the big picture. But I never met anyone who had a subscription (or who commented on it). Have never seen a library in my county or state which subscribed. My guess is it's too tiny in readership to be of use to me.

Phil,

As I noted above, ask and ye shall receive.

And if you decide to subscribe, our rates are low.

One thing JARS has that Reality didn't, Objectivity didn't, The Objective Standard doesn't, and TIA doesn't: it's listed in the academic citation indices. That's the single most important thing Chris Sciabarra did for the journal, and it took several years of work.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

Robert,

Thank you. I will do that this afternoon.

[Selene]

Ahh the M & M boy and girl:

Mega-Dittos to you Michele and Michael.

I am sure that we all struggle with the balance issue. When I chose to go into the political "world" I had it separated from the business world or the educational world.

I thought that politics was a "cesspool" where there were zero people of integrity. I was wrong. I then looked at my years in eduction and I realized that I was "out of balance" in my belief that there were more people of integrity in education. I was wrong.

Same thing in business. Same thing in government as distinguished from politics.

Amazing how any endeavor requires balance and integrity. Life is a tightrope walk.

Sign me up for the M & M team.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> In order to reach the best minds, you also have to reach a hell of a lot of lesser ones.

Michael, that's obvious. Why did you think I would not agree/that you needed to make a 'reality check' point of it?

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

It's crucial to me not just to see my words in print and be read by a dozen or so academics, but to REACH THE BEST MINDS. And have a good (and professional) feedback mechanism for interaction. Not just smoke and mirrors and cranky old men.

Those whom you call the best minds have not allowed themselves to be corralled into a single venue.

By their nature, they are highly dispersed. A few might even have snuck into academia, before the gatekeepers could intercept them

And in many cases they don't even know that they are among the best minds (as opposed to the merely excellent minds, or the usually very good minds, the better-than-average, or what have you).

So... you don't know who most of them are.

They don't know who many of them are.

All the more reason to plant your work in a lot of different venues.

HIding it under a bushel won't bring it to the attention of any of these folks.

Robert Campbell

[Michelle]

Ahh the M & M boy and girl:

Mega-Dittos to you Michele and Michael.

I am sure that we all struggle with the balance issue. When I chose to go into the political "world" I had it separated from the business world or the educational world.

I thought that politics was a "cesspool" where there were zero people of integrity. I was wrong. I then looked at my years in eduction and I realized that I was "out of balance" in my belief that there were more people of integrity in education. I was wrong.

Same thing in business. Same thing in government as distinguished from politics.

Amazing how any endeavor requires balance and integrity. Life is a tightrope walk.

Sign me up for the M & M team.

Adam

Your words of wisdom are appreciated.

there are politicians with zero integrity and educators who are moral giants, but, by and large, the mythology of the noble educator lifting the ignorant masses from the great swamp of ignorance is liberal heroic fantasy, and fits like a glove the leftist notion that the majority of people are stupid swine who are unable to manage their own affairs and need to be controlled.

I think Aristotle essentially had the right idea with his Golden Mean: all things in balance.

[Brant Gaede]

It's crucial to me not just to see my words in print and be read by a dozen or so academics, but to REACH THE BEST MINDS.

Phil,

More reality food for thought. In order to reach the best minds, you also have to reach a hell of a lot of lesser ones. Getting an audience doesn't work any other way. For anyone.

That's reality.

Michael

As if he couldn't/wouldn't get first-class feedback from Robert Campbell.

Or could that be the real problem?

What I want to know is whether solving "the problem of induction" is going to improve the scientific method? That's the bottom line. Winning arguments about philosophy won't work because people refuse to lose arguments about philosophy, assuming they have an interest. If those morons in Congress and the media think all the crap they pump out is primo, there is no stopping the US turning into a cesspool of anarchic warfare and generalized mooching/looting poverty.

The "best minds" are honest minds. Little to do with IQ. Phil thinks Ayn Rand was a best mind. Assuming they were contemporaries, I'd bet the ranch she would have ignored him or blown him off unless she could have given him negative but constructive feedback, but that would have required him approaching her as a supplicating student of her philosophy and not a threat to upstage her. She blew off libertarians in their entirety because they were too independent from her and because they addressed liberty from a different perspective. The fatal flaw of Objectivism is this blowing people off business. It's turf warfare.

Phil has blown off everybody it seems because the "BEST MINDS" he wants to address don't really exist: philosophers sitting around in their armchairs smoking pipes reading his stuff going "Yes, yes, yes, I can't wait to spread the word"? Ayn Rand herself wanted to do the same thing with basically the same consequences, but at least she put it out. Welcome to the culture of victimology.

--Brant

Edited July 16, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[ginny]

I've been following this thread with some interest. If Philip Coates can write anything on induction, he's obvious a lot smarter than I am. I'll settle for spelling the word correctly. However, let me say that throughout this thread, I get a sense of an awful lot of anger and blaming. Peikoff isn't supportive enough. Kelley isn't supportive enough. Not enough intelligent minds out there. Editors are unfair to struggling intellectuals. Not a large enough audience. No time for a magazine subscription that might by right on topic ... etc.

Look, I'm sure this is a very difficult thing for Mr. Coates to deal with. I don't intend to sound mean. But maybe it's time to stop worrying about the rest of the world. If Mr. Coates wants his words heard/read, ANY decent venue should do. One builds on that and moves upward. That's life.

Philip Coates seems most upset at the lack of support from Peikoff and Kelley. Here's where I get mean. Deal with it! People out there can be mean and unsupportive. Again, that's life. Lot's of lemons out there. Make some goddam lemonade.

Sorry to come down hard. I'm just saying ...

Ginny

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

By the way, Michael and Robert seem to assume I'm "flying blind" here with regard to knowledge or experience of actually addressing my ideas to an 'internal' audience, not actually plunging into the arena and "testing the waters".

Phil,

Here is a little nit I am going to pick. I don't assume anything of the sort.

I even saw an article you did over at the Atlasphere a while back, so if I assume anything, it is that you manage to get some things into some places sometimes.

My observation is that you have not shown any skills at generating and maintaining an audience, not that you have never had exposure to one. So when I see you talk about reaching a massive educational audience (massive in comparison to the Objectivist subculture), I believe you need help.

Audiences are just as different as the people seeking them are. That's just one problem in dealing with the public. You would be surprised at how varied and technical this can get.

In our little subculture, I usually see the idea of audience treated as something for second-handers or as social metaphysics, not as a skill. The ones who do this are precisely the ones who show their hind ends when they get their chance on stage.

How many people do you know who are nasty as all get out online (and the more traffic there is, the nastier they get), but ones other people say nice things about—like they have met such a person in private and the person is the nicest person you would ever want to meet? Our little subculture is full of people like that.

Who is the second-hander in such a situation?

Apropos, from your experience and observation of all this snarky behavior, do you think the Objectivist subculture stands a chance in hell of "saving the world," whatever that means?

Seriously.

But let's define this subculture better, and perhaps in a broader manner.

I wrote an article a while back saying that maybe 1% of people familiar with Rand's works worship her, 1% despise her, and the other 98% take her as they see fit.

If you really want a good audience for a matter related to Objectivism, where do you think the bigger audience is at?

Michael

PS - And don't tell me that some of the finest minds are not in that 98%. That is precisely where they are.

[Philip Coates]

> the best minds..are highly dispersed...All the more reason to plant your work in a lot of different venues.

Robert, that's why the single best venue is the non-fiction book. It's appeal is to those in all different intellectual niches. If it's written in a broad "public intellectual", non-specialized, non-niche style.

I'm not saying it's going to be easy.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Michael Does It Again

> My observation is that you have not shown any skills at generating and maintaining an audience.

Not ANY skills??? None whatsoever?

That's your personal hostility talking. Otherwise you would have qualified it.

You simply are not qualified to make an assessment of that kind, not having seen all of my work given to a wide range of audiences.