New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[kiaer.ts]

Real education is the search for truth. Truth has nothing to do with plastic facts or moral relativism or the supremacy of the subjective to the objective. Truth is objective. That it is hard to find, hard to ID, doesn't mean that the quest is horseshit or the bastards at the gates of Vienna shouldn't be chopped down by a Hungarian army.

--Brant

What about the truth of your internal states, particularly your emotional state? That is subjective.

One can be objective only concerning things going on outside of your consciousness.

The height of Mt. Everest is an objective matter. The height of your high dudgeon is subjective.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Wrong. Do you even know what the Objectivist position is, Bob? Can you explain the Objectivist position in your own words?

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote:

One can be objective only concerning things going on outside of your consciousness.

End quote

A hint Ba’al: Live long and prosper, live long and prosper!

Although you may be onto something. Thinking you are always objective and right could be an indication of grandiose thinking and a megalomaniac would never know it. And how can anyone be totally sure about another person? Actions?

Glenn Beck showed a clip of the head of the Fed saying one year ago that we would not monetize the debt - and now we have. The consequences may be dire. Glenn asked, "Was he *lying* a year ago? Or just *Acting*?"

Peter Taylor

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 57.

Most people . . . think that abstract thinking must be “impersonal”—which means that ideas must hold no personal meaning, value or importance to the thinker. This notion rests on the premise that a personal interest is an agent of distortion. But “personal” does not mean “nonobjective”; it depends on the kind of person you are. If your thinking is determined by your emotions, then you will not be able to judge anything, personally or impersonally. But if you are the kind of person who knows that reality is not your enemy, that truth and knowledge are of crucial, personal, selfish importance to you and to your own life—then, the more passionately personal the thinking, the clearer and truer.

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 82.

It is axiomatic concepts that identify the precondition of knowledge: the distinction between existence and consciousness, between reality and the awareness of reality, between the object and the subject of cognition. Axiomatic concepts are the foundation of objectivity.

From the Lexicon:

Objectivity

Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality.

“Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?”

The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1965, 7.

Objectivity begins with the realization that man (including his every attribute and faculty, including his consciousness) is an entity of a specific nature who must act accordingly; that there is no escape from the law of identity, neither in the universe with which he deals nor in the working of his own consciousness, and if he is to acquire knowledge of the first, he must discover the proper method of using the second; that there is no room for the arbitrary in any activity of man, least of all in his method of cognition—and just as he has learned to be guided by objective criteria in making his physical tools, so he must be guided by objective criteria in forming his tools of cognition: his concepts.

End quotes

[BaalChatzaf]

Although you may be onto something. Thinking you are always objective and right could be an indication of grandiose thinking and a megalomaniac would never know it. And how can anyone be totally sure about another person? Actions?

It is important to know the difference between a fact an an opinion.

The only things we can be reasonably sure of is what we observe of things not happing within our consciousness. That is why it is not possible to be certain that anyone else in the world has a mind and we can never be sure of the intentions or feelings of others since we can not observe them directly. What we do observer are bodily actions (including physiological manifestations such as heart rate and blood pressure), face and body language that can be seen and word uttered (and heard) and words written (and read). And we cannot be sure when another person is telling the truth about what he is thinking or feeling. All we have is the external to observe.

The private thoughts and feelings of others is forever theirs. And we have no way of determining whether the external manifestations (body language and utterance) truthfully reflects their internal states. In short we have no way of determining what other people intend. We can only guess and infer which is not the same as knowing.

I am onto something. I have learned to believe almost none of what I hear and only half of what I see.

The only certain knowledge (and that is not even one hundred percent certain) is what is known first hand. (Keep in mind that optical illusions exist).

Everything else is guess, hypothesis and inference.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

Although you may be onto something. Thinking you are always objective and right could be an indication of grandiose thinking and a megalomaniac would never know it. And how can anyone be totally sure about another person? Actions?

It is important to know the difference between a fact an an opinion.

The only things we can be reasonably sure of is what we observe of things not happing within our consciousness. That is why it is not possible to be certain that anyone else in the world has a mind and we can never be sure of the intentions or feelings of others since we can not observe them directly. What we do observer are bodily actions (including physiological manifestations such as heart rate and blood pressure), face and body language that can be seen and word uttered (and heard) and words written (and read). And we cannot be sure when another person is telling the truth about what he is thinking or feeling. All we have is the external to observe.

The private thoughts and feelings of others is forever theirs. And we have no way of determining whether the external manifestations (body language and utterance) truthfully reflects their internal states. In short we have no way of determining what other people intend. We can only guess and infer which is not the same as knowing.

I am onto something. I have learned to believe almost none of what I hear and only half of what I see.

The only certain knowledge (and that is not even one hundred percent certain) is what is known first hand. (Keep in mind that optical illusions exist).

Everything else is guess, hypothesis and inference.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You express the naive conventional notion. Objectivism defines objectivity differently. Can you state the Objectivist view of objectivity in your own words?

[BaalChatzaf]

You express the naive conventional notion. Objectivism defines objectivity differently. Can you state the Objectivist view of objectivity in your own words?

What is fact (i.e. a genuine state of the world).

What is the case as opposed to what we wish were the case.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote:

The private thoughts and feelings of others is forever theirs. And we have no way of determining whether the external manifestations (body language and utterance) truthfully reflects their internal states.

end quote

Hmmm? So if you and I found a bag of gold coins . . . Mark Twain said something about trusting but always verifying whenever dealing with large sums of money.

Life (and health) are more valuable than money. To live together, we need to have a certain amount of trust in the other person’s objectivity. Might a Mother’s love and romantic love be excluded from your distrust? Maybe these are two areas where we frequently trust others to the core of our beings.

Cripes, Ba’al now you have me going. People put all their trust in Hitler too. And little girls cried over The Beatles.

Commander Troy? What is he thinking?

I sense deception Captain.

Is he lying about the wormhole being stable?

I can’t tell Captain. He is hiding something.

Not good enough, dammit! Not good enough. Ba'al, you Ferengi's are untrustworthy. The deal is cancelled.

Peter

[Brant Gaede]

"There is no room for the arbitrary in any activity of man ...."

It is obvious from such quotes as these that Rand had more the mentality of an engineer than a creative genius. So did Howard Roark. It's not that she wasn't a creative genius, it's that she was one anyway.

Thanks to the demands of writing Atlas Shrugged she ended up a major control freak, to the detriment of herself and those around her, though not the novel. From such a matrix comes the impotence of contemporary Objectivism officially realized.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

It is important to know the difference between a fact an an opinion.

Is this statement a fact or merely your opinion?

The only things we can be reasonably sure of is what we observe of things not happing within our consciousness.

When you feel pain that happens "in" your consciousness. Are you not certain of when you feel pain?

That is why it is not possible to be certain that anyone else in the world has a mind, and we can never be sure of the intentions or feelings of others since we can not observe them directly.

You are uncertain of whether other minds exist? Then whom are you trying to convince?

How many experiments in physics (or any science) have you directly observed? Not very many, I would wager. Thus when you read the findings of physicists, you cannot be certain that they come from a conscious, reasoning mind. So much for the supposed certainty provided by science.

The private thoughts and feelings of others is forever theirs. And we have no way of determining whether the external manifestations (body language and utterance) truthfully reflects their internal states. In short we have no way of determining what other people intend. We can only guess and infer which is not the same as knowing.

Again, this means that you can only "guess and infer" what scientists intend to say.

I am onto something. I have learned to believe almost none of what I hear and only half of what I see.

The only thing that you are onto is the type of undigested skepticism that is popular among freshman philosophy students. If any O'ist made comparably naive statements about science, you would be all over them like white on rice.

There is one plus, however. Now, whenever you make a statement about "science," anyone on this list can reply, "Well, that's just your opinion -- and it's important to know the difference between a fact and an opinion." You will have no credible reply. You have cut the ground from under your own feet.

The blowback from skepticism is almost always fatal to the skeptic.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

It is important to know the difference between a fact an an opinion.

Is this statement a fact or merely your opinion?

---me: My opinion. I have stated what I deem to be important.

The only things we can be reasonably sure of is what we observe of things not happing within our consciousness.

When you feel pain that happens "in" your consciousness. Are you not certain of when you feel pain?

---me: I have felt pain for which I could detect no source. Hence that kind of pain might be an illusion. The pain I feel after, say cutting myself, is real since I can see the source. The blood and the torn flesh are clear in my sight. In general I consider pain for which I can determine no source (either by myself or medically assisted) as possibly an illusion.

That is why it is not possible to be certain that anyone else in the world has a mind, and we can never be sure of the intentions or feelings of others since we can not observe them directly.

You are uncertain of whether other minds exist? Then whom are you trying to convince?

---me: no one. I merely stated my opinion. If you think you can detect a mind in someone else's body good luck to you. By the way where is your objective proof of such an assertion. Do you have a machine or scanning device for detecting minds?

How many experiments in physics (or any science) have you directly observed? Not very many, I would wager. Thus when you read the findings of physicists, you cannot be certain that they come from a conscious, reasoning mind. So much for the supposed certainty provided by science.

--me: hundreds. But what is more important is the set of conventions in place for uncovering error and fraud. And I see the results of the experiments first hand: modern technology. That suffices to convince me.

The private thoughts and feelings of others is forever theirs. And we have no way of determining whether the external manifestations (body language and utterance) truthfully reflects their internal states. In short we have no way of determining what other people intend. We can only guess and infer which is not the same as knowing.

Again, this means that you can only "guess and infer" what scientists intend to say.

--me: I don't go by what the intend. I go by what is published in their name or uttered aloud in directly to my ears.

I am onto something. I have learned to believe almost none of what I hear and only half of what I see.

The only thing that you are onto is the type of undigested skepticism that is popular among freshman philosophy students. If any O'ist made comparably naive statements about science, you would be all over them like white on rice.

There is one plus, however. Now, whenever you make a statement about "science," anyone on this list can reply, "Well, that's just your opinion -- and it's important to know the difference between a fact and an opinion." You will have no credible reply. You have cut the ground from under your own feet.

The blowback from skepticism is almost always fatal to the skeptic.

---me: I am alive and reasonably well thank you. I tend not to be taken in by hokum. If you wish to believe sh*t, go ahead. This is still a semi-free country.

Ghs

Edited November 7, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[George H. Smith]

I tend not to be taken in by hokum. If you wish to believe sh*t, go ahead. This is still a semi-free country.

You are peddling hokum -- pure, unadulterated hokum. Fortunately, I needn't worry about it, since I cannot be certain of whether it comes from a conscious being. It might have emanated from someone who has a cantaloupe for a head, and there is no point in arguing with a cantaloupe.

Ghs

[Xray]

C'mon Jeff, after all, isn't "pride" a virtue in Objectivism, why don't you take the plunge?

When did I claim to be an Objectivist?

You seemt to be at least sympathetic to some of Objectivism's key ideas, at least that's the impression I got.

(Though I suppose it would be no more preposterous than someone who writes run-on sentences claiming to be an authority on language and literature.)

Since I'm no native speaker of English, I'd appreciate being cut some slack (is this the apt expression here?) regarding my stylistic finesse in English.

Are you always so 'puristic' in your approach to style btw? Keep in mind that run-on sentences can also be used for dramatic effect in writing, to give the impression that the sender "speaks" to the receiver.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

You are uncertain of whether other minds exist? Then whom are you trying to convince?

---me: no one. I merely stated my opinion.

So there is no reason why anyone should take you seriously? Okay, that sounds good to me.

If you think you can detect a mind in someone else's body good luck to you. By the way where is your objective proof of such an assertion. Do you have a machine or scanning device for detecting minds?

My scanning devices are called reason and common sense. Try them some time; you might be pleasantly surprised.

Beam me up, Scotty.

Ghs

[Xray]

A short time ago you mentioned our earlier exchange regarding the "Is-Ought Problem." You complained that I had only shown how conditional oughts can be grounded in facts. Get the picture now? Doh!

You are now free to point out that Rand speaks of "must," not "ought".

She confuses "must" with "ought", yes. This is also clearly shown when she speaks elsewhere about the fish which "ought to" live in water, while it is in fact "must". For there is no alternative for the fish but to live in water if it is to survive.

The same goes for "man" when it comes to biological musts. "Man" has no choice but to breathe if he is to survive, he cannot decide to survive without breathing. There is no alternative.

Now per Rand's own words, where no alternative exists, no values are possible, which is why all those biological, conditional musts can be disregarded in a moral value discussion.

The key question is whether value judgments can be rationally justified. They can, e.g.: poison will kill you; therefore, if you want to live, you should not eat poison.

It is you must not eat poison if you want to live, since it will kill you.

I think you are confusing 'evaluating' with 'valuing' here. You can rationally evaluate the possible effect of something, and then base your decision on it.

The same goes for purely instrumental values, where something becomes of value (or the opposite) in respect to a chosen goal. So the poison you mentioned can be evaluated as suited to purpose to a person in case he/she needs it as an effective means to achieve a specific goal.

So while the effect poison has on a body can be objectively measured and rationally evaluated, whether this effect is considered a value or non-value depends on the situation.

Remember that you yourself wrote elsewhere about purely instrumental values not playing a role in a discussion of morality.

Rationally justifiable value propositions are called "objective," in contrast to "subjective" value judgments, such as a preference for a flavor of ice cream, that express nothing more than the personal feelings and preferences of a given individual. There is no rational basis on which to argue about subjective values, but this is not the case with objective values.

Again, rationally justifiable value propostions are independent of the idea of objective morality, or a "good" which must be "discovered" by man.

For example, I can give rationally justifiable reasons why I chose to become state employee instead of working in private business. Another person could give you rationally justifiable reasons why they have become an entrepreneur.

"Rational" is also about assessing the means and equipment to achieve a goal.

Wanting to climb Mout Everest with sandals is an irrational goal because sandals are an insufficient means to achieve the end. Wanting to become an opera singer if one can't carry a tune is an irrational goal because the person is insufficently equipped to achieve it.

The "oughts" come into play when value judgments are applied to purposeful actions. Hence Rand's insistence that all "oughts" are conditional -- e.g., if you want to live a good life, then you should do X, etc.

And what IS s the "good" life? Good for whom and for what? What is good for X may be the opposite for Y. So it is back to square one since 'good' in a life plan = suited to purpose in order to reach a personal goal.

When it comes to pure survival issues, we are dealing with "musts" again, and since "musts" allow no alternative, they don't play a role in a value discussion. Since you don't have the alternative not to breathe if you want to survive, and since per Rand's own premise "where no alternative exists, no values are possible", we are not dealing with a value question in all these cases. ITA agree with Rand's take on that here. (That she contradicts a premise of hers in several other passages of her writings is something one can encounter more often in her work).

Rand didn't consider it necessary to "derive" values from facts because, for her, values signify a kind of fact, namely, the beneficial or harmful relationship of some aspect of reality to a living organism.

But it is the relationship or the effect on the organism which is the "fact" then.

For example, I value kiwis but regret I can't eat them anymore because my body has come to react allergic to them.

The key question is whether value judgments can be rationally justified. They can, e.g.: poison will kill you; therefore, if you want to live, you should not eat poison. Rationally justifiable value propositions are called "objective," in contrast to "subjective" value judgments, such as a preference for a flavor of ice cream, that express nothing more than the personal feelings and preferences of a given individual. There is no rational basis on which to argue about subjective values, but this is not the case with objective values.

This is what the objective/subjective controversy has been about throughout many centuries of philosophy. Live and learn, Toots.

Live and learn, Gentleman, to look the fact in the eye that every philosophy or ideology claiming its values to be objective in turn bases these values on an "ultimate value" which has been chosen as the basis of all. Whether it is "god", "man's life", "the good of the country" or whatever else.

And if a person does not happen to share that "ultimate value", then the claim of objectivity of all the system's subordinate values doesn't apply to him/her either.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Xray

[Peter]

Xray wrote, responding to being called "Toots:"

Live and learn, Gentleman, to distinguish evaluating from valuing. It is about moral values and if you can make the case that yours are 'objective', I'm all ears.

end quote

That is a completely subjective statement. If you all "all ears" Ba'al and I demand to see a picture. I hope there is more to you.

Peter

[BaalChatzaf]

My scanning devices are called reason and common sense. Try them some time; you might be pleasantly surprised.

Beam me up, Scotty.

Ghs

Not good enough. According to Aristotle using "common sense" heavier bodies fall faster than lighter bodies. Eliminate stuff like chicken feathers and one sees that common sense is misleading. It used to be "common sense" that heat was a fluid. The caloric theories was blown apart over 200 years ago.

Reason led Aristotle to each and every one of his wrong suppositions and conclusions. So much for unaided reason. Measuring carefully and doing experiments helps reason a great deal.

I have no objective evidence of a mind in any body that I do not own. I have lots of evidence that there are brains in every living human's skull.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jriggenbach]

Strange that Ayn Rand, who you believe to be such a great writer, never figured with her fiction in any list of world literature novels we had to to study ...

Not strange at all, actually.

In her book, Jennifer Burns mentions the "the nearly universal consensus among literary critics that she [AR] was a bad writer" (JB, Goddess of the Market, p. 2)

So in your opinion, all these literary critics understand "nothing at all" about 'good' writing?

Most literary critics, like most people, are incompetent at what they do. Is this actually news to you? You did say you were born before 1990, didn't you? I'm beginning to doubt it.

JR

Edited November 7, 2010 by Jeff Riggenbach

[kiaer.ts]

You express the naive conventional notion. Objectivism defines objectivity differently. Can you state the Objectivist view of objectivity in your own words?

What is fact (i.e. a genuine state of the world).

What is the case as opposed to what we wish were the case.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It's a simple question Bob.

What is the Objectivist position on the nature of objectivity?

Can you explain the difference between the Objectivist position and the conventional position in your own words?

(I am not singling you out merely for apparently holding the conventional position - a lot of people here do, including people who think they are Objectivists. I am asking you because you are smart enough to provide an answer and honest enough to admit there is a difference.)

[George H. Smith]

My scanning devices are called reason and common sense. Try them some time; you might be pleasantly surprised.

Beam me up, Scotty.

Ghs

Not good enough. According to Aristotle using "common sense" heavier bodies fall faster than lighter bodies. Eliminate stuff like chicken feathers and one sees that common sense is misleading. It used to be "common sense" that heat was a fluid. The caloric theories was blown apart over 200 years ago.

Reason led Aristotle to each and every one of his wrong suppositions and conclusions. So much for unaided reason. Measuring carefully and doing experiments helps reason a great deal.

I have no objective evidence of a mind in any body that I do not own. I have lots of evidence that there are brains in every living human's skull.

Ba'al Chatzaf

How do you know that Aristotle ever existed? Did you ever talk to him personally? And how do you know what happened 200 years ago to caloric theories? Were you there? And how do you know that measurements and experiments work for anyone other than yourself? Have you personally witnessed each and every one?

In short, all this is merely your opinion. I deal in facts.

As for no "objective evidence" of any minds other than your own, I guess you will need to talk only to yourself for the rest of your life. Now would be a good time to start.

Ghs

[Rich Engle]

Strange that Ayn Rand, who you believe to be such a great writer, never figured with her fiction in any list of world literature novels we had to to study ...

Not strange at all, actually.

In her book, Jennifer Burns mentions the "the nearly universal consensus among literary critics that she [AR] was a bad writer" (JB, Goddess of the Market, p. 2)

So in your opinion, all these literary critics understand "nothing at all" about 'good' writing?

Most literary critics, like most people, are incompetent at whatever they do. Is this actually news to you? You did say you were born before 1990, didn't you? I'm beginning to doubt it.

JR

I don't know about most people being incompetent at what they do--but statistically, this is probably the sad fact of it--I just try to maintain a more positive outlook about the human condition, or else I'd be wanting to hang myself every day. As far as literary critics go, in my experience, opinion, most of them are like any other critics (music, theater, etc.)--they tend to be bound by their profession. Meaning, it would eliminate their purpose if they did not constantly introduce negatives--even into things they really like. It's called job security. And remember: they, too are writers--often more read writers than those they review.

There are some very, very good critics in all fields. These people are in touch, well-schooled, sensitive to context, all that. If you read a review and feel educated as to how the work being reviewed fits into the overall scheme of things, the genre itself, the artist's own catalog, this is a good thing. On the other hand, some of them can and often do stick very sneaky little barbs in when so doing. A very nasty part of the critic business is on the personal side; how they are played to, and how they deal with that. The very famous ones often become sniffy bon vivants--real a-holes. You have to read a critic quite a bit to figure out how they are working all this.

With Rand, the situation was very difficult--very difficult indeed and it is pretty easy to figure out why.

I think I have put enough of my life into reading, studying, and writing itself to throw in at least a little weight as to whether she was a "good" writer or not. Just enough, maybe. Yes, she was a very good writer--an excellent writer, for many reasons. She developed a completely unique "voice," and that is, to me, the most important thing. Secondly, she was not afraid to innovate, experiment. Another reason is because of her painful attention to detail, and great precision. And it is clear that she was highly passionate about her work--this shows. These things alone make more than a "good" writer.

As far as whether it showed up in world lit classes, or what have you, this is no surprise--me neither, and I had the great benefit of a wonderful education in literature from womb-to-tomb. As to the why of this, many have speculated. In a way I am glad it didn't show up in the curriculum, like many other greats often do not--there are some things that seem more special to you if you come by them outside of the academic world. That might not make much sense but I have always found it to be true.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Rich Engle

[dsaum]

The text of the ARI 'guidance' teleconference announcement is now on field.

What makes this interesting is the Q and A. -- I wonder how forthright will be the questions put to the Kremlin representatives. The feebleness of the email itself portends an equally feeble teaching moment on November 8. But who knows, there is a fierce head of steam built up among ARI supporters, and maybe everyone on the line will get with reality and realize that Uncle Grandpa needs a talking to and his handlers and toadies need to give their fucking heads a shake.

From SOLO via Boaz the Boor:

Dear OAC Students,

We're looking forward to starting up the OAC year in a few weeks, and to seeing all of you in class soon. In the meantime, we want to invite you to a phone meeting we're planning to have with the entire OAC student body (this is the first such meeting, I believe.)

For those of you who spend time on Facebook, you've likely become aware of various discussions on the internet by some Objectivists regarding Dr. John McCaskey's recent resignation from ARI's Board of Directors. We understand that some of you have questions, and more importantly, that some of you are genuinely struggling with how one should respond based on the limited public information and subsequent "chatter". We therefore want to meet with all of you to discuss both why Dr. McCaskey's resignation is a private matter, and more urgently, to provide some guidance on how to objectively think and communicate about a matter that appears as difficult to understand as this one does. [!!!]

Because of our travel schedules, the meeting will be a few weeks away on Monday, November 8, 2010 at 2 p.m. PT. This meeting will take place via the OAC bridge line (dial in to 1-800-xxx-xxxx, enter Guest Access Code xxx#.) Yaron Brook, Onkar Ghate and I will speak with all of you then--and we're looking forward to it. Because there will likely be many people on the line, it may be hard for us to take questions live so I'm asking you to send any questions you might have to oac@aynrand.org by November 1, 2010. Your questions will help us frame the discussion so we encourage you to send those in.

(Please note, this phone call is for registered OAC students only. The phone access information is confidential and should not be shared or distributed.)

Have a good few weeks, and we'll "see" you all in class soon.

Best regards,

--[name omitted]

Oh to be a fly-on-the wall for today's conference call!

[Rich Engle]

We therefore want to meet with all of you to discuss both why Dr. McCaskey's resignation is a private matter, and more urgently, to provide some guidance on how to objectively think and communicate about a matter that appears as difficult to understand as this one does. [!!!]

Let the re-grooving commence. And if you don't get it right the first time, no problem; the voltage dial goes to "11."

[Brant Gaede]

We therefore want to meet with all of you to discuss both why Dr. McCaskey's resignation is a private matter, and more urgently, to provide some guidance on how to objectively think and communicate about a matter that appears as difficult to understand as this one does. [!!!]

Let the re-grooving commence. And if you don't get it right the first time, no problem; the voltage dial goes to "11."

Pathetic. They intend to reserve it for the priesthood. Maybe in twenty years they'll be ready to move ARI to Guyana and do a Jim Jones.

--Brant

remember the "private" thingy with Rand and Branden?--they have to use a different template

put your passports into the trunk

[Xray]

"There is no room for the arbitrary in any activity of man ...."

It is obvious from such quotes as these that Rand had more the mentality of an engineer than a creative genius. So did Howard Roark. It's not that she wasn't a creative genius, it's that she was one anyway.

Thanks to the demands of writing Atlas Shrugged she ended up a major control freak, to the detriment of herself and those around her, though not the novel. From such a matrix comes the impotence of contemporary Objectivism officially realized.

--Brant

"There is no room for the arbitrary in any activty of man ..." (Rand).

Oh, but there is. Plenty.

As for Rand's assertion that "nature forbids him [man] the irrational" -

L.A. Rollins commented in his book The Myth of Natural Rights, p. 20:

"In fact nature permits a helluva lot of of irrationality. How for example, could Christianity have survived for nearly two millenia if nature "forbids" the irrational?"

Edited November 8, 2010 by Xray

[Selene]

"There is no room for the arbitrary in any activty of man ..." (Rand).

Oh, but there is. Plenty.

As for Rand's assertion that "nature forbids him [man] the irrational" -

L.A. Rollins commented in his book The Myth of Natural Rights, p. 20:

"In fact nature permits a helluva lot of of irrationality. How for example, could Christianity have survived for nearly two millenia if nature "forbids" the irrational?"

Ahh Ms. Xray, you non-believers and your book sources are just blind to the obvious answer.

Christianity survived and prospered because they have God on their side. Clear as the stars overhead. Add a healthy dose of Roman military power and the accumulation of property and wealth in the Vatican and the answer is obvious. Your book source just demonstrates his ignorance.

You have a chance to repent though and see the error of your ways.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

Oh to be a fly-on-the wall for today's conference call!

It seems it happened last week, and there was dirty work afoot. Meet the newest unperson:

http://blog.shealevy.com/2010/11/07/my-treatment-in-last-tuesdays-oac-call/

A couple of the comments suggest that Comrade Sonia has also been unpersoned.

It's quite literally like the game of telephone. I bet a recording will emerge, and become available through backchannels.