Peikoff’s latest howler

[Reidy]

1. In point of fact Peikoff's successor was Berliner, and Berliner's in turn is Brook.

2. Does anyone out there remember that Dagny was John's housekeeper during her first sojourn in the valley?

[Selene]

1. In point of fact Peikoff's successor was Berliner, and Berliner's in turn is Brook.

2. Does anyone out there remember that Dagny was John's housekeeper during her first sojourn in the valley?

Pete:

Yep.

A classic example of submissive behavior.

Dagny: "I propose to earn my room and board.

By what means?

By working.

In what capacity?

In the capacity of your cook and housemaid."

For the first time, she saw him take the shock of the unexpected in a manner and with a violence she had not foreseen.

Later, on the next page, page 702, "I shall cook your meals, clean your house, do your laundry and perform such other duties as are required of a servant ..."

Adam

[caroljane]

1. In point of fact Peikoff's successor was Berliner, and Berliner's in turn is Brook.

2. Does anyone out there remember that Dagny was John's housekeeper during her first sojourn in the valley?

Pete:

Yep.

A classic example of submissive behavior.

Dagny: "I propose to earn my room and board.

By what means?

By working.

In what capacity?

In the capacity of your cook and housemaid."

For the first time, she saw him take the shock of the unexpected in a manner and with a violence she had not foreseen.

Later, on the next page, page 702, "I shall cook your meals, clean your house, do your laundry and perform such other duties as are required of a servant ..."

Adam

Wow, I had forgotten that part. Art equals life for Peikoff?

[Selene]

Carol:

There is another part later where she is sewing a button on his shirt which is erotic when you add that dynamic.

Adam

she was such a sub

[Xray]

His insistence on the closed system is that not everything Rand wrote on or discussed is part of the Objectivist system. I know he's stated before he thinks that Rand's convictions on sex were ones based in psychology, that had philosophic consequences, much like her view of homosexuality.

I’m not clear on what you are suggesting here. Are you contending that Peikoff is not being inconsistent on this issue because sex is “based on psychology?” Are you implying that it’s okay for him to exclude anything that’s heavily psychological in nature from the arbitrary intellectual shelter he calls “closed Objectivism?” So we can now extend the exception given to Rand’s views on homosexuality to her views on sex in general?

Why stop there? Since we cannot read minds, all ethical evaluation necessarily entails drawing psychological conclusions about when people are actually evading and when they are not. There is obviously a huge component of psychology involved. So let’s open the debate on Rand’s approach to moral evaluation as well. In fact, the fields of philosophy and psychology are so closely related that this would open a huge Pandora’s box that could never be closed.

I regard the whole notion of “closed Objectivism” to be ridiculous. Giving Peikoff this kind of pass on psychology-related issues helps him make this “closed Objectivism” silliness look plausible.

Ayn Rand clearly intended Francisco’s speech on “The Meaning of Sex” to be part of Objectivism or she would not have included it in her first nonfiction work, For The New Intellectual. As I have said many times before on this forum, I think Francisco’s speech is terribly oversimplified and psychologically naive and could only have been written by a woman. No reasonable male would ever argue that he could only be sexually attracted to a woman who shared his sense of life or philosophy of life. It’s utterly absurd.

Good points.

[Reidy]

I've long suspected people who claim that this or that remark of Rand's was "not part of her philosophy," because they tend to define genuinely philosophical positions as the ones they are willing to defend. You could avoid this by giving a plausible definition of philosophy and then proceeding to apply it, but people rarely do. Rand herself didn't think much of the distinction:

You say that you speak on politics from general observation and not as a philosopher. That is a point of difference between us: I never think or speak of anything except as a philosopher.

(To John Hospers, 17 4 60, Letters p. 506)

If you take this seriously (as presumably the ARI stalwarts do) then you have to admit her remarks on cigarette smoking, homosexuality and a woman president as integral to Objectivism.

[Xray]

I've long suspected people who claim that this or that remark of Rand's was "not part of her philosophy," because they tend to define genuinely philosophical positions as the ones they are willing to defend. You could avoid this by giving a plausible definition of philosophy and then proceeding to apply it, but people rarely do. Rand herself didn't think much of the distinction:

You say that you speak on politics from general observation and not as a philosopher. That is a point of difference between us: I never think or speak of anything except as a philosopher.

(To John Hospers, 17 4 60, Letters p. 506)

If you take this seriously (as presumably the ARI stalwarts do) then you have to admit her remarks on cigarette smoking, homosexuality and a woman president as integral to Objectivism.

Relying on the above quote from Rand as the direct source, your conclusion is correct, Reidy.

[Dennis Hardin]

I've long suspected people who claim that this or that remark of Rand's was "not part of her philosophy," because they tend to define genuinely philosophical positions as the ones they are willing to defend. You could avoid this by giving a plausible definition of philosophy and then proceeding to apply it, but people rarely do. Rand herself didn't think much of the distinction:

You say that you speak on politics from general observation and not as a philosopher. That is a point of difference between us: I never think or speak of anything except as a philosopher.

(To John Hospers, 17 4 60, Letters p. 506)

If you take this seriously (as presumably the ARI stalwarts do) then you have to admit her remarks on cigarette smoking, homosexuality and a woman president as integral to Objectivism.

It would be great theater to watch Peikoff dance around that one.

[9thdoctor]

Lenny says to vote against “supporting” Lesbian-Gay-Transgender campus clubs, since Transgenderism is immoral. Don’t let them in, quoth the Intellectual Heir™.

http://www.peikoff.com/2012/01/02/i-am-a-member-of-my-schools-student-government-at-a-christian-university-one-student-appealed-for-our-support-of-a-lesbian-gay-and-transgendered-group-currently-i-am-thinking-of-voting-no-becau/

[Brant Gaede]

1. In point of fact Peikoff's successor was Berliner, and Berliner's in turn is Brook.

2. Does anyone out there remember that Dagny was John's housekeeper during her first sojourn in the valley?

True. It was many years ago just before the big collapse. I was there. I saw her sew on those buttons. What nobody but me knows is I snuck in one of my own shirts. Still have it.

--Brant

he needed a housekeeper; the place was a mess--pizza boxes all over the place

[PDS]

Uh boy, this subject is pretty distasteful, it can only be a springboard for cheap shots. There's a natural assumption that his wife is not an intellectual, or an accomplished person in any sense. Should this be fair game?

Absolutely, it's fair game. Don't forget that the Official Closed System of Objectivism's theory of sex and romantic love demands that we judge a man's entire philosophy and view of existence after being informed of the type of woman he chooses as a romantic partner. It's the Objectivist litmus test. Has Rand's heir and the world's leading authority on the world's greatest philosophy chosen a lowly "shop girl" whose chatter would bore much lesser minds in minutes? If so, I think we'd need to consider the possibility that Peikoff has always been a fraud, that he never really accepted True Objectivism into his life, and that he only posed as an Objectivist in order to take financial advantage of Rand and her followers.

Then again, there is one possible loophole, which is that the housekeeper makes up for lack of intellect or towering achievement by having one of the world's greatest "senses of life" (as Frank O'Connor is said to have had). If the greatness of her "sense of life" were officially certified by an Objectivist Authority, like, say, Leonard Peikoff, then we would be required to base our estimate of her (and by extension, of Peikoff) on her glorious "sense of life" while completely disregarding her lack of accomplishments (we might even buy into the idea that she has been heroically "on strike" for decades).

J

This says it all, really. It continually surprises me how much of what Rand said about her philosophy was based on what she felt about sex and love. Maybe that's why we continue to be so interested in her.

Amen to Jonathan, and amen to Daunce.

[Dennis Hardin]

Lenny says to vote against “supporting” Lesbian-Gay-Transgender campus clubs, since Transgenderism is immoral. Don’t let them in, quoth the Intellectual Heir™.

http://www.peikoff.c...oting-no-becau/

To begin with, Peikoff confuses transgender with transsexual. Peikoff has opposed transsexualism because he regards the surgery as mutilation. The category of transgender, however, is much broader than this, and can even include straight people who simply have sexual identity issues.

So that alone is enough to conclude that Peikoff is a blowhard who mouths off on issues when he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

Beyond that, Peikoff appears to argue that people should not belong to any organization which explicitly allows immoral people as members. “Don’t join with one person who supports the bad,” he says.

We could debate the broader point he is making, but let’s just consider what the implication is regarding transsexualism. He seems to be saying that if someone does not agree with Peikoff’s decidedly peculiar view of transsexuals, and decides to associate with people (i.e., transsexuals) who are “thoroughly corrupt” and engage in a “metaphysical assault on reality,” don’t have anything to do with that person. In other words, only have friends who agree with Peikoff on the nature of transsexualism and who refuse to associate with transsexuals.

Peikoff may as well be telling people not to have any friends who don’t hang on his every word. Perhaps he should make it simple for people and simply tell them not to have any friends at all.

Or have the decency to shut up when he is addressing an issue which upsets him to the point that he completely loses all capacity for mental clarity.

[9thdoctor]

So that alone is enough to conclude that Peikoff is a blowhard who mouths off on issues when he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

A point amply demonstrated well before this came up.

He seems to be saying that if someone does not agree with Peikoff’s decidedly peculiar view of transsexuals, and decides to associate with people (i.e., transsexuals) who are “thoroughly corrupt” and engage in a “metaphysical assault on reality,” don’t have anything to do with that person. In other words, only have friends who agree with Peikoff on the nature of transsexualism and who refuse to associate with transsexuals.

And if you substitute "libertarians" for "transsexuals"...

[seymourblogger]

What's hard for me to understand is why people ask these questions of these people--not just Peikoff but Hsieh and others. They are probably young.

--Brant

I used to be young, btw

I’m not going to reply in the software any more. I lose comments too often.

Questions are interrogations. Since I went through Foucault’s genealogy on Confession and the cuts in it that interfaced with questioning that turned it into interrogation, I fall into the trap of responding to content with full knowledge that I am being stupid to do so. I can’t help it a lot as you will see from here and my chastisements.

Sex change is an interface with the body and technology. This is an important issue. I don’t think LP has been seeing films about it: eXistenZ, one of Tarkovsky’s (name?) and Houellebecq’s The Possibility of an Island. Sex change (plastic surgery etc) is one of the beginnings of cloning and complete cloning is less than 2 decades away now.

And it will be done.

Peikoff, one of the founders of Objectivism, is heartily criticized here, while others are not allowed a whisper of a hint that appears negative about them. I guess some are more equal than others.

Peikoff has done something very impressive with Objectivism. He has kept it a closed system as much as he was humanly able to do so. Had he allowed it to open up, it would have been a disaster. It is a hodge-podge of philosophical constructs pasted together that would have been shattered into bits and laughed at long ago.

Rand follows Nietzsche in relating everything to everything else, and as Sciabarra has shown, Peikoff preserved this relational aspect. This is what allows Rand to weave sex, economics, aesthetics into the pattern she named Objectivism. This is what allowed her to attack inroads that would have ruined what she was trying to do.

Sciabarra is very clear on this.

A question about sex change is not a question, but an interrogation as to the Objectivist moral position on it.

What is the moral issue in changing your reality surgically, permanently? A difficult question that requires a thoughtful answer, not a ready-made. He did not have it because he had not been thinking about it.

We can imagine what Rand would have said. But if she were here now, her reply might have been different from what it might have been then.

That’s hard to say and we will never know. But Peikoff intends to keep Objectivism a closed system and although I have criticized him in the past for this when I thought psychologically, I can only now admire him for standing firm on this. Absolutely no one else in the movement could have done this. No one. And I applaud him for it.

I am not saying I agree with him, only that his strategy is correct in preserving Rand’s work and the way she will be perceived as much as possible, in his lifetime. Afterwards I expect it to pretty much disintegrate. There will be no opposition. The dialectic will not exist and there will be endless interpretive ping-pong.

The relational aspect of Rand's work following Nietzsche is what draws her into post modern thinking, and away from he said/she said.

[Brant Gaede]

Objectivism the philosophy of Ayn Rand is a closed system. Ironically it includes some material by others, especially Nathaniel Branden, by her own statement.

Objectivism, the philosophy of anyone else, is a closed system respecting all those others. Anyone can use their key, go inside and change things, just not respecting anyone else.

Objectivism, a basic philosophy, is not and cannot be a closed system unto itself. That's a contradiction respecting the name and what is supposedly behind the name--the actual nature of reality and the nature of a human being qua human being.

Thus there are two Objectivisms:

(2) Particular Objectivism(s)

(1) Basic, underlying Objectivism: the foundation: the home of reality and rationality and the other two basic principles. (rational) self interest and individual rights (freedom, liberty, laissez-faire capitalism)

If an Objectivist has only #2 and not #1, he's living a dogmatic contradiction.

If an Objecitivist has #1 he also has #2. It's up to him how flawed it is respecting his knowledge, rationality and integrity.

--Brant

[seymourblogger]

1. In point of fact Peikoff's successor was Berliner, and Berliner's in turn is Brook.

2. Does anyone out there remember that Dagny was John's housekeeper during her first sojourn in the valley?

Pete:

Yep.

A classic example of submissive behavior.

Dagny: "I propose to earn my room and board.

By what means?

By working.

In what capacity?

In the capacity of your cook and housemaid."

For the first time, she saw him take the shock of the unexpected in a manner and with a violence she had not foreseen.

Later, on the next page, page 702, "I shall cook your meals, clean your house, do your laundry and perform such other duties as are required of a servant ..."

Adam

A rather unfortunate scene in Atlas. I am trying to imagine an alternative but one does not easily come to mind.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The problem is that Peikoff hired people to bowderlize a lot of Rand's previously unpublished stuff in order to keep Objectivism a "closed system."

That leaves a big honking crack in the sealant.

Propaganda, promoting a false public image, hamhanded spin and general tampering in Rand's texts are not good foundations for a philosophy of reason--especially if you want to "close" it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

1. In point of fact Peikoff's successor was Berliner, and Berliner's in turn is Brook.

2. Does anyone out there remember that Dagny was John's housekeeper during her first sojourn in the valley?

Pete:

Yep.

A classic example of submissive behavior.

Dagny: "I propose to earn my room and board.

By what means?

By working.

In what capacity?

In the capacity of your cook and housemaid."

For the first time, she saw him take the shock of the unexpected in a manner and with a violence she had not foreseen.

Later, on the next page, page 702, "I shall cook your meals, clean your house, do your laundry and perform such other duties as are required of a servant ..."

Adam

A rather unfortunate scene in Atlas. I am trying to imagine an alternative but one does not easily come to mind.

LOL. Dagny was trying to be an Objectivist!

--Brant

AS was about everybody being submissive to JG

[seymourblogger]

Carol:

There is another part later where she is sewing a button on his shirt which is erotic when you add that dynamic.

Adam

she was such a sub

Yes and no. Rand is observant about the problem of "the will" in her fiction. A sub offloads her will onto the dom. Baudrillard has said much about this offloading of the will. The western idea of "willing" taking responsibility for one's actions, determining one's life, blah blah is not a predominant fact of a culture or civilization throughout history. Many cultures offload their will and in that way can take responsibility for someone else.

I have used Rob Pattinson's unaware utterances on the problem of the will. When asked by an interviewer how he was going to play Edward Cullen in Breaking Dawn, he said he was just going to follow Kristen's lead as he had been doing all along. That she was the better actor. And interestingly enough he has taken responsibility for a few of his musician friends to include their work in Twilight and foster their emergence above the radar. People have gone to their concerts because Pattinson sang one of their songs recorded on youtube, or because he was in a small audience.

The Hopi have a verb form called the "intentional". When you speak of someone or something you wish well of, yoou use the intentional form. It doesn't mean you have to do anything active, just that you have good feelings about it, that you wish them well. BL Whorf has an essay on Hopi in his book that I love.

Dominique and Dagny both offload their will onto the man they are having a sexual relationship with. This is very much in the vein of post modern thinking. It doesn't mean that they cannot be achievers in all other ways, but it does mean that in sex they offload their will and the man decides.

Much of Twi8light Bella/Edward fanfiction is of this nature. And much of fanfic is unconsciously post modern, written by girls and women who have never heard of post modern thought. It is incredibly erotic and is offered free. I suspect it is making a huge swath into the market of young adult fiction for girls and women. Other romances seem very pallid by comparison. I certainly enjoyed playing with this genre.

[Selene]

Carol:

There is another part later where she is sewing a button on his shirt which is erotic when you add that dynamic.

Adam

she was such a sub

Yes and no. Rand is observant about the problem of "the will" in her fiction. A sub offloads her will onto the dom. Baudrillard has said much about this offloading of the will. The western idea of "willing" taking responsibility for one's actions, determining one's life, blah blah is not a predominant fact of a culture or civilization throughout history. Many cultures offload their will and in that way can take responsibility for someone else.

Ms. Abbey:

There is a transfer of power between the submissive and the Dominant. The power exchange [TPE - Total power exchange] is not a one way dynamic.

Unless I had a definition of "offloading," I would not find that descriptive of what occurs in a D/s power exchange. You make some salient statements that are applicable. The "will" of either party is never dissolved, rather it is enmeshed into one unitary entity for the duration of the exchange and the after care of the submissive.

I will reserve any further commentary. Can you provide me with a definition, as used by Baudrillard?

Adam

[PDS]

What's hard for me to understand is why people ask these questions of these people--not just Peikoff but Hsieh and others. They are probably young.

--Brant

I used to be young, btw

I’m not going to reply in the software any more. I lose comments too often.

Questions are interrogations. Since I went through Foucault’s genealogy on Confession and the cuts in it that interfaced with questioning that turned it into interrogation, I fall into the trap of responding to content with full knowledge that I am being stupid to do so. I can’t help it a lot as you will see from here and my chastisements.

Sex change is an interface with the body and technology. This is an important issue. I don’t think LP has been seeing films about it: eXistenZ, one of Tarkovsky’s (name?) and Houellebecq’s The Possibility of an Island. Sex change (plastic surgery etc) is one of the beginnings of cloning and complete cloning is less than 2 decades away now.

And it will be done.

Peikoff, one of the founders of Objectivism, is heartily criticized here, while others are not allowed a whisper of a hint that appears negative about them. I guess some are more equal than others.

Peikoff has done something very impressive with Objectivism. He has kept it a closed system as much as he was humanly able to do so. Had he allowed it to open up, it would have been a disaster. It is a hodge-podge of philosophical constructs pasted together that would have been shattered into bits and laughed at long ago.

Rand follows Nietzsche in relating everything to everything else, and as Sciabarra has shown, Peikoff preserved this relational aspect. This is what allows Rand to weave sex, economics, aesthetics into the pattern she named Objectivism. This is what allowed her to attack inroads that would have ruined what she was trying to do.

Sciabarra is very clear on this.

A question about sex change is not a question, but an interrogation as to the Objectivist moral position on it.

What is the moral issue in changing your reality surgically, permanently? A difficult question that requires a thoughtful answer, not a ready-made. He did not have it because he had not been thinking about it.

We can imagine what Rand would have said. But if she were here now, her reply might have been different from what it might have been then.

That’s hard to say and we will never know. But Peikoff intends to keep Objectivism a closed system and although I have criticized him in the past for this when I thought psychologically, I can only now admire him for standing firm on this. Absolutely no one else in the movement could have done this. No one. And I applaud him for it.

I am not saying I agree with him, only that his strategy is correct in preserving Rand’s work and the way she will be perceived as much as possible, in his lifetime. Afterwards I expect it to pretty much disintegrate. There will be no opposition. The dialectic will not exist and there will be endless interpretive ping-pong.

The relational aspect of Rand's work following Nietzsche is what draws her into post modern thinking, and away from he said/she said.

There are some very interesting comments in this mini-essay. An intellectual historian could take this and run with it pretty briskly. I remember in the mid 80's waiting (and waiting) for LP to finish the comprehensive opus that would eventually become OTPAR. This was before the myriad of little splits, but quite a while after the Big Split. You may be intuiting what took him so long.

[Selene]

Yep. She raises a few interesting questions for me also.

FYI:

The Possibility of an Island (French: La Possibilité d'une île) is a 2005 novel by French novelist Michel Houellebecq, set within a cloning cult that resembles the real-world Raëlians.^[1][2] <<<<we have a thread on this group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Possibility_of_an_Island

[Selene]

These are the four threads that mention Raelians.

Finally! An up front feminist political group that we...

The Real 7 Wonders Of The World (From raelianews.org)

Its official: STEM CELLS WORK!

On A's and Theists

[seymourblogger]

Carol:

There is another part later where she is sewing a button on his shirt which is erotic when you add that dynamic.

Adam

she was such a sub

Yes and no. Rand is observant about the problem of "the will" in her fiction. A sub offloads her will onto the dom. Baudrillard has said much about this offloading of the will. The western idea of "willing" taking responsibility for one's actions, determining one's life, blah blah is not a predominant fact of a culture or civilization throughout history. Many cultures offload their will and in that way can take responsibility for someone else.

Ms. Abbey:

There is a transfer of power between the submissive and the Dominant. The power exchange [TPE - Total power exchange] is not a one way dynamic.

Unless I had a definition of "offloading," I would not find that descriptive of what occurs in a D/s power exchange. You make some salient statements that are applicable. The "will" of either party is never dissolved, rather it is enmeshed into one unitary entity for the duration of the exchange and the after care of the submissive.

I will reserve any further commentary. Can you provide me with a definition, as used by Baudrillard?

Adam

If I sound abrupt it's because I keep losing posts as I can't figure out why.

http://cosmopolisfilm2.blogspot.com/2011/05/problem-of-will-he-didnt-know-what-he.html This is one of the links you want. There are others on my other blogs as it keeps coming up.

The error in your thinking as far as the post modern mode goes is that of power. Following Foucault power is always in a relation with knowledge. The power/knowledge grid. The two cannot be separated. Power lies in the interstices of the grid. Power cannot be had, given, traded, exchanged,taken, loaned, etc. Power is welded into this relation. Just as Desire/Lack are in a relation as Lacan has elicited.

So instead of power Baudrillard uses "will" and "destiny" etc. If you follow the link it is explained. My intention is to disappear. To juxtapose texts that illuminate problems, not to add to the problems with my ego and interpretations. However I get sucked in when I try to communicate with someone in their Discourse. I see I don't have to do that with you as you are flexible enough to jump back and forth.

[seymourblogger]

What's hard for me to understand is why people ask these questions of these people--not just Peikoff but Hsieh and others. They are probably young.

--Brant

I used to be young, btw

I’m not going to reply in the software any more. I lose comments too often.

Questions are interrogations. Since I went through Foucault’s genealogy on Confession and the cuts in it that interfaced with questioning that turned it into interrogation, I fall into the trap of responding to content with full knowledge that I am being stupid to do so. I can’t help it a lot as you will see from here and my chastisements.

Sex change is an interface with the body and technology. This is an important issue. I don’t think LP has been seeing films about it: eXistenZ, one of Tarkovsky’s (name?) and Houellebecq’s The Possibility of an Island. Sex change (plastic surgery etc) is one of the beginnings of cloning and complete cloning is less than 2 decades away now.

And it will be done.

Peikoff, one of the founders of Objectivism, is heartily criticized here, while others are not allowed a whisper of a hint that appears negative about them. I guess some are more equal than others.

Peikoff has done something very impressive with Objectivism. He has kept it a closed system as much as he was humanly able to do so. Had he allowed it to open up, it would have been a disaster. It is a hodge-podge of philosophical constructs pasted together that would have been shattered into bits and laughed at long ago.

Rand follows Nietzsche in relating everything to everything else, and as Sciabarra has shown, Peikoff preserved this relational aspect. This is what allows Rand to weave sex, economics, aesthetics into the pattern she named Objectivism. This is what allowed her to attack inroads that would have ruined what she was trying to do.

Sciabarra is very clear on this.

A question about sex change is not a question, but an interrogation as to the Objectivist moral position on it.

What is the moral issue in changing your reality surgically, permanently? A difficult question that requires a thoughtful answer, not a ready-made. He did not have it because he had not been thinking about it.

We can imagine what Rand would have said. But if she were here now, her reply might have been different from what it might have been then.

That’s hard to say and we will never know. But Peikoff intends to keep Objectivism a closed system and although I have criticized him in the past for this when I thought psychologically, I can only now admire him for standing firm on this. Absolutely no one else in the movement could have done this. No one. And I applaud him for it.

I am not saying I agree with him, only that his strategy is correct in preserving Rand’s work and the way she will be perceived as much as possible, in his lifetime. Afterwards I expect it to pretty much disintegrate. There will be no opposition. The dialectic will not exist and there will be endless interpretive ping-pong.

The relational aspect of Rand's work following Nietzsche is what draws her into post modern thinking, and away from he said/she said.

There are some very interesting comments in this mini-essay. An intellectual historian could take this and run with it pretty briskly. I remember in the mid 80's waiting (and waiting) for LP to finish the comprehensive opus that would eventually become OTPAR. This was before the myriad of little splits, but quite a while after the Big Split. You may be intuiting what took him so long.

Peikoff is only ONE person. He cannot do it all. He has done a remarkable job so far. Can you imagine the untouchables being able to do what he has done?