william.scherk

Yes, Phil made it clear that he hoped for professional review-style guide to Branden by someone like you, Boydstun, Bissell, etcetera. But he did not first sniff out the fact that it could appear A Staggering Irony for him to ask for this kind of labour while dodging it himself, that it could sound like another (um, no thanks, Mrs Grundy) assignment, another challenge to the Degenerates, another pop-quiz, another inept opening gambit. He made what I thought to be an embarrassing blunder -- in tone, tenor, register, angle of attack. Almost as if designed to repulse what he ostensibly wanted: the meat, pith of Branden, graciously and professionally delivered to his screen at his request. "I realize I may have been unfair to Branden, and admit again that I am ill-read in his work. I acknowledge the irony of styling myself an Upperclassman of Objectivism, able to teach Objectivism to Objectivists while asking for your best effort to help me out here. But, can I ask for some tips on getting into Branden? The two books I started and couldn't finish were X and Y. As discussion elaborates, I have a few more questions. I will accept a few gibes, but I am serious." How exactly did George ask for help in breaking ground in his reading? And how did Phil? And how did each gambit deliver the goods? Did he say something adroit like, "Guess what? I've been to Nathaniel Branden's website, and left a message: "Dear Dr Branden, I am a long-time Objectivist who came to New York after you had left for California. I am embarrassed to say that I need help in approaching the body of your work. Where would you advise me to start?"? What makes these kinds of self-stymied efforts, self-thwarting plays inexpressibly sad for me is the chasm between tactic and goal. A putative strategy of "getting what I want" is marred by "blocking my own efforts, inadvertently by social clumsiness or via malice/vengence." How many times have we seen or watched or listened to or read drama or comedy or tragedy and seen a real person or a fictional person stand in his or her own way? How many times do we see it in our own families and workplaces and social world, without being able to avert an own goal by someone we have come to care about? How often do we accept the advice of a friend that we are thwarting our own goals? Phil, my own notes are far more interesting and yet still dull for any other reader than myself -- and I write my notes mostly in sentences, as I think, or work directly from an outline for more formal and lengthy pieces. If you are suggesting these even approach Botched Ukrainian Powerpoint titles in my value rankings, I think not. That is unfortunate, because your zeal for and knowledge of Objectivism could help you Spread Objectivism. It is a good hook, I think, a fine spine, a great jumping-off point. You could kill two birds, maybe three, with one stone. Get published (even if self-published or web-published) again, give your fans something to valorize, get Objectivism spreading, and complete a personally-satisfying task for which you believe you are well-qualified. But you see the irony, Phil? You must. It is that you would think that notes might be interesting to us ... or any reader ... while you rather frostily specify that only the format and professionalism of a written review-style response will attract your interest, when you tell me now that you enjoy posts that are 'working out something in your head.' I am interested in the result of your workout, Phil, just as you are interested in the result of the work of others (the Grundy-esque homework assignment on Branden)! Answer me honestly, please. Do you not see the irony even after Jonathan has pounded it home with his invitation to me to go get his snacks? Having been a teacher and addressing a wide range of audiences is excellent practice at teaching and addressing wide ranges of audiences, but I was talking about your essay and the help you can get from your trusted friends and respected writers. Phil, honestly, I was trying to turn you around a bit, get you going on something productive, exciting, already remarkably good and supported on this site, get you to fuck your enemies and turn to your friends ... Hmmm. Let's try this again. You have many contacts INSIDE AND OUTSIDE objective-ish streams to help you. Do you trust anyone to help you? Please Phil, don't give up on yourself and your dreams to fear. As Carol pointed out, THE WORLD I was referring was the world of your trusted contacts, in private. "They will not misguide you intentionally." These are the people you trust after your many years in the movement. You know who they are and their value to you. And Bill with Phil. Yes. But the games are not quite the same, I don't think. My game is my usual game, Brant. Trying different ways and means of helping myself and others closer to practical truth. Entertainingly if possible. Savagely if necessary. With kindness if it might be effective. The thing is, I always feel like a winner in my game, and I do not think this is true for Phil, and it saddens me.

[emphasis added] Puzzling that this was the last message in the thread ... Phil, that is a great start off point to discussion, don't you think -- even these years later?

You are welcome. Thanks. That is great, encouraging. I hope you keep at it, apace with your other interests. I think that abstract may be posted here at OL. I also seem to remember photos of the festivities from TAS SS 2006, and also more than a few bits of informal review -- all positive. I will collect them for you ... I can understand not re-posting the abstract, for sure, and obviously posting the bullet points would be as dull as me posting bullet points. Dull Like reading someone's notes Dull dull dull It is a lot of work and craft, writing. Writing for a particular audience is challenging; that is where I would take advice were I in your situation. What ideal online or offline publication model do you have in mind, Phil -- if you have thought about that in detail? It seems obvious that if the TAS SS 2006 presentation was presented to an informed Objective-ish audience -- who would not need introduction to terms and concepts from Rand's corpus -- if you revise it to appeal to a wider audience, a fair bit of perhaps tedious explanation would be necessary, along with those things that a oral presentation can slough over (cites, references, quotes and attributions). That is if you wish to retain your references to Rand works, and to retain the 'lessons' of Objectivism as a central spine on which to hang your observations and conclusions. (I think the most tantalizing thing you could do while this is in process is to post the conclusion or concluding paragraph!) What is in your favour (in terms of good final product) are three things, I would say: You enjoy writing (in and of itself**) You have long experience in discussion (so you will know which 'standard' questions will be in the mind of both informed and uninformed readers; you can therefore anticipate and answer them efficiently, making the essay better) You have many contacts inside and outside the Objective-ish streams to help you (in other words, you can contact trusted folks 'backstage' to advise ...) Phil, as for not posting here, I have a couple of suggestion that may be useful for you. If there are some people here that do not impress you with their reactions, use the blocking filter. With a few clicks of the mouse, they are gone. Now, for an online publication, I recommend that you start your own place where you can better control any discussion. The possibility exists to post your article on a Phil Coates blog here on OL, and to be your own 'moderator.' This means you can exclude comments, moderate comments, restrict comments and edit comments. You can exclude your Block list, even. ________________ ** It is my conviction that committed writers consciously or unconsciously write for themselves. For me, the pleasures have already been listed, but I should add the pleasure that comes from putting my best thoughts forward to the best of my ability. Phil, you want to put your best thoughts forward -- I believe that you must first satisfy yourself, and thus of course, be your own harshest critic. In and of itself, long before your article takes its final shape in public, you will have pleased yourself first. As with a committed craftsman in another field, there is pleasure in simply producing an item that meets the high standards imposed by the craftsman's own integrity and pride. He or she is proud of the item (whether a piece of beautiful, functional furniture, a dream cake, a dwelling, a machine, or other work). So, ignore those who you believe troll you and heckle you to no purpose, write like a mad driven fiend with only weeks to live, use your extensive trusted contacts offlist to advise you and help you shape the great presentation into a great article. In other words, Fuck Your 'Enemies' -- as long as you are here, there will be 'the usual suspects,' and you can only control your own behaviour. (all this advice, unsoliticed as it is, can be ignored by you Phil. However, remember that I wrote it first for myself, secondly for you, and thirdly for THEM) -- two final seemingly pointless and somewhat confusing suggestions. I want you to compare and contrast. I want you (only for your own edification) to compare and contrast your forthcoming article with another article by a writer whom you admire on this list). Do a frank, objective evaluation at your own leisure and keep it to yourself. The other suggestion. Check your ratio of personal messages to public messages. Mine is 1,046 public messages (not counting blog posts) and 775 personal messages. Social metaphysics? Slavish ass-kissing? Where I let down the mask and bitch ferociously and unkindly? Brief 'thanks' messages to new posters, Kudo notes to regulars? Lengthy discussions born on-list and puzzled over in confidence? That final compare and contrast is best left in your head, of course. Nobody needs to know how you exploit your personal messenger (and I suspect you do not actually enjoy the personal messager), but it can help you. You know who your friends and supporters are. You know who you can count on not to bitch you out. You know that you can be a charming, self-deprecating regular guy in private exchanges (as well as an Angry Bitch Gossip Monster like me). You can use the tools should you wish to use them to get closer to your goals ... -- I think (speculate/guess/hypothesize) that you are your own best friend. You trust yourself and your own judgment better than you trust any other person. I speculate that your shortlist of trusted Objective-ish friends is much smaller that it should be -- in other words, trusting a little bit more would pay you dividends richly.

A) This is my favourite thread since I last posted. I like it for these reasons: Phil started the thread (it usually means ideas are being test-marketed) Phil seemed to be asking for help from his peers, sincerely and honestly seeking help Phil doesn't know if Nathaniel Branden's written works (he mentioned books) are worth the trouble of finishing, and has some stipulations (fair!) that recommendations for the works include quotes, and be structured like a review. Phil seems sincerely interested in finding out if Nathaniel Branden is worth reading. He is not kidding. He would like to cut to the chase and read the very best reasoned and reasonable, recommendations. He mentioned the folks he would be happy to read if they wrote such a thing. There may have been a concealed offer, or a hidden contract (this is most intriguing) ... it seems to me that if You The Reader do this professional job of touting specific Branden works, then He The Teacher would give you something back in exchange for your labours. Now, to a Stephen Boydstun or a Robert Campbell or a Roger Bissell or a George H Smith, this must be intriguing (let us hope they see this appeal; MSK, do you think we could perhaps help Phil out with this? I know a way to send a 'backstage' note to all of these folks! I could send them each a quick note showing them Phil's posts** and Phil would get what he needs (and we get to see what will be traded). B) And you know, this might be the perfect time to do some Quid Pro Quo right here ... I would like someone to perhaps summarize for me the Coates High Points, or maybe even provide a professional-level review of one of his (published or unpublished) works. I believe that Phil gave a talk at TAS/TOC in the recent past, on Heros ... this was no doubt one of the most polished and professionally-designed presentations Phil has put forward -- and we know from reading short reviews of it here and on SOLO and RoR that it was a good one. It would be great if someone, anyone, could take some time out of their lives to do some work for me. Heavy, intellectual and social work: a) convince Phil that the TASTalk would make a great 'introductory sampler' to Phil's thoughtful and important work.b) convince Phil that it would not go against Objectivism to make this sampler/example available in written English.c) help Phil in the copy-editing, formating, HTML-ing and so on. Phil, what was the name of that paper/presentation, please? I did a Google and found it several weeks ago, but haven't found the old postings at atlassociety.org or here at OL yet. C) [ pending ] D) I recommend to Phil that he befriend someone in his area that has a large Objective-ish library, someone who has the back issues of the Objectivist, and who has all Branden's books and who has all Branden's articles ... to sort of prepare himself to possibly extend his reading. Perhaps one of Phil's friends in the movement could come out of the shadows and offer free range of the library they have. E) I also recommend Phil at least describe the parameters of the trade he would consider for the work required. ________________________ ** no doubt they will thrill to know that they are considered the cream of the intelligentsia here on OL (with reason, I think), all having published and debated and edited books, articles, journals, or submitted to scholarly publications. I do not think they mind that a distinction is made between them and the Degenerates. [Edited for about half an hour -- I can only afford to post a few times a week]

I shall approach the issues raised by the originating poster in his post upthread titled Small-Mindedness (on page one of this thread) by editing and revising that post. >One of the most depressing things about our culture is the relentless small-mindedness of the debates and of the kinds of issues that are discussed in public. narrow outlook; petty I feel depressed when I read petty comments and the narrow outlook of debates within and without the 'Objective-ist' communities. For example, here some comments ** that highlight what I mean by petty or even small-minded, comments that exemplify the illiberal, narrow minded and prejudiced arguments and statements that bring on the depression. [follows examples, with either links or references to time and place. The examples enrich the discussion by providing both context and real-life instances of the OT's concerns] >It is actually the intellectuals (in politics, particularly the "commentariat")who are largely responsible for this focus. Right now more attention is given to the personalities and marital histories of those competing for the Republican nomination than to the arguments and evidence for their positions. Here's another example of what I see as misplaced focus: In the race for the Republican presidential nomination, we see so-called intellectuals among media political commentariat saying such things as this:[follows three examples of comments and statements from supposedly intellectual debates on the Republican race. One comments on Newt Gingrich's marital history, one on Michelle Bachman's husband as First Gentleman (with insinuations that he is a flaming queen), the third list on-air bits and editorial one-liners that betray a smutty, illiberal, gutter-level discourse about Huntsman (weak), Romney (Mormon), Bachman (crazy like Christine O'Donnell), etcetera] I remember a few years ago, there was a nationally-televised Presidential debate in which the questions came from the audience, from the public not from the Dan Rather-Diane Sawyer-George Stephanopolous types. What struck everyone, including the candidates, was that the man on the streetfocused on issues, on what was wrong with the country and what should be done. He didn't focus on personalities or on 'gotcha' type questions, trying to embarrass or pursue the latest scandal. Remember the [i looked up the famous debate that I remembered and filled in the details DATE, PLACE, PARTICIPANTS of the debate I had in mind as a great example] the questions put to the candidates by citizens themselves? Remember how the questions were not about personalities at all? Remember there were no scandal-du-jour "gotcha" questions? Here's a passage [i used the easy Youtube code to select a start point in the debate video that I found for my punchiest illustration, and then used the [media tags] to insert it:[pithy exchange between JOE PUBLIC and surprised CANDIDATES that perfectly exemplifies the no-bullshit To The Issues, Sir tone that I believe is the opposite to crotch-sniffing doggy-style reporting of politics - ED the Editor] >small-minded [dictionary]---> "marked by pettiness, narrowness, or meanness <small–minded conduct>"But a small-minded focus is not something we see only in politics. Scientific and academic debates often turn into personal squabbles. The discussion of biographies of important figures tends to be not on their achievements or ideas, but on their personal quirks or feet of clay. Was Steve Jobs a bossy tyrant? Was Newton a religious nut? Did Ayn Rand have an extramarital affair?One of the biggest advantages Objectivism has as a philosophical system was the focus on issues, on ideas not on isolated individual personalities. More on what people could be at their best and a lot less on NIxonian "enemies lists." That has been refreshing and inspiring to people starving for something higher and more noble than gossip. But, the problem is the danger of slipping back into battles between individuals. (Even people who have absorbed a philosophy of reason can slip backinto habits acquired long before they became mature thinkers or philosophically-committed.)That is why Peikoff's "Fact and Value" was such a fateful and influential wrong turn two decades ago. Ostensively, a philosophical piece about an abstract epistemological and ethical issue, it was heavily directed at sliming and discrediting one man within the Objectivist philosophical movement. And everyone who thinks like him. And, of course, that became polarizing. Instead of discussing ideas, people tended to line up as Kelley-ites and anti-Kelley-ites. This should never have happened. People have also lined up on whether or not they have a positive or negative view of Ayn Rand's personal life. As if that were a metaphor for being open or closed, tolerant or intolerant.And it has only gotten worse. With the ease of being heard and the lack of adult supervision, an entire generation now has found all sorts of other personal conflicts to air publicly and to try to vilify and humiliate their personal enemies. I used to think there was too much incivility or personal gossip or grudges on the old OWL list. The it got a bit worse sometimes on the Atlantis list. But then, in another turning point and with thier own websites as megaphones, two very small and vindictive minds, Diana Hsieh and Lindsay Perigo began to repeatedly push this to another level.Sensing that it was a new low, only about five years ago I spent a lot of time pointing out what was wrong with DH's personal campaign to attack Chris Sciabarra, an unprecedented campaign of focusing solely on attacks one decent person. (DH was a big step below "Fact and Value" because that was, agree or disagree, to a significant extent about epistemology and ethics and what constituted good Objectivist practice; it wasn't solely about attacking the actions of Kelley, but largely what Peikoff thought to be his basic ideas.) Lindsay Perigo expanded on D.H. by attacking -everybody- and by discarding the intellectual language of Diana H. And simply using biliousness, ridicule and insult instead. Not even pretended overly much to be an intellectual but more of a self-proclaimed "rabble" rouser.The result now, is that it has spread to all sorts of websites or forums. Peikoff, then Hsieh, then Perigo are imitated on every side in the Oist "public discussions". The generation-long trend had already long ago ripped apart or knifed in the cradle campus clubs, community clubs, summer conferences. Oists focusing on "what side are you on" within movement issues. That's the first kneejerk thought, too often. Much more than a focus on the ideas they have in common or what can be done to implement them. The people who want to have a serious discussion are ignored and bad money drives out good, and they often just stop participating or leave. It doesn't take very long for a serious thread to degenerate into tong warfare, into people who get angry at a false view to call their opponents dishonest, evaders, hypocrites, scum and to use gutter language when they can't or don't have time to mount an argument. The victim fires back in angry and personal terms. And the outraged aggressor escalates and repeats his attacks. And the hostilities get carried over and never forgotten.Magnanimity and thoughtfulness and intellectual seriousnessare the first things that get lost. First in our wider culture among the intellecutals, journalists, biographers, politicians, etc. and more recently -- in imitation -- in the more loudmouthed and assertive of Objectivist circles.,,,,,,,,,,PS, My guess is this post will simply become the vehicle for renewed personal attacks. Rather than a focus on the ideas involve.. an And that's why led to my lovely, timeless aside to Ellen, "you cunt"! It isn:t my fault. It is all the bad behaviour I have been driven iatto by Degeneration and Other People.

Nope. You are not wasting your time. This is one of your areas of expertise. You shall have figured out long ago what pleasure you derive from these exercises. Me, I still have an earlier exam to struggle through, on some other horrifying thread involving Physics. Then I am going to struggle through your first example above. I am still gauging my witlessness and general degeneracy, along with writing liturgy for the Objective Assembly ... There is so much I do not know, Phil! Have pity for those like me ... blundering, degenerating, flailing. More seriously still, how many times have you read an article and given a sub-audible "hmmh" and in no other way reacted -- like not react by sending a sweet wee card to the writer, or saying Objective-ist rosary over his or her damned soul, or even maybe sending a sternly worded letter To Whom It May Concern in power centres like New York or Washington or OL? And how many times have you pined for a sweet wee card from your readers? In a lot of ways, Phil, I do not know who you write for, if not for your own pleasure. Me, I take pleasure in my writing, above and beyond the pleasure I believe -- stupefied by solipsism -- that it gives to others. Of course, I understand that writing joy comes from giving both pain and pleasure to attentive readers. I accept that I stumble, I use my social skills and backstage conversations to chat with my readers and critics and perhaps ameliorate my bad front-of-house behaviour. I do I try to use each interaction to increase my abilities to get MY points across (at the same time as I may learn just how wrong I am about one point or another, of course), and so I suppose I try to teach my own purse-lipped and peremptory lessons in my own crypto-schoolmarm manner. So, me, I'd surely rue the end of a thread I had spun, but then move on quietly -- unless I myself could sum up points in a post of such genius that critics fall mute and friends weep.

Thanks for digging up that article. I loved it ... it immediately made me wonder what was the man's purpose. For those who haven't read that page, check it out, and then read through the comments. They take some or most of the stuffing out of the argument he presented.

LOL. Was that deliberate or inadvertent? Funny either way. Ellen I am often toe-fingered in my first drafts; spelking just looked too dumb to correct, I must admit. As if I had suddenly lurched into Riksmål instead of English. PS -- thanks for the timeline correction and background on the 'ancient' postings. I obviously skimmed past the explanatory framework! I think that the issues you revisited are perennial -- and until Phil dropped in with his negative gurning that discussion had the flow and eddies that friendly, informed discussions often take in real life. A new OL member would perhaps understand that Phil's introductory post was too negative, an overreaction, a social blunder. To return to the focus of Phil and his seeming habits -- I should reiterate that I think Phil himself gave the best insights into his occasional difficulties in communication, social navigation and personal relationships in a few reflective posts (exemplified by his bittersweet memorandum in The Objectivist Psychologists and Me). [edited to remove evidence of my own sloppy thinking and reporting]

If only she could easily provide a link so people could judge. Absent evidence, I’m inclined to credit her characterization, based on experience. I believe Phil's first Objectivist Living post was on 28 December 2005, in a thread that discussed (among other things) the psychological reality of Rand's characters in both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead: "Ancient" post on Rand's Characters. I do not remember reading the thread at the time, but it is very interesting from my point of view, fasacinated as I am by matters psychological. The first post by Ellen was a posting of an 'ancient' thread (actually from August 2004) to 'Salon Total Freedom list.' In that initial posting, Ellen noted that one of the interlocutors was Nathaniel Branden. Subsequent to that post, a marvelous discussion ensued, including comments from Barbara Branden. Now, we may disagree (along with Phil) about the "barging" description, and we may even disagree with Ellen's 'complain.' We could agree that a discussion can be subtly derailed from the originating posters intent. We could agree further that an open forum cannot be barged into. We could even thrill to the idea that Phil had important, cogent objections to the topic's flow, focus, value, perceptiveness and so on. But I will simply use the Coates technique of snipping and excerpting to give the flavour of his first remarks on OL. Following his lead, I will not this time give a post number or otherwise give a reference to the post in question. To use the words of Phil himself: Hope you don't mind, but I find it difficult to respond to an entire long post, so I prefer to snip/condense the parts I want to comment on rather than use the quote or reply function >>>>>I was very interested in the original purpose of >>>>>this thread ... veered off subject or gotten >>>>>hijacked ... by the time I am ready to post, >>>>>people are immersed in conversations on new >>>>>subjects ... posters ... get long-winded or post >>>>>many times in a row ... hosts and members on >>>>>thist site like to have that sort of threads and >>>>>those sorts of discussions ... Doesn't work for >>>>>me, though, so I think I'll go back to the >>>>>several other websites I look at. ... extremely- >>>>>long-winded or post-every-half-hour or post-on- >>>>>every-topic people ... I don't enjoy hearing the >>>>>same people on every topic [edited for spelking errors]

the entrenched influential comfortable establishment elite education/politics/ rackets of handouts/protection Some things cause turns away from Objectivism (before it's grasped), claims and statements from: Folks who have said wrong things about. Misinformation Lies Fabrications Hatred Irrational Criticism of Objectivism from economists [Hmmm. Might need names] philosophers [Kant. Check. 'others' ... ] history teachers journalists ['opinion-makers'? Bad news? Misinformation?] the pulpit Religion personal interactions Public figures Cultural, Art or Media figures. the public Schools graduate programs and more. One indication of how enormously high the attrition rate and how successful is the cultural "brainwashing" is how rapidly the 'funnel' that the Ayn Rand Institute spends literally millions of dollars a year on narrows down. At the 'input' end it is very wide: Millions of readers of Rand's fiction. A third of a million books into classrooms each year. At the 'output' end, the bottom or narrowing of the funnel - of those seriously committed who feel they need to master Objectivism systematically has not really been growing decade by decade and currently. How many of these is the Objectivist Academic Center graduating each year? They couldn't quite fit in a telephone booth, but they could easily fit in the back of a pickup truck. And this is after attempts to spread Objectivism for half a century. ["The Objectivist Academic Center is ARI’s premier distance-learning program, offering a four-year systematic education in Ayn Rand’s philosophy and in the nature of objective thought and communication --->> I think Phil has made a fine start to a LIST here on the fringe. I will summarize further and put it back where it belongs in the general thread the Lord High Regent began himself, if you do not mind. This post will self destruct according to the DIM hypothesis in 1259 seconds.

Oh, right. Here is a link: Liturgy? Objectivity? Marketing? The options aren't limited to quoting *everything* from a post and quoting a sufficient portion fairly to present the context of the original remarks. William illustrated this well by *showing* how much of the context relevant to *his point* you had left out with your haphazard elliding. You don't engage with your respondent when you do that, Phil. Oh, well. I guess I must follow MSK's suggestion and deal with the persuadee from his point of view ... Summaries, numbers, questions, LISTS! Respond to Phil's points thoughtfully Acknowledge his point of view Acknowledge that you too see what he sees Praise Phil Direct his attention to the response Give Phil a link, post number or other device that can help him see your points If in doubt, number your points Smile and be encouraging OK. Here goes. Now, the latest suite of questions from Phil concern the marketing of O to the niches, using what I might consider scientific advertising (this is also an area of MSK's expertise, so I hope: Phil asks MSK a direct question that can knit together some preliminary observations) Anyhow, can we rank the niches, or analyze the niches, to take us to the "Next Level"? Have we missed anything in this long sprawl of discussion? the young and students those who are victims of the current system those trained in subjects which develop logic and evidence-based thinking those whose life or professional discipline requires focused effort and strength of character to be successful. women, especially in places where they are particularly oppressed Those niches are very broad there is not enough money or persuasive intellectuals to fully "hit" even those target audiences Can we narrow it further to find an even greater concentration of "high value targets"? I see a pattern, and here I am going to seek MSK's help again. My first and second question: Is there a genera here? Can we rank from a Venn intersection to capture the genera of the niches? I see a general grouping that might be sloppily labeled as 'rational' ... or 'rationalists' ... I am looking for the category of folks that are already soft, already committed to Reason and its tools. Kind of like the recently conquered and newly Judaized Galileans, for-example, who kind of were more than ready for a Monotheistic gawd practice that did not have all the old Jewish bullshit. I mean the Christ business was an easy sell to those in the greater area who were already but half-hearted Jews, familiar with the clean lines of synthetic critical thinking and sick of the Jewish dicta and hierarchy as well as all the crusted religious bullshit built up during domination by Roman, Greek, Assyrian, Egyptian, Phoenician and etc lords and warriors -- multiple pointless and/or onerous and insane gods and practices and temples and rules and oracles and fire rituals and sun incantation and crap. Phil, the point behind all these remarks is I think those who already wield reason are the larger 'soft target' category today (in the same sense that so many Middle East Christians of the first century were free-thinkers in a time of intense ferment, almost Christians in waiting, pre-boarded for a flight to a simpler, sunnier religious landscape). Right now, in North and South America and worldwide is a category of people akin to your pre-Christian Jews and subjects of varied slave states. Pre-liberated in a few important intellectual/philosophical issues, cosmopolitan, literated, engaged in communication and information-germination already ... The larger category I see can thus help select subsets within the niches identified, contribute to comparative analysis with the niches already served by TAS, ARI programmes, etc. So, you are doing good work to identify niche marketing questions. Brilliant, even cunningly inventive work. I will take a moment here to note one other thing that may help you see my earlier underlying core point. That point also was clad in praise for valiant yeomen like you hard from the quarry of research. If you want to take advantage of the marketing done with Jesus Christ and his gospels and apply those that have power to the marketing of an objective philosophy, you either have to carefully disengage from trade and marketing of spiritual goods or carefully engage, choose some point of engagement along that decision line. You can thus take advantage of the communitarian edge Christianity had by embracing just the right amount of churchiness and cultitude and social services. You can do many other things or no things along that continua of engagement/disengagement. I like to use this analytical lens looking at Objectivish things that have blown apart -- to sketch out scenarios for a united movement, a redrawing of the battle plans, a building of The Fortress and so on. All in all, it seems to me the prime target for cultivating are these .... Atheists, scientists, free thought communities, rational historians, rational journalists and chroniclers, rational sociologists, evidence-based psychologists and medical researchers, rational inquirers on the ramparts of all inquisitive disciplines that already evince stricter or looser alliances with Reason. I would campaign for this sector of humanity as the natural proto-ally of objective philosophies. Those who have already viewed or sampled the smorgasbord of spirituality on offer and who have essentialy gone god-vegan are also the natural allies in reason. They certainly gather with other ungodly folk to engage. I think the O factor is a natural in these environs ... And there you have the so-called Skeptic community world-wide, the Randi-enthusiasts and the science-bloggers. Non-god, hot for science, always engaged with the real world. So, there before you and before other lesser present-day visionaries like you, Phil, the Target. A rich environment, already half-way there, rejecting autocracy, warming to libertarians (like Michael Schermer). There is already the semi-vanguard cultural affinities exploited by the Harrises and Dawkinses and Schermers, and many other New Rationalists. They offer in their large international convocations a certain stage and presence in the hearts of many international cities, from Sydney to Las Vegas to Delhi (Indian Skeptics are particularly hearty right now). There is already common causes, I would argue, despite a veneer of faux-leftism, those who argue for science against mysticism are friends if not already fellow-travelers to the most hardened Objectivist, despite Peikoff and Harriman or the other monks and abbots of less renown. Can one objective thinker infiltrate ... ? Can a body of objective thinkers offer a mainstream reason-based case for, say, being vigilant against over-reach by government, rationally defending Liberty from intrusion and control in reference to salient arenas today, as George and Phil discussed in re Drugs and Sex and Bodies? Surely an O or two in committee can do something at the next Skepticon, offering a witty modern skeptical take on Rand herself, pretending to only pick out her "good points" by testing a la Mythbusters while test-marketing the entire set, taking up the moral high road of radical liberty and free inquiry: Free pot, free love, free bodies. No to the Drug War, No to the Surveillance Society, the Homeland State, No to Fingers In Your Crotch, No to Special criminal laws for Homosexual sex, No to Initiation of Force, No to Militarized Police in USA, Yes to Discussion of bullshit in the feminist canon, in Bullshit Science Studies, Yes to militant premise-checking. Yes to revisions, the growth of knowledge, human competence. I could even see some O or Rand-inspired person to take on a harsh, compelling subject, to deliver a scorching speech with visuals on torture, repression, irrational justice, corruption, taking a strong political stand that so engages the gonads of 'activist' niche-dwellers ... Randian-inflected attention to slave states and the worst excesses of Government? Are you still with me, Phil -- are you reading or are you red-lining? I can see an O person taking the stage with confidence, attracting an audience and holding it, developing it a the next colloquium Can one, shall one add to that by also offering the communal benefits of Big Box Christianity today ... have your no-god weddings and your CFI conference and your Atheist Fraternities have their ceremonies in your Assembly? Yeah, Phil? Do you say yeah to any of this? You want me to go back and summarize and re-number some more? I will leave you on that playful note, along with a picture. Please don't think of me as an utter prick. Once again I say to you that it is important to show more good faith here, Phil, since so many criticize you on the same technical issues. You owe something back for the engagement you have got. Reward us donkeys by using the reply button more often, where appropriate. It is easier than your apparent present routine of select, copy, scroll, click, paste, select, cut, select, cut, select, cut, prepend right bracket, press return. It really is. If this is a minor border dispute between you and the overwhelming majority of posters here then you will lose nothing by giving way on this millimeter of frontier, since you benefit immediately by disposing of an entire class of sniping posts like this one, you fucking idiot.

William, I must have made 40? 70? posts on this thread. What's -really- striking is how few posts are engaging deeply and thoughtfully with the points **I** have made...or how often my questions are left unanswered. (I even number them at the end of some posts or separate them out and specifically request a response.) For my part, didn't you notice that I've been "engaging deeply and thoughtfully" with points of others repeatedly on this thread. Just off the top of my head, over the last nearly a month, I've responded to issues raised by ND, GHS, Daunce, Roger Bissell, john42t, etc. In fact, I've engaged with most of these posters -multiple- times on this thread. ( I can't necessarily answer every objection or question because I don't have unlimited time, so I try to judge which ones can't go unresponded to. Sometimes I let something percolate and a later post, hopefully, implicitly answers an issue that was raised. ) Is there a particularly relevant and important question I didn't respond to which you think I should? -- If so, could you post a brief summary of the thrust of it and hopefully the post number? Yes and no. Yes I could post a summary. No, no, a thousand times no to giving you the post number. Fuck you on the post number, because if you click the c*ntish hyperlink signified by this little image () in the quote above named Phil and the Strikeout Pen anyone with a finger or thumb can go to your original words, yet when you excerpt me above there is no linked quote, just a spodge of my words and your flip, evasive answer to my essay in liturgy. You bastard child of Hun interlopers! You excrescence of the dung beetle's parasitical worm infection! I curse you and your donkey mother! . . . Well, you know I'm just trying to keep you entertained, you c**t. .... (oh the horror...!) .... #$%&*((^%@@! I like that you gave attention to ND, GHS, Daunce, Roger Bissell ... so now give attention to me, if you please. I would direct you to my notion of liturgy. I think it might be somewhere in the thread. Click reply to it and do something with me. Quote me using the reply function. Be brave. Use the tools. Otherwise, Thor and the assorted gods of the ages will begin operations against you here. Please comment if you can, on the ideas such as 'Objective-ity ism ish ists is the friend of all scientists, etcetera ... that is the meat of my synthetic credo. I do wonder what you think of that. In a conversation I would probe you, engage you, but here I can only hope and wait ... hope against hope that you will use the Coates Strikeout for objective ends.

In a further flight of fancy, I see in my mind's eye some compelling symbols that can be utilized by objective-ish/ist folks. The word, the cognates already ring well and strong in connotation across all the areas of human inquiry: objective history, objective news, objective statistics, objective science, objective justice, objective opinion, objective virtues, objective values, objective objective yadda yadda; take back the O from the partisans of the criminal kinglet in DC and the grotesque media maven in Chi-town. O -- unadorned. The badge of objectivity, reason and sober judgement. A round window in the meeting room, at the peak of the roof, as a skylight symbol to the central sober room of greatest assembly in the precincts. Not a church, but a place for solemn assemblies and rational voices, for deliberations and summations, for great passings and great joys and great sorrows. A simple room. A simple window on reality, a symbolic eye turned upward from the room, a symbolic searchlight for the cosmos ... Next, the word objective. Its derivative, objectivity can be captialized and its cousinly verb Object can also be fielded. For what does an objective-ish/ist person object to? How about The Ten Objections? Big objections to things that all human have either been subject to or that have yet to be overthrown on earth. I can only start with a couple of humanistic nostrums as placeholders for the symbolic list of objections nailed to the door: Murder, Slavery, Force ... Do you Object to Slavery? Do you Object to Compulsion? How about Sanctuary? A refuge for free thought and conscientious objectors, a symbol vale of protection for citizens at great risk to the their liberty, a small realm of symbolic asylum, a Gulch. Study? How about a great library and archive of liberty, a site just modestly large enough for international convocations and assemblies and forums for the most free, liberal and liberated minds on offer? How about small, focused 'missions' of inquiry, objective investigation... And what of humankind's Objective(s)? Is there a great writer and communicator here who can nail his list to the wall alongside the Objections? Do I have to curse and harry that tw*t Philip Coates that he may take up my challenges? I say seize the brilliance of this thread and forge a conclusive, integrated alloy, an evocation of Objective-ish/ist/ism fundaments. Shake the heavens with your words, magis, ministers, sages ... The time has come to put all the lessons in a beautiful basket.

WSS: Fabulous stuff. Given your predilection for the wry smile in your writings, I am ashamed to admit I am not sure which portions are meant to be ironic--but it matters not. Thanks -- in gratitude for your praise and in recompense for your admission, I'll tell you that the first part was intended to throb with irony while offering rationally-derived information, observation, so you can make of that part what you will: I hoped to be true to facts on display so far in this thread, and I do very much want to get more of the elephant sketched by more OL minds ... the second part was also sincerely meant, and meant to be smirk-free -- if there could be a liturgy, if the notion of a rational yet awful document of Objective-ish/ist central 'gospel', an all-occasion invocation of 'faith' -- via precepts, essentials, emotionally satisfying expressions of the core values and achievements of an 'objective' humanity alone in the universe, then why not work one up? I really think it could be instructive and rewarding to work something up -- an ecumenical document that is at least unoffensively 'uplifting' and 'uniting' in conviction and purpose. Perhaps someone else but me might attempt to rewrite my doggerel or offer another liturgical specimen for editing. I do not cajole or presume that anyone can take Objectivist philosophy and turn it into something fit for a cathedral of reason, but hey ... I will offer a second-draft revision below and on my OL blog. Since I have haven't really hammered my earlier few points in this thread, I should reiterate. Yes to inquiry into the early Christians and the growth and the lessons for Objectivism. Examine this, it is fascinating and instructive in itself, when the examination is done most objectively. Yes also to inquiry on 'marketing' (persasion/propaganda/coercion/'conversions') techniques, lessons, tips, insights from Christian expansion. But, never forget the context of the times and the 'product' of Salvation in Christ. The Messiah of Jewish tradition, later the Madhi of Islamic tradition, the living spirit of God Almighty and his lessons for the world. Don't fail to consider the best histories from many perspectives, the milieu of ferment and deep cultural soil in which Jesus-religion grew. Never forget the Christ message, it is very very compelling still to many. The second point, then, is that Phil needs to engage deeply and thoughtfully with the tangible points made by other discussants, not leave questions unanswered. Yes, a poignancy in the latter interview was apparent to me. I chose to excise the discursions on disagreement. I don't think the puzzle she raised has ever been successfully solved within Objectivism. I haven't pitched in until this very post. Forgive me for not mentioning you by name. It would of course be great to have you pitch in ... sketching the elephant I begin to perceive! Cut the cant, you reprobate, and address my doggerel, or I will begin to be cuntish to you. And we do not want that, even though Ms All Aquibble would scarcely notice, the tw*t. Oof, the double-edged compliment. Thanks, Brant, but I fail utterly if I am only entertaining. I fail if I seem disrespectful, insincere or merely mocking. I do believe in reason. I do strive for and seek objectivity. I could happily spout that objective-ish doggerel with conviction, after a few revisions.

I offer you a religion, a religion called Objectivism, with a suggested all-purpose liturgy for all maner of Objectivist meetings, celebrations, memorials and endeavors, from arrivals through unions to departures. This is off the top of my head, having no idea of a liturgy more awful or more stirring. Weigh in, Phil, summarize the thesis, squeeze the wine from your press, deliver us a hopeful liturgy for the church founded this day in Greater Sun Center. Objectivists believe in Objectivism. It is a Total System. It can help you Answer All Questions. It can help you live Smart. It can help you deal with every single one of Life's Blows, but it promises you nothing, nothing at all, no love, no blessing, no mercies and no special exceptions. Objectivism offers you nothing but the fruit of the free human mind. Objectivism offers you no gods, no saints, no churches, no holy book, no seers. It offers nothing but a mind, your own mind, your mind turned to reality to answer the first and final questions. Objectivism gives no afterlife, no heavenly blessings, nothing from a spirit world beyond. Individual minds can solve real problems. Individual minds working in concert can solve real problems. Problems deserve sane, wise and rational solutions derived from reality. Objectivism is the friend of every scientist, of every seeker, of every observer, for it wields the self-same tools humanity has accumulated to best test and master reality. Objectivism reflects reality, the reality of every individual intelligence of the world. It says: seek the best and only the best, for each individual human being. It witnesses the best of humanity where it resides, in the actions and in the minds of each individual in the world, in the universe, in its entirety. Objectivism lives and speaks both loud and quiet, in each individual's best actions, in each sober judgement and act of mercy, in each individual soul. It is wages for weary minds, insight for the puzzled, respite, rejuvenation and recompense for those in struggle. It is Dignity, Honour, Justice and Self-Respect. Let us now take a moment to reflect in awe at the Human, at the unique power of human intelligence in the universe. Let us move forward proudly in time, in individual toil and individual leisure. Let us savour this life. Let us each strive to live the best life that we may, in each moment of each tomorrow, in each moment of the life we have woken to, in fullest understanding possible. For a moment, together bound by the glory of this Reality, let us bless the human who lives inside each one of us, let us honour the human and let us continue in this sense of spirit until we meet again.

Just dropping in to say I love this thread. It has it all --stars, star turns, learning leavened with wit, a spine with digressions, argument, discussion and squabbles, a few slurs -- and the occasional tang of invective. Religious poetry, drama and ethics, sustained inquiry, scrutiny and revision. We examine early Christian saints, the religious economy they were born into and the Walmart-like growth of their subsequent operation. We have Bible verses, moral admonishment and homework questions. We even have Objectivish drollery on the word cunt. It is satisfying to me when everyone pitches in and the outline of the entire elephant eventually becomes quite distinct ... so I hope to hear from Steve and the other bright sparks, from the rest of the second tier, and then finally sum up proceedings with a dash of Barbara on the rocks . . . dare we invoke the name of J Neil Schulman,. so he may help us envision places we may not reach ourselves? Phil, you have helped knit together the community, somehow. There is no cheque in the mail, no Paypal for you, so this time you will have to take payment in pleasure. I offer you a religion, a religion called Objectivism, with a suggested all-purpose liturgy for all maner of Objectivist meetings, celebrations, memorials and endeavors, from arrivals through unions to departures. This is off the top of my head, having no idea of a liturgy more awful or more stirring. Weigh in, Phil, summarize the thesis, squeeze the wine from your press, deliver us a hopeful liturgy for the church founded this day in Greater Sun Center. Objectivists believe in Objectivism. It is a Total System. It can help you Answer All Questions. It can help you live Smart. It can help you deal with every single one of Life's Blows, but it promises you nothing, nothing at all, no love, no blessing, no mercies and no special exceptions. Objectivism offers you nothing but the fruit of the free human mind. Objectivism offers you no gods, no saints, no churches, no holy book, no seers. It offers nothing but a mind, your own mind, your mind turned to reality to answer the first and final questions. Objectivism gives no afterlife, no heavenly blessings, nothing from a spirit world beyond. Individual minds can solve real problems. Individual minds working in concert can solve real problems. Problems deserve sane, wise and rational solutions derived from reality. Objectivism is the friend of every scientist, of every seeker, of every observer, for it wields the self-same tools humanity has accumulated to best test and master reality. Objectivism reflects reality, the reality of every individual intelligence of the world. It says: seek the best and only the best, for each individual human being. It witnesses the best of humanity where it resides, in the actions and in the minds of each individual in the world, in the universe, in its entirety. Objectivism lives and speaks both loud and quiet, in each individual's best actions, in each sober judgement and act of mercy, in each individual soul. It is wages for weary minds, insight for the puzzled, respite, rejuvenation and recompense for those in struggle. It is Dignity, Honour, Justice and Self-Respect. Let us now take a moment to reflect in awe at the Human, at the unique power of human intelligence in the universe. Let us move forward proudly in time, in individual toil and individual leisure. Let us savour this life. Let us each strive to live the best life that we may, in each moment of each tomorrow, in each moment of the life we have woken to, in fullest understanding possible. For a moment, together bound by the glory of this Reality, let us bless the human who lives inside each one of us, let us honour the human and let us continue in this sense of spirit until we meet again.

I'd say don't bother, the theory has been fleshed out here and here.

Phil, my friend, what did you think of the multiple examples from plain old French Wikipedia, above? Did you not want to concede that yes, for the passage you quibbled with in the Eco paragraph, the old 'la place Maubert," that there is at least a grey area, or that you might, just might be slightly wrong or incomplete?

If you knew anything about Italian, you would know that the plural for pronunciamento would be pronunciamenti. It is a great word, PRONUNCIAMIENTO, adopted into English (especially), French and Portuguese from its origins in Spanish. In Italian, The English/French/Spanish Pronunciamento translates as Pronouncement; Pronunciamentos, as pointed out by Doctor, does not translate into Italian. Just in case you doubt my take on the linguistic claims of Phil, here once more is the French Wikipedia weighing in: Un pronunciamiento est un procédé par lequel l’armée se déclare contre le gouvernement en place dans le but de le renverser1.Signifiant « déclaration » en espagnol, le mot fut emprunté tel quel dans plusieurs langues, dont le français et l’anglais. Le procédé fit son apparition dans l'Espagne du xixe siècle avant de se diffuser en Amérique hispanique. AuMexique, ce type de soulèvements ont été nommés plans et ont pris un aspect plus formel que le modèle européen. -- I won't bother to provide a URL this time, since I do not think Phil consults the language links I provide ... But, in the off-chance readers may accept that I do occasionally do a little fitful research to support my position, I lazily and with degenerate intentions checked the Italian Wiki: Il pronunciamento (pronuncia) è un tipo spagnolo e latino-americano di colpo di Stato. Il golpe de Estado era più comune in Spagna e in Sud America, mentre il pronunciamento era più comune in America Centrale. By the way, Phil, did you yet have a chance to check your unreferenced musings about proper French usage of "place" against your copy of Robert or whatever massive Dictionnaire you usually thumb through? PS. I am so frigging lazy, lazy, lazy. I lazily checked online with a fine Italian/English, English/Italian dictionary. Oh how sloppily I conduct my researches, sloppy sloppy sloppy. But, being degenerate, I could not help myself. Lazy, fitful research is my specialty, after all ... So, I hesitate to reveal what the stupid Italian dictionary returned to me upon attempting to discover the Italian meaning of Pronunciamento. I hesitate because it did not return Pronunciation, nor Announcement, nor Flabby Mistranslation Heroicly insisted upon Sorta Like Saint Paul ... but, OK, here it is: nm say-so

Phil, thank you for the gracious reply. I think my points are made, so I will not belabour them. Indeed, I find the whole early period of Christian growth fascinating, and I admit to very patchy and inconsistent understanding of the history and import. So anyone who goes into the pit of history to bring up ore gets my thanks. I profit by the digging of others. (in this subject intersects a number of my longrunning interests, perhaps best summarized by the book Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Schermer) I think a small morph/aside under the rubric Disagreement will also be very fruitful. I expect every last person on this site has an opinion worth examining. It is one of the central puzzles of Objectivish things, for me. And I was very much struck by the portions of Rand's second Donahue appearance, wherein she uttered her statements about 'disagreement.' At that point in her life and career, she was no longer interested in "intelligent" disagreement ... Here is a topical video. This is from two days ago. Lebanese prime-time television top-rated interview show. One one side is a former Lebanese MP (moustache) who belongs to the Lebanese wing of the alBaath party and who is a strong supporter of President Assad of Syria. On the other side, a current MP, from the Future bloc of former prime minister Hariri. These two disagree over many things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49jKO4MxEAc

[i replace Phil's paraphrase with my actual words here] Phil is doing the best he can to take the lessons of Christianity, a religion based on Salvation and Heaven and God's Kingdom -- and apply them to his fitful, doomed plan to establish a vibrant, world-conquering philosophical movement. Sometimes if you learn what enables people to sell snow to Eskimos, you can apply that to selling something people actually need. Principles of marketing are not invalidated because they are used to successfully sell a bad product. In fact, if they can do that they may be even more useful to sell something more valuable. Let me try a bit harder, Phil, and uncloak my point from its tart outer wrapping. I agree with George, wholeheartedly. It is possible to extract some lessons from the success of early Christianity. As with George's wise counsel not to push the parallels too far, I add a caution that you need to understand the 'natural appeal' (so-to-speak) of Christianity that was entwined with the promises of religion. To my eyes you cannot pretend that Christianity was a 'product' tout court. You cannot pretend that the essential appeal of Christianity was not the god/man Christ and his Kingdom to come. Yes, Salvation. Yes, God's Grace. Yes, Heaven and Peace, submission, obedience, certainty, a chauvinistic collectivity especially blessed by The Lord. Yes, a glorious, just, peaceful world under The Kingdom of Christ. I think that to be true to your own resolutions, to your own intellectual integrity, you know that a better idea, a better investigation, a better conclusion comes from the most rigorous, rational examination of the theses put forward -- as well as exposure and examination of unacknowledged premises that form the foundation of one's efforts. I believe it will be a mistake in your analysis not to carefully assess the intrinsic emotional/'spiritual' appeal of early Christianity. It was 'sold' as an emanation from realms supernatural, and I do not think one can separate this 'value' from its marketing. But ... Can one sell agnostic/atheist philosophy (O) by using the same 'marketing' as did the early Church folk? I say yes, Phil, yes you can. Yes. But you will tend to be selling a cult. I do think there is value in your researches, as long as you understand and incorporate the critiques given, be they cloaked in sarcasm, as with mine, or by sweet reason, as with George's. As for selling snow to Eskimos (Inuit), this begs the question. It assumes a reality of an evanescent joke, since no one has actually or is able to sell snow to Eskimos (it is a trope, a fiction, an analogy, a figure of speech, a flattering reference to a mythical Superman Salesman). Nowhere is snow sold to Eskimos (in fact, actual sales of snow are rare, it is not a commodity, and usually the only real snow transactions are stunts -- since snow can be manufactured in place worldwide**). But if you can find out how one can sell an atheistic philosophy using the same tools that are used to sell religion, you will be a pioneer of similar type to Nathaniel Branden of NBI. I.e., a leader of a cult in many important respects (viz Hazards, and Barbara's testimony). I apologize for the nasty, sarcastic tone of my earlier remarks. ___________ ** See this astounding link to successful snow sales and marketing.

I love Richler. Richler the novelist, Richler the polemicist, Richler the realist, the provocateur, the pin-prick to political pretensions. He had a huge talent and a huge love. He was a prick, a raconteur, an occasional boozer, a Jew ... and an opponent of bullshit, cant, dogma, the sullen and exclusive airs of pure laine Qubecois, the insular and impotent, the large of pride and small of mind. He was great, to my mind. It is le Canada, Ninth. But your point is well-taken. I am one of those who was at home in Montreal during my years there. It is truly a marvelous, unique Canadian city, the Only French Metropolis in North America, rich in culture and cultures, style, individualism vs multiple collectivities, exuberant with 'latin' joie de vivre. I do hope you get a long sojourn there sometime, Doctor. I think even our Phil has a few good things to say about Ville Marie, Hochelaga, Moniang ... One Montreal fact: does anyone remember Prohibition? Montreal does not, since the curb on booze lasted roughly three weeks from invocation to repeal. Even today you see the remnants of its glorious days of Boozathons, on St Lawrence Boulevard, where a bar on the main floor is topped by a bar on the second floor, only to be superceded by a bar on the third floor.

I don't know. I made an inquiry with her website contact info (mostly to correct the 'exerpt' mistake) and also thought to ask where in the book the excerpt came from, but my inquiry was 404ed. I did let her know via Twitter that her dad didn't like blurbs ...

Are you saying that you think that the successful new or radical ideologies of the past were spread primarily through schoolmarming, and that Objectivism needs more people like you? Jonathan, again I am shocked! shocked, I say, at your use of such highly offensive words like 'schoolmarm.' As you know, Objectivish thought depends on schoolmarming, finger-pointing, denunciations, schisms, the Silent Treatment, exclusion, demonizing, and associated baggage. Phil is doing the best he can to take the lessons of Christianity, a religion based on Salvation and Heaven and God's Kingdom -- and apply them to his fitful, doomed plan to establish a vibrant, world-conquering philosophical movement. If it does not yet occur to him that taking the lessons of an intensely mystical bag of warring sects who killed each other over Trinity, then please let him labour along in his intellectual rut. It is meaningless and pointless, but it keeps him off the streets.

Oh! Jonathan! the pain of facing reality is no easier for the Objectivish than it is for any other human. I haven't yet read the back blurb of Kira Peikoff's first novel, but I note that on the front cover of the image supplied to Amazon, there is this bit of log-rolling: "A tight and suspenseful thriller ... a remarkable debut!" The commendation comes from, um'Lisa Unger, New York Times bestselling author of Fragile." Now, although Leonard Peikoff may find a different version of this book when it is remaindered and ends up on his favourite second-hand bookshop's General Fiction shelves, he may yet be swayed by familial feeling (Kira has earned his love, after all), or he just might be as energized by the publisher's blurb at Amazon as I am: In 2027, destroying an embryo is considered first-degree murder. Fertility clinics still exist, giving hope and new life to thousands of infertile families, but they have to pass rigorous inspections by the United States Department of Embryo Preservation. Fail an inspection, and you will be prosecuted.Brilliant young doctor Arianna Drake seems to be thriving in the spotlight: her small clinic surpasses every government requirement, and its popularity has spiked—a sudden, rapid growth that leaves the DEP chief mystified. When he discovers Arianna’s radical past as a supporter of an infamous scientist, he sends undercover agent Trent Rowe to investigate her for possible illegal activity. As Trent is pulled into Arianna’s enigmatic world, his own begins to unravel. The secret he finally uncovers will deeply move him—and jeopardize them both. With the clock ticking her life away, he finds himself questioning everything he knows to be true, and then must summon the courage to take the greatest risk of all. Nothing less than human life—and a major scientific breakthrough—hang in the balance. A thought-provoking thriller by debut author Kira Peikoff, Living Proof is a celebration of love and life that cuts to the core of a major cultural debate of our time. Now this excites me in a way I find difficult to describe, so I will leave the last word(s) to some other New York Times bestselling authors and other lesser beings, all of whom have been kind enough to roll their logs on Kira Peikoff's website, the one named, oddly enough, kirapeikoff dot com. “LIVING PROOF by Kira Peikoff is a compelling and thought-provoking thriller, enriched with fascinating medical science, big ideas, and vivid characters caught in a dystopian future in which the destruction of an embryo is considered first-degree murder. This frighteningly plausible novel will keep you turning the pages all night long. A stunning debut.”–Douglas Preston, New York Times bestselling author of BLASPHEMY and IMPACT “Makes you think, makes you sweat, leaves you happy – everything a good book should.” –Lee Child, #1 New York Times bestselling author “Risky, daring, and sure-to-be controversial, Kira Peikoff’s debut novel, LIVING PROOF, draws a jagged line between cautionary tale and romantic thriller. This story reminded me of the best of Margaret Atwood: a chilling and tangible portrait of the near future, where the best and the worst of humanity is challenged at every turn.” –James Rollins, New York Times bestselling author of ALTAR OF EDEN “Kira Peikoff’s imagination is a wonder to behold and an amazing place to visit. LIVING PROOF is not only thought provoking, it’s an all-too-believable premise that makes for some high drama. You have to check this one out.” –Steve Berry, New York Times bestselling author of THE JEFFERSON KEY “Taut, energetic, and imaginative, LIVING PROOF is a near-future page-turner that asks vital questions about the value of human life. Kira Peikoff bursts on the scene with style, offering readers a tight and suspenseful thriller that will not only keep them up past their bedtimes, but also have them pondering its life-and-death issues long after the book is closed. A remarkable debut!” –Lisa Unger, New York Times bestselling author of FRAGILE “Kira Peikoff gets suspense and how to write it. Arianna Drake is a fabulous character. This is a terrific read–tightly woven and tense as a coiled snake. I was a decade older than Kira Peikoff when I wrote my first thriller . . . I’m jealous. Do yourself a favor and buy this book.” –Michael Palmer, New York Times bestselling author of A HEARTBEAT AWAY “LIVING PROOF is a rare book. A thriller that keeps you turning pages. A novel of suspense fraught with danger. And at the same time it’s a fascinating look at a serious moral issue: What happens when scientific research steps on the toes of the church? Of the government? LIVING PROOF is a thriller about human values… about questions of morality… about human justice. And about what price sacrifice in the face of saving the life of someone you love. Kira Peikoff belongs to a very small cadre of writers to watch – who have something important to say and are hell bent about entertaining you at the same time. I cannot wait to see what she writes next!”-International Bestseller M.J. Rose “With LIVING PROOF, first time novelist Kira Peikoff comes out of the gate with power, grace and insight. This is a brilliant debut thriller!”–Jonathan Maberry, New York Times bestselling author of THE KING OF PLAGUES and PATIENT ZERO “First-time novelist Kira Peikoff’s LIVING PROOF is a page-whipping tour de force. Part medical thriller, part near-future mindbender, part psycho-drama, the book posits an all-too-plausible conceit of governmental jackboots on stem cell research. With the subtle sting of a bone marrow needle Peikoff’s lean prose and clockwork suspense get under the reader’s skin. A new voice in speculative techno-thrills is born! Highly recommended.” –Jay Bonansinga, National Bestselling Author of PERFECT VICTIM, FROZEN, and PINKERTON’S WAR “Deep questions, marvelously flawed characters and a sense of Orwellian paranoia stalk Kira Peikoff’s novel, LIVING PROOF. What do we give up in the name of science, in the name of religion? What do we gain? And what would we sacrifice to save ourselves? This is a book that will have readers thinking and asking many questions long after they’ve raced to the final page.” –Graham Brown, author of the international bestseller BLACK RAIN "A tremendous debut, Living Proof is smart, savvy, and suspenseful. Kira Peikoff is a writer to watch." –Alafair Burke, author of LONG GONE I know not all of you are yet ready to pre-order this book, so Kira has kindly made available an excerpt. Rather than excise its splendour, I include the entire epic sprawl here: Exerpt (sic) from Living Proof No one was near her when it happened. Trent watched in disbelief as Arianna stuck her right foot in the spokes of her front wheel, missing the pedal by inches. He could see her body tighten, as if clenching her muscles would forestall the blow, as her front tire stopped short and the momentum hurled her over the handlebars. Even from his distance, he heard her shriek–a useless cry wrenched out of a voice he had never heard lose control. She flew forward, arms stretched out, clawing at the air in vain, as the bike collapsed underneath her. Onto the unforgiving pavement she crashed, skidding on her forearms, bouncing on her chin. With a smack, her knees followed. The momentum dragged her a foot until friction interceded. Then, facedown, she was still. Jesus Christ, he breathed. She could be dead. Panic and restraint wrestled within him, keeping him in helpless limbo at the edge of the sidewalk. His urge to run over to her was growing dangerously compelling, but then she let out a moan and turned onto her side, bringing her knees up to her chest. Several passersby rushed toward her, yelling to one another to call an ambulance. A motherly looking woman crouched and held her hand, while a man collected her bicycle from the middle of the sidewalk. The last thing Trent saw before more people gathered around her was the blood streaming from her kneecaps, scarlet rivulets of pain. He waited on that corner, an inconspicuous onlooker, until an ambulance arrived six minutes later. Even after she was placed on a stretcher and loaded into the back, and the siren wailed on, Trent remained standing. He watched the ambulance squirm and twist through the traffic until he could no longer see or hear it. He thought of calling the hospital to ask about her condition, but then he realized he didn’t know where she was going. Instead he grabbed his cell phone from his pocket and dialed Dopp’s office. No answer. He dialed Dopp’s home. No answer. By default Trent started to walk north, as if a magnetic pull was dragging him to the one place he had no interest in going: home. It was more than 60 blocks away, but he passed the subway in Union Square that would have accelerated his trip, unable to bear standing still on a packed rush-hour train. Moving his legs provided a release of his escalating energy and gave him a sensation of purpose. As the sky deepened to indigo dusk, he walked on, passing storeowners pulling down metal fronts, closing their clothing boutiques, pet shops, used bookstores. Trent took no notice, insulated in a mental world by thick walls of concern, coated with dread. His body reacted appropriately to stop lights and traffic, although later he would have little memory of the journey home. After 20 blocks, he began to tire, but pushed on, ignoring his chilled bones, blistering heels and grumbling stomach. He had not eaten for six hours, since Dopp had stopped by, interrupting his solitaire game and tuna sandwich. As he walked, he recalled his boss’s words: Don’t hesitate to call me at home if you get anywhere significant this time. Trent snorted as he considered the last few words. What if they were forced to close the case because of significant injuries to the targeted party? That was certainly not a possibility his boss was expecting. And how would he explain the accident to Dopp? He imagined how their exchange might go: She fell off her bike. How come? Missed the pedal. Was she going very fast? No. It doesn’t make sense, Trent thought. Nothing was in her way to distract her. Suddenly he remembered that she had been limping several days before, but it had not been severe enough to hamper her speed, and he hadn’t noticed it when they walked home last night. Though he hadnt been too steady himself. Then he remembered their plans for tomorrow morning and cringed: they were supposed to bike the trail on the west side; he was supposed to call her tonight to confirm. So thats exactly what I will do, he thought. It gave him a perfectly innocent reason to call her. The starless sky was now navy blue–as dark as the city of infinite nightlights would allow. Soon Trent noticed that the blur of stores around him was beginning to assume a familiar pattern, and he saw he was only four blocks from home. He stopped by a corner pizza place across from his building and devoured three slices, washing them down with two bottles of water, realizing just how hungry and thirsty he had become. Then he crossed the street and went up to his apartment with one goal flashing in his mind: Talk to her. His studio apartment on the seventh floor looked like the physical form of an afterthought: it was half-heartedly decorated with a tan sofa, a futon with a black bedspread, a small wooden table with two chairs, and a bookshelf. Across from the sofa was a Yamaha keyboard waiting for its daily dose of attention. A 19-inch flat screen television hung on the wall like an empty black picture frame. Near the head of his futon, overlooking 73rd street, there was one window. Maroon curtains hung from either side, the one touch of color in the room. He liked the fiery glow they emitted in the mornings, making it seem as if he were tucked into a cozy den lush with color, rather than a sparse room, alone. He walked to the window, withdrew his phone from his pocket, and called her. It had already begun ringing when he contemplated the possibility that she might not be able to answer at all. He paced over the wood floor, pressing the phone hard against his ear. One, two, three rings passed. “Hello?” came her voice, scratchy and soft. “Hey Arianna,” he said, his tone chipper. ”How are you? I just wanted to see if were still biking tomorrow.” “Actually no. I’m in the hospital.” “What?” Her voice was flat. “I had an accident on my bike, and Im pretty scraped up. Got six stitches on my chin, and my knees and elbows are all ripped up. But luckily that’s about it.” “Oh, wow, I’m so sorry to hear that. That must be so painful.” He exhaled a breath he did not know he was holding. “But at least it sounds like you’ll be fine in the end.” Silence. “Arianna?” “I’m here.” “What’s wrong?” She sighed a long breath, and when she spoke, even her voice sounded deflated. ”I guess it’s only fair to tell you.” “Tell me what?” “Look Trent, I owe you an apology. I haven’t been completely honest with you.” “Ok…” In spite of the irony, his heart began to race; was this the moment of her confession? He hadn’t imagined it like this–with his opponent bandaged and broken, a suddenly weaker match. But why would she tell him now about a secret lab? “I have malignantly progressive multiple sclerosis. I lose my balance sometimes, and my limbs go numb out of nowhere, which is what happened today. I shouldn’t have been riding anymore, but I hate letting it interfere with my life. Which is also why I didn’t tell you. You may not mean to, but I don’t want you to start treating me with pity, like I’m some cripple. Because I’m not. Maybe it’s only in my mind, but I’m not.” Her voice rose, lifted by self-respect. “And if you still want anything to do with me after this, you’ll have to get that straight.” Trent’s mind swirled with a montage of instantly linked events: her limp, her stumbling into the lobby, her foot thrust into the spokes of the wheel. He had never known anyone with MS, had no idea what it involved or implied. “Jesus, Arianna. I had no idea! I can’t believe you were still biking, when you knew the danger, you’re a doctor for God’s sake!” “Oh, and don’t even dare patronize me. I will live my life however I choose and take whatever risks I want. If I decide to skydive tomorrow as my last life’s wish, then you can either wave to me from the ground or–” “Your last life’s wish?” he interrupted. ”What? What are you talking about?” “It’s malignantly progressive. Soon I’ll be in a wheelchair, and after that….” After a pause, her voice dropped to a hard note. “I like you, Trent, but you’d be wasting your time to date me.” He took a deep breath, trying to loosen the shock that was lodged in his throat like a clot. ”I don’t care,” he said, trying to sound brave and supportive, and not as rotten as he felt, “I still want to keep seeing you for as long as I can.” “You do?” “Yes. But isn’t there any treatment that could help you? Any drug?” “There are some drugs that slow its progress,” she said slowly. ”But no, right now, there’s no cure.” No cure. Right now, there’s– And then, flabbergasted, he latched on to the wildly glaring connection–could it be? His head began to throb as if from an ice freeze, oversaturated with information. “I don’t know what to say,” he finally said. “I need to go anyway. You probably need some time to digest this. You can call me later if you want. And needless to say, we can’t bike together anymore.” He closed his phone and stared out the window. Dark treetops swayed below, but he hardly perceived them. Time passed–perhaps a minute or ten–before his hand mechanically lifted his phone and flipped it open. His finger found Dopp Home in the directory, and pressed send. Dopp’s voice sounded incongruously normal, even pleasant, when he answered. ”Hey Trent, how did it go?” Something deep within him, unacknowledged and unwanted, recoiled against his words as he answered: “I think I found her motive.”(yes, I have edited this five times. I am apparently so stupid or toefingered or anosognostic that I am not able to figure out obvious formatting pitfalls, grrr. Oh, and Phil, I have added a comment to your last entry on my Friends and Foes. Thanks, tête-carré)