Ellen Stuttle Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 His name is Kirez -- this much I am certain of -- something or other. Korgan, maybe?LOL. Something like that. See post #249 maybe.Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 But whether "OWL" was actually moderated, I cannot say.OWL was moderated and I think there was a limit to the number of posts a person was allowed per day. In any case, the 1997 debate occurred on OWL, not Atlantis -- a sublist of WTL that did not exist at that time.OWL and ATL and other WTL lists were all started at the same time, though there was a bit of a delay getting ATL up and running.If the debate occurred in 1997, it might have been on the old list which preceded the WTL group - Kirez Korgan's cornell-l list. Joshua Zader, who was good friends with Kirez, joined as moderator of that list. And then they decided to start a new set of lists. Jimbo eventually came into it and had the power to pull the plug because they needed a server when Kirez didn't have Cornell as a base any longer, so Jimbo provided server hosting.EllenI am skeptical of your analysis. "OWL" rings a bell, loud and clear, in connection with the 1997 debate -- I can almost see it on the printouts I made -- whereas I had no knowledge of a Cornell list. In fact, I had never even heard of a "cornell-l" list until you mentioned it just now. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 His name is Kirez -- this much I am certain of -- something or other. Korgan, maybe?LOL. Something like that. See post #249 maybe.I have never been good with names, Elaine. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I was up all night working, and I haven't gotten any sleep yet. My fatigue and poor memory for details (except where books are involved) may have caused me to misremember the business about OWL in 1997. If OWL did not exist in 1997, then it did not exist, and I was obviously mistaken. I think I still have my original posts buried in my computer files. These are MS Word files, not emails, so they will not include headings that indicate the list involved. But I might be able to find an internal reference somewhere. I will do a search after I get some sleep.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Here's the history on the transfer and the selection of the name OWL.This starts with my joining the cornell list.It was called objectivism-l@cornell.edu.The transfer to WetheLiving was April 7, 1999. See the fourth email below.The name OWL for the new main list was suggested by Joshua Zader and instituted on 4/15/99. See the last email in the batch.[ Color highlights added ]2/6/99To: Kirez Jinx Korgan <kjk6@cornell.edu>From: "Laurence I. Gould" [actually, from ES] <lgould@...>Subject: Cornell ListCc:Bcc:X-Attachments:Dear Kirez,I'm a friend of Joshua Zader's, Ellen Stuttle.I know that Joshua has posted a "Pillar Essay" on *UnruggedIndividualism* for a discussion of the monograph about tooccur on the Cornell list. I'd like to know your protocoland method for signing on to (and later off of) the list. Would be interested in receiving the postings for the termof the Kelley discussion.Yours truly,Ellen===Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 02:32:17 ESTReply-To: listproc@cornell.eduSender: listproc@cornell.eduFrom: Cornell University Mailing List Server<listproc@cornell.edu> To: lgould@...CC: kirez@cornell.eduSubject: SUBSCRIBE OBJECTIVISM-L Ellen StuttleX-Sender: kjk6@travelers.mail.cornell.eduWelcome!You are now a subscriber to the OBJECTIVISM-L mailing list.Please save this message for future reference, because itcontains information you will need on managing your listsubscription and for obtaining documentation and assistance.[....]===Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 15:56:22 ESTReply-To: listproc@cornell.eduSender: listproc@cornell.eduFrom: Cornell University Mailing List Server<listproc@cornell.edu> To: lgould@...Subject: REVIEW OBJECTIVISM-LX-Sender: lgould@...****** OBJECTIVISM-L@cornell.edu: philosophy of objectivism****** Date created: Sun Nov 13 03:37:52 1994--- The current list settings are as follows:[....] List Objectivism-L@cornell.edu is a moderated forumfor discussion of the philosophy of Objectivism.===Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 00:35:31 -0600 (MDT)To: objectivism@wetheliving.comFrom: Kirez Korgan <kirez@cornell.edu>Subject: [O-L] Welcome to Objectivism@WeTheLiving.comSender: owner-objectivism@wetheliving.comReply-To: Kirez Korgan <kirez@cornell.edu>Folks, If you're receiving this version of the WeTheLiving.comannouncement, youcan be assured that you have been successfully transferredto Objectivism@WeTheLiving.com and will continue to receiveemail from the list just as you have received this one. After 5 years of Objectivism-L@cornell.edu... I've transferred the Objectivism-L list to its owndomain -- Objectivism-Lwill no longer be hosted by Cornell Listproc. I've created a majordomo list on the domainWeTheLiving.com. The NEW ADDRESS FOR OBJECTIVISM-L is thefollowing: objectivism@WeTheLiving.com And instead of sending subscribe/unsubscribe commands to<listproc@cornell.edu>, you will now send them to<majordomo@wetheliving.com>. (Eg: unsubscribe objectivism --- it's that simple.) Many of you have spoken with me individually over thepast couple years about these plans... and thank goodnessthey're finally being realized! This means some of you knowthat I have been planning to create additional lists, toenable people to tailor their interests in email discussionswith other Objectivists. So this email will be followed by a few others, so thatI can explain someof my plans for WeTheLiving.com. For now, simply send your posts toobjectivism@wetheliving.com. The listwill be moderated as usual (except that I will have moreflexibility, which will enable me to help people with theirposts more efficiently -- posters will benefit from this,with less inconvenience from 'noncompliant' posts.) If you visit www.WeTheLiving.com, you will notice thatthe list will nowbe archived on the web. The website is still in its infancy(at least it's no longer holding just my resume, as it didfor the previous two years!) and so you can expect a fewchanges. For one thing, I will be putting up a passwordrestriction on the archives, so that only subscribers canaccess the archives. I'll let you know about this at theappropriate time, and I assure you it will be painless. I've been preparing this for a long time, so I'd love toshow you that I've considered many, many facets of thesechanges and of the possibilities -- but I simply cannot.Instead I will keep this short and simple: For conservative users -- you do not need to do anythingat all. You willstill receive posts just as you did withObjectivism-L@cornell.edu; they will simply come through anew address. Things should remain hassle-free in the future. For posters -- simply send your posts toObjectivism@wetheliving.com. I believe you will find mymoderation to be more accomodating in appropriate ways. For more aggressive users... you will find new lists,perhaps you will even be a participant in creating ormanaging a list, available to and focused on our onlineObjectivist community. You may think of this as anopportunity for more specialized lists, or you may think ofit as enabling different styles or philosophies of listmoderation and management, or you may think of it as a wayto tailor the discussions you participate in according tomore specialized interests.... and all these interpretationswill be true. I'll be happy to share more info with people who emailme individually about wetheliving.com. Joshua Zader continues to be my partner in managing thelist, and you cansee his handiwork in designing the website. Let the recordshow (Josh doesn't know I'm writing this!) that he wouldhave had me be more conservative in this announcement... atleat to avoid overselling. He's good reason for this: ourefforts are pretty humble so far. All we're really doing isusing a new server and software to manage the same ol' listin the same ol' way. That's all for now. I'll send another announcement soonto explain more about Majordomo, the software I'm using tomanage the list. The Objectivism-L@cornell.edu address willcontinue to function for some time --- but I'll be the onlyperson receiving posts sent to that address, and I'll simplypost them to Objectivism@WeTheLiving.com. And please be patient, should there be technicalglitches; I'm getting used to a new system and this has notyet been tried with a list of 670+ people. I'm prettyconfident I can handle what comes up, but I won't bet mylife that I know exactly what that will be!joie de vivre,Kirez===Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 12:55:14 -0600 (MDT)To: Objectivism@WeTheLiving.comFrom: Kirez Korgan <kirez@cornell.edu>Subject: OWL: Okay, NOW Atlantis and ARF! (and otherannouncements) Sender: objectivism-request@wetheliving.comFolks, The Atlantis@WeTheLiving.com and ARF@WeTheLiving.com emaillists are now functionally up, whistling and humming like acouple young puppies. They're good to go. Everyone isautomatically subscribed to ARF; and a small group of peoplewho emailed me about their inability to subscribe toAtlantis are already on that list and have tested it. So if you try to subscribe to atlantis now, it will work.Please try to prove me wrong. Also, you all should have noticed the [O-L] subject-lineprefix on all messages coming from this list (a littlenicety I've been wanting for years). Well, I was a bitconfused about what to use as the prefix... This list is notO-L anymore, but rather Objectivism@WeTheLiving.com. Whyperpetuate the confusion? But we need a short, sweet acronym; for instance, for mymoderator's notes that so many of you sadly have encounteredwhen trying to post -- the subject line reads "Joe: Yourpost to O-L" (replace "Joe" with your name). What was Isupposed to write? Continue to use O-L? Fortunately, Josh came up with a brilliant solution, andhereforth you will see the list's acronym appear on allsubject lines from this list: OWL. Please adjust your filters accordingly! And please join us now on Atlantis!cheers,Kirez Edited February 24, 2011 by Ellen Stuttle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Here's the history on the transfer and the selection of the name OWL.This starts with my joining the cornell list.It was called objectivism-l@cornell.edu.The transfer to WetheLiving was April 7, 1999. See the fourth email below.The name OWL for the new main list was suggested by Joshua Zader and instituted on 4/15/99. See the last email in the batch.Thanks. The "objectivism" part of the Cornell e-address is apparently what threw me off. I must have associated it with the Objectivism sublist on WTL. This is an interesting bit of history. I wonder if anyone will ever write A History of Objectivism on the Internet. It would be a massive undertaking.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 > I wonder if anyone will ever write A History of Objectivism on the Internet. It would be a massive undertaking.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZSNORE.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 > I wonder if anyone will ever write A History of Objectivism on the Internet. It would be a massive undertaking.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZSNORE....LOL! Finally, after 22 years on the Internet and thousands of posts I've found a Phil post I completely agree with!--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 > I wonder if anyone will ever write A History of Objectivism on the Internet. It would be a massive undertaking.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZSNORE....LOL! Finally, after 22 years on the Internet and thousands of posts I've found a Phil post I completely agree with!--BrantI wish an outsider would write an objective, investigative History of the Objectivist Movement in the 21st Century. It's real slow trying to piece it together from everyone's reminiscences here, I keep falling asleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 > LOL! Finally, after 22 years on the Internet and thousands of posts I've found a Phil post I completely agree with!Brant, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 > I wonder if anyone will ever write A History of Objectivism on the Internet. It would be a massive undertaking.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZSNORE....I wasn't suggesting that such a history should include any of your ideas.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 > I wonder if anyone will ever write A History of Objectivism on the Internet. It would be a massive undertaking.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZSNORE....LOL! Finally, after 22 years on the Internet and thousands of posts I've found a Phil post I completely agree with!--BrantI wish an outsider would write an objective, investigative History of the Objectivist Movement in the 21st Century. It's real slow trying to piece it together from everyone's reminiscences here, I keep falling asleep.Many socialists fall asleep when they try to read. That's why they are socialists. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 > I wonder if anyone will ever write A History of Objectivism on the Internet. It would be a massive undertaking.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZSNORE....LOL! Finally, after 22 years on the Internet and thousands of posts I've found a Phil post I completely agree with!--BrantThere was a point to my passing remark, though the point certainly wasn't clear. Conventional histories of ideas and ideological movements have relied on published sources, private correspondence, etc. Such sources are no longer adequate in the Internet Age. Suppose someone were to write a book or an article about recent developments in O'ist ideas. To rely solely on published books and articles would leave out a good deal of the most important and interesting material. For example, the best discussions of the minarchist/anarchist controversy have appeared on the Internet, not in published sources. The same is true of controversies in areas such as free-will versus determinism (more than a few O'ist types embrace "soft determinism"), the philosophy of science, war, foreign policy, culture, and the history of ideas (e.g., the influence of Kant).Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 > I wonder if anyone will ever write A History of Objectivism on the Internet. It would be a massive undertaking.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZSNORE....LOL! Finally, after 22 years on the Internet and thousands of posts I've found a Phil post I completely agree with!--BrantI wish an outsider would write an objective, investigative History of the Objectivist Movement in the 21st Century. It's real slow trying to piece it together from everyone's reminiscences here, I keep falling asleep.Many socialists fall asleep when they try to read. That's why they are socialists. GhsGeorge: as the character in Dumb and Dumber would say, you have a rapist wit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Suppose someone were to write a book or an article about recent developments in O'ist ideas. To rely solely on published books and articles would leave out a good deal of the most important and interesting material. For example, the best discussions of the minarchist/anarchist controversy have appeared on the Internet, not in published sources. The same is true of controversies in areas such as free-will versus determinism (more than a few O'ist types embrace "soft determinism"), the philosophy of science, war, foreign policy, culture, and the history of ideas (e.g., the influence of Kant).George,This is one of the reasons I keep OL going--to contribute to that growing body of discussion.Here is a very good collection of links to online discussions about Objectivism from the Objectivism Reference Center: Internet Forums Related to Objectivism.It's not complete, but it's a great start.The best part about reading online discussions is that there is no way any one person or group can control the message. For some goiddam reason, the people who tout Objectivism as a way of life the loudest end up being the very ones who betray the individualism in the philosophy by wanting to control the information and ideas others get to see emanating from the Objectivist world. Online forums and discussions are a wonderful tonic to these petty little power grubbers.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) Re Rand's ethics: It is extremely problematic to base a moral code on an organism's life as the "standard of value", and to declare: "that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil" (Rand, TVOS, p. 17)?For example, it collapses the Randian argument against "parasites". For not only are parasites extremely successful as organisms when it comes to survival; per Rand's own premises, she would even have to regard as "evil" that which threatens the life of the parasite (which, as a well-functioning and perfectly adapted organism is in no way different from the human organism who feeds on other life as well).Rand: "that which furthers its [an organism's] life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil" (Rand, TVOS, p. 17)?So from the perspective of the potato beetle, the pesticides the farmer puts on the field are "evil". For the roundworm, the nourishment provided by the body of its human host is "good" since it furthers the survival of the worm's organism.Imo any ethical system based on an organism's need for survival will shoot itself in the foot, because "life as the standard of value" applies to all organisms, i. e. also to those which are detrimental to the human organism.As for human 'parasites' (the term being used in a connotative sense here): they too can thrive and prosper. Edited February 27, 2011 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) - deleted by me - Edited February 27, 2011 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Suppose someone were to write a book or an article about recent developments in O'ist ideas. To rely solely on published books and articles would leave out a good deal of the most important and interesting material. For example, the best discussions of the minarchist/anarchist controversy have appeared on the Internet, not in published sources. The same is true of controversies in areas such as free-will versus determinism (more than a few O'ist types embrace "soft determinism"), the philosophy of science, war, foreign policy, culture, and the history of ideas (e.g., the influence of Kant).George,This is one of the reasons I keep OL going--to contribute to that growing body of discussion.Here is a very good collection of links to online discussions about Objectivism from the Objectivism Reference Center: Internet Forums Related to Objectivism.It's not complete, but it's a great start.The best part about reading online discussions is that there is no way any one person or group can control the message. For some goiddam reason, the people who tout Objectivism as a way of life the loudest end up being the very ones who betray the individualism in the philosophy by wanting to control the information and ideas others get to see emanating from the Objectivist world. Online forums and discussions are a wonderful tonic to these petty little power grubbers.MichaelMichael, I completely agree with you, except I think you mean "antidote," not "tonic"! :-)God bless the Internet, and God bless Stephen Boydstun and Chris Sciabarra for creating independent publishing avenues for Objectivist writers.REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Michael, I completely agree with you, except I think you mean "antidote," not "tonic"! :-)Roger,You're right. I was thinking something like the following when I wrote that phrase: "Online forums and discussions are a wonderful tonic against these petty little power grubbers."Thanks for catching that.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrynightlife Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 Re Rand's ethics: It is extremely problematic to base a moral code on an organism's life as the "standard of value", and to declare: "that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil" (Rand, TVOS, p. 17)?For example, it collapses the Randian argument against "parasites". For not only are parasites extremely successful as organisms when it comes to survival; per Rand's own premises, she would even have to regard as "evil" that which threatens the life of the parasite (which, as a well-functioning and perfectly adapted organism is in no way different from the human organism who feeds on other life as well).Rand: "that which furthers its [an organism's] life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil" (Rand, TVOS, p. 17)?So from the perspective of the potato beetle, the pesticides the farmer puts on the field are "evil". For the roundworm, the nourishment provided by the body of its human host is "good" since it furthers the survival of the worm's organism.Imo any ethical system based on an organism's need for survival will shoot itself in the foot, because "life as the standard of value" applies to all organisms, i. e. also to those which are detrimental to the human organism.As for human 'parasites' (the term being used in a connotative sense here): they too can thrive and prosper.Ah, but that is its virtue. In O’ist ethics, Value judgments are intelligible and grounded only insofar as they identified in respect to the need of an organism. Values are subject-dependent, yet they remain objective in that they are relational facts regarding survival. Subjective has a very different meaning than how Austrian economists use it in light of this fact. The harmony of interests principle only argues that the rational ends of some organisms are generally compatible, not identical. This structure escapes many naive notions of morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) Values are subject-dependent, yet they remain objective in that they are relational facts regarding survival. Subjective has a very different meaning than how Austrian economists use it in light of this fact.But you forget that Rand's own exclusively negative view of "subjective" throws a spanner in the works here. For Rand condemned subjective as such: "The subjective means the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/subjectivism.htmlBut labeling everything subjective as "the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional" can easily be exposed as a mistake, given the fact that there exist many instances where "subjective" is neither arbitrary, nor irrational, nor blindly emotional.In failing to give the subjective a productive place in her philosophy, Rand had to regard all her own decisions and value judgements as call her own decisions as rational So in labeling the subjective as "the irrational", she then HAD to regard her own decisions as "rational" of course. Thus for example, she erroneously presented her emotional decision to engage in a love affair as a "rational" decision, and those who were opposed to it were considered as "irrational" . In many instances, it boiled down to that others ought to value what Rand personally preferred. While we would of course course all like for others to share our moral values, to speak of them as "objective" would be an error. For moral values ("oughts") cannot be derived from an "is" in the sense that they conclusively/necessarily follow from an "is". For example: from the fact that stray dogs exist, it does not conclusively follow that these dogs ought to be helped. Every moral "ought to" is the expression of an already existing value system in the mind of the valuer, and not the result of objective discovery. In O’ist ethics, Value judgments are intelligible and grounded only insofar as they identified in respect to the need of an organism. Since the needs of an organism conflict with the needs of other organisms, how do you solve this problem?If what threatens an organism's life is the "evil", this means that what is "evil" for organism A is "good" for organism B, as in removing and killing a tick from your dog's body."Good" and "bad/evil" then merely signify "suited/unsuited to purpose", and these are no moral categories. Edited March 13, 2011 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now