About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 4:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Without getting into all the conflicts and complexities of this particular incident (which is over a year old), I'd like to make a couple of observations, especially in response to Tom Rowlands' concern for "overgeneralization."  Even when I made the initial statement of this thread, I was careful to point out that these criticisms applied to some associated with the Ayn Rand Institute "but by no means all, thank goodness."  And I should add, today, a year later, that there are some encouraging signs that the culture surrounding ARI is changing.  Aside from the fact that I very much value some of the scholarship being published by ARI-affiliated scholars (in such books as Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living; Robert Mayhew's Ayn Rand and Song of Russia:  Communism and Anti-Communism in 1940s Hollywood; and the forthcoming Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem, among others), I am also very encouraged by the fact that the Institute itself has shown a capacity to highlight internal dissent on such issues as the Bush presidency and the war in Iraq.  I think these are healthy developments; perhaps some of those associated with the Institute are themselves responding to the kinds of criticisms that have been made over the years, and to the kinds of developments---like SOLO---which have filled an obvious need in the marketplace.  I think that any organization that is not sensitive to the developments in that market is condemning itself to utter irrelevance. 

Finally, without getting into a full discourse on the meaning of dialectics (and thus providing a "zillion hyper-links" :) ), let me just say that "dialectics" is what I call a "methodological orientation," and its essence is "the art of context-keeping."  Context-keeping asks us to understand an issue from different vantage points, on different levels of generality, and in relationship to other issues, their past and present preconditions and potential future implications.  (This often translates into an investigation of relationships insofar as they constitute a system that evolves over time.)

My attempts to reclaim dialectical method hark back to the first theoretician of dialectics:  Aristotle. 

I am in the process of authoring a short introduction to what I call "dialectical libertarianism," one which is concerned, fundamentally, with the conditions that make freedom possible and the different levels on which freedom is manifested.  If you'd like to read a scholarly discussion of this subject, let me not disappoint Linz:  "Dialectical Libertarianism:  All Benefits, No Hazards."

Dr. Diabolical Dialectical



Post 21

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 2:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> [Chris]...I am in the process of authoring a short introduction to what I call "dialectical libertarianism,"

Short. Yes. Short. Did you say it was going to be *short*?

> If you'd like to read a scholarly discussion of this subject...


Does that mean L O N G ??

@#%$^&

Post 22

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 3:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil - you asked of Dr. Diabolical:

"Short. Yes. Short. Did you say it was going to be *short*?"

It's all relative. "Short" for DD is several thousand pages.

And that's just the first sentence.

:-)

Linz



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 3:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
ROFL LOL

Short:  It's got to be about 2000 words.  Does that qualify?  :)


Post 24

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 5:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> "Short" for DD is several thousand pages. And that's just the first sentence.

Hah! :-) That explains the problem I'm having understanding the Russian Radical. I hadn't realized it's all one sentence. Either that or I have the German translation...

> It's got to be about 2000 words. Does that qualify? :)

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

The more complex the material (e.g., dialectics) the more it needs to be reduced to HUMAN BITES. I.e, op ed length 600-800 words to be enticing to other than epistemologists. If it's sexy it can be longer.

"Well, dammit it sounds like Chris is talking about cod liver oil on spinach again, not Mario Lanza dammit, but at least it's short so I'll take a bite......"
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 5/06, 5:05pm)


Post 25

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 5:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"if it's sexier." - oh, that means you got pics?

Post 26

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 5:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If he's got pictures of Rand or Aristotle, he can double the length.

If they are naked pictures of Hayek or Hegel, he can shorten it still further since half of his audience will bail.

Post 27

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 10:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So, short in 2000 words, means 500 words of text and the rest hyperlinks, if I understand Linz right?!

I don't hope so, because I would like to see the short form, so I can get a "summary". I'd say that my summaries of your work, always lacked certain things to get the idea to the people ;)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.