FOR SALE: Objectivist Audio Set
Matt Zwolinski
looking to sell. They're quite new--only listened to once and in their
original binder. I paid around $180 for these, but would be willing to let
them go for $100 (which includes shipping).
This is good stuff. All sorts of practical information and exercises
regarding applying Objectivist epistemology. Email me at
ma...@u.arizona.edu if you're interested.
Here's the description from Second Renaissance:
"This is a course on what to do withyou mind during an act of thought, when
to do it and how to make the principles of Objectivist epistemology the
actual guide of your own daily thought processes. These seminars are part
new theory (building on previous books and courses) and part exercises.
Topics covered intensively elsewhere are omitted. Although the focus is
positive, many examples of improper thinking methods are given.
1. VOLITION AS A MEANS TO CLARITY
The problem of clashing contexts; why some students are unable fully to
accept what they know to be the truth. The perceptual "clarity-seeker."
Why the only solution in such cases is will (not more arguments or
questions).
2. HIERARCHY
Thought as integration. Hierarchy as an indispensible form of integration.
Exercises in reducing advanced ideas to perceptual data.
3. THINKING IN ESSENTIALS
Thinking in essentials as a form of unit-economy. How to decide what is
(and is not) ess\ential in a particular case, such as a movie, book, or
person. Translating commonplace remarks in terms of essentials.
4. THINKING IN PRINCIPLES
Principles as fundamental integrations reached by induction. The role of
principles in thought; principles and essentials. Are principles
inescapable or not?
5. CERTAINTY
Can one be certain about the future? Can one base predictions on
statistics? If knowledge is contextual, must one say "The senses are valid
in the present context of knowledge"? Can one properly specify one's
context, yet still be guilty of an error?
6. THINKING VS WRITING
Pre-writing vs writing problems. Understanding a point vs knowing how to
present it; what is required for each of these. The grave error of trying
to understand through writing for others."
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Matt Zwolinski |"People that are really very weird can
ma...@u.arizona.edu | get into sensitive positions and have
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mattz | a tremendous impact on history."
| - Dan Quayle
Steve Reed
>I've got a set of Leonard Peikoff's tapes on "The Art of Thinking" that I'm
>looking to sell. [Price and description elided]
Would the referee of this mud-wrestling match please tell us: Are personal ads
like this to be considered "advertising" in the sense of the HPO charter?
We've had some undoubted spam-ads slip through recently, nearly a half-dozen,
and it's hard to note them all. But -that- clearly requires cancelposts.
This needs policy being generated, because unlike the First Perjurer whose
back was patted with kid gloves today, HPO is not above the Usenet "law."
Demand Bill of Rights enforcement!
http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/bor_enforcement.html
"If they can get you to ask the wrong
questions, they don't have to worry
about the answers." -- Thomas Pynchon
Ed Paige
>>I've got a set of Leonard Peikoff's tapes on "The Art of Thinking" that I'm
>>looking to sell. [Price and description elided]
> Would the referee of this mud-wrestling match please tell us: Are personal
ads
> like this to be considered "advertising" in the sense of the HPO charter?
Suggestion to the moderator:
I would very much like to know of items for sale which relate to
Objectivism. Please do not regard as advertising a single post which
states the undisputed fact that an item or items are available for
sale (by the current owner, and, obviously, available for purchase
by readers of the article), and states who has them, what the original
retail price was, and what selling price is asked.
The intent of forbidding advertising is to prevent the Internet
equivalent of receiving in our snail-mail boxes garish grocery
flyers, week in and week out, and solicitations regarding which
we may very well have no interest.
(Please don't be confused by the fact that my .sig is a quotation
from Steve Reed.)
Ed Paige
ag...@freenet.carleton.ca
--
You end up wasting the substance and achievements of Objectivist
thought -- by turning it into dogma and historical fossils.
-- Steve Reed (Stev...@earthling.net)
Mike Rael
I haven't heard these.
I *might* be interested. But would you care to share which parts
of the tapes had a special personal meaning to you--and, if it's not
*too* personal to share over a ng, to tell us a little about that?
That's what I'd need to know to make an informed purchase.
best always,
Mike
Matt Zwolinski (ma...@u.arizona.edu) wrote:
: I've got a set of Leonard Peikoff's tapes on "The Art of Thinking" that I'm
: looking to sell. They're quite new--only listened to once and in their
: 2. HIERARCHY
: 3. THINKING IN ESSENTIALS
: 4. THINKING IN PRINCIPLES
: 5. CERTAINTY
: 6. THINKING VS WRITING
--
Mike Rael, MS, instructional technology
la...@netcom.com
listowner, self-esteem-self-help
owner, COACHING BY PHONE, the rapid way to raise reality-based self-esteem
Mike Rael
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that an ad is not
not a spam if it's relevant to this newsgroup? In that case, I completely
agree.
As I see it, spamming is, as you noted, about extraneous things
that have nothing to do with Objectivism. Like him or not, Peikoff's
works are definitely part of Objectivism!:)
I remember a similar flap when Betsy was advertising something
and, as is usual with me, I happily supported Betsy's right to advertise
what she damned pleased. I don't *like* her, but as I see it, she's a
regular here whose posts are appreciated by some others here.
In other words, I'd even go a little further. In my view, ads
that are either obviously about products or services related to
Objectivism OR ads about most anything by folks who are regulars here are
_not_ spam!!!
The first kind of ad is about Objectivism.
The second is about a "member of the club".
I recall being taken to task before about saying that some folks
are "members of the club" and thus, as far as I'm concerned, they can
advertise their homes for sale:) As I see it, I tend to trust more folks
with whom I'm somewhat familiar, which is a reason I'd *appreciate*
seeing such ads by regulars here, perhaps in an AD thread? I'd enjoy
buying things from folks I've come to like and respect here.
I realize that an awful lot of Netters might disagree with me
about this, but isn't there another issue yet? Aren't we all interested
in Objectivism? And isn't Objectivism about free trade? I feel that, as
members of our own moderated newsgroup united by an interest in a
specific philosophy, it hurts no one that I can see if we relax that
advertising prohibition sufficiently to accept accept ads for Objectivist
products or service OR ads from folks we've come to know here.
If it is asked, how do we establish that someone is a "regular", the
answer is: by the amount of posts made in a month. If someone has made,
say, 4 posts here in the last month, that would do it for me!
best always,
Mike
Ed Paige (ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: Matt Zwolinski wrote:
: >>
I've got a set of Leonard Peikoff's tapes on "The Art of Thinking" that I'm
: >>looking to sell. [Price and description elided]
: Ed Paige
: ag...@freenet.carleton.ca
Steve Reed
>[...] Aren't we all interested
>in Objectivism? And isn't Objectivism about free trade? I feel that, as
>members of our own moderated newsgroup united by an interest in a
>specific philosophy, it hurts no one that I can see if we relax that
>advertising prohibition sufficiently to accept accept ads for Objectivist
>products or service OR ads from folks we've come to know here.
Lest Mike or others (especially newcomers) mistake my motives in asking the
moderator to rule about this: Yes, it hurts no one to have ads. And, yes, the
rule about prohibiting advertising is silly and misguided, and always was.
But a ban on advertising was part of the rules that were adopted, under
procedures that the news server owners support, to create this newsgroup. And
if "we" want to change that rule, it ought to be done according to established
procedure, including a formal proposal and vote.
Putting "folks we've come to know here," through four posts a month or
anything else, above the rules of this forum is no more justified than putting
the First Philanderer above the legal rules punishing perjury.
Tim Skirvin
> If I understand you correctly, you're saying that an ad is not
>not a spam if it's relevant to this newsgroup? In that case, I completely
>agree.
For what it's worth, the definition of "spam" has absolutely
nothing to do with the content of the message; that's one of the FAQs I
maintain (off my main page).
And, for the record, I'm considering this issue, and I'm not sure
how I'll decide. But I'm paying attention.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
Moderator, humanities.philosophy.objectivism
--
<URL:http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin/> Skirv's Homepage <*>
<URL:http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/> The Killfile Dungeon
Ed Paige
> If I understand you correctly, you're saying that an ad is not
> not a spam if it's relevant to this newsgroup? In that case, I completely
> agree.
No, Mike, I didn't say anything at all about "spam". "Spam" is
not in any way the issue here. The charter of this newsgroup
prohibits advertising. It's shortsighted and an avoidance of
principles to get together and all agree in an amicable spirit
to throw those rules out, so as to permit advertising anyway.
(Besides, "that'll be the day".)
Instead, I'm suggesting that prohibiting advertising does not
have to be understood and should not be understood to prohibit such
statements as "I would exchange this described possession of mine
for one hundred dollars." Or "The fee to attend Dr. B's lecture
will be $30."
The moderator is obliged to find or fashion a definition of
"advertising" in order to do his job. I probably won't suggest
exactly what the definition should be, only that it should not
include information which the participants of this forum may
reasonably be expected to want to obtain. Advertising might
have to be REPETITIVE (multiple postings per day or week);
WIDESPREAD (essentially the same text posted to various newsgroups
and/or appearing in print media and/or sent via mass e-mailing);
or INSISTENT (exaggerated statements, appeals to emotions,
redundant) rather than stating the facts about what's offered,
including, especially, an indication of price.
Ed
Mike Rael
Well, from Tom's comment on this, apparently he's considering
this issue:)
My point of view is to not forget the context, is all. That is,
the purpose of outlawing ads is because they clutter up the ng, and alot
of people object to them as distracting them from their main purposes in
subscribing to the ng.
But if NO ONE objects to an ad about, say, Peikoff's tapes or if
Betsy wants to sell a car, in fact, if folks here welcome those kinds of
ads, then the purpose of outlawing ads either about Objectivism or
from regular members has disappeared.
It then becomes an issue of:what do we do to formally recognize
that we, as folks interested in Objectivism, have purposes of our own,
sufficiently different than those of other ngs, so as to merit a
difference in the formal way this ng is structured? That is, do we ask
Tom to make an exception for this ng? Can he do so, if he agrees with
this reasoning? Do we have to appeal to a central board of some sort?
What has to be done to make the *moral* become the *practical*?
best always,
Mike
Steve Reed (Stev...@earthling.net) wrote:
: Mike Rael wrote:
: * Stev...@earthling.net *
Mike Rael
I think you have some good points. My 2 issues were that the ads
be about Objectivism or that they be posted by regulars here.
I didn't consider the issue of cross-posting, but I don't think
that affects us much, though. I don't care if a regular here crossposts
to a hundred ngs, as long as he or she is a regular *here*.
The consideration about repetitiveness is a good addition to my
own notion. Even if a person is a regular here or the ad is about an
Objectivist product or service, there should be some limitation on the
amount of ads that should be posted in a given unit of time.
About insistent ads:you define "insistence", as I understand it,
to mean "appealing to emotionality as opposed to reason; there is
in addition an inference of possible duplicity." Actually, that's a
beautiful consideration
since it is totally in line with Objectivist thinking. Possibly for that
very reason, folks who have advertised here for Objectivist products or
services, OR regulars here who had advertised personal things or services
have definitely not been "insistent" in the sense which you use that
term. I have seen occasional spams here that are insistent. Certainly
insistent ads should be banned. A wonderful example of an ad that bends
over backwards to *not* be insistent is the recent ad for Peikoff's tapes.
Ed, it has been a pleasure for me to integrate your ideas about
this with my own:)
best always,
Mike
Ed Paige (ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: Ed
Dagnytgrt
Sally Milo
Ed Paige
> So, I can't *sell* my services as a graphic/web designer here? Damn!
> Sally Milo
That depends on what conception of _advertising_ the moderator
eventually decides on. But now that the cat's out of the bag, so to
speak, you may have to close your e-mail account as protection against
the unmanageable flood of requests for graphic/web design.
Mike Rael
that SALLY DOES GRAPHIC/WEB DESIGNER WORK.
Furthermore, I think that no one here should CALL HER simply because
SALLY IS A REGULAR HERE and SHE DOES GRAPHIC/WEB DESIGNER WORK.
The issue of determining whether it's OK to post blatant ads about
SALLY'S GRAPHHIC/WEB DESIGN BUSINESS surely should rest in the capable
hands of Tom Skirvin!
best wishes all,
Mike
Ed Paige (ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
XNFP
to see this, do you? I mean....all they need is to send a complaint to Netcom
with a few well-placed ellipses and you could be in trouble!
:)
Steph
>I think you're absolutely right about this, Ed. It's most unfortunate
>that SALLY DOES GRAPHIC/WEB DESIGNER WORK.
>
>Furthermore, I think that no one here should CALL HER simply because
>SALLY IS A REGULAR HERE and SHE DOES GRAPHIC/WEB DESIGNER WORK.
>
>The issue of determining whether it's OK to post blatant ads about
>SALLY'S GRAPHHIC/WEB DESIGN BUSINESS surely should rest in the capable
>hands of Tom Skirvin!
>
>best wishes all,
>Mike
>
>
Steph Silberstein (xn...@aol.com)
Co-moderator, self-esteem-self-help, the best self-help group on the 'Net!
"Working with what exists today to create a better tomorrow."
R Lawrence
>Hi, Steve:)
> Well, from Tom's comment on this, apparently he's considering
>this issue:)
Just FYI, Mr. Skirvin's first name is 'Tim.'
> My point of view is to not forget the context, is all. That is,
>the purpose of outlawing ads is because they clutter up the ng, and alot
>of people object to them as distracting them from their main purposes in
>subscribing to the ng.
Technically, the charter says, "Commercial postings shall not be permitted;
repeated posting of a commercial nature shall be grounds for the banning of
the submitter from humanities.philosophy.objectivism at the discretion of
the moderator." Such posts are a separate category from spam. The charter
also says, "Postings commonly acknowledged by the Usenet community to be
'spam' or similar forms of net-abuse shall not be permitted ..."
The trick for the moderator is in interpreting "commercial." (I'm assuming
that outright disregard for the charter would be frowned upon, although it
is possible.) By denotation, personal announcements of items for sale are
commercial, but most people recognize that the term has a connotation of
involving an enterprise of larger scale than one person selling a few items
in a one-time offer. Intent is also an issue, because the apparent (based
on subsequent statements) intent of the authors of the charter was to block
advertisements that are not closely related to Objectivism, not all
advertisements -- although the final text of the charter was ill-considered
in that case. The charter even says that posts "on the availability of
resources related to Objectivism are also welcome."
Mr. Skirvin's approach thus far has mostly been to treat the quoting of
prices as the primary indicator of "commercial" content. This makes some
sense when one considers that one of the founding ideas of the group was
that it was to be primarily automoderated, and the human administrator was
to have minimal involvement. Keeping the rules very mechanistic and binary
(a post either contains prices or it doesn't) helps facilitate that lack of
involvement. Still, it's obvious that there is some degree of discontent
with the status quo on this issue.
My own suggestion would be that "commercial" should be interpreted in the
narrowest possible sense -- one that would not include postings for
one-time sale of personal possessions. In practical terms, this means that
a personal "for sale" posting such as the one that triggered this thread
would be OK, while advertisements for, say, Lyceum International's seminars
would still be prohibited.
I think that would satisfy some of the concerns without triggering too many
convulsions over the sanctity of the charter.
============================================================================
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com>
[Y]ou've an obligation to pull your weight, to be productive for the sake
of the group and of yourself. And if you choose to do otherwise, we can
rightfully "heave you overboard," or send you packing. -- James E. Prescott
Mike Rael
Well, I'm for changing the charter if need be, so that regulars
here could advertise *anything* and that any Objectivist service or
product could be advertised here, whether or not they are a big
commercial enterprise.
I *want* to see such ads.
I suggest, instead, all regulars here, have REGAD in the subject
header, and all folks advertising Objectivist products or services have
OBJAD in the subject header. Any ads not having either of those codes in
the subject header should be killed.
This take care of all mass mailings, since they don't know and
could care less about the idiosyncracies of one particular newsgroup.
best wishes,
Mike
R Lawrence (RL0...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: ============================================================================
: Richard Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com>