Gespräch über die Entwicklung und Vermarktung

objektivistischer Lernmedien

#0 (fehlendes Datum)

Objektivismus.de > Kayton

> Hi Alexander

Hi Barry

> There is a continuum from "creative" to "intellectual" as there is from

blue

> to green in a rainbow. So I am distinguishing between "creative" and

> "intellectual" co-operation not for the purpose of protecting only the

> "creative" part (which cannot be done) but for the purpose of identifying

> where and how I am contributing to this project. My strengths are my

> outside-of-the-square ideas. My potential weakness is a lack of

philosophical

> rigour.

That might be the right opportunity to ask you for the amount of training

in, or your expertise on Objectivism. Please tell me, how long you are in

the subject, what materials you studied, and anything else you consider

being worth telling about it, so that I can get a better image of your

abilities. It will help getting to a mutually satisfying agreement.

> Our collaboration together (and with others) involves an exchange of

lateral

> ideas and logical analysis. Both of us will contribute original ideas.

Both of

> us will also contribute critical thinking. But my own contribution is

likely

> to be more on the lateral thinking side. I will also be writing copy and

> laying out text and graphics in a DTP application.

> Eventually (months or years from now?) we will have a finished product.

> Obviously it would be a disaster at that point to begin arguing about who

owns

> the intellectual capital (who owns the copyright).

Absolutely. Now is the right moment to do it. I'm interested in hearing

your ideas.

> I would like this project to be my project. This would mean that no-one

else

> would have any claim to ownership of the intellectual capital developed.

I understand and accept that. May I ask although for what reasons? It is

interesting for me to learn about the motivations of the people I work with

over an extended period.

> However, I would be happy to acknowledge your role in developing the

material

> (as many authors acknowledge the contributions of others in the preface

> their books). And, in return for collaborating with me, I would be happy

> grant you the right to use and sell the material in Germany (free of

licensing

> fees or royalties).

That sounds good for the beginning. As I already mentioned, this is no

ordinary business, but one where the "product" is certainty and idealism,

one that, in other words, touches the "core of my soul." When I choose to

promote something like that for a living, I need to have a certain amount

of control over the contents, because the whole operation requires a highly

personal involvement and a corresponding commitment to the teachings. I

feel that only full agreement with the teachings will give me the adequate

energy to conquer the initial difficulties that are unavoidable and to lead

the whole project to a shining success. Have you any suggestions how to

solve that problem?

> The person who has indicated interest in the project is John Drake.

> Apparently, John is interested in teaching rational thinking skills. He

has

> been developing a training game to facilitate the learning of rational

> thinking skills and has presented this game informally at a TOC

conference.

Seems to me, that it's a good idea to stay in touch with him.

> However, work and financial pressures will prevent him from being closely

> involved in Project Outreach.

O, it's "Project Outreach" now? If you need a name for it, this one is fine

with me. Sounds weighty...

> > The problems are well known and I think I have a pretty good solution

for

> > them in mind.

> Can you elaborate?

I can, the question is, whether I wish to do so in this place, because it

usually leads to lengthy discussions. I will give you the URL of one of my

websites where I have projected a number of topics (that are still on

hold). If you are familiar with OPAR (as I hope you are), you will

immediately see where the contradictions are comparing to standard O'ist

doctrine. Here it is:

http://www.planet-fountainhead.com/00-Nietzschean-Halls.htm. If you have

any questions, just ask nevertheless.

> By "Objectivism" I no longer mean "Ayn Rand's philosophy as she wrote

it". I

> mean, fundamentally, an honest commitment to reality and reason.

Everything

> else is derivative.

You express just what I was thinking.

> I admire your integrity. For my part, I'm eager to get into the lab and

> experiment with different approaches to see what transpires. Even if the

> materials I create are not perfect, I'll be happy if the majority of

workshop

> participants appreciate the world view of Objectivism and begin to apply

> Objectivist thought and values in their own lives.

There's a limit in the extent I'm willing to make guinea-pigs out of my

customers. You said you admire my integrity, so you will surely understand

that I can't teach or promote anything where I have fundamental doubts.

Just thinking about it makes me sick. If we want to avoid an explosion that

blows up the whole laboratory, we have to restrict ourselves to teaching

only ontology and perhaps critical thinking skills. Not very exciting. The

areas that will drive business are those that a derived from that level

(especially ethics).

> will offer a richer understanding of Objectivism. For others the

materials

> will open up a whole new world.

Yeah, let's hope it's the real one. While there is only one real, objective

world, there is a ~multitude~ of possibilities to screw it up with ones

philosophy.

> I understand your point of view completely but only in an abstract way.

I'm

> reading between the lines of what you've said in your emails and I'm

getting

> the impression that you see the flaw(s) in Objectivism as something along

the

> following lines...

> 1) Over-emphasis on reason apart from reality (leading to

> rationalism)

> 2) Under-emphasis on reality (leading to ignorance of empirical data

> which contradicts O'ist doctrines)

> 3) Under-emphasis on scientific method

> Am I correct?

Almost. Let me explain it in this way:

I have certain criteria that must be met by a statement to qualify as

"likely true."

1. no contradictions to empirical facts

2. no logical contradictions

3. systemic coherence

4. usefulness

Empirical validation (5) would qualify the statement as "absolutely

certain." In traditional Objectivism (the Orthodoxy and neo-Objectivism

alike) I see in certain areas violations of criteria 1 and 2.

> This is interesting because "circularity" or "going through a number of

loops"

> is exactly how I develop educational materials.

We must notice that between each loop changes have to occur. And I think

that after loop 0 I see a pretty big chunk that must be changed. Isn't now

the best time to do it before it gets too costly?

Regards,

alexander

> PS

> If I had more time on my hands, I would be happy to assist you in editing

the

> English version of your website. But I'm really struggling to meet all my

work

> commitments. What is the site's URL?

I really don't want to bother you with additional obligations. It's

probably too much work anyway (eight long pages).

#1 (01.08.01)

Kayton > John (cc: Objektivismus.de)

John,

Thanks for making contact. It was your post to Outreach (19 July) and those of Philip Coates and Alexander Furstenburg that encouraged me to discuss my project.

I would love to learn more about how you learned your development process
techniques.

Quick history.

1993 I had to write a thesis on some aspect of advertising / marketing. I remembered an article about a brilliant course for adult illiterates that uses advertising to jump-start the learning process. Went along to a presentation. The guy behind it was clearly brilliant. The materials were executive-level quality but aimed at the poorest of the poor (paid for by corporate clients wanting to train their workforces to read and write). Landed a part-time position as one of the facilitator's in a pilot project at a local college. They liked my style of facilitating and employed me to train facilitators throughout the country.

These materials were a paradigm shift. Full colour illustrations, glossy paper - the look and feel of an executive magazine. A brilliant methodology that moved in incremental steps. The learner at the centre of the process learning from the materials not from the teacher. No teacher. Just a facilitator.

1994-1995 I joined the development department. Designed an English communications skills course and several books and games for children. Began working with the other team members. All rational, super-intelligent and super-creative. This is where I learned to "tolerate ambiguities" and to mix intuitive insights with critical analysis. Also discovered that the company founder (who I knew was an atheist and a libertarian) was "heavily influenced by Ayn Rand"! Pure co-incidence.

1996-1999 Landed a photographer's contract on cruise ships. Eventually had to train new recruits weekly. Applied what I had learned about training. No lectures on photography. Just give them a camera, some tips and "laissez-faire". Facilitate from the side-lines.

1999-present. Returned to work with the same core team but this time on the business planning project and on entrepreneurship courses for kids. A baptism of fire really because at the outset I knew nothing about entrepreneurship. The development process I described only began to crystallize during completion of the second course. It took about 18 months to be fully aware of the steps in the process, how much time each one takes, how each phase impacts on the others, etc.

I have no formal qualifications in the field of education. Just a BA in English and Classical Civilization and a postgrad diploma in advertising and copywriting. Everything I've learned has been from interaction with these three colleagues and from my own diverse reading on educational techniques.

My experiences range from teaching in a local high school, to private
tutoring, to workshops on rationality. The latter is a new project I've
been developing rather organically, starting with the premise that learning
about rationality requires using it. And that the process of learning
should be challenging yet enjoyable. I've started with a series of games
and exercises that focus on particular aspects of rationality- such as
deduction, conceptual definitions, and integration- and built a workshop
that groups can use to develop their thinking skills. Admittedly, this
workshop is still in its infancy and needs lots of work.

Are you working alone? If so, I can guarantee that you'd benefit from working in a team (provided it's the right kind). Your game ideas sound fascinating. If we can build mutual trust I would love to hear more about them. My business planning course is designed around a great business simulation game (designed by my colleagues before I joined them). Hugely successful. Take a look at:

http://www.ids.org.za/pages/best.html

I can also tell you that if we could find "billionaire-backing" to set up a think-tank with the aim of producing marketable products, we could put together some fantastic stuff. Working alone or trying to collaborate over distance is tough.

Do you have any samples of your educational materials I can view? I may
even be interested in attending one of your entrepreneurialship classes if
its offered in the US.

The US agent is:

http://www.makingcents.org/

I know they have a sample of my business planning course: Business Results.

Although they don't have samples of my other work they do have samples of courses similar to mine:

http://www.makingcents.org/na/na_training_bv.html

I'm going to bend my mind to think of what I can put together, either online or in a physical package that I can FedEx to potential partners. Obviously my concern is to remain valuable enough in this development process to contribute as a paid consultant and to earn royalties from my contribution. You, I assume, would share similar concerns for your material. But at some point, if we can build trust amongst a core group of partners (including Alexander, for example) then at that point we would need to put all our cards on the table.

The more trust we can build, the more information and techniques we'll be willing to share.

My ideal scenario would be that a "billionaire-backer" employs me in a consulting role in the US to work within a team to develop material. This would give my wife and I green-card status which is priority number two (after negotiating royalties).

Second prize would be to collaborate with others from the US (or wherever) here in South Africa where the cost of living is ridiculously cheap by US standards thus making the development phase laughably cost-effective.

Third prize would be to collaborate online. But I'm not sure to what extent that would be effective.

Regards
Barry

#2 (08.08.01)

Kayton > Objektivismus.de

Hi Alexander

I'm having quite a hectic week trying to balance the three projects that are currently paying my monthly bills.

My wife, Betty, is waiting for the confirmation of an appointment to a new job. If the job is confirmed it will open up a financial window of three months during which I can work full-time on our workshop project. If her job is not confirmed I'm going to continue battling on as I am now, using an hour first thing in the morning and a couple of hours in the evening.

The problem is that an hour here and there does not allow for the kind of deep thought I need to apply to this project. It's not just a matter of cerebral "processing time". A computer can multi-task quite easily because it never forgets a detail. But on a project of this nature with so many variables, it takes an hour in the morning just to get going and to have all the variables up in the air and to be in a position to begin juggling with different options.

I've done a rough draft of the chart I mentioned in my last post and I'll finish that later this evening. Since the chart will change weekly, I think I'll upload the information to a website rather than send a PDF to the list. I'm not sure to what extent the list is useful. I would rather work with a smaller group of people who are interested and willing to contribute ideas than a larger group with many lurkers.

I've taken photographs of all the educational materials I've designed and I'll make these available at the same site in due course -- or I'll put them in a PDF and mail them to our smaller group.

Here are several other ideas I've been toying with:

1) I'm considering planning a website called www.objectivistvoices.com

This site will make available (and/or sell) eBooks relating to Objectivism. It will consist of a philosophical section and a "rational living" section.
The philosophical section will offer intellectual essays in a range of categories, all in password-protected PDF format (linked to the buyer's PC chip serial number).
The "rational living" section will offer articles for easy-reading written in a down-to-earth style by Objectivists about what it means to live a rational life. These will be personal case studies by real people showing where and how Objectivism has helped or hindered them and why.
This is not instead of workshop materials but in addition to them.

2) I had a great idea for an interactive training game that will give people the experience of Objectivist values.

The game's working title is: Viable Values
At the beginning of the game players choose from a bag of plastic tiles representing different values, ten values that represent their worldviews. Some of these values are aligned with reality. Some are out of synch with reality. Some are at war with reality. But each person can choose freely. They then rank their values from 1 to 10. (A Christian, if he were playing, would perhaps choose service to God as his number one value. An Objectivist might choose several higher level values like reality and reason and some personal values like love, creative work, family etc.)
The game then begins with players moving round a track, coming across opportunities, dangers and dilemmas (in the form of multiple-choice cards). There would be financial and personal opportunities to seize. There would be dangers such as the temptation to compromise on principles in order to seize what seems to be an opportunity but turns out to be a dead-end. And there would be dilemmas that would force players to check the practicality of their value-systems.
Every time they have to make a choice, players have to either apply their values consistently -- or change their values.
If their list of ten values is based on reality, then it will help them to make a rational choice which will be life-furthering and lead to progress.
If their list of ten values is out of synch with reality, then at best they will simply stagnate.
If their list of ten values is at war with reality, then their fortunes in the game will decline.
The game would be designed in such a way that players would discover for themselves a set of ten values that are in harmony with reality and also personally meaningful.
The currency of the game would possibly be time. Over the course of an hour's playing (or two hours), you could play out a life-time meeting the challenges of youth, middle age and old age.

It is this kind of interactive game that could be (but doesn't necessarily have to be) one of the core elements of an interactive workshop.

For an hour or so, participants would discuss various Objectivist principles (perhaps through case studies). They would then play a round of the game and discover through action and interaction how the theory they have been discussing applies in a series of simulated real-life situations.

Time-permitting (or at the next workshop) they would discuss new principles before playing another, slightly-more complicated round of the game. This would continue over a series of workshops. With each playing of the game, the abstract principles discussed would become more and more internalized.

This is the way my business planning and simulation course works. The game component was designed by my colleagues, has been translated into several languages and is used around the world. It's a hit.

3) There is huge potential for mini-books on Objectivism (paperbacks with less than 100 pages). Here are some existing titles. Just substitute "Objectivism" where appropriate:

Aristotle: Pocket Essentials (see www.pocketessentials.com)
Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press)
Aristotle: The Great Philosophers Series (Phoenix Paperback -- Orion Publishing)
A Beginner's Guide to Aristotle (Hodder and Stoughton)
Teach Yourself 101 Key Ideas: Philosophy (Hodder and Stoughton)

I'm planning to write something along the lines of the last title:

101 Essential Objectivist Concepts.

Why?

(1) We need to define what "Objectivism" consists of and this is one way of going about it.

(2) It will give me an opportunity to try to bring each concept down to earth in no more than 300 words.

(3) At the end of this process I will have a manuscript of 3300 words (in the form of a mini book of just over 100 pages with 300 words per page). What a great mini-introduction to Objectivism! I could self-publish it, offer it to mainstream publishers, to TOC or I could sell it online as an eBook.

I have already made a preliminary selection using nothing more than intuition. It was surprisingly easy.

Please don't be alarmed by this. I usually work this way: take action based on gut feel or fuzzy logic; then tear it to pieces using critical analysis and buckets of logic. In doing so, I will define a set of criteria by which to choose a new list of 101 concepts. Then I'll apply critical analysis again and interrogate the hell out of my selection as well as the criteria I defined. Then I'll start the process again.

I suspect some Objectivists would be appalled by this. But I've found that this is the most productive method of working and I believe that many productive scientists work in similar ways. So I hope you don't find this off-putting.

Another virtue of this approach is that we now have something concrete on the table to discuss. Whereas last week we were discussing abstractions.

So I've attached my preliminary selection of 101 concepts. Glancing at it again I can already see some concepts that demand elimination because they're not fundamental enough or they just seem to stick out. But one of the decisions I made is that it would be better to present 101 positive concepts (such as FOCUS) than to include in the 101 negative concepts (such as EVASION). This is why I have indicated in brackets after the word FOCUS, the word EVASION. That indicates that EVASION would be dealt with there as the opposite of FOCUS. Similarly, CERTAINTY is a key concept while PROBABILITY and POSSIBILITY can be discussed in contrast with CERTAINTY.

Compare this selection with the contents of the 500 plus paged Ayn Rand Lexicon which covers in exhaustive detail so much of what Ayn Rand said about everything. My list of 101 concepts does not pretend to be the definitive essence of Objectivism. It is merely a descriptive selection. It's a low-resolution picture as opposed to a high resolution picture. It shows the boundaries, the main points, the main shape, form, colour and patterns. But none of the details. And, in a way, isn't that what we need for an introductory course in Objectivism?

We don't want to take intellectual explorers and hammer them with the intricate details of concept formation or advanced epistemology. We want an introductory course. It needs to say to people:

These are some of the boundaries of Objectivism. These are some of the issues Objectivism addresses. This is what Objectivism has to say about this or that. This is the Objectivist worldview and sense of life. This is where we're coming from.

This is what I would want from an intro course. If I want to pursue the subject further I can read Ayn Rand in her own words or I can take an advanced course (which we could develop at a later stage).

One last point. Don't forget that the 101 concept idea is a proposal in abstract -- I haven't decided on this route; I would like your feedback and will consider it very seriously.

Also this is a proposal only for the "meta-content" of the course. Although a mini-book could work with an alphabetical list I would not run a workshop using an alphabetical list of concepts.

Once we can agree on the meta-content we would then brainstorm ideas for how to rearrange, organize and present this content in a way that facilitates learning and has participants coming back for more.

So far, no feedback from Bob. But several people have emailed me directly to offer suggestions and to say that they've read my posts with great interest. Chris Sciabarra and Lindsay Perigo among them. The New Zealanders represent an opportunity. They operate outside the influence of ARI and TOC and they seem to be proactive and progressive down there. They represent another market for our materials outside the US (which may prove the most difficult market to penetrate).

Regards
Barry

"alexander ch. fürstenberg" wrote:

Hi Barry!
How are things going?
Have you already got your response by Bob Bidinotto as promised? Please
keep me informed regarding any progress. If I can help somehow, let me know
it.
Regards,
alexander

#3 (fehlendes Datum)

Objektivismus.de > Kayton

Hello.

> I've done a rough draft of the chart I mentioned in my last post and I'll

> finish that later this evening. Since the chart will change weekly, I

think

> I'll upload the information to a website rather than send a PDF to the

list.

> I'm not sure to what extent the list is useful. I would rather work with

> smaller group of people who are interested and willing to contribute

ideas

> than a larger group with many lurkers.

I agree. When the development gets more concrete, you must protect your

ideas. But I think for brainstorming one can use the list a few more weeks

to get an input as wide as possible.

> I've taken photographs of all the educational materials I've designed and

I'll

> make these available at the same site in due course -- or I'll put them

in a

> PDF and mail them to our smaller group.

I'd prefer to see it on the web, ideally in a password protected area. We

must also think how far the cooperation (if any) will go and how we will

manage the legal stuff. Are there any other interested parties, which

contacted you regarding a possible collaboration?

> 1) I'm considering planning a website called www.objectivistvoices.com

> This site will make available (and/or sell) eBooks relating to

> Objectivism. It will consist of a philosophical section and a

> "rational living" section.

[snip]

> This is not instead of workshop materials but in addition to them.

Good. I don't have any hopes that eBooks will generate any significant

income, but you can try to make them "viral" as some kind of advertising

for other educational products. Some nice ideas are shown in Seth Godin's

book "Unleashing the Idea Virus": http://www.ideavirus.com/

> 2) I had a great idea for an interactive training game that will give

people

> the experience of Objectivist values.

[snip]

> It is this kind of interactive game that could be (but doesn't

necessarily

> have to be) one of the core elements of an interactive workshop.

> For an hour or so, participants would discuss various Objectivist

principles

> (perhaps through case studies). They would then play a round of the game

and

> discover through action and interaction how the theory they have been

> discussing applies in a series of simulated real-life situations.

> Time-permitting (or at the next workshop) they would discuss new

principles

> before playing another, slightly-more complicated round of the game. This

> would continue over a series of workshops. With each playing of the game,

the

> abstract principles discussed would become more and more internalized.

It's amazing that you already have that elaborated ideas. Games are good

for practicing certain cognitive virtues, yes. Why not!

> 3) There is huge potential for mini-books on Objectivism (paperbacks with

less

> than 100 pages). Here are some existing titles. Just substitute

"Objectivism"

> where appropriate:

[snip]

> Why?

> (1) We need to define what "Objectivism" consists of and this is one way

> going about it.

> (2) It will give me an opportunity to try to bring each concept down to

earth

> in no more than 300 words.

> (3) At the end of this process I will have a manuscript of 3300 words (in

the

> form of a mini book of just over 100 pages with 300 words per page). What

> great mini-introduction to Objectivism! I could self-publish it, offer it

> mainstream publishers, to TOC or I could sell it online as an eBook.

Sure! Are you familiar with Gotthelf's "On Ayn Rand"? I think I'll inquire

about getting the foreign rights for it. It's a good introduction, but we

certainly need more entry level books with a focus on self-help. The

problem with the titles you gave me is that they all presume interest in a

certain philosophy (Aristoteliansm), and that making something similar with

Objectivism has IMO not a great chance in winning many readers. It is

better to write new books around certain key values (for example the ones I

listed in one of my postings). When Objectivism becomes something like a

brand, you can use it later more directly in your advertising (as in the

titles you gave me). At this time almost nobody knows and nobody cares what

"Objectivism" is, so using this word prominently might create objections

before we had a chance to explain what it means.

> I have already made a preliminary selection using nothing more than

intuition.

> It was surprisingly easy.

> Please don't be alarmed by this. I usually work this way: take action

based on

> gut feel or fuzzy logic; then tear it to pieces using critical analysis

and

> buckets of logic. In doing so, I will define a set of criteria by which

> choose a new list of 101 concepts. Then I'll apply critical analysis

again and

> interrogate the hell out of my selection as well as the criteria I

defined.

> Then I'll start the process again.

> I suspect some Objectivists would be appalled by this. But I've found

that

> this is the most productive method of working and I believe that many

> productive scientists work in similar ways. So I hope you don't find this

> off-putting.

:) No problem. I'm not some kind of zealous Randian, you know. I'm just "a

fanatical Realist," and as such I care ~only~ about the end results. The

process you described is perfectly natural. (BTW, it reminds me of the

three identification steps in the so called Walt Disney technique in the

field of NLP: "Dreamer," "Critic," and "Realist")

> Another virtue of this approach is that we now have something concrete on

the

> table to discuss. Whereas last week we were discussing abstractions.

> So I've attached my preliminary selection of 101 concepts. Glancing at it

> again I can already see some concepts that demand elimination because

they're

> not fundamental enough or they just seem to stick out. But one of the

> decisions I made is that it would be better to present 101 positive

concepts

> (such as FOCUS) than to include in the 101 negative concepts (such as

> EVASION). This is why I have indicated in brackets after the word FOCUS,

the

> word EVASION. That indicates that EVASION would be dealt with there as

the

> opposite of FOCUS. Similarly, CERTAINTY is a key concept while

PROBABILITY and

> POSSIBILITY can be discussed in contrast with CERTAINTY.

I'm for dichotomizing values/virtues to get a increased clarity what the

topics are about. You should try to split your list in negatives and

positives with the help of a dictionary of antonyms.

> Compare this selection with the contents of the 500 plus paged Ayn Rand

> Lexicon which covers in exhaustive detail so much of what Ayn Rand said

about

> everything. My list of 101 concepts does not pretend to be the

definitive

> essence of Objectivism. It is merely a descriptive selection. It's a

> low-resolution picture as opposed to a high resolution picture. It shows

the

> boundaries, the main points, the main shape, form, colour and patterns.

But

> none of the details. And, in a way, isn't that what we need for an

> introductory course in Objectivism?

Well, I'd rather call it "appetizer" than "introductory course," for a

introductory course has to be as systematical as the whole philosophy

itself. That's why I'm somewhat reluctant to even begin with creating such

a thing, since first some essential problems must be solved in

Objectivism... and especially in ethics! As glad as I am to see your

enthusiasm, IMO we need first a comprehensive textbook. (Remember my

comment on "concentrats"?)

> One last point. Don't forget that the 101 concept idea is a proposal in

> abstract -- I haven't decided on this route; I would like your feedback

and

> will consider it very seriously.

Fine. I find it very important to have definitions for every key concept,

before starting to work on other things. Regarding a dichotomization via

antonyms, see the response above.

> Also this is a proposal only for the "meta-content" of the course.

Although a

> mini-book could work with an alphabetical list I would not run a workshop

> using an alphabetical list of concepts.

> Once we can agree on the meta-content we would then brainstorm ideas for

how

> to rearrange, organize and present this content in a way that facilitates

> learning and has participants coming back for more.

Okay.

> So far, no feedback from Bob. But several people have emailed me directly

> offer suggestions and to say that they've read my posts with great

interest.

> Chris Sciabarra and Lindsay Perigo among them. The New Zealanders

represent an

> opportunity. They operate outside the influence of ARI and TOC and they

seem

> to be proactive and progressive down there. They represent another market

for

> our materials outside the US (which may prove the most difficult market

> penetrate).

Yes, I already noticed the unique situation in New Zealand. They are not as

feeble as typical TOCers and not as pigheaded as the ARIans usually are.

Seems to be the right attitude to me. With this kind of people I'd like to

work together as an Objectivist. Well, the only problem is that they are on

the other side of the globe...

As I already said, you amaze me with the scope of the ideas you have, and

I'm happy to see that you're not only creative, but that you already have

the skills that are required in this market to realize them. Let's see what

we can achieve together.

Regards,

alexander

PS: I've just put a English language version of my web site on-line. Do you

know anyone who might be interested in helping to edit it? (I'm afraid it's

not acceptable at this time.)

#4 (09.08.01)

Kayton > Objektivismus.de

Hi Alexander

How do you like "Project Prometheus" for a working title?

But I think for brainstorming one can use the list a few more weeks to get an input as wide as possible.

I agree. And I think we can post updates to the Outreach group at wetheliving and ask for comments at any point.

We must also think how far the cooperation (if any) will go and how we will manage the legal stuff.

Possible forms of co-operation:

1) Financial co-operation

Should TOC offer to assist me financially, it would raise the question: who owns the copyright on the intellectual property? I would not be willing to relinquish copyright and I would be reluctant even to share it. What I would offer TOC is a licensing agreement. As far as the legal side goes, I would hire a lawyer to sort that out.
But I don't think TOC will offer financial assistance. The internet brings people closer only in a superficial way. I'm sure a face-to-face meeting and some intellectual co-operation would be necessary before they would be willing to invest in our project.

2) Intellectual co-operation

This is what we're engaged in at the moment. Suggestion. Analysis. Criticism. Counter-proposals. Etc. Again, I would like to retain the copyright on finished materials. And I would offer you an exclusive licensing agreement for Germany. You would own the copyright to the German translation. We would have to work out the finer details with a binding contract for which a lawyer would be useful.

3) Creative co-operation

There's a fine line between "intellectual" co-operation and "creative" co-operation. But the distinction needs to be drawn because it is really my creative input that I want protected by copyright.

Are there any other interested parties, which contacted you regarding a possible collaboration?

Only one person has indicated his eagerness to be involved at some point in the future. Unfortunately his work schedule makes it impossible for him to be involved now beyond following our progress and making a comment here and there. As I said, three or four people have expressed interest in what I've written in my posts.

Sure! Are you familiar with Gotthelf's "On Ayn Rand"? I think I'll inquire
about getting the foreign rights for it. It's a good introduction, but we
certainly need more entry level books with a focus on self-help.

I've read about "On AR" but will need to order a copy from the US.

The problem with the titles you gave me is that they all presume interest in a
certain philosophy (Aristoteliansm), and that making something similar with
Objectivism has IMO not a great chance in winning many readers.

Agreed. They would probably sit on the shelves of book stores here. However, an entry-level book with "Ayn Rand" in the title has a better chance of selling. I've found one UK publisher to which I'm definitely going to submit a proposal. They publish 96 page paperbacks and there's a good chance I can get published through them. Getting a book published is an important goal for me even if it is only a small book with a small print run.

It is better to write new books around certain key values (for example the ones I
listed in one of my postings).

I agree. But the depth of intellectual work required and the time needed are much greater. Also, finding a publisher for a book on a narrower subject seems to be somewhat more difficult. On the other hand, if it's well written and well-targeted that makes all the difference, doesn't it.

:) No problem. I'm not some kind of zealous Randian, you know.

Thank Galt!

I'm for dichotomizing values/virtues to get a increased clarity what the
topics are about. You should try to split your list in negatives and
positives with the help of a dictionary of antonyms.

Good suggestion. I'll get to this over the weekend.

Well, I'd rather call it "appetizer" than "introductory course," for a
introductory course has to be as systematical as the whole philosophy
itself.

It depends on the kind of people you're targeting, doesn't it? There are two broad groups of people who might be attracted by workshops:

1) People searching for "meaning" and sensing that a rational, benevolent world view is the answer.

2) People already knowing that a rational, benevolent world view is the answer and wanting to find out more.

The needs of these two groups are very different. The first group needs the "appetizer" workshop. The second group needs the systematic introductory course. What do you think?

That's why I'm somewhat reluctant to even begin with creating such
a thing, since first some essential problems must be solved in
Objectivism... and especially in ethics! As glad as I am to see your
enthusiasm, IMO we need first a comprehensive textbook. (Remember my
comment on "concentrate"?)

I understand your point of view, but how serious are the problems you've identified? And what sort of time frame do you think would be needed to solve these problems? And what kind of intellectual input? Are these problems challenges that anyone can solve if they put their mind to it? Or is a logician like David Kelley needed?

Analogy....

Objectivism is a formula one racing car. It's a tool for getting you round the grand prix circuit of life. Do we stay in the pits and try to make the car perfect? Or, like Michael Schumacher, do we get behind the wheel and race; return to the pits and improve the car; then get behind the wheel and race again?
The people at ARI leave the car parked in a showroom. No-one is allowed to touch it. It's still exactly the way it was the day its designer passed away.
The people at TOC occasionally take it out for a spin but most of the time they spend looking at one component or another. (But perhaps David Kelley's "The Logical Structure of Objectivism" will surprise us. Let's see.)
Has Objectivism ever been scientifically "field-tested"? In the days of NBI, Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden preached. People asked questions and AR and NB gave answers. But I don't think they went back to the drawing board and said, "Maybe we're over-emphasizing this or under-valuing that element of the philosophy". There was not enough real engagement with how people applied the philosophy.
What I want to do is put our Ferrari on the track and start racing. And if we have "reliability problems" then we must go back to the pits and fix them.
I find it very important to have definitions for every key concept,
before starting to work on other things.

There are a many things we can do with the "meta-content":

1) Define each concept
2) Position each concept in a hierarchy
3) Indicate how each concept is linked to the others
4) Describe the scope and range of each concept
5) Describe the benefits of each concept
6) Describe the role the concept plays in a person's life (e.g. through a case study)
7) Describe the "flavour" and "feel" of each concept (e.g. what is the "flavour" and "feel" of "Existence exists"?)

The continuum from 1 to 7 above, is a progression from abstract knowledge to concrete description to emotional description. Each of these has a valuable role to play depending on the context. One of the things that makes AR amazing is that she was comfortable on all these levels. Her non-fiction books were both theoretical and emotional (except ITOE). And her fiction was powerfully emotional -- because she was able to express 4, 5, 6 and 7 based on her intuitive understanding of 1, 2 and 3.

Let's see what we can achieve together.

Yes. I'm very pleased with the progress we're making, as slow as it is. Once I am able to work on this project full-time I hope we'll see some fireworks!

Regards
Barry

#5 (fehlendes Datum)

Objektivismus.de > Kayton

> How do you like "Project Prometheus" for a working title?

Well, it's mythological and its message is somewhat ambivalent. Isn't that

the guy who wanted to fly (know) and get burned for it!? Like Eve in the

Garden Eden, or Lucifer who was kicked out of Heaven for his inquiring

intellect? The message is that you will suffer for trying to be

independent, but for a working title (if you need any), yes, why not.

> Possible forms of co-operation:

> 1) Financial co-operation

> Should TOC offer to assist me financially, it would raise the

> question: who owns the copyright on the intellectual property? I

> would not be willing to relinquish copyright and I would be

> reluctant even to share it. What I would offer TOC is a licensing

> agreement.

When somebody invests in something, he usually wants some form of interest.

I'd be prepared to explain potential investors what you can offer (in

material or immaterial values) in return.

> But I don't think TOC will offer financial assistance.

Sad but probably true. (In contrast, the ARI probably could, but surely

won't.)

> 2) Intellectual co-operation

> This is what we're engaged in at the moment. Suggestion. Analysis.

> Criticism. Counter-proposals. Etc. Again, I would like to retain the

> copyright on finished materials. And I would offer you an exclusive

> licensing agreement for Germany. You would own the copyright to the

> German translation. We would have to work out the finer details with

> a binding contract for which a lawyer would be useful.

What do you suggest? Giving me the German language licenses free in return

for an intellectual cooperation? Please explain what you have in mind. BTW,

I share your goal of building "intellectual capital" on my own, to have

100% control over its contents. This is a very important point for me.

> 3) Creative co-operation

> There's a fine line between "intellectual" co-operation and

> "creative" co-operation. But the distinction needs to be drawn

> because it is really my creative input that I want protected by

> copyright.

I admit that I don't understand where you see the distinction between the

two, and how you think just the creative part can be protected aside from

the "intellectual" part.

> Only one person has indicated his eagerness to be involved at some point

> the future.

May I know who he is (where he comes from, etc.)?

> I've read about "On AR" but will need to order a copy from the US.

It's very short, concise, and a very good introduction to the orthodoxy on

top of that. If you decide to write one of your own, you will have to

compete with this edition.

> Agreed. They would probably sit on the shelves of book stores here.

However,

> an entry-level book with "Ayn Rand" in the title has a better chance of

> selling. I've found one UK publisher to which I'm definitely going to

submit a

> proposal. They publish 96 page paperbacks and there's a good chance I can

get

> published through them. Getting a book published is an important goal for

> even if it is only a small book with a small print run.

As I said, there is already an English language introductory book with that

length (less then 100 pages). I suggest that you concentrate on something

more "practical," or that you choose an entirely new approach in presenting

the traditional system.

> > It is better to write new books around certain key values (for example

the

> > ones I

> > listed in one of my postings).

> I agree. But the depth of intellectual work required and the time needed

are

> much greater. Also, finding a publisher for a book on a narrower subject

seems

> to be somewhat more difficult.

It don't necessary has to be split up in different books. Take the "Six

Pillars of Self-Esteem" as an example: it covers all virtues required for

self-esteem according to NB, but for one of them (responsibility) a

separate book was devoted. One could use a similar approach if there's not

enough material for separate books in the beginning.

> It depends on the kind of people you're targeting, doesn't it? There are

two

> broad groups of people who might be attracted by workshops:

> 1) People searching for "meaning" and sensing that a rational, benevolent

> world view is the answer.

> 2) People already knowing that a rational, benevolent world view is the

answer

> and wanting to find out more.

> The needs of these two groups are very different. The first group needs

the

> "appetizer" workshop. The second group needs the systematic introductory

> course. What do you think?

I don't think that it makes that big a difference. The difference consists

only in that for one group you have to sell the need first, while you can

presume it for the other. However, the presentation of the philosophy

itself is the same for both groups, and one has to go through the need-part

out of formal reasons anyway. That's why I still think that we need a

comprehensive presentation first.

> I understand your point of view, but how serious are the problems you've

> identified? And what sort of time frame do you think would be needed to

solve

> these problems? And what kind of intellectual input? Are these problems

> challenges that anyone can solve if they put their mind to it? Or is a

> logician like David Kelley needed?

The problems are well known and I think I have a pretty good solution for

them in mind. But that would dramatically change some of the traditional

doctrines of Objectivism. So, yes, they can be solved, but not without

ruthlessly killing some key doctrines that Objectivism is usually

identified with.

While with my commitment to the (ontological and epistemological) essence

of Objectivism (and my lack of emotional investmnent) I have no serious

problems accepting the truth as it is, it may be far more problematic for

people like Kelley, who spend YEARS in the Objectivist milieu preaching

them ad nauseum.

He is intellectually certainly suited to see what must be done, but whether

he has the willpower and the courage to force his mind in an unfamiliar,

perhaps even frightening direction, I really, really doubt. Perhaps I'm

wrong and the doctrines in question ~can~ be preserved (what I honestly

can't believe), and he ~will~ show us the light. But I had to see first

what's in LSO to make a judgment whether my objections are answered

rationally, so that I can accept them.

The answers to this questions would have far-reaching consequences for the

movement that I would in no way underestimate, and they would make

Objectivism a whole new thing. My direction is clear: either LSO will solve

the "perennial questions" and I will devote as much energy to spreading it

as I can, or it won't, and I will be forced to develop a alternative on my

own, perhaps with a new (trademarked?) name to distinguish it from the

traditionalists.

That's why I'm reluctant rushing into activities for something I'm not sure

is the right thing. I want the crucial questions in theory solved FIRST. We

are in the certainty-business, we are not doubt-promoters. There is already

enough chaos, irrationality, and ambiguity in the world, I don't want to

add any more of it to the life of the people. My ideal is science, and

scientifically I want my philosophy to be.

> Analogy....

[snip]

> What I want to do is put our Ferrari on the track and start racing.

> And if we have "reliability problems" then we must go back to the

> pits and fix them.

Very nice analogy, and I certainly see the need for constant improvement

and (Kiazen-like) refinement. And since I already see grave contradictions,

the first round can be begun as a fresh start. Why even start preaching

something, you not only have serious doubts about it, but where it will

create a ~tremendous~ amount of trouble pulling the whole thing in a new

direction that you ~already now~ see must be headed towards? Think of all

the books that must be revised, all the courses that must be rewritten, and

all the people that you have to shock with the new identifications that

will have very fundamental implications for their whole philosophy of life

and their practice of living. I'm not willing to risk the necessity to go

through all the trouble, when I see the possibility to spare it.

> There are a many things we can do with the "meta-content":

> 1) Define each concept

> 2) Position each concept in a hierarchy

> 3) Indicate how each concept is linked to the others

> 4) Describe the scope and range of each concept

> 5) Describe the benefits of each concept

> 6) Describe the role the concept plays in a person's life (e.g. through a

case

> study)

> 7) Describe the "flavour" and "feel" of each concept (e.g. what is the

> "flavour" and "feel" of "Existence exists"?)

> The continuum from 1 to 7 above, is a progression from abstract knowledge

> concrete description to emotional description. Each of these has a

valuable

> role to play depending on the context. One of the things that makes AR

amazing

> is that she was comfortable on all these levels. Her non-fiction books

were

> both theoretical and emotional (except ITOE). And her fiction was

powerfully

> emotional -- because she was able to express 4, 5, 6 and 7 based on her

> intuitive understanding of 1, 2 and 3.

Good. Just consider that the nature and the relation of points 1 and 2 to

each other is circular. In identifying them, you will have to go through a

number of loops (where, of course, empirical data has to have the last

word).

BTW, I already begun last year with the developement of a 100+ page

glossary that I'm now reminded must be finished. I think I'll take up the

work again in the following weeks.

> Yes. I'm very pleased with the progress we're making, as slow as it is.

Once I

> am able to work on this project full-time I hope we'll see some

fireworks!

Great! I'm really keen to see where all that will lead us.

Regards,

alexander

#6 (10.08.01)

Kayton > Objektivismus.de

Hi Alexander

That might be the right opportunity to ask you for the amount of training
in, or your expertise on Objectivism.

I discovered O'ism when I was 18. I'm turning 30 this week. So I've been reading and thinking about, living and breathing this philosophy for 12 years.

Formal training in O'ism: none.

Formal training in philosophy: one semester at university.

Reading:

virtually everything Ayn Rand wrote (including Art of Fiction and Art of Non-Fiction)
virtually everything Branden
Peikoff's "Ominous Parallels" and OPAR and "The Art of Thinking" taped course
David Kelley's "Evidence of the Seasons" and "The Art of Reasoning" and "Truth and Toleration" and "Unrugged Individualism";
Chris Sciabarra's "AR: The Russian Radical";
Tibor Machan's "Ayn Rand";
Ron Merrill's "Ideas of AR";
Den Uyl and Rasmussen's "Philosophical thought of AR";
George Smith's "Atheism"; "Atheism, AR and Other Heresies" and "Why Atheism"
Aristotle's Ethics, On Rhetoric, Poetics, On the Soul and parts of the Metaphysics
Virtually all of Nietzsche's published works.

Life experience in which I've tried to apply O'ist principles:

Trained hundreds of facilitators throughout South Africa and Namibia
Developed books and games for children
Developed interactive courses for adults
Worked on ships and lived with people from around the world -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for three years. The range of serious problems between ship staff that arise when there's "no escape" is staggering. And the power of O'ism and "Biocentric" psychology to make sense of these problems and offer guidance is impressive.

I've said "I would like this project to be my project". You've asked, "for what reasons"?

At present I have a "work for hire" agreement with my colleagues: I produce intellectual property; they pay me per product, they own the copyright and I get no royalties. This leaves me feeling like I've sold my children. There's so much more I could do with all the material I've developed but it's no longer mine. I don't want to work in this way anymore.

[snip]

When I choose to promote something like that for a living, I need to have a certain amount of control over the contents, because the whole operation requires a highly personal involvement and a corresponding commitment to the teachings. I feel that only full agreement with the teachings will give me the adequate energy to conquer the initial difficulties that are unavoidable and to lead the whole project to a shining success. Have you any suggestions how to solve that problem?

This is a formidable challenge. While I've said that I'm open to an experimental approach, I also have strong feelings about content and method. I too would instantly lose interest in this project if I felt we were heading in a direction that veers away from what's right.

However, apart from our shared concerns for integrity, I believe a give-and-take working relationship is possible. In my own experience, I work for a week or two at a time and then I present my work to my two colleagues who highlight flaws and offer suggestions. This works very well.

If we were to move forward, we could take a similar approach but with shorter gaps between exchanges.

If you are familiar with OPAR (as I hope you are), you will immediately see where the contradictions are comparing to standard O'ist doctrine. Here it is:
http://www.planet-fountainhead.com/00-Nietzschean-Halls.htm.

This has raised a lot of issues that I need to digest which will take some time.

You said you admire my integrity, so you will surely understand
that I can't teach or promote anything where I have fundamental doubts.
Just thinking about it makes me sick.

Expressed in this way, I get the impression you would not be comfortable with a product that deviates in the slightest degree from what you want. That's great. But it makes collaboration impossible.

No. Perhaps that's unfair of me. When you use the word "fundamental" do you mean that you would want to approve the "meta-content" and "architecture" (how everything fits together) -- or would you want to approve every element right down to the last comma?

If you want to maintain that level of control then I doubt we will be able to agree on the specific "teachings" or "doctrine". You may want to emphasize one principle over another whereas I may want the opposite. This would make in-depth collaboration possible.

However, this raises two options:

1) We could collaborate in a "superficial" way by simply sharing our ideas like this...

This week I've been working on... The materials now have the following structure.... The reason I've taken this approach is that it seems that I need... Participants use the materials in the following way....
While you may strongly disagree with my approach, my ideas would open your mind to new possibilities for your own materials -- and your criticisms would help me to rethink my assumptions and encourage me to address the issues you raise.
In this scenario, I would receive your advice to create materials for my own use and, in return, you would benefit from access to my developmental process and my ideas. But you would probably not want to use the finished materials.

2) We could collaborate in-depth on materials that guide participants to navigate through a series of issues that challenge them to identify philosophical principles for themselves....

Suppose you have ten participants at a workshop. Instead of the materials saying, "O'ism says X, Y and Z about issue PQR" the materials would instead say something like,

The issue we're dealing with now is PQR.
One way of looking at PQR is X. Here's an example...
Another way of looking at PQR is Y. Here's an example...
A third way of looking at PQR is Z. Here's an example...
Which way seems to be the best way and why? Discuss
Apply the 7 step O'ist method you discovered in the first session to the issue PQR. What conclusions do you draw and why?
Apply the check-your-premises technique to interrogate your conclusions.
Apply Rand's Razor or Occam's Razor etc.
Look for the following fallacies in your thinking...

In this scenario, we would need to agree only on the issues (meta-content) we want to deal with, what sub-issues we want to address (a second level of meta-content) and how we want participants to discover, approach and interact with these issues (meta-method).
The strength of this approach is that it presents Objectivist methods of thinking rather than Objectivist doctrine (which pre-empts the development of dogma both amongst ourselves and amongst participants).
If you are beginning to see the value of this scenario then what I said in my last post regarding copyright would apply here. I would hold the copyright. You would have free use of the content in Germany.

Let me explain it in this way: I have certain criteria that must be met by a statement to qualify as
"likely true."
1. no contradictions to empirical facts
2. no logical contradictions
3. systemic coherence
4. usefulness
Empirical validation (5) would qualify the statement as "absolutely
certain." In traditional Objectivism (the Orthodoxy and neo-Objectivism
alike) I see in certain areas violations of criteria 1 and 2.

This makes perfect sense. While many of AR's derivative conclusions violate criteria 1 and 2, I am comfortable with the fundamentals... I am satisfied that O'ism makes sense as is.

Once I've had an opportunity to digest the issues at your site, I may understand where you see more fundamental problems. But, right now, O'ism seems okay to me.

To what extent is this a matter of depth of thinking on the one hand versus fundamental errors on the other?

The more in-depth our thinking, the more philosophical we get and, paradoxically, the further away from reality we begin to move. (Contemporary philosophy delves so deeply in technical issues that reality seldom features.)

Consider, for example, the arguments between "flourishes" and "survivalists". I can understand why the debate is important. It may be that the "survivalist" interpretation of O'ist ethics is fundamentally flawed. Or the opposite. So either way, it's important for O'ist philosophers to get to grips with this problem and try to find new ways to resolve the issue. But that's a job for philosophers -- not for me.

I don't believe this debate has to be solved before creating new materials. This debate is part of O'ism and should be presented in the materials.

And I don't believe that what you decide for yourself on this issue has much bearing on your own life. Either way, you should be investing your limited time on earth pursuing your own personal values. Whether you decide to regard this as leading to survival or to flourishing is surely beside the point?

If my workshops raise this issue and let participants argue with one-another then decide for themselves, I'll be happy at the very least to have introduced them to the right debate!

Regards
Barry

#7 (fehlendes Datum)

Objektivismus.de > Kayton

> I discovered O'ism when I was 18. I'm turning 30 this week. So I've been

> reading and thinking about, living and breathing this philosophy for 12

years.

> Formal training in O'ism: none.

> Formal training in philosophy: one semester at university.

> Reading: [snip]

Very good, that is more then I expected. Seems to be a solid starting point

for building something on it.

> Worked on ships and lived with people from around the world -- 24

> hours a day, 7 days a week for three years. The range of serious

> problems between ship staff that arise when there's "no escape" is

> staggering. And the power of O'ism and "Biocentric" psychology to

> make sense of these problems and offer guidance is impressive.

That makes me curious: On what kind of ships do you lived and for what

reason? Had you specific jobs there? On what opportunities do you have used

"Biocentric" psychology, and in what way? I'd like to hear some examples of

your experiences.

> I've said "I would like this project to be my project". You've asked,

"for

> what reasons"?

> At present I have a "work for hire" agreement with my colleagues: I

produce

> intellectual property; they pay me per product, they own the copyright

and I

> get no royalties. This leaves me feeling like I've sold my children.

There's

> so much more I could do with all the material I've developed but it's no

> longer mine. I don't want to work in this way anymore.

May I ask what you mean by doing "so much more with all the material"? I

must admit that I have no idea what you may want to do, and how exactly you

were hindered by somebody else owning the copyrights.

> > When I choose to promote something like that for a living, I need to

have a

> > certain amount of control over the contents, because the whole

operation

> > requires a highly personal involvement and a corresponding commitment

to the

> > teachings. I feel that only full agreement with the teachings will give

> > the adequate energy to conquer the initial difficulties that are

unavoidable

> > and to lead the whole project to a shining success. Have you any

suggestions

> > how to solve that problem?

> This is a formidable challenge. While I've said that I'm open to an

> experimental approach, I also have strong feelings about content and

method. I

> too would instantly lose interest in this project if I felt we were

heading in

> a direction that veers away from what's right.

> However, apart from our shared concerns for integrity, I believe a

> give-and-take working relationship is possible. In my own experience, I

work

> for a week or two at a time and then I present my work to my two

colleagues

> who highlight flaws and offer suggestions. This works very well.

> If we were to move forward, we could take a similar approach but with

shorter

> gaps between exchanges.

Agreed.

> > You said you admire my integrity, so you will surely understand

> > that I can't teach or promote anything where I have fundamental doubts.

> > Just thinking about it makes me sick.

> Expressed in this way, I get the impression you would not be comfortable

with

> a product that deviates in the slightest degree from what you want.

That's

> great. But it makes collaboration impossible.

I see.

> No. Perhaps that's unfair of me. When you use the word "fundamental" do

you

> mean that you would want to approve the "meta-content" and "architecture"

(how

> everything fits together) -- or would you want to approve every element

right

> down to the last comma?

Not literally "down to the last comma," no. With "fundamental doubts", I

meant some core beliefs in Objectivism (see the link I gave you for

details). Of course, the "architecture" of the whole philosophy is very

important to me, but I also want to see and approve what is in between the

pillars. Hey, I think we are using too many metaphors here that might be

misleading. Let's stop that!

> If you want to maintain that level of control then I doubt we will be

able to

> agree on the specific "teachings" or "doctrine". You may want to

emphasize one

> principle over another whereas I may want the opposite. This would make

> in-depth collaboration possible.

> However, this raises two options:

> 1) We could collaborate in a "superficial" way by simply sharing our

ideas

> like this...

> This week I've been working on... The materials now have the

> following structure.... The reason I've taken this approach is that

> it seems that I need... Participants use the materials in the

> following way....

> While you may strongly disagree with my approach, my ideas would

> open your mind to new possibilities for your own materials -- and

> your criticisms would help me to rethink my assumptions and

> encourage me to address the issues you raise.

> In this scenario, I would receive your advice to create materials

> for my own use and, in return, you would benefit from access to my

> developmental process and my ideas. But you would probably not want

> to use the finished materials.

> 2) We could collaborate in-depth on materials that guide participants to

> navigate through a series of issues that challenge them to identify

> philosophical principles for themselves....

> Suppose you have ten participants at a workshop. Instead of the

> materials saying, "O'ism says X, Y and Z about issue PQR" the

> materials would instead say something like,

[snip]

> In this scenario, we would need to agree only on the issues

> (meta-content) we want to deal with, what sub-issues we want to

> address (a second level of meta-content) and how we want

> participants to discover, approach and interact with these issues

> (meta-method).

> The strength of this approach is that it presents Objectivist

> methods of thinking rather than Objectivist doctrine (which

> pre-empts the development of dogma both amongst ourselves and

> amongst participants).

> If you are beginning to see the value of this scenario then what I

> said in my last post regarding copyright would apply here. I would

> hold the copyright. You would have free use of the content in

> Germany.

Okay Barry, I see that you are at least familiar with the standard material

to be sufficiently qualified to do the job, obviously, you have excellent

language skills, and you have experience in the business of adult

education. So you might be the right person to get the things done that

both of our institutes seem to be incapable or unwilling to do. Of course,

option 2 looks more attractive to me. But especially one of the concerns I

have, worries me the most:

Suppose we create together materials where, for example, 40-50% are based

on my contributions. Now I'm happy to use the material in the German

speaking countries as agreed upon, but I will discover pretty soon (and all

this is purely hypothetically) that there are far better ways to present

the material, or that the content must be altered in some way. In this

situation, I would be pretty frustrated not being able to make the

necessary changes. I would be ~entirely dependent~ on your approval.

In the case you declined the changes, I could only choose not to use the

material, what would lead to the necessity, to create some of my own.

(Probably sooner or later I will do that anyway.) Now you could come and

start making trouble about me using my own contributions, or accusing me of

plagiarizing. You must understand that I do not want to come in such a

situation where you will intimidate me, and I am sure you would not like

that either in my position. Barry, do you have an idea how our agreement

has to be phrased to avoid this kind of nasty scenario?? Frankly, I don't!

> To what extent is this a matter of depth of thinking on the one hand

versus

> fundamental errors on the other?

> The more in-depth our thinking, the more philosophical we get and,

> paradoxically, the further away from reality we begin to move.

(Contemporary

> philosophy delves so deeply in technical issues that reality seldom

features.)

I disagree with this view. While very technical material is of no great

usability in "real life," it is the justification for all derived positions

that do matter. Reality is a totality with total interdependence of

absolutely all parts and all sub-systems, and an objective philosophy must

mirror this fact. So I in principle want my philosophy to be very, very

"deep" and as technical as it is necessary, but that doesn't mean that this

is the part that should be advertised or that should be commercially

imparted (it wouldn't work anyway). With deep thought we are coming closer

to reality, not further away!

> Consider, for example, the arguments between "flourishes" and

"survivalists".

> I can understand why the debate is important. It may be that the

"survivalist"

> interpretation of O'ist ethics is fundamentally flawed. Or the opposite.

> either way, it's important for O'ist philosophers to get to grips with

this

> problem and try to find new ways to resolve the issue. But that's a job

for

> philosophers -- not for me.

Maybe. But what definitely your job is, is to decide what will be in your

materials, and what not. It will give your materials an entirely different

content when you use "survival" instead of "flourishing" as ultimate value.

This is a very, very fundamental identification in ethics! You should in no

way underestimate the implications that are the inevitable consequence of

choosing one fundamental principle over another! And, in a certain way,

philosophy is ~all~ about fundamental principles... with wide-reaching

implications for almost everything.

> I don't believe this debate has to be solved before creating new

materials.

> This debate is part of O'ism and should be presented in the materials.

The debate itself should be presented in the materials?? That depends on

the target group of the materials, I'd say. Don't we talk primarily about

self-help materials? You are definitively overrating the abilities and the

willingness of the average reader of self-help books to follow such

discussions. What readers of such materials want, are solutions, not

problems. They expect from you to simplify their lives, they don't expect

you to complicate it (they are confused enough anyway).

> If my workshops raise this issue and let participants argue with

one-another

> then decide for themselves, I'll be happy at the very least to have

introduced

> them to the right debate!

If the workshop you are talking about is a philosophy workshop, I agree

with you. But you can't do that with self-help workshops (where the real

potential is).

Regards

alexander

#8 (10.08.01)

Kayton > Objektivismus.de

Hi Alexander

That makes me curious: On what kind of ships do you lived and for what
reason? Had you specific jobs there? On what opportunities do you have used
"Biocentric" psychology, and in what way? I'd like to hear some examples of
your experiences.

I worked on passenger cruise ships, first as a photographer then as the manager of a team of photographers. Over three years I worked on eight different ships and sailed between Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Greece, Jordan, Seychelles, Mauritius, Reunion, Madagascar, Kenya, Tanzania, Zanzibar and South Africa.

I don't have enough time now to write too much about my experiences. Branden's techniques were useful in conflict resolution, in managing stress and in managing relationships.

May I ask what you mean by doing "so much more with all the material"? I
must admit that I have no idea what you may want to do, and how exactly you
were hindered by somebody else owning the copyrights.

I've created a range of fictional characters and written a story book for kids. These are now owned by my colleagues and used only in one educational course. If I owned the copyright I would write more story books using these characters and I would try to get them published to reach a wider readership.

[snip]

Suppose we create together materials where, for example, 40-50% are based
on my contributions. Now I'm happy to use the material in the German
speaking countries as agreed upon, but I will discover pretty soon (and all
this is purely hypothetically) that there are far better ways to present
the material, or that the content must be altered in some way. In this
situation, I would be pretty frustrated not being able to make the
necessary changes. I would be ~entirely dependent~ on your approval.

Yes. I see your point. What I really want is not simply "copyright". I want the right to do whatever I want with the materials -- at the end of our collaboration.

[snip]

Now you could come and start making trouble about me using my own contributions, or accusing me of
plagiarizing.

And it seems as if you also want this right.

In fact, the reason we're discussing the issue of copyright is not simply because of the potential for financial gain. I think we share the same concern: what if, at the end of our collaboration, you lay claim to my work (or I lay claim to yours)? We both want a guarantee of independence and protection against hostile action.

Barry, do you have an idea how our agreement has to be phrased to avoid this kind of nasty scenario?? Frankly, I don't!

What we need is an agreement which says (in plain English):

1) We acknowledge that we're collaborating as equals in the development process

2) We will have equal right to use independently the intellectual property jointly developed

3) We each waive all claim to the other's financial gains based on material jointly developed

4) We each waive all claim to the intellectual property subsequently developed by the other party

Each of these points can be further elaborated to describe the boundaries of the agreement. Do these four points address your concerns? What can be added?

An agreement like this would be valuable whether we choose to collaborate in-depth or only superficially.

Of course, the tricky aspect is making it legally tenable without incurring unnecessary and burdensome legal fees.

But there must be standards for an agreement like this because our situation is by no means unique. I will discuss this with my colleagues on Tuesday and I'm sure they will be able to suggest a form of agreement.

[snip]

While very technical material is of no great usability in "real life," it is the justification for all derived positions that do matter.

Yes. I agree.

Reality is a totality with total interdependence of absolutely all parts and all sub-systems, and an objective philosophy must mirror this fact. So I in principle want my philosophy to be very, very "deep" and as technical as it is necessary, but that doesn't mean that this is the part that should be advertised or that should be commercially imparted (it wouldn't work anyway). With deep thought we are coming closer to reality, not further away!

Again I agree. (But much modern, non-O'ist philosophy doesn't grapple with reality at all.)

Here you make the distinction between meta-content and presented-content -- whereas when I wrote about technical distinctions I was thinking only about the presented content. I failed to make this clear (to myself and to you). These four words are vital in drawing distinctions in a development context: content, form, method and process. Confusing them invariably leads to a break-down in thought and communication.

[snip]

It will give your materials an entirely different content when you use "survival" instead of "flourishing" as ultimate value. [snip]

Yes, you are right. To me, the "survivalist" position makes more sense (in terms of logical, conceptual hierarchy). But in terms of self-motivation, the "flourishing" position makes more sense (and I use it intuitively when choosing goals).

Admittedly, I have not given this issue as much attention as it deserves. Where do you stand and why?

Don't we talk primarily about self-help materials?

Yes. I had dropped the context! Sorry.

What readers of such materials want, are solutions, not problems. They expect from you to simplify their lives, they don't expect you to complicate it (they are confused enough anyway).

You are definitely right.

I must say that I appreciate these exchanges. As I am eager to get things done my mind races towards different forms, methods, and processes. So it is valuable to bounce ideas off someone such as yourself whose primary concern is the integrity of the content.

Regards
Barry

I am now going to turn to the chart I mentioned earlier in the week and see if I can finish it. I'll send it along tomorrow. Don't expect too much. It's simply a summary of some of the issues we've discussed and some of the options we've considered. As our development process progresses we'll eliminate options and make definite choices.

#9 (fehlendes Datum)

Objektivismus.de > Kayton

> I don't have enough time now to write too much about my experiences.

Branden's

> techniques were useful in conflict resolution, in managing stress and in

> managing relationships.

That is very interesting. Since we are talking about self-help, I see the

opportunity to profit from your experiences. Very interesting indeed --

conflict resolution, managing stress and managing relationships. These are

some good skills you acquired that you definitively should write about. I'm

already very eager to read what you have to say.

> I've created a range of fictional characters and written a story book for

> kids. These are now owned by my colleagues and used only in one

educational

> course. If I owned the copyright I would write more story books using

these

> characters and I would try to get them published to reach a wider

readership.

I see. How does this apply to our situation? Do we have something that (in

a legal context) equals the usage of fictional characters? Please help me

to understand that issue, for I'm inexperienced in legal matters.

> > Suppose we create together materials where, for example, 40-50% are

based

> > on my contributions. Now I'm happy to use the material in the German

> > speaking countries as agreed upon, but I will discover pretty soon (and

all

> > this is purely hypothetically) that there are far better ways to

present

> > the material, or that the content must be altered in some way. In this

> > situation, I would be pretty frustrated not being able to make the

> > necessary changes. I would be ~entirely dependent~ on your approval.

> Yes. I see your point. What I really want is not simply "copyright". I

want

> the right to do whatever I want with the materials -- at the end of our

> collaboration.

Why are you emphasizing "at the end of our collaboration"? When do you

consider ending it? We may have different ideas about how long that period

will really last and how it is defined.

> > Now you could come and start making trouble about me using my own

> > contributions, or accusing me of

> > plagiarizing.

> And it seems as if you also want this right.

You mean with "this right" the "right to do whatever I want with the

materials"? I'm sorry that I have to ask, but it could be misunderstood in

that way, that you are in reality referring to the last paragraph (making

trouble, etc.). Let me assure you, that there is no need for you to be

frightened of me.

> In fact, the reason we're discussing the issue of copyright is not simply

> because of the potential for financial gain. I think we share the same

> concern: what if, at the end of our collaboration, you lay claim to my

work

> (or I lay claim to yours)? We both want a guarantee of independence and

> protection against hostile action.

Absolutely. I'm not claiming privileges, but mutual rights and legal

protection for both of us. I have a few good ideas in mind, but I don't

want to risk giving them out of hand permanently, because I allowed some

little legal mistake to hide somewhere in our agreement.

> What we need is an agreement which says (in plain English):

> 1) We acknowledge that we're collaborating as equals in the development

> process

> 2) We will have equal right to use independently the intellectual

property

> jointly developed

> 3) We each waive all claim to the other's financial gains based on

material

> jointly developed

> 4) We each waive all claim to the intellectual property subsequently

developed

> by the other party

> Each of these points can be further elaborated to describe the boundaries

> the agreement. Do these four points address your concerns? What can be

added?

> An agreement like this would be valuable whether we choose to collaborate

> in-depth or only superficially.

> Of course, the tricky aspect is making it legally tenable without

incurring

> unnecessary and burdensome legal fees.

> But there must be standards for an agreement like this because our

situation

> is by no means unique. I will discuss this with my colleagues on Tuesday

and

> I'm sure they will be able to suggest a form of agreement.

I like your suggestions! I want us to keep that in mind as a basis, and

coming back to it, after we have determined the true form and depth of our

collaboration. (I will make a proposal to you at the bottom of this e-mail

that I first want to hear your opinion about.)

> Here you make the distinction between meta-content and

presented-content --

> whereas when I wrote about technical distinctions I was thinking only

about

> the presented content. I failed to make this clear (to myself and to

you).

> These four words are vital in drawing distinctions in a development

context:

> content, form, method and process. Confusing them invariably leads to a

> break-down in thought and communication.

I'm not sure whether I understand you fully regarding these four words and

their implication for our work. Please elaborate, so that we can avoid

misunderstandings.

> > It will give your materials an entirely different content when you use

> > "survival" instead of "flourishing" as ultimate value. [snip]

> Yes, you are right. To me, the "survivalist" position makes more sense

(in

> terms of logical, conceptual hierarchy). But in terms of self-motivation,

the

> "flourishing" position makes more sense (and I use it intuitively when

> choosing goals).

> Admittedly, I have not given this issue as much attention as it deserves.

> Where do you stand and why?

I started out as "survivalist," but since then, I came to see that all we

do (even taking actions o survive) is done for creating an emotional state

of "satisfaction" (one might call it "flourishing," "long-term happiness,"

or "eudaimonia"). In the cases of suicide, or sacrificing ones life for

ones children (that is not uncommon among humans and other animals), one

sees that ones own life cannot be the ultimate value. Sometimes it is the

life of other people (especially that of family members), which is more

worth for us then our owns. And a number of people can become so in despair

that they will kill themselves, again showing that mere survival is only a

means to a higher end. Happiness (or at least satisfaction) is what we

strive for, and an objective philosophy must take that fact in account.

> I must say that I appreciate these exchanges. As I am eager to get things

done

> my mind races towards different forms, methods, and processes. So it is

> valuable to bounce ideas off someone such as yourself whose primary

concern is

> the integrity of the content.

Thanks. I think we can learn much from each other in the process. While

other, more pessimistic people surely would warn me to give away too much

(or everything to soon) for no enforceable guarantees at all, I see the

unique and fascinating opportunity to watch on a computer screen how a mind

works on an interesting development process. I'm prepared to find out

whether we already have the key to something significant in our hands

without really knowing it, or whether this is all an delusion and nothing

more then a waste of time and expenses. But one is certain: If we are not

doing it now, sooner or later somebody will make the same identifications

where we will be given no opportunity to learn at a good time, or where we

will have no opportunity to some form of feedback. That's the nature of

reality. In principle, it is open for all, but those who have a lead in

knowledge and technology over the others in the field, will let them

struggle to catch up. No "secret" worth knowing stays a secret permanently.

In fact, maybe while I'm writing these lines, there is somebody somewhere

on the globe who goes through exactly the same process right now. Progress

is inevitable, so why not being at the top of it ourselves?

I have to ask you a question: How open are you to fundamentally rethinking

the traditional form of Objectivism? While I'm interested in the project as

you present it to me at this time, it surely will cost me much effort to

write something I doubt it is less then the best solution that is available

for man. I think I'm in an Roarkish phase right now -- I want to see the

PERFECT solution rising in front of me. You said you see yourself as a

facilitator. Maybe a facilitator is exactly what I need to develop some new

ideas in writing, which are buried deep but alive and moving in my mind for

such a long time. I already have seen that it is far easier for me to write

when I have somebody who challenges me to think very exactly and on a

regular basis. Would you like to do something like that? If you choose to

say yes, I warn you, that the result may be something, which is only on the

surface similar to traditional Objectivism. But on the other hand, we could

be witnesses to the birth of a new, progressive system. If you are

interested in working with me on that level, we will have a lot of

paperwork to do up-front, because I have no illusions about the social

pressures that will be exerted on both of us when the money starts rolling

in or when the possibility shows up to do something on a global scale. And

it will probably take much longer then four months. As I understood, that

may be a problem on your side, and I have a similar problem on my side. I

have the need to work in peace but not enough funds financing it or the

legal advice that we will need, or the technological means to protection.

This is what I wanted to communicate to you. Now let me see what you have

to say and how we will come along together... if at all. Is it worth it? I

don't know, but I'm prepared to take the risk to find out, because I think

my optimism is justified.

Regards

#10 (12.08.01)

Kayton > Objektivismus.de

Hello Alexander

These are some good skills you acquired that you definitively should write about. I'm already very eager to read what you have to say.

I've never really considered writing about my experiences in terms of self-help books -- but now that you've expressed interest I've realized there's a lot in my head that I take for granted. I'm aware that the experience is priceless but I've never taken the next step and realized that perhaps other people would value what I have to say.

Do we have something that (in a legal context) equals the usage of fictional characters? Please help me to understand that issue, for I'm inexperienced in legal matters.

Are you familiar with Edward de Bono? The "six thinking hats" and "six action shoes"? These are similar to fiction characters since, as far as I know, they are copyrighted and possibly even trademarked. No-one else has the right to use them for financial gain.

I also have no experience in legal matters but I believe the relevant distinction is this:

You cannot copyright a title, an idea or a fact -- you can only copyright the tangible form in which the idea is expressed. Not just the words but also the form of expression.

"Six thinking hats" (and what goes with it) is sufficiently tangible to receive copyright protection. But "existence exists" (and what goes with it) is not -- it's too abstract.

In previous posts I have said that I want to create new ~ forms ~ through which to present the philosophy. In one post I used the words "thematic lens". The "six thinking hats" is just such a thing. It is a "thematic lens" through which DeBono projects six different thinking strategies. Similarly, I want to create concretized forms like "six thinking hats" which can be copyrighted.

But my objective is not simply to create something that can be copyrighted. My objective is to create something that will act as an interface between the technical philosophy of Objectivism and the person who can benefit >from it.

I want to develop "concretized concepts" like "six thinking hats" that help people to internalize Objectivism -- and also help outsiders to "get to grips" with the philosophy at a glance.

The point is that if we get it right, it is so powerful that copyright is essential.

This comes back to that discussion we had a while back. You asked me to describe the difference between "creative" input and "intellectual" input. I now realize that I made that distinction for this reason: intellectual input helps to develop the ideas; creative input helps to turn the ideas into "concretized concepts" like the six thinking hats.

At the moment, there is nothing like the "six thinking hats" in O'ism. But there should be. And that's what I want to create.

(The six pillars of self-esteem is only a metaphor. It is not as powerful as the six thinking hats.)

Why are you emphasizing "at the end of our collaboration"? When do you
consider ending it? We may have different ideas about how long that period
will really last and how it is defined.

I emphasized "at the end" not because I have any definite idea about how long our collaboration will last, but because if it were to come to an end at some point then that is when serious problems could arise (unless we now decide what will happen at that point).

It's similar to marriage. My wife and I love one-another deeply. But we signed an anti-nuptial contract that states exactly what happens in the event of divorce. We are not planning to get divorced -- only what happens ~ if ~ we get divorced.

You mean with "this right" the "right to do whatever I want with the
materials"?

Yes.

Let me assure you, that there is no need for you to be frightened of me.

Thanks. I too am not a Peikoff who threatens legal action against others at the drop of a hat.

Every time I use English idioms like "drop of a hat" I wonder whether you understand them. Your English is very good most of the time. But I know that idiomatic speech is the last thing one learns in a second language.

It would be nice if you could tell me a little more about yourself. (I have offered much from my side.)

I like your suggestions! I want us to keep that in mind as a basis, and
coming back to it, after we have determined the true form and depth of our
collaboration.

I will show the four points of the suggested agreement to my colleagues on Tuesday and ask for their comments.

I'm not sure whether I understand you fully regarding these four words and
their implication for our work. Please elaborate, so that we can avoid
misunderstandings.

I do ~ not ~ think either of us misunderstand or misuse the words "content, form, method and process". But I do believe that ~ both ~ of us sometimes forget to use these words and that is where confusion can sometimes occur -- because these concepts are fundametal in the context of developing educational materials.

For example, consider this sentence, "What needs to be included in the course is X, Y and Z".

There is no way to determine whether this sentence refers to content, form, process or method. Obviously, if we specify what X, Y and Z are, then X, Y and Z set the context of the sentence. But I have found that in working with my colleagues, it happens very often that X will be an issue of content, Y will be an issue of form and Z might be an issue of process.

If we say,

"We need to include X, Y and Z ideas in the content of the course"
OR
"We need to include X, Y and Z in the form of presentation"
OR
"We need to include X, Y and Z steps in the method of concept formation"
OR
"We need to include X, Y and Z steps in the participant's learning process"

then the sentences are more precise and it is clear what issues X, Y and Z refer to.

Using the words makes the context clear. Leaving these key words out makes the sentence ambiguous and sometimes leads to mixing two or more different contexts.

I suspect this is ~ less ~ of a problem in German than it is in English (because German is generally more precise while English is more flexible -- which leads to ambiguity).

One more note: the example above may lead you to think that I use the word "process" only to apply to the participant's learning process -- which is not the case. By process I mean ~ any ~ course of action that moves forward in discrete steps (whether it's our development process, the process of facilitation, etc.).

Similarly, I am not limiting the word "method" to the context of concept formation. I just used concept formation as one example of a context where the word "method" is relevant.

To conclude: I'm simply saying that we should try to ~ use ~ these words (rather than ~ imply ~ them in our writing and thinking) because they are such fundamental ideas in the context of developing educational materials.

I started out as "survivalist," but since then, I came to see that all we
do (even taking actions o survive) is done for creating an emotional state
of "satisfaction" (one might call it "flourishing," "long-term happiness,"
or "eudaimonia"). In the cases of suicide, or sacrificing ones life for
ones children (that is not uncommon among humans and other animals), one
sees that ones own life cannot be the ultimate value. Sometimes it is the
life of other people (especially that of family members), which is more
worth for us then our owns. And a number of people can become so in despair
that they will kill themselves, again showing that mere survival is only a
means to a higher end. Happiness (or at least satisfaction) is what we
strive for, and an objective philosophy must take that fact in account.

I understand this completely. I have read some discussions about these issues from a "survivalist" perspective and it is obvious that the "survivalist" approach cannot deal with these contexts simply and elegantly. The argument begins to resemble the contortions of a yoga master. That is a signal that there is something fundamentally wrong.

However, I need to give this some more thought to look at the implications of the "flourishing" perspective (especially the implications for individual rights and politics). Please can you suggest any articles that I would find useful in this respect?

I'm prepared to find out whether we already have the key to something significant in our hands without really knowing it, or whether this is all an delusion and nothing more then a waste of time and expenses.

Yes! I have had similar thoughts. Will we look back on this next year and say, "What a waste of time and effort!" or will we say, "That didn't go very far but at least I learnt something" or will we still be collaborating?

I don't know how this will pan out and it's impossible to predict. But I do know that I have already benefited from our discussions and I hope you are benefiting too.

Progress is inevitable, so why not being at the top of it ourselves?

Exactly! Betty identified an interesting point a while ago. She said that each year of school prepares you for the next year. And school prepares you for university. And university prepares you for your job. And each year at work prepares you for next promotion. And greater maturity and financial stability prepare you for having children. And soon you have to prepare your children to go to school!

We are conditioned to be always preparing! But in order to be ~ pioneering ~ and to be super-productive, we have to unlearn this habit of preparing. We have to step outside of the square and say, "I'm ready now. Anything else I don't know I'll learn along the way. It's time for action." We have to act even when we do not ~ feel ~ ready because taking action is what will ~ make ~ us ready.

In our context, we must start moving forward, even if we are unsure about some of the fundamentals, because only in moving forward will it become clear how we can resolve those issues. This applies to our agreement and to the meta-content of Objectivism.

I have to ask you a question: How open are you to fundamentally rethinking
the traditional form of Objectivism?

Completely. Provided we do not go in the direction of Neo-Tech. (I do not know too much about the ~ content ~ of NT but the ~ form ~ in which it is presented is completely off-putting e.g. "Zonpower" gives NT a very amateurish flavour and some of the extravagant claims they make sound like a late-night TV ad for one of those fitness exercising machines.)

With respect to altruism.... I understand and accept the point you made about militant anti-altruism costing us too much. I agree that "significant others" become part of one's self-concept. And so selfishness encompasses caring for others who (as you say) "deserve it".

This is fine. But I would like to be reassured that you don't take this further (towards, for example, some form of self-sacrifice for people other than those who are ~ objectively ~ a value to oneself).

As far as I am concerned this is still Objectivism. I agree that our materials / courses would benefit from better branding than "Objectivism" but I would like to retain the word Objectivism somewhere in the materials (at least to some extent).

The alternative is to "hide" the origin of the ideas and for people to discover that what we're offering is Objectivism. And I'm not sure that be healthy.

What are your concerns in politics?

I think I'm in an Roarkish phase right now -- I want to see the PERFECT solution rising in front of me.

I can understand this. But you need to be careful that your quest for perfection doesn't prevent you from production. It's possible that in over-emphasizing perfection you can under-emphasize completion of products.

This is not unique to our context. My first contract with my colleagues was meant to last 3 months. In the end it took me 9 months to create the business planning course. Three times longer than they expected -- precisely because I am also a perfectionist. The deadline on my next two products was 9 months. They took 14 months. I've just missed a deadline on one product and I'm going to miss the deadline on the next one too.

I admit these details because they show:

1) I'm more interested in the integrity of the product than in whether my colleagues give me another contract.

2) My colleagues like my work so much that they don't mind if I miss the deadlines -- and they commission me again and again because my work is that good.

I already have seen that it is far easier for me to write when I have somebody who challenges me to think very exactly and on a regular basis. Would you like to do something like that?

Yes. As I mentioned before, I know that I am benefiting from our exchanges and I would like to continue. Although we may have to reduce how many times per week we write -- just because it is so time consuming.

If you choose to say yes, I warn you, that the result may be something, which is only on the surface similar to traditional Objectivism. But on the other hand, we could be witnesses to the birth of a new, progressive system.

If what we develop reflects reality in sharper focus than Objectivism, great!

At any point in this process, I can always step back and say, "This doesn't gel. We've taken a wrong turn somewhere."

On the other hand, perhaps we will develop something that's simpler, clearer, sharper than Objectivism. If it is fundamentally different then perhaps it will require a different name. But if it's based on reality and reason then to me it's still Objectivism. (As I've said before O'ism is not everything AR said. It's simply a philosophy for living on earth based on reality and reason.)

If you are interested in working with me on that level, we will have a lot of paperwork to do up-front, because I have no illusions about the social pressures that will be exerted on both of us when the money starts rolling in or when the possibility shows up to do something on a global scale.

The "paperwork" will be very tricky -- but not impossible.

Suppose (a): The project turns out to be a total failure.

Implications: none.

Suppose (b): Our collaboration comes to an end but one year later you release a book that sells 4 million copies and I believe that you have used many of my ideas without any acknowledgement to me so I launch some sort of legal action. (Or the opposite: I release a book and you launch legal action.)

Implications: We must accept that our early ideas are our initial investment in the process of collaboration. But all ideas contributed later in the process of development are the product of the collaboration.

So I will need to agree to ~ acknowledge ~ (where appropriate) your contribution in subsequent work I may do. And you will need to agree to ~ acknowledge ~ (where appropriate) my contribution in subsequent work you may do .

But I think we both want a guarantee that ~ if ~ our collaboration comes to an end at some point, then we will have an agreement that protects our ~ independent ~ intellectual property and financial gains.

Suppose (c): Our collaboration continues indefinitely and the products we develop jointly are hugely successful -- in Germany but not in South Africa or in South Africa but not in Germany. Now what? I would feel and know that I am indebted to you not only intellectually but financially. And I would want to share these gains. I would hope that you would feel the same way and want to respond similarly.

Implications: We would need to add clauses to our agreement to recognize this eventuality and prescribe a manner of dealing with it.

Suppose (d): Our collaboration continues indefinitely and the products we develop jointly are hugely successful -- in Germany and in South Africa and in New Zealand and in the US. Now what?

Implications: I think that if we get to a stage where we have physical products then we will be incurring expenses and generating income. For that a company is required. So the simplest way to spell out all of the legal requirements in this scenario is to form a partnership in the form of a legal entity like a company. But that will probably be years away.

So it occurs to me, perhaps what we need to do is to define a series of "decision break points".

Suppose we see our collaboration continuing from now to a point where we form a company together several years from now. In this case, we could identify now three or four points where we stand back and make a decision: do we fold or do we continue playing the game?

A new agreement may be needed at each point. Instead of trying to frame an agreement now that takes into account any and all eventualities, we could agree on a few fundamental points. Then, at the next decision break point, we could form a new agreement, based on the same fundamentals, but elaborating further, in light of the new context. And so on, until we form a company at which point the legalities require a lawyer to frame and express.

What do you think?

Now let me see what you have to say and how we will come along together... if at all. Is it worth it? I
don't know, but I'm prepared to take the risk to find out, because I think my optimism is justified.

I think that at many points in life we are called to make choices based on our impression of what is on the other side of a wall. There are some small holes in the wall which give us only a glimpse of what is on the other side. But we have to make that choice now. Only once we have made a choice are we allowed through a doorway in this wall and only then do we discover whether or not we have made the best choice.

But I have also found that even when my choices have not been the best, I have still learnt and experienced so much that has enriched my life. And, perhaps one of the most valuable learning points is the experience of making the choice and dealing with the consequences be they fair or foul.

Like you, I also see the future with sober vision. Perhaps we will achieve only greater understanding and nothing more. Perhaps we will eventually find our collaboration more inhibiting than inspiring. At that point we can decide to go our own ways. But I am also optimistic about what we might achieve together.

Objectivism has a lot to say about dealing with certainties. But so often life is all about dealing with ambiguity!

In such cases we rely on our judgement of character. It is difficult enough to judge character in person. Over the internet it is impossible.

Nevertheless, I would like to continue our collaboration.

"Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision." AR

Regards
Barry

I'm nearly finished the summary chart. But I took two hours to write this email!

#11 (fehlendes Datum)

Objektivismus.de > Kayton

Hello

> Are you familiar with Edward de Bono? The "six thinking hats" and "six

action

> shoes"? These are similar to fiction characters since, as far as I know,

they

> are copyrighted and possibly even trademarked. No-one else has the right

> use them for financial gain.

Yes, I'm familiar with the six thinking hats. I even considered at one time

founding a Thinking Club as it was proposed by one of his books... but

after writing to his bureau -- with the money enclosed that they

requested -- nobody cared to answer the inquiry.

> You cannot copyright a title, an idea or a fact

> -- you can only copyright the tangible form in

> which the idea is expressed. Not just the words

> but also the form of expression.

> "Six thinking hats" (and what goes with it) is sufficiently tangible to

> receive copyright protection. But "existence exists" (and what goes with

it)

> is not -- it's too abstract.

> In previous posts I have said that I want to create new ~ forms ~ through

> which to present the philosophy. In one post I used the words "thematic

lens".

> The "six thinking hats" is just such a thing. It is a "thematic lens"

through

> which DeBono projects six different thinking strategies. Similarly, I

want to

> create concretized forms like "six thinking hats" which can be

copyrighted.

I think I understand you better now. Thanks for the explanation.

> This comes back to that discussion we had a while back. You asked me to

> describe the difference between "creative" input and "intellectual"

input. I

> now realize that I made that distinction for this reason: intellectual

input

> helps to develop the ideas; creative input helps to turn the ideas into

> "concretized concepts" like the six thinking hats.

Okay, for the present time I assume that we will have a division of labor

that will look something like that: My input is mainly "intellectual" while

yours is mainly "creative" where I will give you help to maintain

"philosophical rigor." Since you seem to be a good and skillful writer, I

will also assume that this part (translating systems into texts) will also

be your main function, while I see my primarily task in watching the

integrity of the system, for I am IMO very good at detecting contradictions

and inconsistencies. Please give me feedback whether we have a mutual

understanding on this.

> It's similar to marriage. My wife and I love one-another deeply. But we

signed

> an anti-nuptial contract that states exactly what happens in the event of

> divorce. We are not planning to get divorced -- only what happens ~ if ~

> get divorced.

That is exactly how I think business partnerships should be arranged.

> Every time I use English idioms like "drop of a hat" I wonder whether you

> understand them. Your English is very good most of the time. But I know

that

> idiomatic speech is the last thing one learns in a second language.

Yes, this is a problem. I suggest that you try to completely avoid idioms

in our correspondence. It will make communication far more effortless for

both of us.

> It would be nice if you could tell me a little more about yourself. (I

have

> offered much from my side.)

There is not really much to say. I absolved an occupational training in

banking and investment (both go together in the European system), had some

experience in being a independent representative for a German credit bank

where I soon quit because of internal problems. Since then, I developed a

strong interest in everything in connection with marketing and

organizational culture, and philosophy and how it might help companies to

develop commitment in personnel and customer loyality. Since my youth I'm

interested in the sciences (as a layperson) and I am, equally long, a free

market advocate. Therefore, I was delighted to discover Objectivism

somewhere around 1996 that seemed to pay as much respect to rationality and

freedom as I did. Now I'm looking for opportunities to combine all my

interests into one business system that will contribute to the

establishment of a free, rational and prosperous society, while generating

enough money to make political activism as a way of living possible for me

and others. That's my motivation.

> > I'm not sure whether I understand you fully regarding these four words

and

> > their implication for our work. Please elaborate, so that we can avoid

> > misunderstandings.

> I do ~ not ~ think either of us misunderstand or misuse the words

"content,

> form, method and process". But I do believe that ~ both ~ of us sometimes

> forget to use these words and that is where confusion can sometimes

occur --

> because these concepts are fundametal in the context of developing

educational

> materials.

I was primarily interested in their implications.

> For example, consider this sentence, "What needs to be included in the

course

> is X, Y and Z".

> There is no way to determine whether this sentence refers to content,

form,

> process or method. Obviously, if we specify what X, Y and Z are, then X,

Y and

> Z set the context of the sentence. But I have found that in working with

> colleagues, it happens very often that X will be an issue of content, Y

will

> be an issue of form and Z might be an issue of process.

[snip]

> Using the words makes the context clear. Leaving these key words out

makes the

> sentence ambiguous and sometimes leads to mixing two or more different

> contexts.

[snip]

> To conclude: I'm simply saying that we should try to ~ use ~ these words

> (rather than ~ imply ~ them in our writing and thinking) because they are

such

> fundamental ideas in the context of developing educational materials.

Okay, but I wonder why you wrote all that if you wanted to say just this? I

was interested how distinguishing between these four concepts will

influence our work or agreement to work. Or is this discussion in the end

not necessary at all?

> I understand this completely. I have read some discussions about these is

sues

> >from a "survivalist" perspective and it is obvious that the

"survivalist"

> approach cannot deal with these contexts simply and elegantly. The

argument

> begins to resemble the contortions of a yoga master. That is a signal

that

> there is something fundamentally wrong.

Exactly! It makes me cringe every time I hear some of the "Randian"

reasoning. They increasingly begin to sound like fanatical mystics to me.

> However, I need to give this some more thought to look at the

implications of

> the "flourishing" perspective (especially the implications for individual

> rights and politics). Please can you suggest any articles that I would

find

> useful in this respect?

Unfortunately, no. I'm not aware of any good article I could suggest to you

(what doesn't mean that there is no one, I simply can't recall where I've

red a good one).

> I don't know how this will pan out and it's impossible to predict. But I

> know that I have already benefited from our discussions and I hope you

are

> benefiting too.

I think so.

> In our context, we must start moving forward, even if we are unsure about

some

> of the fundamentals, because only in moving forward will it become clear

how

> we can resolve those issues. This applies to our agreement and to the

> meta-content of Objectivism.

Okay. But I expect you not to whine around when you see that my reasoning

is superior to the traditional doctrines of Objectivism, and I want to be

sure of your willingness to accept and integrate certain facts when you see

that it is the only logical thing to do, even when you don't like the idea

on an emotional level. You must understand that your emotions will follow

your understanding, as it gets profound. This emotion-first mindset is a

real problem in our culture, and I don't want it around me. Sorry for

sounding harsh, but IMO it is better to be plainly in the beginning then to

be remorseful at the end.

> > I have to ask you a question: How open are you to fundamentally

rethinking

> > the traditional form of Objectivism?

> Completely. Provided we do not go in the direction of Neo-Tech. (I do not

know

> too much about the ~ content ~ of NT but the ~ form ~ in which it is

presented

> is completely off-putting e.g. "Zonpower" gives NT a very amateurish

flavour

> and some of the extravagant claims they make sound like a late-night TV

ad for

> one of those fitness exercising machines.)

Of course not! I don't like their highly redundant and mystical

speculations either, but we have to pay attention to the fact, that they

are on the market for some 20 years or so (with ideas that they say are

rooted in Objectivism). When it comes to developing self-help products, for

example, the page http://neo-tech.com/advantages/ might be helpful in

finding topics or starting-points, ~without~ having to buy into their whole

system as such.

> With respect to altruism.... I understand and accept the point you made

about

> militant anti-altruism costing us too much. I agree that "significant

others"

> become part of one's self-concept. And so selfishness encompasses caring

for

> others who (as you say) "deserve it".

> This is fine. But I would like to be reassured that you don't take this

> further (towards, for example, some form of self-sacrifice for people

other

> than those who are ~ objectively ~ a value to oneself).

Again: of course not! I want everything to be proven by objective facts,

and I'm not meaning literal "sacrifices" in the Objectivist sense, but

investments in ones well-being. To understand how this well-being

(flourishing, eudaimonia) is achieved, we must take a look at what

evolutionary standardized behaviors (cue: "man qua man") are given to do

the job and conceptualize them into objectively defined virtues. So you

should be prepared to consider (or research) some biological facts when it

comes to developing and presenting a functional form of ethics.

> As far as I am concerned this is still Objectivism. I agree that our

materials

> / courses would benefit from better branding than "Objectivism" but I

would

> like to retain the word Objectivism somewhere in the materials (at least

> some extent).

> The alternative is to "hide" the origin of the ideas and for people to

> discover that what we're offering is Objectivism. And I'm not sure that

> healthy.

I have no problem at all with giving credit to Objectivism or Ayn Rand. I

owe them much of my thinking and philosophical maturation. I only think

that at a certain point of the development -- perhaps when the departures

from the standard doctrines become too much for the overwhelming majority

of neo-Objectivists -- the progressive system must be distinguished somehow

from the old one.

> What are your concerns in politics?

While I am a still an advocate of a minarchist (or even anarcho-capitalist)

system (and will probably stay it), I am aware that this is a question of

class interests. It is a fact that it's rational for the beneficiaries in

power to maintain an authoritarian status quo. Just common sense, but

Objectivists seem to ignore this fact. The question is not "what is good,"

but "what is good for whom?" This really, really annoying omission is

characteristic for semi-intellectual debaters of moral philosophy, and it

starts to make me increasingly irritant when I'm confronted with it again

and again. These are my concerns not only in politics, but, more

fundamentally, in ethics as such. Since this kind of deletion is everything

but objective, I cannot consider it as a valid part of Objectivism.

> I can understand this. But you need to be careful that your quest for

> perfection doesn't prevent you from production. It's possible that in

> over-emphasizing perfection you can under-emphasize completion of

products.

Okay, I see this danger, but (in philosophy) I also see the danger of

self-deception by default, or "ideological ADD." This is not something I

can accept.

> 1) I'm more interested in the integrity of the product than in whether my

> colleagues give me another contract.

Excellent! This kind of mindset is what I'm missing too often in other

people. I think we will get along quite good. This presupposes of course

that "integrity" means for you intellectual honesty ~in contrast to~

loyalty to your own prejudices, "socialization" and other culturally

injected emotions (but since you are familiar with Nietzsche's thought, I

don't consider collectivism to be a problem for you). We must "dehumanize"

our thinking, to become truly human (i.e. rational & enlightened).

> > I already have seen that it is far easier for me to write when I have

> > somebody who challenges me to think very exactly and on a regular

basis.

> > Would you like to do something like that?

> Yes. As I mentioned before, I know that I am benefiting from our

exchanges and

> I would like to continue. Although we may have to reduce how many times

per

> week we write -- just because it is so time consuming.

I'd say we limit it to two e-mails per week (on specific weekdays).

Suggestions for another schedule?

> > If you choose to say yes, I warn you, that the result may be something,

> > which is only on the surface similar to traditional Objectivism. But on

the

> > other hand, we could be witnesses to the birth of a new, progressive

system.

> If what we develop reflects reality in sharper focus than Objectivism,

great!

If this is ~really~ what you want -- "reflecting reality in sharper

focus" -- I can't think of anyone better suited to help improving it then

me.

> At any point in this process, I can always step back and say, "This

doesn't

> gel. We've taken a wrong turn somewhere."

What is "geling"?? Does it have something to do with emotions or subjective

experiences?

> On the other hand, perhaps we will develop something that's simpler,

clearer,

> sharper than Objectivism. If it is fundamentally different then perhaps

> will require a different name. But if it's based on reality and reason

then to

> me it's still Objectivism. (As I've said before O'ism is not everything

> said. It's simply a philosophy for living on earth based on reality and

> reason.)

For the present, I can live with the term "Objectivism."

> Suppose (b): Our collaboration comes to an end but one year later you

release

> a book that sells 4 million copies and I believe that you have used many

of my

> ideas without any acknowledgement to me so I launch some sort of legal

action.

> (Or the opposite: I release a book and you launch legal action.)

> Implications: We must accept that our early ideas are our initial

investment

> in the process of collaboration. But all ideas contributed later in the

> process of development are the product of the collaboration.

a) When you say "initial investment" you're meaning that we have to

consider it as irreversible even, or especially, when there will be no

return on it? And that we shouldn't complain about this fact? b) What does

it mean that something is the "product of collaboration"? You mean that we

should mark it in public as "our's"?

> So I will need to agree to ~ acknowledge ~ (where appropriate) your

> contribution in subsequent work I may do. And you will need to agree to ~

> acknowledge ~ (where appropriate) my contribution in subsequent work you

may

> do .

Okay, but how will we keep track of who contributed what? If it's a back

and forth and a interconnection (that I predict), it will be hard to

distinguish who said what in the end (product).

> But I think we both want a guarantee that ~ if ~ our collaboration comes

to an

> end at some point, then we will have an agreement that protects our ~

> independent ~ intellectual property and financial gains.

Yes. And I'm interested what will happen, when one party considers to stop

the collaboration in the middle of the development process. Is this a

special case, or will we treat it exactly like the completion of a mutually

agreed working goal?

> Suppose (d): Our collaboration continues indefinitely and the products we

> develop jointly are hugely successful -- in Germany and in South Africa

and in

> New Zealand and in the US. Now what?

> Implications: I think that if we get to a stage where we have physical

> products then we will be incurring expenses and generating income. For

that a

> company is required. So the simplest way to spell out all of the legal

> requirements in this scenario is to form a partnership in the form of a

legal

> entity like a company. But that will probably be years away.

And suppose it won't come to the formation of this legal entity, do we have

to agree on what geographic regions we have to restrict our separate

business activities? I have no current statistics about what percentages of

the world population speaks which languages and how these numbers must be

weighted with the spending power of the nations in which they are spoken,

to determine a fair split of the world market. The least I'd like to have

in this case is Europe and Russia, i.e. the rights for all languages that

are spoken in this areas. If you would claim all rights for the English

language editions, you would have an advantage that we must talk about,

since the UK is extremely important for me too.

> So it occurs to me, perhaps what we need to do is to define a series of

> "decision break points".

What are "decision break points"? Do you mean something like "predetermined

breaking-points" in engineering? You see, language is a barrier (although

not one that is irreconcilable).

> A new agreement may be needed at each point. Instead of trying to frame

> agreement now that takes into account any and all eventualities, we could

> agree on a few fundamental points. Then, at the next decision break

point, we

> could form a new agreement, based on the same fundamentals, but

elaborating

> further, in light of the new context. And so on, until we form a company

> which point the legalities require a lawyer to frame and express.

> What do you think?

Sounds reasonable. But I think we can't avoid agreeing on the languages (or

geographical areas) right now, because it is topical from the very start

on.

> Objectivism has a lot to say about dealing with certainties. But so often

life

> is all about dealing with ambiguity!

And I'm determined to eliminate as much of them as possible (or to develop

techniques to do so in future). This is the function and duty of philosophy

(and of technology alike) -- not worshipping ambiguities or chaos!

> Nevertheless, I would like to continue our collaboration.

Agreed. If you think you are able to get on with my style of thinking and

communicating for an extended period of time, you are welcome.

> "Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new

roads

> armed with nothing but their own vision." AR

...while the enemies of progress are armed with anything one can think of,

yes. This certainly applies here. And it reminds me that I mentioned the

technological means to protection that are necessary, and that you ignored

this remark. You surely know that in principle everyone can tap e-mail

correspondence and other communication over the Internet. What can we do,

to ensure that everything that happens from now on, stays confidential? In

don't like working while somebody watches me, and I can't imagine that any

other researcher, author or businessman likes that idea. Do you use any

special software to shield your PC and the work it contains from outsiders?

Regards

alexander

#12 (12.08.01)

Kayton > Objektivismus.de

Hi Alexander

I was planning to develop a "chart" to summarize the

development issues we've been discussing. Instead, I have

developed a ten page document!

Page one summarizes everything in one page.

Pages 2 to 8 repeat the content of page one but with one

section per page. This gives you plenty of space to add

comments and explore your thoughts on paper. Each of these

pages also has a panel on the right hand side that may

prompt you to think in terms of questions and specific

issues.

Page 9 highlights key development issues.

Page 10 is the latest version of 101 essential concepts.

As always, "nothing is cast in stone".

Regards

Barry

#13 (fehlendes Datum)

Objektivismus.de > Kayton

> Pages 2 to 8 repeat the content of page one but with one
> section per page. This gives you plenty of space to add
> comments and explore your thoughts on paper. Each of these
> pages also has a panel on the right hand side that may
> prompt you to think in terms of questions and specific
> issues.

I prefer to write with a keyboard where possible. So here's my counter-proposal typed.

Let’s make the following distinctions:

A) Product Development

1) Content Structure: the hierarchical structure of Objectivism (the philosophic system)

2) Content: the concepts of Objectivism (that must be arranged logically according to 1)

3) Method: sequences for decision making and problem solving

4) Architecture: the two dimensional development matrix of content structure and method

5) Form: explicit (“dry, academic essays”) vs. implicit (“sense-of-life”)

6) Media: the means of transporting the architecture in its specific form (books, workshops, teaching aids, tapes, software, etc.)

B) The Business Part

1) Identifying the Benefits of our product

2) Identifying the Target Group (audience that profits the most from the benefits)

3) Identifying the specific Problems of our target group

4) Institutionalizing a feedback-loop between Product Development and B3 (TQM?)

5) Developing PR, (direct) marketing, and Selling Methods

6) Developing efficient Management and Administration Procedures

7) Recruiting and developing Business Partners (for Franchising, etc.)

If you accept this outline, the next step would be to determine who should do what in what extent. Please tell me, where you see your expertise, interests, or talents. I think that A1-4 is suited best to be my main focus. For now in the business part B1-3 are significant, but I'd like us to keep an eye on B4-7 also.

Another point: PDF may look good, but when you use more then one column the scrolling up and down gets pretty annoying. Furthermore, I can’t simply grab parts of the text to work with it, because Acrobat's text selection tool is unreliable. So I suggest that you either a) use only one column in PDF files, or even better, b) use text formats that can be read by MS Office products (preferably in WinWord format or as RTF). That will make the exchange of ideas a lot easier. (And to be able to file the print-outs of the files you send me, I need adequate space on the left side to punch holes in it -- just a minor point.) Please give me feedback on all this!

Regards: alexander

PS: If you're getting some e-mails more then once from me, this may be due to a problem that I have with Outlook Express. Sorry.

#14 (13.08.01)

Kayton > Objektivismus.de

Hi Alexander

Concerning RTF rather than PDF... this is fine. (I use an Apple Macintosh so I can't create Word documents -- only RTFs. Also, although I can ~ open ~ Word documents, I prefer to receive RTFs.)

Concerning your counter-proposal of distinctions that need to be made...

A1-6 okay.
B1-7 okay.

Concerning who should do what and to what extent...

My special interest and skill is creating richly concretized forms (A5) that make complex content easier to understand. In other words, I enjoy creating things like "Six thinking hats" based on the ideas behind them -- and I'm very good at it.
I'm also skilled at plain language writing which is valuable when creating the final text for different media (A6).
My experience includes the design of training materials and methods that are rich in interactivity (as opposed to a training course delivered by a lecturer to a group of passive listeners who do not get involved).
Naturally I can also contribute ideas for B1-7.

Okay, for the present time I assume that we will have a division of labor that will look something like that: My input is mainly "intellectual" while yours is mainly "creative" where I will give you help to maintain "philosophical rigor." Since you seem to be a good and skillful writer, I will also assume that this part (translating systems into texts) will also be your main function, while I see my primarily task in watching the integrity of the system, for I am IMO very good at detecting contradictions and inconsistencies. Please give me feedback whether we have a mutual understanding on this.

I agree 100%.

Since then, I developed a strong interest in everything in connection with marketing and organizational culture, and philosophy and how it might help companies to develop commitment in personnel and customer loyality.

This is an interesting point. In South Africa, selling training courses to companies is difficult but the rewards can be considerable. Whereas trying to market courses to the public is also difficult and the rewards are only significant if you get the marketing mix 100% perfect.

To what extent do you think we could develop training courses to sell to companies for their personnel (in addition to courses for individuals)?

I was delighted to discover Objectivism somewhere around 1996 that seemed to pay as much respect to rationality and freedom as I did.

May I ask what age you were when you discovered Objectivism?

Now I'm looking for opportunities to combine all my interests into one business system that will contribute to the establishment of a free, rational and prosperous society, while generating enough money to make political activism as a way of living possible for me and others. That's my motivation.

If we can achieve this it will be a great paradigm shift in politics!

I was interested how distinguishing between these four concepts will
influence our work or agreement to work. Or is this discussion in the end
not necessary at all?

The discussion was necessary. And it is now sufficient.

Okay. But I expect you not to whine around when you see that my reasoning
is superior to the traditional doctrines of Objectivism, and I want to be
sure of your willingness to accept and integrate certain facts when you see
that it is the only logical thing to do, even when you don't like the idea
on an emotional level. You must understand that your emotions will follow
your understanding, as it gets profound. This emotion-first mindset is a
real problem in our culture, and I don't want it around me. Sorry for
sounding harsh, but IMO it is better to be plainly in the beginning then to
be remorseful at the end.

If I do not agree with you at some point then we can simply agree to discontinue our collaboration. How you or I feel about it is irrelevant.

I can't guarantee now that I will agree with everything you suggest. But I can guarantee that if I disagree with you on some point then I will give you a reasoned argument in response and not an unreasoned, emotional plea.

So you should be prepared to consider (or research) some biological facts when it comes to developing and presenting a functional form of ethics.

This sounds fascinating and I'm eager to explore these ideas in greater depth.

I'd say we limit it to two e-mails per week (on specific weekdays).
Suggestions for another schedule?

Twice per week sounds good. Any day of the week suits me. What about this?...

I send on Sunday and Wednesday.

You send on Tuesday and Friday.

Or we simply agree to reply to emails within three days. Maybe this is better?

What is "geling"?? Does it have something to do with emotions or subjective
experiences?

No. "This doesn't gel" is an idiomatic expression for "There is a contradiction here." I'll try to avoid idiomatic expressions in future. (But it's quite difficult because English has so many and I like to use them.)

a) When you say "initial investment" you're meaning that we have to
consider it as irreversible even, or especially, when there will be no
return on it? And that we shouldn't complain about this fact?

I mean that once I have shared the training ideas that are in my head and once you have shared the concepts and solutions to problems that are in your head then it is irreversible. This is the price we will each pay to take our collaboration to the next level. If at some later point we decide to discontinue the collaboration, we should be equally protected against any claims from the other that X, Y or Z is proprietary

b) What does it mean that something is the "product of collaboration"? You mean that we should mark it in public as "our's"?

Not necessarily -- although that is an option I've been considering because it has implications for marketing. Consider, for example, who first identified the double-helix of DNA... Watson and Crick. Here two scientists are identified as the partners who identified this knowledge. Similarly, if we choose to write one or more books, then we could be identified as co-authors.

However, by "product of collaboration" I was referring to the ~ process ~ of development. Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin when a spore carried by the wind landed in a petri dish containing bacteria. His genius lies in his identification of what had happened and the conclusions he drew.

Similarly, in the process of collaboration you and I will alternate between the role of Fleming and the role of the wind. I will bring something to a discussion which will inspire you to see a new connection. Later you will bring something to the discussion that will inspire me to identify something new and original. Each of us alone will make new connections (intellectual and creative) -- based on the process of collaboration. So, in this sense, what we end up with cannot be said to be either yours or mine but both of ours. Do you agree?

Okay, but how will we keep track of who contributed what? If it's a back and forth and a interconnection (that I predict), it will be hard to distinguish who said what in the end (product).

Yes. It is impossible to keep track and impossible to distinguish at the end who contributed any one element. Even if we print out and file every email, all that these will tell us is that one of us said X and in the next email the other suggested the brilliant idea Y. My point is that even though Y came from one side it was inspired by interaction with the other side. Perhaps it would never have been thought of without the collaboration between the two of us. So it really is a product of the two parties. Do you agree?

Yes. And I'm interested what will happen, when one party considers to stop the collaboration in the middle of the development process. Is this a special case, or will we treat it exactly like the completion of a mutually agreed working goal?

I think we should each have the right to walk away without any obligations at any point (until we are financially committed to a joint project).

Why? Because either of us may find that the collaboration is costing us more time and effort than we expected and we are receiving fewer intellectual benefits. In other words, the opportunity cost of collaborating may increase while (with greater experience of the process) our estimates of the potential rewards may decrease.

And suppose it won't come to the formation of this legal entity, do we have
to agree on what geographic regions we have to restrict our separate
business activities?

No. We cannot agree now on geographical regions. It is too early.

I have no current statistics about what percentages of
the world population speaks which languages and how these numbers must be
weighted with the spending power of the nations in which they are spoken,
to determine a fair split of the world market. The least I'd like to have
in this case is Europe and Russia, i.e. the rights for all languages that
are spoken in this areas. If you would claim all rights for the English
language editions, you would have an advantage that we must talk about,
since the UK is extremely important for me too.

If we develop a phenomenally powerful and successful product then wouldn't it be better for us to own equal shares in an international company and have a third person as a paid CEO?

Or, if we co-author a book, we can simply split the royalties equally (by contract with independent publishers throughout the world).

What are "decision break points"? Do you mean something like "predetermined
breaking-points" in engineering?

No. The word "break" here is used to mean "discontinue". As our collaboration progresses we will become more and more committed (in terms of effort, time and resources). The increase in commitments will not be smooth like a curve, but sudden and sharp at several stages (like the quantum leap of an electron).

Instead of making one decision now and committing everything now, I'm suggesting we identify three or four points where our commitments to collaboration suddenly increase. At each of those points, we should be able to decide to continue or discontinue. These "decision break-points" are reassuring and empowering for both of us.

It's late already. So I don't have the energy to identify and break-points. Can you see where they may be?

Sounds reasonable. But I think we can't avoid agreeing on the languages (or
geographical areas) right now, because it is topical from the very start
on.

Okay. We disagree on this point.

I'm planning to write two small books in the months ahead. I'm going to do this independently while collaborating with you on Project Outreach. You need to recognize that these books (and any other independent work I do) is my own work. And I must retain the right to publish these wherever I want and in whatever language I want.

But this raises a whole new issue. What is independent work? And what work is collaboration? What are your thoughts?

Agreed. If you think you are able to get on with my style of thinking and
communicating for an extended period of time, you are welcome.

No problem. But we need to reduce our exchanges to twice a week each as discussed above.

And it reminds me that I mentioned the technological means to protection that are necessary, and that you ignored this remark.

Why do you use the word "ignore"? I overlooked it. "Ignore" implies questionable motivation on my part whereas in fact I made a mistake.

You surely know that in principle everyone can tap e-mail correspondence and other communication over the Internet. What can we do, to ensure that everything that happens from now on, stays confidential?

We can investigate encryption certificates that we can exchange. Alternatively, we can use a secure web site.

I don't like working while somebody watches me, and I can't imagine that any ther researcher, author or businessman likes that idea. Do you use any special software to shield your PC and the work it contains from outsiders?

Until now, no. But I will investigate and report back.

I will reply to your next email within three days of receiving it.

Regards
Barry

I have received no duplicate emails.

#15 (fehlendes Datum)

Objektivismus.de > Kayton

Hi Barry

> Concerning RTF rather than PDF... this is fine. (I use an Apple Macintosh

so I

> can't create Word documents -- only RTFs. Also, although I can ~ open ~

Word

> documents, I prefer to receive RTFs.)

Then let it be RTF.

> Concerning your counter-proposal of distinctions that need to be made...

> A1-6 okay.

> B1-7 okay.

Do you see that there is a certain (chrono-) logical order in it? And do

you now understand, why A1-2 are of crucial importance for everything else?

I know that spiral-bound versions of LSO are circulating somewhere among

the year 2000 Summer Seminar participants. If I could throw a look at it, I

would ~immediately~ see where the errors are and it would tremendously

speed up the identification process that must be made. Corrections,

improvements and rearrangements are far easier to do then starting to build

a space age car by reinventing the wheel. I need some raw materials to

start building.

> Concerning who should do what and to what extent...

> My special interest and skill is creating richly concretized forms

> (A5) that make complex content easier to understand. In other words,

> I enjoy creating things like "Six thinking hats" based on the ideas

> behind them -- and I'm very good at it.

Okay. But that also extends into A2 (content) because things like the "Six

thinking hats" are concretizations of concepts.

In regard to A5: Bidinotto distinguishes in "What Objectivists Must Learn

from Religion" three levels of understanding/teaching that must be chosen

according ones audience: (1) scientific, (2) systematic, (3)

intuitive/implicit (holistic, concretized). The tape deals primarily with

philosophical and aesthetic needs. You should listen to it.

> I'm also skilled at plain language writing which is valuable when

> creating the final text for different media (A6).

...where the plain language text itself is A5 (explicit).

> My experience includes the design of training materials and methods

> that are rich in interactivity (as opposed to a training course

> delivered by a lecturer to a group of passive listeners who do not

> get involved).

That's exactly what we need.

> Naturally I can also contribute ideas for B1-7.

Very good.

> This is an interesting point. In South Africa, selling training courses

> companies is difficult but the rewards can be considerable. Whereas

trying to

> market courses to the public is also difficult and the rewards are only

> significant if you get the marketing mix 100% perfect.

> To what extent do you think we could develop training courses to sell to

> companies for their personnel (in addition to courses for individuals)?

A very, very big potential! But you must consider this: 1) organizations

are made out of individuals, 2) an organization can also be regarded as one

virtual "individual."

This has the implication that we ~first~ have to develop a philosophy that

helps individuals to work efficiently and to lead (as a result of it) a

"good life." The educational products that are made for them (1), can be

very simply adapted for the work in a corporate environment and sold as

trainings. If we want to go into business consulting (2), we can use the

same educational processes that we used on individuals, on the CEO level of

a given business entity. The philosophy that helps individuals to achieve

their ultimate value (flourishing) must then be changed to help

corporations to achieve ~their~ ultimate value (Return on Investment). This

has a great potential, but we must start with a consumer product before

going into B2B.

> > I was delighted to discover Objectivism somewhere around 1996 that

seemed to

> > pay as much respect to rationality and freedom as I did.

> May I ask what age you were when you discovered Objectivism?

That depends on the exact date when I first came across it. And frankly,

I'm not sure. I must have been 25 or 26.

> > Now I'm looking for opportunities to combine all my interests into one

> > business system that will contribute to the establishment of a free,

> > rational and prosperous society, while generating enough money to make

> > political activism as a way of living possible for me and others.

That's my

> > motivation.

> If we can achieve this it will be a great paradigm shift in politics!

A paradigm shift? I'm not sure if this is the right word... Let's say it

this way: under ideal circumstances, if we could win a investor for

example, who would help us to create a development team, and who would

grant us always access to brand new research, we could change in, say,

15-20 years the fabric of a chosen society. If it has stabilizing

mechanisms build in, the system could last for generations. Just take it

from there. I predict that it would have a greater impact then Marxism. I

might be wrong, but I firmly believe so.

As you might already sense, Objectivism has the potential to become a

powerful tool. And: what can be done, will be done. The question is only,

who will be the first to get it. Since you are a businessman, you surely

heard of the "the-winner-takes-it-all"-principle. However, this would

require a huge research and development effort that would overwhelm a

single person. As almost always, knowledge and time (i.e. money!) is the

key. With a investor everthing would change.

> I can't guarantee now that I will agree with everything you suggest. But

I can

> guarantee that if I disagree with you on some point then I will give you

> reasoned argument in response and not an unreasoned, emotional plea.

This is acceptable.

> > I'd say we limit it to two e-mails per week (on specific weekdays).

> > Suggestions for another schedule?

> Twice per week sounds good. Any day of the week suits me. What about

this?...

> I send on Sunday and Wednesday.

> You send on Tuesday and Friday.

> Or we simply agree to reply to emails within three days. Maybe this is

better?

Yes, much better idea. We can do it this way: a response to an e-mail can

be delayed up to three or four days, but responding earlier is o.k.

> I mean that once I have shared the training ideas that are in my head and

once

> you have shared the concepts and solutions to problems that are in your

head

> then it is irreversible. This is the price we will each pay to take our

> collaboration to the next level. If at some later point we decide to

> discontinue the collaboration, we should be equally protected against any

> claims from the other that X, Y or Z is proprietary

Or more exactly: ...that X, Y or Z is the property of ~both~ of us.

Correct? You surely do not want to leave it to the public domain in this

case... Only we will have the copyright for it in its original form and in

the agreed upon languages.

> > b) What does it mean that something is the "product of collaboration"?

You

> > mean that we should mark it in public as "our's"?

> Not necessarily -- although that is an option I've been considering

because it

> has implications for marketing. Consider, for example, who first

identified

> the double-helix of DNA... Watson and Crick. Here two scientists are

> identified as the partners who identified this knowledge. Similarly, if

> choose to write one or more books, then we could be identified as

co-authors.

> However, by "product of collaboration" I was referring to the ~ process ~

> development. Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin when a spore carried

> the wind landed in a petri dish containing bacteria. His genius lies in

his

> identification of what had happened and the conclusions he drew.

> Similarly, in the process of collaboration you and I will alternate

between

> the role of Fleming and the role of the wind. I will bring something to a

> discussion which will inspire you to see a new connection. Later you will

> bring something to the discussion that will inspire me to identify

something

> new and original. Each of us alone will make new connections

(intellectual and

> creative) -- based on the process of collaboration. So, in this sense,

what we

> end up with cannot be said to be either yours or mine but both of ours.

Do you

> agree?

First, I'd like you to agree that too much examples, stories or metaphors

can unnecessarily obscure a point. :) I'm sorry, but I tend to loose sight

of the essence of your point if you elaborate too much. Okay, well... If

all you wrote means a "yes" to my question, then I agree.

> Yes. It is impossible to keep track and impossible to distinguish at the

end

> who contributed any one element. Even if we print out and file every

email,

> all that these will tell us is that one of us said X and in the next

email the

> other suggested the brilliant idea Y. My point is that even though Y came

from

> one side it was inspired by interaction with the other side. Perhaps it

would

> never have been thought of without the collaboration between the two of

us. So

> it really is a product of the two parties. Do you agree?

Sure.

> > Yes. And I'm interested what will happen, when one party considers to

stop

> > the collaboration in the middle of the development process. Is this a

> > special case, or will we treat it exactly like the completion of a

mutually

> > agreed working goal?

> I think we should each have the right to walk away without any

obligations at

> any point (until we are financially committed to a joint project).

> Why? Because either of us may find that the collaboration is costing us

> time and effort than we expected and we are receiving fewer intellectual

> benefits. In other words, the opportunity cost of collaborating may

increase

> while (with greater experience of the process) our estimates of the

potential

> rewards may decrease.

That means for me that the unfinished product is property of both of us.

> > And suppose it won't come to the formation of this legal entity, do we

have

> > to agree on what geographic regions we have to restrict our separate

> > business activities?

> No. We cannot agree now on geographical regions. It is too early.

What would be the right time in your opinion, and how will we recognize it?

I think that now is the best point in time to do it.

> If we develop a phenomenally powerful and successful product then

wouldn't it

> be better for us to own equal shares in an international company and have

> third person as a paid CEO?

Yes, but that is only hypothetical. I for my part do not have the money to

invest in an international company (now), although I'm interested. If the

product is "phenomenally powerful and successful" (as you say), it will be

too late to agree on who owns the copyrights for what languages. This would

be exactly the wrong time to talk about it. What is with the commercial use

of the unfinished product (for example when one party chooses to end the

collaboration prematurely)? I hope you see that the right time is now.

> Or, if we co-author a book, we can simply split the royalties equally (by

> contract with independent publishers throughout the world).

This is another (good) point. We could agree that the primary copyright

holder will always give his respective co-author a certain percentage of

his royalties and/or other earnings. But it does not avoid the necessity to

decide who is the copyright holder for what languages. Do you understand

me?

> Instead of making one decision now and committing everything now, I'm

> suggesting we identify three or four points where our commitments to

> collaboration suddenly increase. At each of those points, we should be

able to

> decide to continue or discontinue. These "decision break-points" are

> reassuring and empowering for both of us.

> It's late already. So I don't have the energy to identify and

break-points.

> Can you see where they may be?

Not at this time. And I don't understand why we need this "decision

break-points" when we individually decide on a daily basis whether to

continue or discontinue (and I don't understand why and how they should be

"reassuring" and "empowering"). Please explain.

> > Sounds reasonable. But I think we can't avoid agreeing on the languages

(or

> > geographical areas) right now, because it is topical from the very

start

> > on.

> Okay. We disagree on this point.

We must talk about it. I don't understand your reasons for disagreeing.

> I'm planning to write two small books in the months ahead. I'm going to

> this independently while collaborating with you on Project Outreach. You

need

> to recognize that these books (and any other independent work I do) is my

own

> work. And I must retain the right to publish these wherever I want and in

> whatever language I want.

> But this raises a whole new issue. What is independent work? And what

work is

> collaboration? What are your thoughts?

What is independent for sure, is everything that has nothing to do with

A1-4 (and this of course you can publish in any language you want). I see

that this might be a difficult question to solve. I must think about it.

What are these two books about?

> > Agreed. If you think you are able to get on with my style of thinking

and

> > communicating for an extended period of time, you are welcome.

> No problem. But we need to reduce our exchanges to twice a week each as

> discussed above.

You and I can delay our responses up to four days (although I'd prefer just

three days). Is this okay?

> > And it reminds me that I mentioned the technological means to

protection

> > that are necessary, and that you ignored this remark.

> Why do you use the word "ignore"? I overlooked it. "Ignore" implies

> questionable motivation on my part whereas in fact I made a mistake.

I understand.

> We can investigate encryption certificates that we can exchange.

> Alternatively, we can use a secure web site.

Yes, I will urge you to use such systems. At this point, what we exchanged

up until now is nothing special or unusual, but this could change soon. I'm

not informed very good myself, and I have to learn much regarding this

subject.

> > I don't like working while somebody watches me, and I can't imagine

that any

> > [o]ther researcher, author or businessman likes that idea. Do you use

any

> > special software to shield your PC and the work it contains from

outsiders?

> Until now, no. But I will investigate and report back.

Thanks. I think it is necessary. I simply don't feel comfortable working

under this circumstances.

> I will reply to your next email within three days of receiving it.

Great. Have a good time!

Regards,

alexander

#16 (13.08.01)

Kayton > Objektivismus.de

Hi Alexander

Found a site that offers security technology we may be able to use

http://www.thawte.com/getinfo/products/personal/contents.html

I haven't explored this yet but I think this is what we need.

Barry

#17 (15.08.01)

Kayton > Objektivismus.de

Hello Alexander

This has the implication that we ~first~ have to develop a philosophy that helps individuals to work efficiently and to lead (as a result of it) a "good life."

How long will the process of fixing O'ism take?

What would be the right time [to agree on geographical regions] in your opinion, and how will we recognize it?

1) After we have had a look at "The Logical Structure of Objectivism"
2) When you believe you have eliminated the contradictions in O'ism
3) When (immediately before) you are ready to share that information with me

Perhaps I will find LSO compelling. In which case I can base my training materials on LSO and collaborate with TOC. On the other hand, perhaps LSO will not solve the problems. But I suspect that the delay in its publication is perhaps due to the problems many people have identified. Consider the papers at the following link to TOC's advanced seminar in O'ism:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/advsem01/index.asp

In particular, the following paper shows the openness with which TOC is grappling with some O'ist problems:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/advsem01/mhuemerAS2001.pdf

I have conveyed to you my development experience. I've shown you a link to the US agent that handles some of the products I have developed. And I've conveyed to you my eagerness to begin development work. But, other than this you have no ~ first hand evidence ~ that my ideas suit your objectives.

Similarly, you have conveyed to me your frustration with O'ism as it is. You've shown me links to your sites. And you've conveyed your enthusiasm for developing a systematic philosophy of reason and reality free of contradiction. But, other than this, I have ~ no first hand evidence ~ that your ideas suit my objectives.

We have not experienced each other "at work". So, for me, it is too early to make agreements about the product of our collaboration.

If we lived in the same city and were able to meet regularly, we would be in a better position to judge one-another's potential and integrity. It is a great pity that we are separated by thousands of kilometres. Trying to build mutual understanding and trust by email is extremely difficult -- perhaps even impossible.

And I don't understand why we need this "decision break-points" when we individually decide on a daily basis whether to continue or discontinue (and I don't understand why and how they should be "reassuring" and "empowering"). Please explain.

My mentor introduced me to the idea of "decision break-points". When he starts a new project he will decide to commit a limited amount of money and effort to it -- until a certain point. At that point he will reconsider whether the project is meeting his objectives. If not, he abandons it. Otherwise, he raises the stakes: more money, more time, more resources -- until the next decision break point.

We are both committing our time at the moment. My primary objective is productivity. So far, that objective is not being met. This is where my two books are relevant.

I'm planning to write a 96 page book on Ayn Rand. I've identified a publisher that I believe would probably accept my proposal for the book.

I'm also planning to write a 105 page book with a title like "101 Essential Concepts: Objectivism". This will NOT be a ~ systematic ~ presentation of O'ism. It will be a down-to-earth book for anyone who wants to find out what Objectivism is about and who does not want to read an abstract text book. I've identified a publisher for this book but I think the chances of acceptance are low. If my proposal is rejected and I can't find an alternative publisher I will simply make it available as an ebook.

I think, until LSO is released we should continue exchanging "superficial" ideas -- perhaps through the Outreach list. This will give me an opportunity to write (independently) the two books I mentioned above. And it will give you an opportunity to develop your ideas independently.

I have attached three photos of the products I have most-recently developed.

I have also digitally "signed" this email. You now have a certificate I obtained from Thawte. This makes it possible to verify that the message actually came from me. You will now be able to use this certificate to encrypt emails ~to~ me.

If you want to obtain your own certificate click here to go to the Thawte site for the first step.

Once you have this certificate and you send it to me, I will be able to use ~your~ certificate to encrypt emails ~to you~.

Regards
Barry

#18 (09.01.02)

Kayton > Objektivismus.de

Hi Alexander

Thanks. Yours is the first comment I have received. I'll let you know if a

forum pops up. However I'm now focused not on discussing the ideas but on

putting them into action.

I'm currently writing proposals to get funding for my first project, a 96 page

illustrated activity book for kids to explore what a free society looks like

and how people act in such a free society. I'm planning to have this book

finished by June.

Regards,

Barry

#19 (fehlendes Datum)

Objektivismus.de > Kayton

> Hi Alexander

> Thanks. Yours is the first comment I have received.

I recognize values if I see them (as I do with disvalues). Your article is

an important contribution to raising awareness for strategic issues among

Objectivists.

I'll let you know if a

> forum pops up. However I'm now focused not on discussing the ideas but on

> putting them into action.

> I'm currently writing proposals to get funding for my first project, a 96

page

> illustrated activity book for kids to explore what a free society looks

> and how people act in such a free society. I'm planning to have this book

> finished by June.

Sounds great. I'm now too in a situation, where only money or another form

of investment would help starting things as they should be. I'd be glad to

see how your proposals look like, so that I could learn to make my own. Is

it just for the financing of this one project or is it a general business

plan for setting up an educational company?

Please share with me whatever ideas or concepts you can.

Regards,

alexander

#20 (09.01.02)

Kayton > Objektivismus.de

"alexander ch. fürstenberg" wrote:

> Sounds great. I'm now too in a situation, where only money or another form

> of investment would help starting things as they should be. I'd be glad to

> see how your proposals look like, so that I could learn to make my own. Is

> it just for the financing of this one project or is it a general business

> plan for setting up an educational company?

> Please share with me whatever ideas or concepts you can.

At the moment I need to finance only this one project. If this project is

successful then the next step is to seek finance for an educational/publishing

company.

I'll send what I can in a couple of weeks.

Barry

I'm going away for a few days so I won't be replying to emails until Monday.

#21 (fehlendes Datum)

Objektivismus.de > Kayton

> "alexander ch. fürstenberg" wrote:

> > Sounds great. I'm now too in a situation, where only money or another

form

> > of investment would help starting things as they should be. I'd be glad

> > see how your proposals look like, so that I could learn to make my own.

> > it just for the financing of this one project or is it a general

business

> > plan for setting up an educational company?

> >

> > Please share with me whatever ideas or concepts you can.

> At the moment I need to finance only this one project. If this project is

> successful then the next step is to seek finance for an

educational/publishing

> company.

> I'll send what I can in a couple of weeks.

Thanks: alexander