rws@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (r.w.stubblefield) (01/26/90)
On Forming SPO
1. Background
The current move to start a group for discussing Objectivism
started after I posted an article at the first of the year in
sci.philosophy.tech listing the titles of the articles I had
posted there during 1989. I had posted roughly two articles a week
since August--a short article with questions one week and a longer
article with anwers the following week. I always edited the messages
so that the total (questions + answers) would fit on two typewritten
pages. Here is an excerpt from the posting that has led to me
trying to form SPO.
Message-ID: <6989@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>
The private response to the postings of questions and answers
discussed by a group of people studying Objectivism at AT&T-Bell
Labs have been worthwhile enough to prompt me to look forward
to another year.
Several people were dismayed at the prospect of me continuing to
use SPT as I had. They suggested that I see if I could have a more
appropriate group formed for things that I (and others who had been
attracted to SPT by its name and the Spafford description) might want to
discuss. My first reaction was that since the group that would be
best for my purposes would be sci.philosophy.objectivism (as I will
explain below) and since there are so many vocal posters who think
of Objectivism as a cult, that there was no chance of meeting the
constraints for forming such a group. Private mail and some SPT
articles have now convinced me otherwise.
2. The Name--SPO
Sci.philosophy.objectivism is the best name for a newsgroup that
would contain what I want to read and contribute to.
Sci--because of the approach I intend to use and would like to see
others use in such discussions. What is scientific about it is
that conclusions should be drawn from observations of reality.
Neither "Ayn Rand says so" nor "I just feel it's so" should be used as
a premise for a conclusion. [Some people object that philosophy is not
scientific because of the impossibility of repeatable experiments;
but this same objection could be raised of any of the sciences
involving human action--for example, economics.]
Philosophy--because fundamental principles, at the base of all
other human knowledge, will be the content. All five branches
of philosophy will be discussed. [I felt very constrained in
SPT to frame any comments I wanted to make on ethics, politics,
or esthetics as examples illustrating some technical epistemological
point. I would expect an SPO audience to be able to see many such
connections without me laboring to illustrate how epistemology is
relevant to the principles in the derivative branches.]
Objectivism--because I would like to discuss things with people who
have already grasped the fact that Ayn Rand has identified a set of
fundamental principles that integrate to make a philosophy. I
would like most of the contributors to have actually read the
relevant works by Ayn Rand before making any lengthy comments on a
topic. I don't want to exclude all posters who question her
conclusions. Rational, reality-based, logical opponents asking
specific questions would be welcome.
3. Charter
For the charter I propose the following:
sci.philosophy.objectivism for those who grasp that philosophy is
a science and are interested in studying Ayn Rand's philosophy
of Objectivism. The primary content is intended to be
reasoned analysis of philosophic principles (and their
applications) based on facts of reality.
This current posting (in total) comprises a longer explanation of the
charter. Note that the word "primarily" will allow the contributions
of announcements, publications, classes, club meetings and such as
long as they are interesting to people studying Objectivism. It also
allows the derivative use by honest, polite, serious folks who are not
studying it but want to learn more about Objectivism.
4. Quality
Several things will help SPO continue to have the quality I (and I
hope others) desire.
a) The precise wording above should be used in Gene Spafford's list
of newsgroups.
b) This notice (as modified after the discussion phase) should be
posted monthly.
c) Guidelines that rational people should follow to attenuate noise
of irrational posters should be posted monthly.
[To be effective, these guidelines should be able to be announced
and adhered to after a newsgroup is established. The only power of
enforcing them is the power of reason--persuasion of rational
people that following them will be of mutual benefit. An example
of such a guideline is "Never issue a public response to a posting
you consider inappropriate to a newsgroup." Arguments for such
voluntary self-control would have to be made, of course. I will
initiate a discussion here for such guidelines after I've had more
time to organize my thoughts and arguments on this issue.]
d) Style guidelines arrived at within the newsgroup should be
posted monthly.
[I have some style guidelines that were well received on the now-
defunct ORION objectivism mailing list that I intend to propose.
(It was after ORION was unable to handle that list's load
last June that I searched for and settled on SPT as the most
appropriate home for me and people who shared my interests.)]
e) Guidelines for expressing disagreement should be posted
monthly.
[I also have some ideas for this. Emotion is OK, hostility is
out; i.e., rational flaming is fine. Search for the most
fundamental point of disagreement and address only that. Address
the idea, not the person. My conclusions and arguments on this are
also intended for another posting.]
f) Maybe give a hierarchical list of principles and suggest that
someone who disagrees find the most fundamental point of
disagreement on the list and spend time trying to understand the
Objectivist position on that.
g) To avoid any difficulty with any legal representatives of Ayn
Rand's estate, the following disclaimer applies to postings in SPO:
the intent of this group is not to represent Objectivism but to
provide a forum for studying it.
h) The only action needed by system administrators should be to
prevent the only way someone can initiate (indirect) force; i.e.,
they need to remove USENET privileges of those who fraudently put
their words under the signatures of others.
Bob Stubblefield 1/90
--
Bob Stubblefield att!houxa!bobs 201-949-2846
r.w.stubblefield@ATT.COM