David Allen's "Getting Things Done," as Integration

I recommend David Allen's book, Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity, New York, Penguin, 2001, 267 pages.

Amy Peikoff has fully reviewed the book in The Objective Standard, here. The special point I am focusing on in this post is that the Getting Things Done system is a tool of integration, at multiple levels.

"Teaching you how to be maximally efficient and relaxed, whenever you need or want to be, was my main purpose in writing this book," says Allen (p. xi, emphasis added). That is what Allen does. As the subtitle says, he presents an art, that is, a general method that employs judgment, which uses free will and a growing body of knowledge.[1] He applies that art, which requires an investment of time to learn and automatize, to achieve both higher productivity and greater relaxation at the same time. No one needs to postpone a relaxed attitude until after work hours. That is an example of integration.

One element of Allen's system of Getting Things Done is what I call The Total Inbox. The idea is to place everything that enters your world and demands your attention into a single depository. This is the collection phase, and it too is an instance of integration. It brings together the many channels that affect us daily: phone calls, emails, letters, requests made at meetings, and nagging demands from one's own subconscious ("I really should do something about ...").

The next phase, processing, performs a cognitive integration. For each input (such as a bill received in the mail) that goes into the Getting Things Done system, one must identify its nature (a legitimate request for payment), categorize it (deserves prompt but not immediate payment), and state an action that will move one a step closer to a solution (write a check on the 14th of the month). The thinking required here is a form of integration in that it identifies facts and connects them to one's values and actions.

After the inputs are collected and initially processed, they can be organized into a systematic way of dealing with them. For me, that means a short interconnected set of lists of projects and the next-action to take for each one. Lists, however, are useless unless one reviews them regularly and then acts on them.

Those are the four stages: Collecting, Processing, Organizing, and Reviewing. This personal management system connects the philosophical (one's hierarchy of values) to the psychological (both the random flashes of insight and the ill-timed naggings issued by the subconscious) to the existential (action in the world as it is and as one wants to make it).

For me, David Allen's book, Getting Things Done, required several days to read and annotate and then another day to implement. The result has been a higher quality life, one in which I have peace of mind in knowing that I have accounted for everything within my control.

Burgess Laughlin
Author of The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, described here.

[1] I learned this from Harry Binswanger: hblist.com.

Why construct a chronology?

UPDATED Oct. 9 through Jan. 30 in the seven postscripts.

INTRODUCTION. A chronology is a statement, usually in the form of a list, of the temporal order of a series of events. Ideally, a chronology identifies: a particular time, the nature of the event, and the place. A chronology ought also to identify the source of the information for each item, thus answering the question, "How do you know this person did this at this time and place?"

The value of a chronology is three-fold. Assembling a chronology helps a researcher discover what he knows and doesn't know. When fully documented, a chronology helps the researcher check the reliability of his information. Placing events in temporal order paves the way for identifying the causal relationships, if any, between the events.

EXAMPLE. Consider an example, the series of events happening around the publication of David Harriman's book, The Logical Leap. The following chronology is a work in progress. Two crucial pieces of information, as well as some details, are missing.

1985. Dr. Peikoff and others created The Ayn Rand Institute. After Ayn Rand's death in 1982, Dr. Peikoff became the executor of her estate and her intellectual heir. [Missing: a source describing Dr. Peikoff's responsibilities as executor and intellectual heir, as he understands them.] Dr. Peikoff became ARI's first chairman of the board of directors. (Source: "Announcements". The Objectivist Forum 5 (6): 13–15, December 1984.)

2001. Dr. John McCaskey founded the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship. Dr. McCaskey is a professor of history and philosophy of science at Stanford University. (Source: johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html.)

2004. Dr. McCaskey joined the ARI board of directors. (Source: johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html.)

200?-200?. ARI funded physicist David Harriman's writing of The Logical Leap. (Source: johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html.)

200?-200?. Dr. McCaskey discussed with David Harriman an early draft of Harriman's manuscript, "The Logical Leap". Dr. McClaskey told Harriman: "The historical accounts as presented are often inaccurate, and more accurate accounts would be difficult to reconcile with the philosophical point the author is claiming to make." That quotation is Dr. McClaskey's later summary of earlier conversations. (Source: johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html.)

June 14, 16, and 28, 2010. Dr. McCaskey sent an email on each of three days to David Harriman. Dr. McCaskey's emails, written as he read through The Logical Leap, challenged Harriman's statements in the published book. (Source: www.johnmccaskey.com/emails.html.) Apparently Dr. McCaskey received an advanced copy, weeks before the official date of publication listed on Amazon, as noted for July 6 below.)

July 6, 2010. David Harriman's book was officially published. Harriman, working through NAL Trade, published The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics. Dr. Peikoff was the author of the Introduction. (Source: "Product Details" section of the Amazon page, www.amazon.com/dp/0451230051, as of Oct. 4, 2010.)

July ??, 2010. Dr. McCaskey and eight other academics privately discussed David Harriman's book. [Missing information: Was the discussion via email or face-to-face? Did the discussion occur after the book was officially published? If so, what was the purpose of the discussion?] (Source: johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html.)

????, ??, 2010. Dr. Peikoff received a copy of emails apparently sent by one or more unknown persons, who apparently were involved in the July 2010 private discussions by nine academics, to another unknown person (who apparently shared them with Dr. Peikoff), apparently relating to Dr. McCaskey's private comments about the book. (Source: the email, from Dr. Peikoff to Arline Mann, at johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html. My repeated use of "apparently" reflects the partly conjectural nature of this particular account.)

August 30, 2010. Dr. Peikoff emailed Arline Mann. She is an attorney and member of the board of directors for ARI. In his email to Mann, Dr. Peikoff said, "By the way, from the emails I have seen, his [McCaskey's] disagreements are not limited to details, but often go to the heart of the philosophic principles at issue." [Missing: What are the principles to which Dr. Peikoff alludes? Do his actions follow from his responsibilities as executor and heir?] Dr. Peikoff said too that Dr. McCaskey must leave (the board of ARI, presumably) or he, Dr. Peikoff, would. [Not clear to me: What is Dr. Peikoff's current relationship to ARI and its board of directors? Was he saying that if Dr. McCaskey didn't leave, then he, Dr. Peikoff, would withdraw sanction of ARI?] (Source: johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html, which reproduces Dr. Peikoff's email, with Dr. Peikoff's permission, Dr. McCaskey says.)

September 3, 2010. Dr. McCaskey publicly announced his resignation from ARI's board. (Source: Dr. McCaskey's statement at johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html.)

September 4, 2010. Dr. McCaskey's comments on and rating of Harriman's book appeared in public. Dr. McCaskey wrote comments on the book in the review section of the book's Amazon page. The title of his comment is "Potentially seminal theory, but some unconventional history." He gave the book a "3" rating. (Source: the review section of the Amazon page www.amazon.com/dp/0451230051 for The Logical Leap.)

CRITIQUE. To critique a chronology, the writer himself as well as his reviewers might ask questions such as:
- Is the chronology accurate, as stated?
- What other relevant events occurred, if any?
- What other information is missing? (In the example above, I have noted two missing pieces: a description of Dr. Peikoff's responsibilities as executor and heir, as he sees them; and the nature of the philosophical principles mentioned by Dr. Peikoff as appearing in private emails. Some details, such as a few dates, are also missing.)
- On any point, has the writer misinterpreted the sources?
- Are "stronger" sources available?
- Do any of the sources need corroboration?

Suggestions about the construction of chronologies in general or about the example above in particular are welcome.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory:The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

P. S. 1 (Oct. 12, 2010) -- An expanded chronology is available here: http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/resignation-of-john-mccaskey-facts.html

P. S. 2 (Oct. 29) -- Craig Biddle presents his argument here: http://www.craigbiddle.com/misc/mccaskey.htm

P. S. 3 (November 10) -- Leonard Peikoff makes a statement here: peikoff.com/peikoff-vs-an-ari-board-member

P. S. 4 (Nov. 11) -- The Ayn Rand Institute makes a statement here: aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=26109

P. S. 5 (Nov. 16) -- David Harriman, in "Is My Account of History 'Unconventional'?," discusses a criticism of his book at thelogicalleap.com/archives/102, which apparently is the first of a series of posts.

P. S. 6 (Nov. 20) -- Paul Hsieh (with Diana Hsieh) publishes a closing statement (including a comment from a critic, Yaron Brook) and adds elements for the chronology of events here: blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/11/closing-thoughts-on-ari-peikoff-and.html

P. S. 7 (Jan. 30, 2011) In an essay "Justice for Leonard Peikoff," Glenn Jorgensen defends Dr. Peikoff by supporting -- with an extended argument (plus citations) and an example (suggested by Jorgensen) -- Peikoff's position that the issue in the conflict with Dr. McCaskey was McCaskey's repudiation of a key element of Objectivist philosophy. Jorgensen's essay appears in Brian Phillips's weblog, Live Oaks, on Jan. 30, 2011, here: txpropertyrights.blogspot.com/2011/01/justice-for-leonard-peikoff.html (See also the comments by Sean Green, both here on Making Progress, below, and on Live Oaks.)

Best approach to disputes in a movement?

If I had another lifetime to live, I would like to study social movements -- for example, how they form, how they expand without losing their original purpose, and how individuals respond to the inevitable disputes among members. Intriguing movements of the past were the anti-slavery movement in the 1700-1800s, the movement to break down trade barriers in the 1800s, the movement to abolish the draft in the 1960-1970s, and the movement to abolish prohibitions against abortion, also in the 1960-1970s.

I have been a student of Objectivism and a member of the Objectivist movement for almost fifty years. I have seen conflicts arise and fade away. I am learning that there is a proper procedure for outside individuals -- those who are not directly involved -- to approach these conflicts. Part of that procedure consists of asking and answering these questions:

(1) Does the dispute deserve my attention, that is, is there justification for taking time away from pursuing my highest personal values -- my central purpose in life, my friendships, and my favorite and much needed recreational activities?

(2) Exactly what is the conflict? Is it philosophical, personal, something else, or a combination?

(3) Exactly what is the issue in dispute? If there are several issues, in what order should I resolve them?

(4) Is all the evidence available that I need in order to make a decision about which side, if any, to support? Have I waited long enough -- usually months or even years -- for all the relevant facts to emerge? Do I have the facts straight about who did what? Are my sources -- primary and secondary -- reliable?

(5) Do I need to make a decision now or at any time? If so, why?

(6) If I do decide to investigate a dispute and if I uncover enough information to form a judgment, should I take a stand (which entails time and effort to formulate, present and defend), either in private or in public?

The main lesson I have learned is to wait until I can answer such questions with confidence. A secondary lesson is that Objectivism (which is a fixed set of ideas) remains unchanged no matter what happens between individuals in the Objectivist movement.

What other approach would you suggest?

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

Is Neoconservatism Dead?

From the American Conservative Union Foundation's newsletter, Issue 162, August 25, 2010, at conservative.org . . .

"Neoconservatives today dominate conservative think tanks and foundations; they have a major presence in the media; and they are entrenched in America’s universities. Well-known neoconservative intellectuals such as Michael Ledeen, William Kristol, and David Brooks are regular contributors to the National Review, Weekly Standard, and New York Times. They all appear frequently on Fox News and PBS. They are the public face of the conservative movement.

Given their high levels of prominence and productivity, how can the question of the death of their intellectual movement even arise?" . . .

[For the remainder of this article, see: http://www.conservative.org/acuf/issue-162/issue162cul2 ]

I highly recommend Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, by Thompson and Brook and available through Amazon. The book stands at the intersection of history and philosophy, which is the focus of this weblog, Making Progress.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

P. S. -- I provided a chronology for the key individuals and events in the book, here.

Peter Schwartz, "The Writing Process"

For beginning and intermediate writers, I recommend The Writing Process, an audio recording of two lectures by writer and editor, Peter Schwartz.[1]

In a quiet, understated style, Schwartz first identifies false ideas some writers -- and would-be writers -- hold about the nature of writing. These false ideas make the writing process more difficult than it needs to be. An example false idea is the notion that the writer as a person is defective if his efforts to write are not productive. The appropriate true idea here is the insight that the process the writer is following, not the writer himself, is most likely the cause of a writing problem. If the writer comes to understand (1) the process he is actually using and (2) the logical process he should be using, then he can take steps to practice the objective process.

The second major section of the lectures considers true ideas about writing, as theory. Topics include the nature of clarity, not only sentence by sentence, but for a whole essay; the integrative role of a theme; and the importance of choosing, before writing, the level of abstractness appropriate for the subject and theme. The problem of abstractness is a problem of depth. For example, does a writer need to establish the metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical foundations of a political theme? A homework assignment at the end of the first lecture challenges listeners to decide which sort of article to write for a particular theme -- for instance, that the U. S. Food and Drug Administration should be abolished.

The third major section of the lectures also examines true ideas about writing, but in actual practice. (Integration of theory and practice is characteristic of Schwartz's lectures.) Particularly helpful is Schwartz's discussion of the writer's actions in the five major stages of the writing process: understanding; compiling a "laundry list" (including a theme statement); outlining (Schwartz recommends two types); composing a draft; and editing.

Peter Schwartz's lectures, The Writing Process, are an exercise in objective communication. Drawing from his own long experience, he identifies facts about the writing process and offers suggestions for making it more efficient and therefore more enjoyable.

Burgess Laughlin

Author of The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] Available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore.

A Chronology for "Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea"

In late August and September, Study Groups for Objectivists will examine selected chapters of C. Bradley Thompson's new book, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore. The book, which I hope to review next month, spans 2400 years of history as part of the author's plan to characterize the sixty-year-old neoconservatism movement and uncover its tangled roots. The movement's advocates characterize neoconservatism as a form of conservatism uniquely identified with America. It isn't, as shown in the following chronological sketch -- which I drew up while selectively rereading the book.

I have placed this chronology in the Prep section for the study group. Perhaps this chronology will also be useful to anyone now reading Dr. Thompson's book. My third motivation is to counter the impression that some individuals have -- that the book is only about day-to-day politics under the Bush administration. Far from it!

The question marks below show I am unsure of a particular point. Treat the details cautiously; this is only a working draft I wrote to make my own study of this rich book more productive.

428-328 BC: Plato, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

1135-1204: Moses Maimonides. (see Wikipedia) (p. 211)

1469-1527: Niccolo Machiavelli, Florence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavelli

1844-1900: Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche

1883-1945: Benito Mussolini (see Wikipedia)

1889-1976: Martin Heidegger (see Wikipedia)

1899-1973: Leo Strauss (see Wikipedia)

1915: During WWI, Werner Sombart (1863-1941) publishes Merchants and Heroes, denounces the selfishness of the merchant society (capitalism), and praises Plato's idea of society, as a model for the German state. Sombart influenced intellectuals who in turn influenced young nihilists and the young Strauss immediately after WWI. (pp. 206-207)

1920-2009: Irving Kristol (see Wikipedia)

1921-1929: Strauss is a devoted follower of Nietzsche. (p. 200)

c. 1922: Strauss audits courses taught by Heidegger, whom Strauss initially admires. (p. 200)

1927: Carl Schmitt (1888-1985), a close friend of Sombart and later an official Nazi scholar, publishes The Concept of the Political. The theme is that capitalism is bad (it "depoliticizes" society) and a society based on "the political" (collective political action) is good. (p. 207)

c. 1930(?): Strauss, a Jew by birth culture, identifies but does not reject (?) Heidegger's connection to Nazism. Strauss later (when?) shows disdain for Heidegger personally. (p. 201)

1930's-1940s: Later neocons are Trotskyite communists at this time. (p. 27)

1932: Strauss reviews Schmitt's The Concept of the Political. Strauss, whose much later neocon supporters said he was a "friend of liberal democracy," does not defend a free society but instead attacks it by helping Schmitt strengthen Schmitt's argument against a free society. (p. 208) Strauss thus indirectly aided in destroying the Weimar Republic. Strauss, not a Nazi, sided with Nazis (and others) against capitalism. (p. 211)

1932, Sept. 2: Strauss writes a long letter to Schmitt, adding more intellectual ammunition to Schmitt's anti-capitalist arguments. E.g., man is evil and therefore needs to be dominated by the unifying state, preferably by uniting men against other men. (p. 211)

1932: Strauss leaves Berlin for Paris, then Cambridge Univ. (1935), New York universities (1938-1948), and Univ. of Chicago (1949-1969). (Wikipedia)

1932: Before he turns anti-semitic, Mussolini (writing with fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile) publishes "Doctrine of Fascism," an article presenting the fundamental principles of fascism. (p. 214) http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

1933, May: In a letter to his Jewish friend Karl Lowith, Strauss (a Jew by birth but later an atheist in private), says he thinks the best antidote to Nazism is another sort of fascism. It saves man from the "ludricous and despicable appeal to the rights of man." (p. 212) The type of fascism Strauss refers to is the early Italian version he learned from a variety of European writers. (CBT, p. 213) The wording of the letter resembles the wording of Mussolini's brochure. (p. 214)

1941: At the New School for Social Research (NY), Strauss delivers the lecture "German Nihilism," explaining that nihilist young "Conservative Revolutionaries" in the 1920s gravitated from Nietzsche and Heidegger to Nazism and Fascism. Though rejecting nihilism, he sympathizes with the nihilists' attacks on Enlightenment and capitalist culture -- "modernity." (p. 202) From the 1940s onward, Strauss showed contempt for the moral meaning of capitalism, which is the right of each individual to pursue his own happiness. (pp. 203-204) The essence of virtue, he held, is self-sacrifice. (p. 205) While accepting their morality, he did not follow their politics (totalitarianism). (p. 205) He was "moderate" and "prudent"; they were extreme. Further, they blamed Plato for rationalizing capitalism; Strauss "recovered" Plato by reinterpreting him in a way compatible with Strauss's philosophy of governance (Platonic-Machiavellianism, that is, classical [idealism]-realism), the foundation of later neoconservatism. (p. 206)

1950-1960s: The individuals who will later consider themselves neocons are "liberals" at this time. (p. 27)

1952: Reading philosopher Strauss inspires Kristol to launch the neoconservatism movement. (pp. 64, 137) Kristol synthesizes Plato and Machiavelli (both described by Strauss) as "classical [idealism]-realism." (p. 137)

1953: Strauss publishes Natural Right and History. (Wikipedia) ["Right" apparently refers not to individual moral or political"rights" but to a structure of the world, including society, as when philosophers rule and commoners are ruled by "natural right."

1960s: Certain liberals, on their way to becoming neocons, denounce the cultural Left (moral relativism, etc.). (p. 27)

1970s, early: "... Kristol, following Leo Strauss's lead, begins to flirt with 'the secular myth of nationalism' as an antidote to the internal contradictions inherent in bourgeois capitalism." (CBT, p. 220) This is an example of an intellectual, Kristol, applying a philosopher's philosophical (universal) idea to a particular culture. Within 20 years, Kristol will be willing to openly say that the three pillars of neoconservatism are religion, nationalism, and economic growth. (p. 221)

1970s: Kristol encourages proto-neoconservatives to accept the welfare state (p. 24) but at the same time his proto-neoconservatives realize Pres. Johnson's "Great Society" was a mistake because it tried to impose liberal idealism too quickly on the supposed reality of a religious, nationalist country. (p. 140)

1990s, late: David Brooks, intellectual heir to Kristol and a writer for the New York Times, begins publishing the principles of "national greatness conservatism." (p. 222) Note how long the chain of influence is: decades from Strauss to Kristol to Brooks and then in 2008 to John McCain.

See Wikipedia for "David Brooks (journalist)."

2003: Kristol publishes "The Neoconservative Persuasion." (p. 23)

2008: Brooks trains John McCain in the neocon philosophy of governance. (p. 225)

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

Bernstein to lead study group on capitalism's history

THE STUDY GROUP
For June 14 to July 25, Study Groups for Objectivists has scheduled a five-week study group examining the historical roots of capitalism. The study group leader will be prolific author, lecturer, and philosophy teacher Andrew Bernstein, PhD ( http://www.andrewbernstein.net ). The study text will be four chapters from his book, The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire. To allow for attendance at the 2010 Objectivist Conference, the study group skips the week of July 4. The fifth and last week of the study group will be a review week.

Why study this text? Dr. Bernstein says:

Capitalism is under attack. The intellectuals accuse it of crimes against humanity. Following the lead of the intellectuals, the politicians push America remorselessly into socialism. Now more than ever in America’s illustrious history, a capitalist manifesto is necessary -- a ringing moral endorsement of the principle of individual rights.

Most urgently, men must start by studying capitalism’s history. Socialist intellectuals have created a vast mythology, claiming capitalism exploited workers, exacerbated child labor, instigated imperialism, and spawned penury. This fabric of interlocking canards is taught to millions of students.

It is time for the antidote.

The antidote to that statist mythology is "Part One: History" in The Capitalist Manifesto.

THE BOOK
So far, I have finished reading the Introduction and Part One. The style is clear and direct, yet informal. The content is logically structured. The "joints" in the skeleton of the argument are evident because the author tells readers at each turn where the argument is headed next. The text is objective, that is, it supports each theme and subtheme with a flood of evidence.

This book is a one-stop source for anyone who has an active mind engaged in trying to decide what sort of political system is best for living fully on earth. Intellectual activists working for capitalism can recommend the book for such readers. Readers already supporting capitalism as an ideal will gain a wealth of information about the actual history of the rise of capitalism, its brief period of flowering, and the beginnings of its decline. The footnotes and annotated bibliography are doorways to further study. By assembling all of this information in one spot, Dr. Bernstein has spared readers from the vast investment of time required to sort through scattered scholarly material.

Capitalism has been an "unknown ideal," to use Ayn Rand's phrase. Her work and Dr. Bernstein's work are making it known.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith