Kindly close your browser when you leave the conference, and sign back
in when you return. Thank you.
caro: If you require a larger font, or if you would like to fit more of the text in the window at one time, please use your Netscape View or Preference settings, or your Internet Explorer Tools/Options to change the size of the font.
agnes: Good morning, I'm Agnes Koos.
This is a trial message, but I enclose one of my most important questions to Chris Sciabarra:
After I discovered your interest in Hayek, I would be very grateful for a short comparison between Ayn Rand and Hayek - main similarities and differences, within the limits of possibility (I mean in the fields they both dealt with).
(Question tied of course of my attempt to see relationships between Objectivism and Rational Choice Theory).
caro: Good day, everyone! The moderator is now in.
caro: Please remember to go to http://w2.wetheliving.com/ if the server suddenly becomes inaccessible; there will be news there. If you have any other problems, just send me an email; my mail is open.
caro: Ted, Chris, Matt, Irfan, Agnes, and Bryan should keep in mind that their comments go live immediately. Everyone else's comments won't appear until I send them.
chris: howdy... and good day to you Caro! The guy who wrote the "opening address" is here...
irfan: I have a question for Chris on the issue of "partisanship."
Early on in his paper, Chris criticizes partisanship in Objectivist scholarship, and characterizes it as a concern not with truth, but with the source of someone's ideas. I agree with that characterization of the issue, and like Chris, I reject partisanship as an impediment to serious scholarship.
But I find it remarkable that Chris's criticisms of various Objectivist scholars--Allan Gotthelf and Tara Smith, in particular--are partisan in precisely the sense he seems to reject. In both cases, Chris's primary concern in discussing these authors is with *sources*. He writes as though the most pressing issue concerning these books was: whom did Gotthelf and Smith footnote and why? And Chris's emphasis on this issue is far from anomalous. Many Objectivists seem utterly consumed by the "who was footnoted and why" issue. It seems to me a pseudo-issue and a distraction from more important topics--e.g., "what did they write and why?"
(I should add that I actually disagree with most of what Chris says about the particular cases of Gotthelf and Smith as well. I can explain why separately.)
My question is: why isn't an emphasis on this issue (who was footnoted?) partisanship of the same invidious kind that Chris eloquently deplores? What is the point of raising it and giving it such prominence?
Irfan
caro: Excellent! I won't give a long introduction to Dr. Chris Sciabarra. I'll just say that he's the man who has brought us TOTAL FREEDOM, and let him speak for himself.
chris: I do see a question from Agnes here, who asks me about the similarities between Hayek and Rand. I explore some of the similarities in Chapters 7 and 8 of RUSSIAN RADICAL. Aside from their obvious status as advocates of the free market, I do think that the two thinkers share much with regard to their critique of "rationalism." I think one other important area to explore for similarities (and provocative differences) is in their approaches to the "tacit" dimensions of knowledge.
caro: This is a question sent in early:
The tremendous growth in published Rand scholarship is very
encouraging. But is there yet hard quantifiable information on
how much impact the published work is having:
*Do you have or do you have a plan as to how to obtain numbers on:
1. How many copies are being sold of the various published books
and journals?
chris: Irfan poses an interesting an important question, so I'll try to answer it. I don't think that I would have ever raised the issue of who is or is not referenced if the issue had not been raised to begin with by Professor Gotthelf. It is he who takes swipes at Branden without naming the title of her book, and he who takes swipes at my work without naming the book or who wrote it. I think this goes way beyond simple partisanship; by not referencing people like Branden and Kelley, for example, and not grappling with their enormous contributions to our understanding of Objectivism, something is lost of substance.
chris: I don't have numbers for all the books, though I do know numbers for my own; RUSSIAN RADICAL is on the upside of 10 thousand. I understand that Gotthelf's work has sold around 4000 copies and is the best seller in the Wadsworth series (all the more reason for it to have included a comprehensive bibliography to introduce the student to all the work being done out there by Rand scholars). Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand moved similar numbers, I believe.
caro: Whether they are mostly being bought by the "already
converted" (Objectivists, Rand fans, libertarians, a handful of
conservatives... as opposed to, say, future professors of
philosophy, liberals, the intelligent layman who is curious)?
chris: I suspect that the journals and books will have a Rand and libertarian base; however, there is evidence that many professors are assigning books (at least in my own book's case) to their classes. It is always difficult to gauge who is buying what, unless everything becomes electronically scanned and full "cookies" give us hints to people's buying habits.
irfan: A rejoinder to Chris's response to me:
I agree that Gotthelf should have mentioned Branden's book. But in the case of your work, I don't see why the issue isn't covered by his reference (which you mention) to a later discussion of secondary material.
I also don't think your explanation of why Gotthelf didn't mention Kelley or Branden is persuasive. You seem to have inferred too quickly that it's a matter of partisanship. But Gotthelf didn't mention Harry Binswanger's book, either. Perhaps it wasn't partisanship but a decision regarding exposition unrelated to partisan considerations. The decision might have been--focus as much on primary sources as possible. Neither Kelley, nor Binswanger nor Branden qualify in that respect.
caro: --Apologies--I think the refresh rate is a bit too fast. Working on that now; your patience is requested.
chris: Honestly, with regard to Branden, I can't think of a single writer who contributed more to the intellectual arsenal of Objectivism in its beginning stages -- particularly on important issues of self-esteem, volition, and such -- other than Ayn Rand, than Nathaniel Branden. And if he were not being partisan with regard to the personal details of the Rand-Branden affair, he would have at least given the reader the option of looking up alternative views of it in Barbara Branden's biography or Nathaniel Branden's memoir, rather than just offering us Rand's statement from May 1968 which said virtually nothing about the actual reasons for their split.
As for my own work, yes, it is surely a good point that Gotthelf postponed discussion of the work for his essay on secondary material. The issue here however is that he DID mention the theses of the book in his exposition -- but gave no indication where on earth these theses came from. It would have been nice for him to say -- "this are ridiculous theses put forth by Chris Sciabarra." I would have actually preferred that to having the theses dismissed in one or two sentences without any discussion whatsoever of their origin or meaning.
I hasten to add that I actually don't dislike Gotthelf's book... certainly not in the way it was attacked by Leonard Peikoff after the fact. I applaud Gotthelf's contribution here, and think it is a good sign of a wider movement toward bringing Rand into the academy.
tom: I need a brief pause in entries while I fix the refresh rate--please don't hit send for a minute.
tom: Ok--the refresh rate should now be something more reasonable. Please go ahead!
agnes: Sorry to intervene with a question not related to the previous ones - I waited for something closer to mine, but maybe the moderator arranges for the right order -
- You speak of a developing Objectivist scholarship. Do you think this should deal with a study of human values?
I mean can you imagine a scientific value inquiry within the Objectivist paradigm and how should it be?
e.g.Would it be interested in predicting the evolution of values?
chris: On the issue of partisanship, however, I should mention, that when people on the "other side" -- those more closely associated with TOC for example -- discuss Objectivism, nobody seems to hesitate to mention Peikoff, or Gotthelf, or Sciabarra, or Den Uyl, or Machan, or Rasmussen or any number of people writing in Rand scholarship. The hesitation only comes from the orthodoxy; it is as if mere mention of non-"approved" thinkers or writers is cause for concern.
chris: Agnes asks an interesting question; yes, of course, I would love to see an Objectivist-oriented discussion of the evolution of values. Up till now, in the libertarian / Objectivist universe, I've only seen discussions like this coming from the Hayekians. It would be interesting to see some historically-oriented studies by Objectivist scholars that offer an alternative to the Hayekian approach, which is influenced (to a certaian degree) by thinkers from the Scottish Enlightenment, such as Hume and Smith.
caro: DOes that answer your question, Agnes?
irfan: I'm still not persuaded by your discussion of Gotthelf or generally of this issue.
Regarding Rand-Branden, Gotthelf tells us that he doesn't *trust* B. Branden's book, hence the pointlessness of referring readers to it to read about the split. And N. Branden's book doesn't even purport to be fully factual. I don't think either book is particularly reliable on the issues it discusses. Perhaps Gotthelf should have said nothing at all about the split, but I don't see the problem with what he did do.
In the case of your book, the general issue he was discussing was Rand's prior influences and their extent. I think he wanted to deny any important level of influence without tying it to the specific claim of influence you made in your book But we'll see how he handles this in the forthcoming paper.
agnes: Thanks for the answer, but I'm surprised by Chris' emphasis on history.
Do you think it is characteristic to Objectivism or it is important just in this field ?
I may imagine completely synchronical research too, which still founds prevision (genre Rokeach, Schwartz).
caro: Looks like we have two separate threads going here. Let's finish up with Irfan's question, then move back to Agnes's. Chris?
chris: Well, Ok, Irfan, and yes, I do look forward to how he'll handle it in his forthcoming work. I know from previous exchanges with him that he disagrees rather fundamentally with my approach, which is FINE. I really value the exchange of views on these issues; speaking from my own perspective, however, I've been accused of HYPER-citations. A cursory look at my work will show text jammed with footnotes, because my own style of scholarship is to provide people with as many clues and interesting possibilities as I can -- for the sake of future research. My own website features virtually every critic who has said anything bad about my work -- because I think that it is important to put this material in a place for people to weigh and examine. I have witnessed too much personal animosity between people who don't agree with one another, and my point about partisanship is: don't let this interfere with an honest discussion of ideas. (I have other criticisms of Gotthelf's book that relate to substance -- I am sorry he didn't spend more time than he did on politics and aesthetics, but this is another issue entirely.)
As for the Branden issue... yes, I understand that he doesn't trust Branden's book... but he doesn't NAME Branden's book. Given all that has happened in the past in Objectivist circles, where the mere mention of Branden's TITLE became a cause for purging, it would have been REFRESHING for him to simply have named the source that he alluded to.
irfan: Well, I think before the moderator purges ME, I'd better let someone else have the floor. Thanks for the answers, Chris.
caro: OK, let's turn back to Agnes.
chris: Oh, and by the way, Irfan, << I >> very much enjoyed the APA conference, and was impressed by your paper, and by Professor Smith's discussion. I think her own approach -- a respectful and assertive one -- is something to celebrate, and I very much appreciated the fact that she was so willing to engage her own critics in public. It was refreshing. And Objectivism needs more like it.
agnes: Forgive me, Irfan.
tom: I'm going to knock the refresh rate down another notch--please don't send for a minute.
tom: Ok to go ahead now.
chris: Agnes asks me if the emphasis on history is characteristic to Objectivism or important just in this field. I would say that in general, the approach to value that I've seen in Objectivism is one motivated to get to the objective roots of value, to understand the nature of value. It is not so much an historical discussion as it is a scientific one. However, I do think it would be interesting for Objectivists to say more about the historical evolution of morals and traditions. I was always intrigued by Rand's statement, for example, that St. Ambrose's anti-wealth views were actually understandable, given his historical context. She was not as forgiving to those who offered anti-wealth views in the 20th century. But Rand hints here at a kind of analysis that might entail a kind of historically or culturally specific emphasis. I'm not saying "relativistic," I'm just saying that she showed a keen insight here about the relationship of moral values and the social/historical conditions within which they are expressed.
chris: I should mention too that Rand always maintained that her own understanding of the connection between reason and production could not have been possible without the Industrial Revolution, which documented that connection in terms that were undeniable.
chris: Caro, would you like me to answer some of the additional questions that came via email today?
caro: Chris, do you think that academics have much of a role in setting the social/historical context? Can you elaborate on that point a bit?
agnes: Sorry, I have problems with keeping the text on screen: it always goes back to previous passages.
Your answer does sound as if historical-social conditions would explain only divergence from a standard rationality and in fact the normal course of the historical development would be toward a well-defined type of rationality with the associated value assuptions/systems. Am I right?
chris: I'm always reminded by a statement that has been uttered in various forms by everyone from Hegel and Marx to Hayek and my colleague Peter Boettke: that we are as much the creatures of our context as we are its creators. Yes, of course, I think we have a huge role in setting -- and altering -- that context. The issue is always this: we enter into a context that offers us a "given climate of opinion," as Hayek once said. Whatever we can do to bridge the gap between that climate and the revolutionary alternatives we yearn for is essentially a translation exercise. Rand, for example, did this with such notions as "selfishness," "government," and "capitalism." I've often said that just as she named one of her books CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL, she could have named others, SELFISHNESS: THE UNKONWN IDEAL, or for her political theories, GOVERNMENT: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL. Her conceptions obviously draw from conventional words, but the meanings she provides them with are, in some instances, so different from the convention that they subtly undermine the convention. (By the way, I've done a similar thing, I think, with the very notion of "dialectic" -- taking Rand's lead, I could have titled my TOTAL FREEDOM instead: DIALECTICS: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL. So, yes, we have a place in the context; we are never speaking from an Archimedean standpoint external to that context. But we can engage in the kind of immanent critique that subtly overturns the status quo.
caro: A question from Jamie Mellway: A lot of Chris' address is applauding the recent
turn towards scholarship in Objectivism against the more
anti-scholarship of the past and with ARI. I wholehearted agree with
applauding this turn. My question for Chris is, now that we have
something of an infrastructure for academic debate with JARS and
Enlightenment, what’s next? I.e., is providing a forum enough or do
we need to have more focused approach to topics? Do we need to
aggressively challenge what is possibly wrong with (interpretations
of) Objectivism or let all the perspectives sing out loudly? How much
good scholarship do we need to impose on Objectivism? I am asking
because there seems to be a divide in Objectivism between ATL
where (almost) anything goes & the same old issues are asserted,
and with the more academic stuff is being ignored by all but a
handful of people. How do we move forward with this kind of divide?
caro: (Note: ATL is the unmoderated We The Living list, "Atlantis"
chris: As far as Agnes' question, I'm not entirely sure if we can say that historical-social conditions explain divergence from a standard rationality, and I'm pretty sure that we're not moving toward some necessary victory for a well-defined rationality. But Objectivism does have important things to say about how conditions can undermine the pursuit and achievement of values. Ayn Rand's WE THE LIVING, if anything, is one of the most eloquent statements of how an "airtight" nightmarish social existence makes us choose between various forms of suicide. Rand understood that we needed to create the kind of society where rational values would be rewarded; that society is as much the product of rational values as it is the context for their successful pursuit.
chris: Jamie poses an interesting string of alternatives. I would say that there is not much that anyone could do except to do what one does best. By this I mean, if we're scholars, and this is our mode of moving in the world of ideas, go for it. We have a wonderful division of knowledge and specialization of talents going on in a relatively infant industry. There is nothing we can do to hold back the almost anarchic development at this point -- whether it be the kind of free-wheeling ATL type discussion or the more sustained scholarly argumentation that goes with the academy. I say - "let all the perspectives sing out loudly." There's no point in trying to control something that can't be controlled. What is important is that in the marketplace of ideas, we might elevate the discussion over time so that more and more people are taking seriously the ideas that we consider. If a more focused approach to topics is your strength, I encourage you to do this (and I mean "you" in the generic sense, though, of course, I know Jamie has wonderful strengths in this area!!). I am, by the way, very pleased with the proliferation of electronic forums for discussion, even the free-wheeling ones... but especially ones like Enlightenment, which provides a place for working papers that are criticized in online conferences such as this one. I think the potential of the web (as I say in my paper) is enormous, and long-distance learning is a valuable addition to the intellectual marketplace.
caro: (Moderator's note: I'm going to moderate the next sessions more heavily, so that the flow of conversation makes more sense. Just giving you the good news in advance.)
chris: That's Ok, Caro... I'm happy to be the test case. :)
caro: from Robert Campbell: In the exchange between
Irfan and Chris I took Chris to be defending the basic principles of
good scholarship: you cite everybody whose work you know and who
has something relevant to say, whether you agree or not. In the more
tribal reaches of academia, these principles are routinely violated in
two ways. First, there is a strong preference for positive over negative
citations--citations of people you agree with vs. citations of people
you disagree with. Second, in the most factionalized areas there are
approved positive citations and disapproved positive citations. In
this context, it is very clear that in his book Gotthelf violates the
principle in both ways. His claim to be citing only "primary sources" is
an inadequate defense. As Chris and others have pointed out in the
past, if he really meant this he wouldn't have cited Peikoff either. If
Gotthelf doesn't trust either Nathaniel or Barbara Branden's
memoirs, fine--he just needs to say so. Does he trust Rand's
hagiographers, by the way? And if he doesn't, will he say that he
doesn't in print? The TOC folks have occasionally ignored relevant
sources, but their track record is far better than that of anyone
associated with ARI--and far better than Gotthelf's.
chris: By the way, on the point of advancing discussion of Objectivism, I'd also encourage Objectivist writers to begin thinking about and writing about POP CULTURE. If I can offer a brief commercial break here... my own article on, of all things, "The Paradox of Eminem," appears in the next issue of THE FREE RADICAL, and will make its debut on Lindsay Perigo's "SOLO" site as well. I think Objectivist writers need to be as concerned with pop culture as they are with the "ivory tower." It is all part of a multipronged discussion that brings Objectivist ideas to bear on an enormous variety of issues and concerns.
caro: From Andrew Breese: You, above, write about different specialists doing different
things to advance something that sounds like a cause or movement.
Perhaps because you sound like David Friedman when you say that
:), I think you mean (elements of) libertarianism as the cause or
movement. What do you honestly think libertarianism's impact can
be on the world-at-large culture in the future?
chris: I'd like to, of course, offer my own agreement with Robert Campbell on the scholarship issue. I should emphasize that this sectarianism is not distinctive to Rand scholarship. It could be found at one time in Freud scholarship, and Nietzsche scholarship, and Marx scholarship. Robert is right... in contentious areas marked by faction, this kind of sectarianism is routinely on display. But today, after a century head-start on Objectivism, Marxist scholars have learned that, over time, one must engage one's opponents within the paradigm that these opponents ostensibly share. Today, we have vast differences between the "dialectical" Marxists and the "analytic" Marxists, the Frankfurt school and the Market Socialists, and what-not. But these groups talk to one another in scholarly dialogue. (Of course, I'm not talking about Marxist politicians, who simply did away where their critics; fortunately, we've never seen anything remotely like this in Objectivism!! :) )
irfan: Responding to Robert Campbell:
I don't agree with your formulation of the principle for citation; I think the principle has to be narrower than that. The principle you've described is a principle for a bibliographical essay, not a footnote in a 100-page primer. So Gotthelf's violating *that* principle can't be relevant here.
Re Gotthelf's use of Peikoff: Peikoff's exposition of things Rand said is certainly more 'primary' a source than Branden, Kelley, Binswanger, Chris, you or me. Peikoff was one of the few people in a position to record Rand's views on the relevant questions. Hence Gotthelf's reference to it as 'quasi-primary.' That seems as good a description as any of Peikoff's book.
Clearly, Gotthelf does trust the ARI-approved biographers; he says so (p. 27). And he doesn't trust B. Branden's book--he says that, too (p. 27). As I said earlier, he should have mentioned the title of the latter book. I wasn't providing a blanket defense of Gotthelf--I was challenging the evidence for Chris's inference that Gotthelf's methods were "partisan" tout court. And I still don't think that claim has been borne out as stated in Chris's paper.
caro: Chris, can you address Andrew's question next?
chris: Andrew asks a BIG question. Honestly, I think libertarianism's impact on the world-at-large HINGES on a multipronged attack on the culture. I argue in TOTAL FREEDOM for a "dialectical libertarianism" because I believe that too many libertarians have been complacent about issues of history and culture. They simply want to roll back the state as if politics is the only domain that matters. Rand has taught us (and she's not alone in this... since Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard have offered some insights into this area as well) that we must be concerned with the preconditions and effects of liberty. It means developing the kind of systems-approach that entails investigations of philosophy, social psychology, psycho-epistemology, culture, pedagogy, linguistics, economics, and politics, maybe even cultural anthropology. Libertarianism needs to move in the direction of grand theory because the oppression it fights is on a grand scale. All of the political changes in Russia, for example, mean nothing if there is no individualist culture promoting responsibility and autonomy, independence and honesty. Markets are nothing without the institutional context within which they can flourish as mechanisms of justice.
chris: Just as an aside on Peikoff and Gotthelf: I don't think any book is more primary (other than Rand's) than Nathaniel Branden's PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-ESTEEM, which was a virtual anthology of everything he wrote while he was associated with Rand. Now, granted, there is only so much Gotthelf could do in a 100-page primer; I would not have expected him to go on and on about psychology. But in a chapter on "Virtue, Self, and Others," surely there is room for a citation of Branden's important work on self-esteem. In his Chapter 6 discussion on "Perception and Concepts," surely there is room for one citation to David Kelley's EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. This is a primer -- it can also be a hugely important resource for a young student who wants to "read more about it."
caro: From Phil Coates: You mentioin that Rand is now beginning to be taken seriously
because of the recent books in reputable venues. The next level
beyond mere acknowledgement would be viewed as central and
prestigious. Talk about when and how that might happen...when the
John Grays, Richard Rortys, WVO Quines will think they have to deal
with her.
chris: Boy, oh boy, do I hope for the day that Phil projects! I don't know how long or even if that day will come. I would have hoped that with Rorty having been David Kelley's thesis advisor that he could have been engaged on Rand. John Gray, of course, has long turned his back on libertarian or even Hayekian thought, but I would have hoped that even he would have ATTACKED Ayn Rand, since mention of her is often better than silence.
I do wish to say however that lots of us are working very hard to bring others on board in discussing Rand critically. For example, in the next issue of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, a major Marxist literary theorist and aesthetician, Gene Bell-Villada, who was a finalist in the 1997 National Book Critics Circle Award, contributes an essay on Rand's aesthetics. I'm doing my best to bring as many people from as many points of view on board to discuss Rand. Others are working hard too, including Allan Gotthelf, who, in the Ayn Rand Society, brings critics of Objectivism into engagement with Objectivist scholars. I think that it is simply a matter of time: the more this is discussed, the more there is a possibility that we will raise Rand to the level of centrality and prestige that she deserves. It will just entail sustained work on the part of a lot of people.
caro: From Frank Forman: Chris, outside the ARI band, are you seeing signs that
Objectivists are opening up? That factions retreat into
fundamentalism is characteristic of ideas in decline, as Randall
Collins showed in "The Sociology of Philosophies," but this
Objectivism is not at all in decline, just one small branch of it.
chris: Well, I do think that organizations like The Objectivist Center, Enlightenment, and others, are opening up to allow the perspectives of outsiders to be heard and discussed. Given the sectarian history of Objectivism, given the closed-culture of the early movement, I think that every step toward the "opening up" is a step well taken. But Rome wasn't built in a day, to use an old cliche. We need to be patient, especially with a philosophy and with people who are fired up by that philosophy. Look at how long it took for Marxism to make the impact IT made on the world. Today, not a single discipline in the social sciences or humanities is unaffected by the Marxist paradigm. Infiltration is insidious, but it is productive of consequences across disciplinary bounds that are often not seen immediately. I think the "cat's out of the bag" at this point, and those who have ventured away from fundamentalism, so-to-speak, can't stop the process toward open engagement. And this is good.
irfan: I promise not to say any more on this, but responding to Chris's aside on Peikoff & Gotthelf--this strikes me as a change of subject. The question isn't what Gotthelf's footnoting policy should have been--mine would have been different--but whether his actual policy was motivated by "partisanship." My point has been that you (Chris) referred to Gotthelf's book explicitly and expressly as an example of partisanship, but haven't in my view pointed to sufficient evidence to vindicate that claim about his motives. In general, I think one needs to adduce A LOT of inductive evidence to make claims about people's motives, and we haven't seen enough evidence to make the inference you've drawn. Yes, he could have included Branden and Kelley, and didn't, but he could have included Binswanger and Tara Smith and didn't. One explanation for all of that is partisanship; another is an intention to focus on primary or nearly primary sources. Your evidence is indeterminate between those two explanations, and doesn't account for some of the facts.
caro: On that note, the session is will now close, unless Chris would like to make further statements, about anything, at this point. I request that, when Chris has said goodbye, everyone log off and then log back in just before 5:30 EST if attending the next session with Irfan Khawaja. Thank you!
chris: Well, in the case of Branden, we're talking about a primary source in my view; so the exclusion must be partisan -- I have no other explanation. Ultimately, of course, yes, you're right: I'm not inside Gotthelf's head. I don't know his motives, but I know what I see. On Gotthelf's own account, primary sources were important to him, and secondary sources were not. So even if we discount everyone on that criteria -- Nathaniel Branden remains a glaring omission. Given Gotthelf's close association with ARI, speaking at ARI-affiliated conferences and such, I simply can't imagine that anyone there would have liked to have seen him reference Branden.
chris: Let me end on that note... and wish everybody well. I'm very happy and glad to have been invited to participate here, and look forward to the other sessions! Thanks to Enlightenment and all those who participated! Take care!
caro: Thank you, Chris! Thanks to everyone for your questions. Please log back in at 5:30 for the next session.
caro: Sorry--I realized that wasn't clear. Logging off consists of simply closing your browser, or going to a different web page.