Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

LoBagola

Regulars
  • Posts

    196
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by LoBagola

  1. I don't. And I'd agree when it comes to subjects where the learning is held verbally then background is important. I wasn't precise when I wrote the first post, but they activities I had in mind often require pre-verbal knowledge. E.g. poker, chess, athletics. I used to play poker semi-professionally and a lot of really great players thought process seemed to be partially instinct based. I use the term loosely. But I just mean they are not often able to articulate or prove to you why something is the best play. I'd say driving a car is the same. You can be kinda specific in that you can say "you need to slow down when someone's infront"... "you press your foot on the accelerator when you want to go" etc but all those little adjustments etc seem to be pre-verbal knowledge. It's not something you really articulate. When I feel this I press the accelerator this much, when I feel that I press on the break that much and look that way depending on what I see...
  2. A while ago, while working out, I was thinking. I can do 20 pull-ups, easily. I didn't work for it, and I don't have to be working out to do them. I haven't gone to gym in over a year and I know I can still do 20. My body is just built in such a way that doing certain core exercises are just insanely easy for me. Now, I wonder if there are parallels in the mind. Is it possible that we have some innate aptitude or talent? While I've spent a great deal of my time pursuing X, maybe innately (biologically) I'd be much better geared towards Y (let's just say... music). So if only I'd have found and started to play music when I was young I'd be insanely talented. I know from having done many performance activities that the tiniest edges in talent actually multiply and so the learning curve is just absurdly different. Someone can spend 5 hours practicing something, another, with some innate aptitude, can spend the same 5 hours, but they would equate to 50-80 for the other person. It bothers me to think about the possibility that my brain may be innately much better at doing something else than I'm currently doing. Does anyone else think about this?
  3. The dictionary definition of "success" is given as: the achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted; and "successful" is defined as: Having achieved wealth or eminence If I think of myself, my life, and my values, I can say there are many values I have failed to achieve and many I have succeeded in achieving. I can choose to once again pursue those values that I have not achieved, and potentially I will succeed. What I’m curious about however, is at what point I can say “I’m a success” or “I’m a failure”. It seems like something that is intrinsically phrased (I posted about this here http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27276). Can one actually be a “failure” or a “success” if no other details are provided? What would that mean? The dictionary definition of success seems somewhat useless. Achieving wealth — how much wealth? Eminence — why should that be “success”? So far what I’m thinking is I can only ever say I failed at achieving this value, or succeeded at achieving that one — but I can’t ever say “I’m a failure” or “I’m a success”, because that’s intrinsicism. Also, I think this would tie into the method by which one would evaluate a person as “good” or “evil”.
  4. I agree. But it suits doesn’t it? It has some kind of appeal. Now, what I was saying is that in much the same way, certain phrases or propositions have a kind of musical appeal which can suit an emotion. And yet, they don’t mean anything when standing on their own, e.g. “I’m a failure”. Because it suits it’s much more difficult initiating a process of actual thought. However, if you’re aware of the nature of these propositions and what they are, then it’s still difficult, but it won’t be as difficult, to begin that process of actual thought. I wasn’t asking what people mean by them. People can mean different things; they can say things they don’t mean; they can mean things they don’t say; and they can even not know what they mean. They can say “you’re the same” even if your completely different. In the process of explaining an emotion they may err or just be lazy. But it’s just not a big deal in a social situation, as Harrison has pointed out. Yes, so some thoughts are given meaning only by the context, and it’ll be implicit. E.g. “you’re wrong” is equivalent to “I think you’re wrong” (socially softeners make a difference, but for the sake of this post, they are the same). What I’m really trying to do here, and obviously struggling at doing, is to understand this even more abstractly. E.g. for any given statement, I or anyone else makes, could I induct principles by which I can judge whether the data available in the situation (as specified implicitly) is enough to validate it? Or does could I just simply say "keep asking yourself questions about a proposition until you have all the answers, within YOUR context of knowledge?" Right, and it’s easy for us to imitate this “thought process” mentally by rehashing these types of phrases when they suit some emotion. And especially if you have some deeply ingrained rationalistic beliefs (which intrinsicism gives rise to). Yes, that's it.
  5. There's something I've been groping to understand, but I'm not quite getting it. I'll often hear statements uttered, whether it's myself who's mentally whispering them or others who are vocalizing them, that I don't get when I start asking questions. I'll give some examples off the top of my head. I'm trying to find out what all of these have in common. If someone says to you "you're the same" after you haven't seen each other in years. On it's own the statement means nothing. The same as what? In what respect? As measured since when? I'm guessing all of that is supposed to be implicit in the context of the whole situation, right? But then... I struggle to think of scenarios where there is an actual common ground to the implicit context. I feel like there's often a disconnect in understanding between others and myself because of this. It's not like I bring it up, because most people don't think about it, but I do think about it. Like now. On it's own what is the statement: "you're the same". It's just a mouthful of air, right? It means nothing. What are we doing with the concepts then? "I'm a failure" you secretly whisper to yourself. You see, these propositions can be destructive. I've thought about we can use this as an escape clause to thinking. It's like listening to sad music to suit a sad mood. Your feeding emotions because it suits, and your not checking if it's right or wrong. What does it mean to fail? A failure at what? What is success and what is the standard implicit in my understanding of these two? How can these saying float around in our mind, but float around with no real substance or understanding? What is that we're doing here? What's in common with this and the earlier proposition? Is it dropping context? Is it unformed concepts? Is it implicit knowledge? I can think of more, but I'll save you from my ranting and rambling. Here are some more of the top off my head: "Everyone's different?"— different how? who is everyone? every single person on earth? "It's good to give back, you know"— give back what? when? how? good, by what standard? "deep down, everyone is good" — what's deep down? good at what? what is good? I'm aware of my rationalistic tendencies and desire for perfection. So maybe that's what speaking out in me now. But I have a suspicion these are connected, and I want to understand what it is I need to learn to understand HOW they are connected. Why? Because if I'm able to become aware of the error that happens in crafting these propositions I'm able to save my mind from destruction. There's potentially an infinite gap between "I failed at a dance move", and "I'm a failure", but without thinking about it, you subject yourself to mental disaster.
  6. Let's say we have an entity with 50 characteristics. One of the characteristics is responsible for there being 10 others. Another one is responsible for another 10... and so on. So we have 5 fundamental characteristics responsible for the remaining 40. If we want to form a concept referring to this and other such entities, what do we pick as our fundamental defining characteristic? I can't find anything in reality whose nature corresponds to my hypothetical scenario. I just invented it. What then, if anything, would this say about my fundamental method of thinking? Is this an example of rationalism?
  7. I'll be working through this book soon so happy to compare.
  8. I'd like to explore the link between emotion and intelligence. What I mean by intelligence is the ability to retain, integrate and recall information when required. The more information that is extracted from the background data of noise the higher the intelligence. When I think about certain words, for example: vitriolic, I’ll mostly just recall the definition and have a few far-removed examples of sentences of its use. I don’t feel anything thinking about it. Much the same can be said for other words. So then when I would sit with a girlfriend and say to her “yeah, well if we ever decide that we’re sick of each other’s adventures then we’re on different paths and we can just separate” and she reacts with horror – I would be confused. To me that sentence is simple reasoning. But wait… there’s so much in there that I’m omitting and ignoring it’s scary. I’m pretty sure when *some* particular kinds of people (definitely not all!) criticize me for being “black and white” or “conceptualizing” too much. What they’re talking about is my subconscious proclivity towards the construction of rationalistic castles. Now here’s what I notice with these people (e.g. the aforementioned horrified girlfriend). Their emotional astuteness is combined with ability to paint descriptively with words and a knack for choosing them felicitously. So while I can spend a few minutes hemming and hawing, trying to figure out how best to express what it is I want or am thinking, someone else might just talk for 3 minutes straight and it all flows so well and makes sense. So it got me thinking… When you think of words do you feel anything? What do you think about when I say “anger”? What do you feel? I just think "arghhh" or literally just the words "when someone pisses me off", and don't feel much at all. Do you think the ability to recall concepts, retain words and speak with an elegant fluidity is inversely correlated with emotionally repressive tendencies? How about the impact on learning? I know when I study maths for example I will very quickly forget abstract theories or concepts unless I in some way connect them to me through metaphor. And if I can make it emotionally significant that’s even better (although unfortunately difficult and unlikely).
  9. It's interesting because if I hold a premise that's wrong, e.g. a mystic epistemology I cannot act on it consistently. So I have it 'stored', but then when do I actually act on it? Only when I speak? Or perhaps... it can act as 'escape clauses' in stressful situations. E.g. you need to do something but the escape clause (faulty premise) allows you an 'out' for taking the right (moral) action by shrouding your mind in doubt. I generally dislike anything self-help because it all seems so trashy and vague. Have you read that book? I don't see any problem with working on problems externally as well as internally (through philosophical reprogramming).
  10. Yes, I ordered a cheap second hand copy of abebooks.
  11. Philosophy: Who Needs It I thought integration is exactly that, volitional. But here Ayn seems to be saying it's not. So it should be either integrate or not, rather than integrate consciously or integrate subconsciously. Now this got me thinking. If my subconscious does some kind of integrative work in the background what is the consequence of uttering a philosophical catch-phrase? Is my subconscious able to reconstruct all premises implicit in a statement and then dress itself up in that philosophical framework? When do I come to 'accept' it's underlying premise(s) as my guiding philosophical framework? E.g. if I'm driving my car and move lanes to what seems like a faster one, but now a massive truck cuts itself in-front of me and slows me right back down. Then I say "God dam! I should have known this will happen. Of course this happens to me!" Will my subconscious then strip out the premises implicit in the statement and start making them my philosophy? Some premises I can think of is: metaphysics: intrinsic epistemology: mysticism (knowledge through revelation) Or do those statements reflect that as being my underlying philosophical system? I'm slightly confused as to why I might naturally / instinctively say something that reflects a subjectivist / intrincist philosophy when I profess to hold Objectivist metaphysics / epistemology as true. And I'm curious as to what kind of damage is done subconsciously when I say those things. Some other statements to think about would be everything out of that essay: "Don't be so sure — nobody can be certain of anything." "This may be good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice." And what would happen if you are consistently told this or repeat it as a child.
  12. And I was thinking for my writing I could work on writing short-story or descriptive pieces (unrelated to Oism) and just pay a tutor to mark them and give me input. I just ordered Writing and Thinking and Diagramming sentences to help me work through Peikoff's grammar course too.
  13. Thanks for the input. I just signed up to the OAC.
  14. This is from Philosophy: Who needs it False principles are not principles... So then you do have a choice. You either hold principles or you don't. So with this I never really understood Peikoff's quote "being unprincipled on principle" - if your not principled, your not principled.
  15. Thanks for the response, dream_weaver. It will not be a principle if it invokes invalid concepts, correct? What about propositions at the pinnacle of scientific research, would they be considered "principles", even when nothing depends on them?
  16. Is there anywhere I can get access to forums where I'm guaranteed replies by someone who's studied Objectivism extensively? Paid forums? Paid teachers? I'm working through an enormous amount of material myself but I think I'd save myself time and money (in the long run) if I paid someone to help me now. So I'm willing to do that. Suggestions?
  17. I simply meant that in order for one to evade something, the only thing that is required is volition. Fear of knowledge combined with Pascal's premise is only a motivating factor, not a causal one. I'm not stating this to tell you, but rather to get some confirmation on what I'm thinking. A new note file: The pusher: Okay so I've noticed this behavior in others (usually when they read some spiritual or self-help book), but I can provide most information by discussing myself. I do it all the time. I wonder if my desire to keep telling people, unsolicited, about Ayn Rand and specific essays is actually a trick I'm attempting to pull on myself. I.e. I'm subconsciously trying to seek affirmation from others, that what I really like is true and real. If they find it as fascinating as I do surely i'm on the right path. If they don't "oh no what's going on!!??". This is classic social metaphysics or ego dependency. It's the attempt to confirm "your reality". Now, I do like to introspect a lot, but it's actually exceedingly difficult for me sometimes. For example, it took an enormous amount of work and certain difficult emotional experiences do discover what I did in that ego dependency thread and I have always made the attempt to be honest and discover truth - but it is not always easy. Which is why now I'm so much more interested in taking notes and collecting data which I can work with rather than make bold statements about behavior. I'm not really sure if my desire to share her works with others is exactly what I describe above or some perfectly normal desire to just share things I like with people. I wouldn't be surprised with either.
  18. Okay. I think I understand. Pascals premise: thoughts don't affect action. But they do... even a random daydream will necessarily impact on my action, the way I move my head, what I do with one arm, whether or not I go get that cup of water in 1min or 10min (after my daydream). If I showed you proof that in one year a meteor would destroy the Earth, would you evade that horrible fact or would you accept it- and then do something about it? I would accept it. The 'doing' would be a redesign of my life; I wouldn't not plan beyond the range of one year (assuming I can't avoid the disaster). Okay so somehow I have to come to accept Pascals premise in order for me to evade this piece of knowledge. I somehow have to come to the conclusion that whether I acknowledge the meteor or not, my actions will be the same. How in the heck?? And can't one not choose to evade as a primary?, just because he chooses to - he may be motivated by fear or something else, or he may not. The aim of finding patterns and taking notes is to integrate knowledge and gain a better understanding of others. What judgments you make about the person depends on the integration. I don't think there's anywhere near enough information (in a forum thread) to pass judgment on a persons moral character (and for me until I first begin understanding/verifying my own beliefs), but there's enough to start noticing things you may see throughout the day, collect your own data samples and begin your own process of integration. By the way, what is this inkblot stuff on reading people? I thought that was just pseudoscience. Looking it up now.
  19. What context do I take as a given in asserting the validity of principles? Here's what I've thought of so far... Metaphysics: Reality Looking around me, *this* is reality Epistemology: Reason How do I know *this* is reality? By sense perception. I'm able to condense the percepts into concepts which lets me deal with a wider range of information. Once I understand what a concept is I'm able to form the concept of "principle". I think the concept of principle precedes ethics, right? A principle is a concept, except it has two additional criteria. The first is that the term true/false applies to the concept. Does not the categorization of true/false apply to every concept? If I say "car is false" that doesn't make sense, but what I mean is "car is an invalid concept and therefore a false one". So true/false applies to every concept. The other criterion is that a principle is a general truth on which others depend. From Rand's lexicon: A principle is “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.” So existence, identity, consciousness, the three fundamental axioms are principles. Everything depends on them. Out of curiosity, fundamental/primary/general truth are the same thing, but the repition there is for emphasis of some kind right? What about a single truth on which none others depende? E.g. some complicated physics law which is at the pinnacle of research. Is that not a principle? If I jump ahead and look at ethics. What general truths depend on the principle of honesty? If a truth must depend on a principle, then random arbitrary assertions are not principles. E.g. "No lieing" is not a principle because true/false does not apply, it's an assertion. "Lying is bad" can be categorized as true/false, but is not true so it's not a principle, right? So when we are speaking colloquially and say religious principles, we don't actually mean principles - but rather "assertions". I've heard the statement "being unprincipled on principle". I'm confused how that would work. If you don't act on principle, then your not acting on principle. So you can be unprincipled, but not unprincipled on principle.
  20. To believe that "ignorance is bliss" means that pretending not to know certain facts will basically erase them (implicit premise: thoughts have nothing to do with action, anyway). I didn't understand this. Do you not mean pretending that you can erase certain facts? And shouldn't that mean thoughts have everything to do with action(reality), since ignoring something makes it go away? Fear of knowledge (in conjunction with Pascal's premise) causes evasion. Fear of knowledge alone is enough to cause evasion. How does Pascal's premise fit in? Evasion displaces that fear towards anything which could expose that knowledge. By what means do you think this occurs? For you to know that something could expose knowledge you must know: -You must be aware of it -You must know that it contradicts your pre-existing knowledge I'm just guessing, but I'd think it is a type of emotional pressure felt somewhere in the periphery because you know you're wrong but actively choose to ignore it (although your subconscious registers that and pings you with that pressure).
  21. Why do you think they are afraid of understanding themselves? I think one reason could be that understanding a certain aspect of their personality may lead them to hate themselves and spiral into depression. It may not even be their fault. E.g. if my hairdresser is gay but comes from a catholic family, these two values (would you call them values?) clash and so he must somehow repress anything that makes this contradiction obvious. The "controller": So this one is much rarer, but it interests me more than the others. I love it when I meet people who dislike getting drunk (for reasons other than religion) - I find them fascinating. I've met two people who don't drink alcohol because they "like to be in control" (said to me in the same way in two different languages!) - which is rare given the prevalence of excessive drinking in today's youth. I used to like getting drunk because it made social situations easier, but I never do now. My reason is not so much fear of losing control, but wanting to experience everything with clarity and learn from it. If I'm nervous, then being aware of my nervousness and retaining a clarity of my own mental processes allows me to come out stronger and more capable the next time. But I can't really connect my own reasons with these few people I met who "like to be in control".
  22. Two passages from the Fountainhead that I'd like to understand. You know how people long to be eternal. But the die with every day that passes. When you meet them, they’re not what you met last. In any given hour, they kill some part of themselves. They change, they deny, they contradict – and they call it growth. At the end there’s nothing left, nothing unreversed or unbetrayed; as if there had never been an entity, only a succession of adjectives fading in and out on an unformed mass. How do they expect a permanance which they have never held for a single momen? -Mallory, The Fountainhead “I often think that he's the only one of us who's achieved immortality. I don't mean in the sense of fame and I don't mean he won't die someday. But he's living it. I think he is what the conception really means. You know how people long to be eternal. But they die with everyday that passes. . . They change, they deny, they contradict- and they call it growth. At the end there is nothing left, nothing unreveresed or unbetrayed; as if there had never been an entity, only a succession of adjectives fading in and out of an unformed mass. How do they expect a permanence which they never held for a single moment? But Howard- one can imagine him living forever.” In the quest for intellectual, personal and professional growth isn't it normal that some part of your self should be killed? Even I were morally perfect, I'd potentially still be capable of errors in reasoning which would then need to be changed. I call it growth - fixing all my errors.
  23. In the Fountainhead Roark takes notice of peculiar behaviour in others, which he then mentally files away. Once he’s collected enough information, he integrates and identifies a principle underlying that behaviour. I have done this myself (see the patterns of ego dependency post), with some additional mental files I want to share. In sharing I’m hoping others may have seen this and may provide some insight into the underlying psychology. I'll update this as I learn more. The Label In casual conversation with a hairdresser. I tell him how I used to live in a gay suburb and I always found it so fun and funny to get hit on every day when I went for a walk. He then launched into a really strange string. Something like “People shouldn’t label. Gay / Lesbian / Straight they’re just labels. It limits you. Labels are bad. It puts you in that category.” I tried to get him to elaborate, but he couldn’t. I feel like I’ve heard this before a few times, but variations of. The ramble A few times I’ve spoken with people well-read or very interested in philosophy. Not eastern philosophy types who say “we are just vibrations”, but the type who like Wittgenstein or Gadamer’s hermeneutics. It hasn’t happened often, since it’s just hard to find these people. But when it has happened I’ve noticed they will never directly answer any questions I ask. Or they talk SO much that I have no idea with what we even began. E.g. Philosopher says he doesn’t agree with Rand’s principles. Me: “What principles?” Guy: Launches into really random 5 minute shpiel on the mind and hermeneutics, analogue, digital and heuristics. Me: So you think man cannot accurately form concepts? Guy: Another 5 min shpiel about things I can’t remember Me: “So you disagree with the principle of rationality?” Guy: “Yes…” Goes on talking about hermeneutics and how knowledge is prejudice (prejudice apparently with another meaning, not the one used today). This wasn’t an argument. I was just asking questions – but I’m confused how someone could be so up in the clouds and not ever give a solid answer to anything. This has happened before. Actually one thing that appealed to me with Rand was that everything seemed to be straight to the point so I could read a passage and say “no” or “yes, makes sense” or “what else am I missing here?” whereas everything else is just this stew of confusion and I’m left wondering what I even read. Dirty Hairy Hippy Lovers People who go to those outdoor music festivals where people smoke weed or the spiritual festivals where they do lots of chakra meditations and interactive activities like walking around telling everyone you love them, randomly holding hands and hugging everyone. There’s some commonality to the people who go here. They love telling randoms they love them, or having randoms they love them, they love that everyone hugs one another and smiles and holds hands. “That’s what society should be like! That’s what things should be like!” Now FWIW I once went through a phase where I’d go to trance festivals and I didn’t feel anything except a desire to fit in, and try be all “chill” and “cool” about everything – which I cringe at looking back at it. Also the whole vibe of tranquillity felt feigned and stressed, so much so that it scares me a little. Ghosts People who believe in ghosts or swear they’ve seen one. With God I think I can understand this more, since a lot of us were taught to believe in it as children. I came from a somewhat religious background, but most people I know from that background actually are just unsure – “agnostic”. But with ghosts or fairies or other random shit it just seems so arbitrary. And yet I’ve met people who said they have actually seen it. Or somehow are convinced a light flickering means a ghost is in the house. Or who swear the Ouji board moved when they were with friends and it surely was a ghost. I know it seems quite crazy, but one of those people in particular, was extraordinarily intelligent and what I’d describe as a very unique, strong and peculiar individual. So that just left me confused. I’m not sure about this one – but if I steal myself into old memories I had as a child lying. I remember making up some bull shit about being kidnapped by aliens, and in that moment I really wanted to believe it. I almost made myself believe it – like I had some weird emotional state change. I wanted to believe it (for whatever reason), so I told people this story. I don’t know why I wanted to believe it… and I think that’s the key. Don’t judge You know people who always say “don’t judge”. I don’t know – depends on context, but sometimes it’s said with this kind of whingy love-all vibe that I don’t like at all and just makes me fucking angry. Feeling small This one’s in the Fountainhead “It’s interesting to speculate on the reasons that make men so anxious to debase themselves. As in that idea of feeling small before nature. It’s not a bromide, it’s practically an institution. Have you noticed how self-righteous a man sounds when he tells you about it? Look, he seems to say, I’m so glad to be a pigmy, that’s how virtuous I am. Have you heard with what delight people quote some great celebrity who’s proclaimed that he’s not so great when he looks at Niagara Falls? It’s as if they were smacking their lips in sheer glee that their best is dust before the brute force of an earthquake. As if they were sprawling on all fours, rubbing their foreheads in the mud to the majesty of a hurricane. But that’s not the spirit that leashed fire, steam, electricity, that crossed oceans in sailing sloops, that built airplanes and dams ... and skyscrapers. What is it they fear? What is it they hate so much, those who love to crawl? And why?” I’ve heard it expressed a lot by friends and randoms. They love the feeling they get when they see the wider universe, and see how small man is, and how their concerns and life doesn’t matter in the big scheme. And yet some of these people are very successful, intelligent, socially confident. You’d expect reading Rand that anyone irrational will be weak, confused, shy and yet so many of the strongest, socially confident, fun, intelligent people I’ve met have shown a lot of these random traits.
  24. A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try to cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest—but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rationality.html What is meant by "nothing to protect you but your own severity"? The idea that the severity of an error can protect you is confusing. A less severe error can be less damaging, but not protective.
  25. Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. -- Robert Frost A popular quote. Power derived from others. He took the road less travelled... Maybe it was the one he really wanted, maybe it wasn't. The point is he emphasised that it was less travelled, by others. A while ago I would have used this to make me feel better about any less popular or common view I held. It's funny because everyone I talk to likes to take the road less travelled. In order to hold a sense of esteem we have to feel superior to others in some vague undefined way. But it's built on a shaky foundation. It requires you to evade so much and miss out on so much good too. With that said, it's not like there is much out there (in terms of resources) to help you built up a solid foundation.
×
×
  • Create New...