LoBagola

I'm trying to mentally integrate something to do with communication of concepts... I'm not too sure where I should be looking though. When someone uses language like "well if rich people don't share some of the wealth then society will suffer and they in turn will have to live with unhappy neighbors who'll just destroy them anyway, therefore they need to share some of their wealth" What is this type of statement called? it's like an "in the air" type argument with all kinds of confusing arbitrary assertions and I don't understand where they come from or how one should begin discussing them properly. Others: "I didn't chose to be alive" choice presupposes being alive. Is there a name for a statement like this? The stolen concept refers to using a concept while denying the validity of it's root/antecedent concepts. But here life isn't being denied. Along the same lines "Is there life after death?" "Isn't it unfair that life has to end?" (fairness is a measure of justice, justice depends on choice, choice depends on life but there is no outright denial of validity of concepts it's just like the sentence is misconstructed). I'm trying to look for a good explanation of this issue so that I can spot it even more frequently, relate it to my pre-existing knowledge and explain it articulately to friends.

I really like the idea of changing one's sense of life for the better through consistently facing irrational fears; I've implemented big changes in my own personality with large success through somewhat unconventional methods. There is one thing I'd like to bring up in the hopes for some feedback and discussion on something I've recently thought about and picked up from Atlas Shrugged and a friend. I'm hoping to integrate it into the rest of my knowledge because right now it's kind of floating around. I have a friend who I communicate with very openly and we always try to cut out the "maybe's" and "i guess" from our language. Obviously in some context it is necessary. I could refer to one specific example. Say someone asks you out instead of saying "maybe, we'll see" (which me and my friend both find extremely annoying) we say "I'll let you know by 5PM" or just "no, thank you". If your not sure, give yourself time to decide and make a definite decision. A lot of the time people seem to be happy getting pinched and pulled around in social situations without any direction of their own. Then I read this. It's exactly what me and my friend were discussing (although she has never read Rand or knows anything about Objectivism). This is the scene where Dagny talks to a vagrant she meets on her way to Ohio. THIS is what I feel like we were getting at.But I can't connect what it is yet. I just have a series of patterns / images of certain interactions in my mind. Here are some more of my own examples: “What do you feeling like doing?” (1) “I don’t know. I’m easy, man.” “Where do you want to go for dinner?” (2) “I’m okay with whatever, man.” “God, this gig sucks!” (3) “Yeah…” (1) It's really frustrating when people just leave you to make all the decisions (I used to do this). They are just happy floating around letting someone make a decision which they will then perhaps criticize. I've thought that it's better to make a bold decision then just sit there waiting for someone to decide. This doesn't mean you won't negotiate if someone offers something else. It simply means your stepping up and taking responsibility and not floating around. (2) Same as above. Better make bold decisions. (3) Although it doesn't seem unrelated it's the same. It's like your throwing crap onto the other person - "do something!". It would be better if you said "this gig sucks LETS DO X" where x is another bar or some game you can play in the one you are already in. I have also connected these patterns or specific interactions to the article "the psychology of psychological" where a key principle is not leaving others to untangle your neurosis through being clear in communication (which I think requires introspective skills). Examples of leaving others to untangle your neurosis: “If you can’t do that, what good are you?” Say this instead: "I'm upset that you can't do *this*. I feel like it would be really useful if you had that skill because..." “you ALWAYS do this!” Say this instead: "It really frustrates me when you do *this*. You also did it *then* and *that* time (specify). It frustrates me because... I think it would better serve you (or me) if you did this instead or looked into it... I'm willing to help" “It’s okay, I guess” Say this instead: "Give me more time to think about it" I have achieved this kind of open and clear communication with one person in my life but I never got to explore it in depth as they had to leave to go overseas. I'm trying to integrate it all into one idea because I feel there are connections among a lot of these. There is much more but it's not clear enough in my mind to post yet.

Ok I understand the issue in Taggart's case. That's an emotion - terror - he's unable to explain but those are the words given to the thought process behind his subconscious. With Cheryl she's seeing patterns, meaning? she retains concepts through memory of certain scenes / interactions / events ? I think she may be capped by her study of English and *this* is the whole reason I started this thread. I'm thinking there may be enormous benefits to thinking and introspecting if you expand your vocabulary by studying English and writing (your actual conceptual content). I wasn't sure entirely but it's a lead I started pursuing by picking up grammar and writing books. Can you recommend any of Moroney's products? I just worked my way through Locke's introspection series and I imagine there would be some crossover in terms of material covered.

Forming concepts requires assigning a definition. The definition serves to condense the subject matter to essentials. After this a visual/auditory symbol is assigned to the definition. The visual-auditory symbol (language) mentally concertizes the concept. It allows instant access to infinite knowledge (you can spend your whole life visualizing variations of the concept's units). I'm curious about the requirement for assigning a visual/auditory symbol to a definition. Is it possible to form and retain a concept without assigning it a word? Could we assign it a picture? Memory? I think it's possible to form a concept but I don't think it's possible to retain it without assigning it a word or symbol. There are some passages in Atlas Shrugged where the characters show knowledge, in some form (I don't know what form), but are unable to articulate it. I'm curious how one acquires this knowledge, how he finds out it is what he thinks, and how one would then validate it.

I like Mushroom's questions. A conversation on art is a really good way to open up deeper discussion. Another one I have found recently to have a dig at rationality is to ask "do you think having kids is rational?" instead of straight up asking "what is rational?".

We are an advanced society. Especially in the hard sciences: computer science, physics, maths, chemistry, biology etc. But how much of our knowledge would collapse in on itself if people were to begin holding an Objectivist philosophy? How many sciences are built on false premises? How many specialized areas of study are complete wastes? I think that there are huge amounts of very intelligent people working in fields which may just be irrelevant for living. I can think of a few - but I think there are so many more: Econometrics: statistics applied to economics in order to direct public policy Economics (some schools) : If the whole structure is built on the premise that man is always rational then it just collapses in on itself Psychology... how much of psychology is built on false premises? What about careers? How many lawyers specialize in the many different areas of government regulation? What about taxation specialists? In finance there are enormous amounts of jobs resulting purely from the existence of government intervention in the economy.

I've been coming up with questions to ask myself and other's; the purpose is to discover what I and my friends believe, what implicit philosophical premises we hold and hopefully find lots of contradictions we can fix. Feel free to add or share insight. So far I've copied a few from Rand's lexicon Is the universe intelligible to man, or unintelligible and unknowable? Can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair? Does man have the power of choice, the power to choose his goals and to achieve them, the power to direct the course of his life—or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, which determine his fate? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil? If anyone is interested to add - i'd like that. I'll keep doing so myself as I find questions which yield the most insightful responses (from myself and others).

“Our Cultural Value-Deprivation,” The Voice of Reason, 102–103 Also found: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/values.html the key question is "what is possible to me?" because emotions respond to whether or not you are achieving you values. If you constantly fail to achieve them your sadness and anxiety is letting you know that perhaps they are NOT possible and that you should check your premises. Right? Is there evidence about the part of the absence of sensory stimuli leading to disintegration of consciousness? What is meant by "paralyzing" man's consciousness when he fails to achieve his values? Is it not possible for one to hold rational values but not achieve them? If so would that person's consciousness not become paralyzed? Achievement is open to man, but it's not guaranteed.

Oh and to further add to Bluecherry's point. I have experienced a situation where both are in love, but one loves another much more. This fits in well with a difference in the hierarchy of values.

A is A Yes, it does. And? Reidy Responding to another's sense of life is, by definition, automated. "Mistake" is not applicable concept. I don't think I have enough experience to comment or process this. I have only ever loved one person. I love their sense of life. My friends sense of life varies a lot but I admire all of them. Their are aspects of their personality I just like, e.g. humor. But I've only ever once felt admiration for the total sum of a person (my last girlfriend). I agree though that shared sense of life is not sufficient - it's possible that one persons consciously held values conflict with the other. E.g. one is religious, the other is atheist; the atheist doesn't care, but the religious person does. But I don't know - I'm venturing into territory with which I have no experience or perceptual evidence to relate to. Eiuol What do you mean "embodiment of values that embody their character"? Isn't that a sense of life? I agree with the latter on Bluecherry's comment on differing value hierarchy. Although it's still somewhat vague in my mind. Agreed. I don't have any experience to relate to here either. When I felt love - once - (out of the hundreds of women I met) it was reciprocated.

The meaning of Sex – Francisco’s speech in Atlas shrugged I’m REALLY interested in the details of everything Rand writes. I know she’s making a far reaching integration that I don’t yet see. The reason I know this is because having studied a lot of epistemology lately I’m starting to connect topics and ideas which before I saw as having no connection. So here is my dissection of Francisco’s speech and all the questions that follow. I’m wondering what one’s “real ego” is and to what purpose is it a standard of value? Ego in Rand’s lexicon is defined as: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self.html My emotions and my inarticulate dreams are my subconscious. They are a residual of my past choices and environment. Then all that is left for my ego is the aspect of me which chooses to think or not. But how does one make that a standard of measurement if your choice to think is always there, in every moment? Shouldn't our ego be the “emotions”, the psycho-epistemology, the sense of life – i.e. the sum of our past choices? If it is the sum of our past choices I don’t understand what kind of standard it is. I also don’t understand why having sex “forces” me to accept my “real ego” as my standard of value. Why will I be attracted to the women who reflect the deepest vision of myself? And why does her “surrender” permit me to “experience – or to fake – a sense of self-esteem”? I like sex but I don’t know why it helps me to express my value. Is this related to art? I.e. theater is a form of expression, painting is a form of expression and then this unique act performed only for its own sake, sex, is also an expression.Did I understand it? Emotionally, I find myself agreeing with much of this, as if words are shoved into my mouth, but I need to understand why. Like attracts like, i.e. sense of life attracts similar sense of life. This is a metaphysical observation and there is no why to ask; just as I do not ask “why does existence exist”. Right ? Why then does having sex with someone you despise release you “from that objective reality in which you are a fraud” or give you a “momentary illusion of your own value”? What is meant by “fraud”? I’m very conflicted here. I know someone in particular in my life that would fit into this category but has an amazing sense of life and some very good values. Only she is split on this, on sex; she is attracted to those she despises. If you are sexually abused as a child and you are now attracted to those you despise. Is that still your own choice? Or was a physical trauma potentially the cause of your now terrible sex-life? It seems to me that some of this can be “forced” upon someone and it’s not through their own choice – NOT their own metaphysical-value judgement, but ones forced on to them. But that would contradict everything I've read and understood. Thinking is done by choice. No one forces you to value one thing over another. No one forces you to love those you despise. If you “corrupt your values” then shouldn't your body AND mind both be drawn to the lowest type of person you find? How can you love someone and not be sexually attracted to them? If, subconsciously, I hold a decent life philosophy but consciously I keep corrupting my values through religion does that mean that I will fall in love with the lowest person I can find but want to sleep with the highest? If consciously I hold a good life philosophy but subconsciously I don’t then would that mean I want to sleep with the lowest but will fall in love with the highest? Why? How do we know? Is he an “intrinsicist” or “subjectivist”? a “rationalist” or “empiricist”? What kind of women does he respect and why does he feel nothing for her? If he feels an “irresistible passion for a slut from the gutter” how is that reflecting his secret self? I know someone who EXACTLY fits this and what I am really confused about is how she can have a good sense of life, strong values AND actually fall in love with people of similar values. In her own words she literally said she has a “mind-body” split – where the men she ends up loving do not sexually turn her on at all. The men who do are one’s she despises. Shouldn't she also fall in love with the lowest type of men? Since I can’t literally introspect into her own mind I don’t know if I’m off here in some way – but I find it interesting. What is the triple fraud? Not acknowledging the need for self-esteem, that's one – what are the other two? How does he know that sex is the physical expression of a tribute to values? Is he evading it? How does Rand know? How does she know he loves to imagine that he is “seducing virtuous girls who make a great exception for his sake”? Does she mean that he likes to imagine that they like his mind and share his values? Here know someone who EXACTLY fits this as well. Only, he has also slept with a lot of girls I would also consider virtuous. I'm trying to fit people I know into these descriptions, and then relate it to their ideas/philosophy, but I can't.

I appreciate your feedback and I'll be remedying what you mention in my future posts. I quoted from "of living death" in the voice of reason p55-56 Also available : http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/love.html Then to rephrase my question. How can person A fall in love with person B, and person B not fall in love with person A. I'm trying to understand the process; according to my understanding of Rand's description of love, this is impossible.

From what I've understood you fall in love with another persons sense of life. The other element of this is checking that the other person holds conscious ideas which will pose you no trouble later on. Now if that is true, what I don't get is how people can fall in love with someone who remains indifferent to them?

I'm a science major and thought I'd pickup a humanities subject to try and improve my written skills. BIG mistake. I'm struggling. My written skills are not improving because all my time is spent memorizing. Professor: "you see, if a man wants to take an apple from a tree, he can jump and take an apple. This is direct. If a man then gets a ladder to take the apple down this is "roundaboutness"". ... "rationality is maximizing what you already have". (I actually went to see him to try understand what one is maximizing and according to what we are measuring that maximization and the discussion got no where). "science is prejudice... " ... "science is subjective; it is not the pursuit of objective facts. Therefore, economics is a science". (This is from a class on philosophy and history of economics). My problem with this is that there are so many random "concepts" which seem to be taught in these vacuums and they all contradict each other. Definitions are really weird and just don't seem to explain the concept to me at all. The class borrows concepts which are vaguely defined from a whole host of fields (gestalt psychology, evolutionary theory etc). So basically I'm left wondering how people tend to get by in these subjects. The only thing I can do here is ROTE memorize what appears to be concepts floating in the air that mean nothing and then integrate in a bunch of ideas that fit in with that concept. When something is left undefined how is it they are making arguments and writing essays about it? I don't get this!

Wow ok. This is exactly what I'm doing. I'll purchase that introspection course of ARI. The task of working on myself (through fixing up a conceptual chaos) is momentous;every single thing I'd like to work on requires me to build up my philosophy first. I went from just a casual read of AS to concentrating on epistemology and learning grammar. If one cannot say or validate to himself with absolute conviction that he has volition or that there is no "spiritual realm" the impacts on the rest of one's life are profound, but often undetected.

Thanks A is A. I understand. . I was under the impression that introspection is not that difficult; I haven't studied any formal psychology but have started practicing it with some success. When I feel an emotion there will usually just be a thought accompanying it and if there isn't one immediately there I can dig around and start piling up things that have been weighing on me that would contribute. E.g. work I need to get done when I feel anxiety. Even before I was exposed to philosophy I was aware to some extent that if I felt dread or fear it was because .... insert reason here. Although, I can't remember too well and I may not have made the connection between thought and emotion. It's possible I thought my thoughts were rationalizations of the emotions and that the emotions were independently determined.

Yes. This and the second quote on an "undefined sense...".

bluecherry My solution, thus far, has been to study philosophy (mainly epistemology) even harder and more intensely; as my thought processes improve I introspect and attempt to correct invalid subconsciously held premises. nicky Frequently no, they don't. The frustration mainly stems from a sense of hopelessness which I'm attempting to address through further philosophical study. I have found conviction in ideas potentially has profound and unexpectedly positive impacts on one's life. E.g. for me, no longer being unsure / agnostic about "God" had enormously positive impacts in the most random areas in my life (they all turned out to be connected). So as I mentioned above, studying epistemology may actually help here too.

Interesting! this didn't occur to me. I'm curious as to why this is the case. Could it have something to do with air being metaphysically given? Being happy" that I have air to breath is like being happy that I have legs; but the stake did not have to be and therefore requires an emotional appraisal. I think this relates to the context and what one is imagining; this is why it's so important to ask the right question (which A is A touched on). By asking myself an impossible question I may be setting myself up for failure. It's something I will research. I don't understand. If love is not one thing, then how many "things" is it? What "things" are you talking about? concretes? You value something; that value is conceptualized; concepts refer to similar concretes grouped together, with their measurements omitted; love is a concept; love is therefore measurable.

What are they? They are often mentioned in Rand's texts. Are they emotions backed by a thought process you refuse to identify? (1) Are they emotions backed by an undefined thought process? e.g. "god exists" where "god" is undefined (2) Are they emotions backed by not yet validated thought processes? e.g. "I need to be a genius to be happy" (3) Are they emotions whose thought process is so deep you are unable to identify? (4) Are they emotions you escape through drugs, shopping, partying? (5) Are they emotions you cannot name ? (6) I don't think (6) cannot be the case as who is unable to recognize their own emotions? You know whether your sad, angry or happy; it's self evident. I think (2) and (3) are by far my biggest issues. I'm amazed at the amount of toxic waste that I've managed to imprint into my subconscious over my life. If anyone has anything at all to add on to this topic, particularly anything related at all to (2) or (3) I'd be very interested! You may PM me too.

I'm not really up to understanding context and certainty yet.... so I will have to wait. I can see that value is contextual. Is there not a contradiction when I feel more intense positive emotions for one person (my girlfriend) and less for my dad? I could understand that being the case if I valued my girlfriend over my dad, but like I said, in the case of one dying I don't value her more.

I've been trying to develop my ability to introspect. One thing I've been doing is attempting to rank different values in terms of importance to me. I don't think I can measure love numerically, but I can and should be able to measure it on an ordinal scale. I know this says many bad things about the way I developed but in order to attempt to rank my values I basically asked myself who would I rather die. Person X, or Person B. Both of whom I value. I'm somewhat embarrassed admitting this, but it was the first thing my mind went to when I attempted to measure love; obviously I don't want anyone to die. With that aside, I was able to do it. With friends. With family members. However, there was one thing I found difficult. I chose my girlfriend and am madly in love with her and in terms of intensity of emotion it 'feels' much more passionate / exciting / beautiful than some other people but I still would have preferred her to disappear over some other people I value (e.g. my dad). I think I came to this conclusion because I don't know her well enough yet and haven't been with her long enough. However, I'm confused - shouldn't the intensity of my emotions be positively correlated with how much I value something? My emotions for my girlfriend are more intense than my emotions for my dad but I value him more (right now). Does this mean my emotions are not in line with reality? I'm trying to think up less intense ways to introspect these things but making it about death seems to just make everything certain in my mind. If I ask "who do I prefer?" the question just seems to be much more slippery and now suddenly I answer I prefer my girlfriend over my Dad - but that's only when it's not a matter of death. Something here doesn't make sense; depending on how I phrase the question in my mind the measurement of my love for someone changes.

I had a conversation with a friend recently and I was telling her about some principles I admired and what I believe to be true; she said "you may feel that way now but in the future you might think differently, you may have a different perspective". I didn't reply, but I've been thinking about the statement since and it really frustrates me when people say it. I actually get it a lot; "your unrealistic, you just don't have enough world experience and perspective as a young person. When your older you'll understand things better" (despite travelling alone for many months in countries and city most adults never go to). How should I think about this? I want to say no! if I've validated knowledge how can I ever think otherwise. Can I not say with 100% certainty that I'll never change. How could I suddenly choose to believe in God when I know existence exists and that I exist possessing consciousness. My current way of thinking about it is that as I'm a fallible consciousness I'll make mistakes but whatever knowledge is solid I'll have verified, proved and connected to percepts; it cannot change. A is A. I'll always believe it. I'll slowly build my knowledge tower on immutable base floors before moving up. Sometimes the top layers will be faulty, so I'll knock them off; but I won't suddenly go down and knock out the bottom level.

I know what happened. It's subtle differences in the language, i.e. the concepts. I cannot "choose to live". It's an invalid statement, as, like I said, choice presupposes life. I can choose to die; I have life, I can destroy it. As to why one would choose to pursue happiness I think the answer lies in the definition of living not just being breathing and that happiness, through living, is an end in itself which you cannot "get underneath". Just like I would always try get underneath "existence exists"... "well why does existence exist?" which is no longer a question I keep feeling the need to answer. It's not a valid question and I'm comfortable with that. I think further study of epistemology and repair of conceptual mis-integrations will help me address this question too.

I thought I had figured out why it's not a question; because the concept of choice, why, I, should are all dependent on the concept of life. But this cannot be right because if someone says "I have a desire to die" they can still commit suicide even though the words I, have, desire are all dependent on life. Now I'm back to my original problem of why one chooses life.