Ilya Startsev

You commentary is excellent. You are exactly right, except in one thing. And I really hoped not to bring it forward, but I guess I am forced to. That thing is that I do not only believe in discreet identity-based consciousness, which I call linear, but also in contextual, nonlinear consciousness that is on the right side of the model, viz., void (in terms of bosons and phytons), field, lattice (read: crystals), state (read: water, gas, solid), pulse (read: thought or emotion), aura (read: mind or soul), environment (can be mental, natural, artificial - anything in one's reach at a time; a home), nature. Nature is conscious. There is no evidence for this yet, even though there is a reason for my concern to try to convince you. I realize it's hard to grasp or understand this. Okay, so we have linear, quantitative logic and mathematics. How can we grasp true nonlinearity? I think there is a way, but it involves a different kind of logic (i.e., thinking). An example of a logic that shows this is Dr. Michael Kosok's dialectical phenomenology: http://www.thenewdialectics.org/. He has nice ideas about the overcoming of Marxism as well. He is the individual who successfully, in my opinion, integrated Hegelian idealistic dialectic with Marxist materialistic one. Kudos to him, a great pioneer, a dual doctor of philosophy and physics, as he is the most unfortunate man (now in utter poverty and slowly dying unable to move or to see; doctors give him about 4 months to live) completely ignored by the whole world because the world supposedly believes only in globalism and not in a dialectic way of thinking (as I heard from a contemporary fourth year class in philosophy). This here is not for you to feel anything for him; merely for me to express what I feel for him, since I had never told this to anyone, since so few care about philosophy in the general masses. Thus, "Individual beliefs, thinking, values, knowledge" are also forms of consciousness, in my view, since they also move and change.

softwareNerd: From the first link: "In everyday parlance, an action would only be called ‘altruistic’ if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another." And if there is a want, there is some (even unrealized) selfishness involved. That's what I meant. By Johas Salk's example, I meant that he never talked about himself or his input. His selfishness might had been unrealized. He could have been unaware. The point is that both sides of equation should be present. Otherwise, it's a regression into either extreme. Well, she derived pleasures from material things, namely, sex. As an opposite example, I derive greatest pleasures from my ideas, especially when they work and if people get something from them or even from an argument about them. So, yes, I am exquisitely enjoying all of this. Thank you. Keep the comments coming. tadmjones: Society is an organic whole. It has a life of its own. Just look at history, look from any perspective above one's own. Think visually from a bird's eye. The kinds of pattern flows in individual actions (e.g., general behavior in the stores, roads, construction, etc.) are the actions of society. Our cities look like microchips. They have a structure outside of individual bodies. If you think there is no society, then think back to the prehistoric times, when people were in geographic proximity, hunting, gathering, and running wild on their own. There was no society and thus no progress or science. No change outside of individual bodily actions. The great misunderstanding that is involved is that a society is NOT only "a group of indviduals that live in geographic proximity and share/practice similar laws and culture". It is a group that shares something on a personal level as well. It is internal in addition to external. This can be a memory, in the case of a family, or an idea, in the case of religion. These are not mere sums of individuals, just like a machine is not a mere sum of particles. To destroy a group, one can destroy their ideology, for example, as that is what was done by Objectivism + Capitalism against the U.S.S.R. We did not kill anyone on either side during the Cold War, didn't we? We did not have to, in order to break that society. Do you see this now, Tad? Let me reiterate: society is an organic whole because its individuals create it with their actions and behavior. It is not a mere sum because it includes those actions, behaviors, ideas, structures, buildings, etc. etc. and individuals as mere bodies. Is your body a machine, Tad? Can someone cut it to pieces, spread it apart, jumble it, put it back in some order and you will live? The same about a society. If an ideological interface of a society is broken (which may happen with death of a leader, but does not have to, since it depends on how well the rest picked up on his ideas and believed in them), individuals will fall apart and nothing will help to restore a society back to norm. If you only view a society as a mere machine, then in parallel others incorrectly view your body as a machine. But it's not true, now, or is it? One is made up of individuals, the other of particles. Do you believe this? A body is organic and capable of change and growth; a society is the same way. I really hope this helps, Tad.

So, what can we take from these two systems? From Communism/Communalism we can take a great common goal - something towards which we can all strive together, like space exploration. From laissez-faire capitalism we can take the pursuit to freely develop one's culture-generating tendencies and creative professions/trades. Both systems already share that government should be minimal and unintrusive.

aleph_1, I agree with you. Now that we are done with historical mistakes and downfalls, what can we learn from them? One answer is: we need Democracy. That is why socialists/communists/marxists today believe in Democratic Socialism (Democratic Socialists of America, Communist Party of the Russian Federation). Why are they clinging to the semblance of the previous model? Because there is something good in that model. It is naive to believe that intelligent people can be so stupid. They are not, well, at least not all of them, are stupid. There are some very good individuals out there who want to live in a society that they would like to build. I want to live in such a society. Because society is a goal. This is what we are attempting to build. It is not just to have a family for the sake of a family (which usually does not work out, e.g. "Breaking Bad"), but it is to have a family as a society we can all share and build together. Outside of this, individuals simply die with a legacy they bequeath to their offspring, so that those can build a better society.

bluecherry: I agree and do not contend with your statement, so, yes, but it is due to a unique nature of such things. I believe that individuals exist so they can voluntarily unite into collectives. Evidence of the power of collectives is well known, but evidence for the power of actual consciousness of such collectives is known as "The Global Consciousness Project" (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/). This is how we can create a global reality to suit our desires. This is not a joke; please take it seriously. Rational - look at the model that I showed earlier. Natural - we progress only when we are ready. Imagine that he took that money and then Taggart Transcontinental would have collapsed. This is what I mean when one ignores either part of the statement: for oneself and others. These are inseparable. He might not have done it consciously because he was superconsciously aware already on the social level. Or it was pure luck on his part. Choose whatever suits your reasoning. I am merely providing a different perspective. Repairman: Scratch Marx off; I am only writing a thesis on Rand. Altruism is evil only in the definition that Rand provided. Think of Jonas Salk's altruism. It is a win/win situation. He did it as a challenge (kinda what we are doing here as well) to improve himself and his competence in virusology and because society desperately needed it. Please, ignore the kind of altruism that was preached at the times of Jesus Christ. We are living in a different reality. We can get a win/win situation on all levels without any physical force done against any party whatsoever. And yes, we are attempting to co-join polar opposites. As you know, this is the best kind of work, and if successful, it will not only change our consciousness, but that of the whole world as well. At least this is what I am looking for without a care for fame or fortune. I only think it fair to push forward an idea whose time has come and the idea that is good. Opposites in harmony is the most stable pair one can find. Spiral Architect: These are the kinds of misconceptions we are trying to work out. What you believe in is chaos. I believe in natural order. But I am flexible, just as the system that I am trying to delineate here. So, as to your metaphorical speaking about collective stomachs and whatnot - these are true but on a metaphysical level when you project Organ--Aura onto Society. Just so, it helps one understand the inner workings of the subject of analysis. This is no laughing matter. Equate economics with society's soul, its materializations with a circulotary system, and government equate with society's mind, its materializations with a nervous system. We are alone with what pertains to us as bodies and to parts of our bodies. I am simply asking our egos to expand beyond our bodies and notice that we are interconnected and overlapping parts of our environment, and thus parts of society as well. If you want to watch a positive documentary on this topic, I recommend watching "I am" (http://putlocker.bz/watch-i-am-online-free-putlocker.html). I think you will enjoy it! We do everything through our consciousness. How can we be not responsible for it? Come on, people are a lot smarter now than those characters from Atlas Shrugged. I hope that you realized that I am putting consciousness back into the equation. So, no, we are not merely inanimate. More that than, we are not, only if we so choose, a mere bodily consciousness that only derives pleasure from material things. It should be evident from the different layers of the model that organic entities should not be confused with inorganic ones. Unfortunately, in the science today that is rapidly approaching a transhumanist agenda (e.g., 2045.com), we are seen merely as "lumbering robots" (by words of Richard Dawkins). We are NOT robots or machines. Rand was right - we have spirits; Rand was right - we live to be happy and to feel, not to be heartless robots. This is a very negative view. Please do not confuse Marx with Lenin. The latter one is responsible for the horrible revolution that consumed so many of people's lives. Yet, we have Rand thanks to him. Think about Marx in this way: he was a creator of an ideology, ideas of which can still be used for the best purpose and intent and for the betterment of humankind. I am still waiting for a scientific historical perspective on evolution by Ayn Rand. There is none, as far as I know.

Repairman: First, I care not for Soviet leadership but for the structure of their society. We are not talking about government but about the society, so let's keep up with the topic. The state is the society, not just a head without a body. And about the fact that so many people died - well, we do not know enough about the reasons behind it. Why did capitalists fund both sides of the conflict? Because they were interested in getting as many Russians killed off as they could. Why did Americans or Europeans not come against Germany with Russians? For the same reasons. It was known that Hitler and Stalin were both enemies of the free people, so the others decided to motivate and fuel the conflict. If not thanks to the unsupportive actions of those others, a lot less people would have died. As you can see, sadly, the picture is a lot more complicated now.

Ok, here are my playing cards: Particle--Void Atom--Field Molecule--Lattice Cell--State Tissue--Pulse Organ--Aura Body--Environment Society--Nature Read aura as an electromagnetic field on the level of organ-body. The left column has discreet entities I was talking about earlier, the right column has their correlating contexts. Tell me what you think.

Here is another article that probably makes one think of nationalizing the World Bank: http://www.rense.com/general79/tril.htm Ah, what a hell. It's all pointless anyway.

softwareNerd: "And this proves what exactly?" That he was the pioneer and the world entered the space era because of him during the U.S.S.R. Do you honestly believe that the U.S.S.R. was an undeveloped country? It was super industrialized with factories everywhere. They were the producers. Now, Russia abandoned all factories or converted them into hotels, malls, or other services. Now there is a service economy, and it is not doing so well. What's wrong with Russia? There is too much freedom and thus corruption. New Buddha, here is another perspective on wealth: I am just saying there is no balance anywhere. Don't you think that it is in our best interests to find some balance?

Repairman: "to compromise with evil is to surrender to evil" I am not asking you to compromise with an evil, but with a good. Only win/win situations are considered here. Think: Dagny + Rearden. "reading Marx and Rand, taking some time to think about their disciplines and principles, and deducing your own hypothesis" That's what I am doing, but this is practice. Also, I am going to write my Master's Thesis on this. Ninth Doctor: It is unfortunate that you completely ignore the point of this thread. The point is to explore the possibility of integration together. Or did you expect me to know all the answers and do all the work by myself? I hoped that you were an individual who could clarify some historical concepts of Objectivism for me. You provided a fact of denial that you sought. Eiuol: 1. I realize that this is a strange view for some of you. Consciousness is not understood by science either. The idea is that it causes the action, so causality would apply here. Perception, however, is not like ours but more metaphysical, even nonphysical. There is no localization of the electromagnetic field on those lower levels, but somehow they can manipulate it by the mere fact of their existence. To us, their manipulations would be hardly noticable, just like their vibrations. This perspective on consciousness may be the binding glue of Marxism and Objectivism. 2. Marxism provides enough support for Communism, but you are right, this is more like combining ideas than systems. I am not hoping for the best. I am projecting the best and am convinced of it. Marx believed that Communism follows Socialism that follows Capitalism. What Lenin had done was a disaster from the premise. It was not true socialism. It should not be forced. It is natural. This is what I am stressing. I am not going to try to integrate if we exhaust all of our ideas and not come to some consensus. Consider it a thought experiment then. Marxism got the idea of a perfect society right; Rand got the idea of an ideal life right. Challenge: find a natural way for these ideas to fit with each other. bluecherry: 1. Replaceable in a sense that someone else can take your job and still do it well. 2. "If they follow their rational self-interest, yes." Absolutely. No denial of this. 3. "part of the motive or sake of doing it" It is only the natural, rational part. And that is why it's right. It only works for individual-society relations. Let me illustrate it this way: Rearden gave a break to Taggart Transcontinental for six months. He did not have to; he could have simply taken the money. Why did he do it? It was a natural thing to do to be a favorable character in the first place. Evolution of consciousness from self to society, but retaining both ends.

softwareNew, what do you think of this article and its comments: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/opinion/sierakowski-vaclav-havels-fairy-tale.html?hp&rref=opinion&pagewanted=all&_r=2& "stolen from the U.S." "the (mistaken) notion" Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was basically the inventor of the first space rocket in 1903. "allowing free immigration" absolutely right; it is a sign of globalized living "who wanted more state control" I do not want more state control. All I want is for people to become socially-centered without forgetting their individualistic natures. Although nationalization of natural resources is something that I consider, but only to undermine the shadow government and increase the overall standard of living.

Before we integrate Marxism and National Socialism, there needs to be other integration done. Races are a lot more complex than societies, since they may cover more than one society at a time. Hitler did not understand the nature of society, so he corrupted the racial view with racism. Lenin, on the other hand, did not understand the nature of individual, so he corrupted the social view with dictatorship. As for Newtonian and Aristotelian physics, I hope you know that Aristotle thought that when you throw a rock, it stops in mid-air and suddenly falls straight down. Newton corrected it, by showing extensive evidence to the contrary and explaining it with an elegant theory, which yet employed Aristotelian logic.

I haven't gotten to it yet. That's what I want to ask you.

softwareNerd, yes, trade is excellent. (Even if it does not involve money, but is conducted in a bartering system. Zietgeist movies explore a system like that.) Trade is the pulsation of economy, which is the "blood" and soul of society. Economic monetary inflation, the infinite growth paradigm, and the lack of a solid standard is unfortunate. These issues can be canned or overcome. Russians are implementing some interesting new monetary projects that change the way we view money, e.g., Shaymuratiki project. Now, let's consider countries that use socialism's concepts successfully, that is, countries that have nationalized something or other. Please do not ignore that China has a hybrid system with a semblance of socialism (not communism) and capitalism, and it is the fastest growing economy in the world. They must be doing something right in order to supercede the U.S. Now, look at Germany - their healthcare is nationalized and professional unions pretty much rule the economy. Germany is the more successful country in the European Union. Now look at the United Arabian States that have nationalized natural resources and oil companies. Dubai is their city with the tallest skyscraper in the world. The profits of oil are equally distributed among its citizens, who are paid monthly, given free food and shelter, and basically do not have to work in their lives. They live in heaven (for them). It is a fact that countries that use socialism in part are very successful. That is why I think a compromise is in order here. Oh, and in case you want a historical lesson, since I heard someone saying how many people died in the U.S.S.R. under Stalin, keep in mind that the U.S.S.R. introduced humankind to the space age (unlike candles in Anthem). I was born in the U.S.S.R., and I have a first hand experience and many witnesses, besides family and friends, that life in the U.S.S.R. was virtually and relatively crime-free, people had stress-free work environments, frequent vacations. After the collapse, people started being afraid of going outside at night, drug-addictions shot up from pretty much zero, people became super materialistic and violent, competitive and ignorant. These are points to consider.

If there would be a time when involuntary sacrifice is forced onto people, I swear that I will be by your Objectivist side. No sacrifice should ever be unwilling, and in fact, it should never even be a sacrifice in the first place. We live in a different time when we do not need to make sacrifices of anything. This is the time when we need to learn to benefit mutually from everything that we do. "the benefit to other people in general is not the ultimate reason for doing what's in one's best interests. Benefit to others in general is often just kind of a nice side bonus." First, there is one's best interests. Next and simultaneous, there is the benefit to other people in general. If it's not in one's best interests, do not do it for yourself or others. But if it is, strive to expand your relations by doing what's best for yourself and others simultaneously. It is the ultimate reason, this balance, but it needs to be attained as a possibility first and from individual's side and his/her creative capacity as well.

Ninth Doctor: The Marxist dialectical materialism in its general entirety is true. It is based on a pattern of solid historical evidence in that we and our society had evolved from primitive tribes, through slavery, feudalism, capitalism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history), and now we are on a brink where and exactly when we have to decide whether we want to evolve to socialism or have an impending civil war in our country. This is the point when we decide how we want to live. I hope that we choose a better way than we have. It depends on us coming to terms here, to find a compromise that will work. Here is a balanced quote by Marx about the ultimate goal from that link: "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." bluecherry: Here is what I believe in: we are all unique, but replaceable. Individuals die and are replaced by other individuals, even though there are no two individuals alike in the entire universe (or two of anyone/thing alike, for that matter, if we want to be metaphysical). Individuals serve each their own purpose but in a manner that is in harmony with others and thus could be said that is in addition done for the others as well. The ideal men of Rand had done this, but it is realized that one and others are inseparable.

Grames: "Consciousness is the faculty of awareness by means of perceiving reality." "objects in motion require some force to keep them in motion" "at rest unless an external force acts upon the object" Good argument overall, thank you. This is one of proper definitions of consciousness, but I would like you to tell me what force acts on human beings to make us move. You may say mind, and we can equate the two, I hope. The complete definition of consciousness, however, is more complex than even that. It is not as exact, as Rand might have believed about the meaning of "man" in Atlas Shrugged in Francisco's speech. That is why I mentioned in the beginning that consciousness is like an engine. We move by our sheer will, which comes from our consciousness, which is within our mind, which is in our brain, the neuron network and neurological impulses.

Spiral Architect: 1. What I mean by idealizing is the separation of materialism onto vulgar and dialectic/metaphysical components and picking the latter; so, it becomes an idealism-primary materialism-secondary ideology. Communism was the ideal that Marx followed, Rand followed the Ego. 2. I never said that destruction is favored. I am against extreme force myself. I simply stated it in a way to ascertain what can be valued more in a different set of circumstances. I would never materialize this idea anyway. 3. So you never heard of collective unconscious? Or you heard but do not believe in it. That's sad because there is much scientific evidence for it, such as its effect on random number generators installed in different locations on the globe (this is explored more in documentaries "Zero Point: Beyond" and "I am", or you can google "Global Consciousness Project"). 4. Watch a documentary "Invisible Empire: A New World Order." You do not have to accept it completely, but at least give it a try and consider their evidence and arguments. These invididuals are influencing world events through a collective, not a dictatorship, so, this part of Liberty is at least preserved. 5. I imply that a state should have minimum power over individuals, and individuals should have an unrestricted access to resources in their professional communities. 6. I said "with minimum power to control." What I meant was not controlling individuals and not having any excessive power over them. The same as in laissez faire capitalism. Please do not scew my point of view especially if we are in agreement. 7. Living for oneself and others is a logical statement. Tell me of a counterexample, please. All I am asking is to add "for others" part to an already existing statement. I am against tossing random results. In fact, I am against randomness, but for a logically organized unity. As an illustration, it's like following relativism in the context of quantum physics. 8. Let's look at evolution in its most basic sense, then, as a kind of positive change. As you can guess, something that does not change will stagnate and ultimately regress or destroy itself. 9. "a collective conciousness then there is no discussion" Why not, if it is a concept that should be explored and analyzed in greater detail? At least I am willing and open to it. What is there to be afraid of? Just see point 3. Please do not ignore the scientific evidence. It is not magic, but fact. We just need to look into it more rather than eschew it. Eiuol: 1. I implied that, for example, molecules that compose your computer vibrate not because something external forced them to, but because they conduct energy, and in the most general sense, this energy is like consciousness. Of course, particles that make up your body also may be affected by you through laws of quantum physics and quantum biology. Yes, I was talking about everything that exists. This is how we connect with everything else besides us: we understand that there is an inherent essense that we share. 2. I am absolutely looking forward to making a new system out of Marxism and Objectivism. A new synthesis, that is. The trick is to crack this code and accept the challenge. The issue is that there are either individuals for Objectivism or for Marxism, but there are nearly no individuals, as far as I know, who are for both, like me. In a way this is integrating to our knowledge as well, so we can better understand where we stand by examining the opposites. Each has something true or false that is denied. The job is to find what is what. bluecherry: 1. Of course, it is a "what." The question was stated in such a manner as to generate a response. "own natures interacting with each other" Yes, that's right. We have similar natures, don't you think? This nature is not purely material, or is it? Metaphysics says that it is consciousness. I hope that you would agree with me on that. 2. Impulse, initiation, the beginning of creation - these are areas of mind and Reason. These are what individuals are for in a society. A shared common goal is something that a society (read: a collective or a community, or even a family, as the smallest social unit that can constitute a society) sets out to attain. It can be some project to earn money, the production of offspring, or even an idea. The issue here is the scope of the idea herein that can be shared by the most people possible.

Thank you for the welcome! I am going to read all her essays that you mentioned after I finish Atlas Shrugged, and it's going to be in a while yet. See, I always thought of that statement as "must live for oneself and others," Man being any person, state being others. Of course, everyone can see different things in it, as Rand did herself. Then, there are three varieties of the statement: 1) Man must live for himself and the state; 2) Man must live for himself but not the state (unlikely); 3) Man must live for the state but not himself. You picked interpretation #3, since #2 is the farthest of the three. Yet, why is #1 ignored? Can nobody find any examples of #1 being true? How about Jonas Salk, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet? It basically involves a compromise that is a win/win situation. The other two involve no compromises or involve situations where only one party wins. However, the ideal men in Rand's novels are favorable (most of the time) exactly for the reason that they do something selfishly but it also works out well for others. It's the same thing. I understand that she ignored the full comphension of these because this interpretation conflicts with her ideals. But it seems so obvious!

I would like you to notice that you have consciousness and you are among those entities that I mentioned. Do you want to stick with a materialistic durability or do you want to argue on metaphysics? Metaphysically speaking, humans are not the only ones with consciousness. Why deny others consciousness? It's like denying others' rights, freedoms, etc. All things move, and consciousness, in my definition, is the metaphysical engine, it is that which moves. Particles, atoms, molecules, etc. vibrate and move from their own accord. Who makes them move, then, answer me?

softwareNerd, then why not have a "social contract" model exactly follow the protection of individual rights (the anti-force rules), whereas individuals (or mobs) deal with the problems among themselves? But no! we want society to help these individuals (or mobs) to resolve their problems that involve violence. We are looking at the same issue from two different perspectives: individual and society. In the perfect case scenario, which I am trying to attain here, each is solely against violence and each selects a form of a "social contract" to live in harmony with its environment. The issue with those excellent men who create some products is that they may also decide to grasp power, since they may get bored with only working on a product and just earning money without influencing others to their tastes. You see, boundaries between individuals become fuzzy in these cases because individuals relate not only to individuals, but also to collectives. This is the same issues as with Anarchism. Anarchism is a transitionary state because someone will always grasp power and create a state. In Objectivism, someone will always want more after having enough money; they (some, not all) will want power to rule others.

Grames, it does not have to be a mere durability, it can be a consciousness also. You see, all discreet entities, starting from a particle and ending with a universe, have consciousness, in my opinion. You are thinking in terms of bodily consciousness but not collective consciousness. If we imagine that consciousness can be destroyed, bodily consciousness would be easier to destroy than a collective one, wouldn't you agree? Grames, your reply concerning integration of Marxism and Objectivism on the political level basically states that it's impossible. So, you believe that opposites cannot integrate? How about Thesis and Antithesis that leads to Synthesis? But you do not believe in that, of course. It is unfortunate that you voluntarily want to limit yourself. I could also say that I do not want you to do that, and that I do not want you to believe that there is something that can be outside of your reach. I realize that politics can be considered a form of mere rhetoric; however, it should be evident from my posts that I consider social organization more important than that and call it politics. Plasmatic, the example that I showed earlier of Marxism/Buddhism hybrid was just that - an example, and a poor one at that, thanks for pointing out. I would have not mentioned it of my own accord if it wasn't asked for earlier. In order to seriously integrate, I also ask the question of what depends on what and try to find all possible entities that fit into the context. Integration then happens of the entire continuum, whose ends are complete opposites. I call this a dialectic continuum. It can be either between entities on the same level, thesis and antithesis, which I call horizontal, or on different levels, one thesis and another thesis that are related as a part or a whole - this is vertical. Plasmatic, I also realize that the two systems, Objectiv ism and Marxism, are extremely different and, in fact, opposite in exactly that unfortunate criteria of being closed (unwilling to integrate) and open. You see, we know that to live is to change. We see this all around us. We see it especially in science, where new models integrate the old ones, so all proven results can be derived in a unified system. Scientists are trying to do this with a Unified field theory. Why is human life different from the tenents by which science continues its existence? I just hope that invincible ignorance is not a tenet that Objectivists follow...

Let me clear up some terminology. Society (without an article) is Global Communism, for me. Communism is a term interchangeable with Communalism, as well. This is society with an overt government that allows people their rights within its context. A society, for example, is Objectivism. SoftwareNerd, in this respect, being the organizer (and more) is similar to a speaker of a state collective of Global Communism. Sure, he can ban or correct, but he is being fair. He is allowing us our freedoms to exist within the context of this community.

Grames, yes, by reductio ad absurdum, absolute nothing is going to be the greatest end in itself, and, in fact, I agree to that. The issue is that most of us cannot understand or even attain any kind of understanding of that yet. Or maybe we unconsciously can. So it is a form of faith for me. However, when we look at things that do exist, i.e., particles, atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organs, bodies, societies, races, worlds, stars, holes, a universe, we can say what is easier or harder to destroy, and hence, by my faith-logic, we can justly say what is a greater or lower end in itself. Do you see anything wrong with this metaphysical hierarchy? I do. It is out of context. Hence, society can be independent neither from its parts, i.e., individuals, nor from its context, i.e., nature. Individuals, similarly, cannot be independent from their organs or their environments. So, by looking at these entities within their contexts, we see them as complete realities, all interdependent, but each existing fully only on its own level. The problem with Objectivists that I see is that Objectivists do not see themselves as fully existing on the level of society yet. However, Grames, as you correctly noticed, it all depends on a perspective and the kind of value that we, as humans, derive from it. So we have to decide on that for ourselves, of course. I see no arguments coming against my ideas for integration of Marxism and Objectivism on the political level. However, I think that it is the most important issue that Objectivists need to realize: that individuals are ruling the world. These individuals, namely, the Rockfellers, Rothschilds, etc., formed groups, such as The Bilderberg Group, National Council, Trilateral Commission. The only question that remains is whether those individuals are Objectivists. I believe that they are not. In this arguable case, their money strengthens their power and potentially makes them corrupt. In order to bring these individuals to light, we have to use measures. Or do we? Force is something that Objectivists oppose. However, I do not see another way but to oppose those individuals until they tell us of their machinations. Can we scare them by nationalization? Sure, but again, will we do it? Or is everyone happy by just living for the sake of economy? Most people do exactly that, not realizing that their purpose in life is to attain the greatest level of competence that they can, not the money that they can earn with it.

Here are some ideas to be further developed, perhaps: In epistemology, both idealize materialism, both are a kind of sciences. In terms of Marxism, I am talking about (pre)historical events that we all agree on. In ethics, let's look at "the end in itself" from a phenomenological perspective. Isn't what is easier to destroy less an end in itself than what is harder to destroy? That is society > a body. In politics, the shadow government that is composed of the wealthiest and most powerful individuals from developed capitalistic countries pretty much rules the world. Of course, they do so with a mind for capitalism, so it works out for Objectivists, probably. The issue here is to see the patterns. We know that there will always be some form of a state, and we agree on that (correct me if I am wrong on any of this). Therefore, we need to have a state with minimum power to control individuals, so individuals are left independent and to their own sovereign needs. Spiral Architect, we do that in science, except the ideas that are put together are proven, which is the standard for good ideas. I agree that we should not force anything, anyone to be anything or anyone or do anything. But there is no way of ignoring the fact of our evolution. Unless you want to argue with me on that. Is evolution deterministic in terms of determinism of every individual, or do Objectivists agree with a traditional scientific view of evolution that is completely indeterministic?