Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Part I. The Philosophy of Neo-Objectivism

 

The problem with Objectivism is that the following two statements are considered the same:

1) I live for myself.

2) I do not live for others.

 

However, 2) does not imply that you live for yourself. You may live for no one, not even yourself. So 2) is confused with:

3) I live for myself, but not for others.

 

4) “I live for others” is contrary to 1) but contradictory to 2) and 3). Hence the contradictoriness to 4) unites 2) and 3) and makes them seem to be the same statement.

 

By the definition of the current Objectivist model, the reality is the market, and the real market is others, that is, the sum of individual minds, and life is inseparable from the market because the market and all items traded are caused and co-created by the minds.

3) “I live for myself, but not for others” => not for the market caused by the minds. However, without the market there could be no money, and the market involves a trade between a minimum of two people in order to make money. You are not living for the sake of what you produce, but for the purpose of trading (or sharing) it with others. It is a formal logical fallacy called “black-or-white fallacy” to state that “I live for myself” and “I live for others” are contradictory. Instead, they are contrary and can be dialectically integrated. The negative statement must be removed to avoid the logical contradiction.

 

1) “I live for myself” is not contradictory because you can add a positive statement “and for the market,” and “myself,” limited to this case, implies a relationship to the market. A relationship has two equally distributed ends, and it starts with a relationship to oneself. We can therefore say that “I live for myself” is “I live for the relationships with others.” So, the new oath will be:

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will always live for my own sake.”

 

There is now possible the integration without contradictions of free-market capitalism and global communism, the market and the society. This idea was sought in and was missing from Atlas Shrugged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not living for the sake of what you produce, but for the purpose of trading (or sharing) it with others.

 

It is hard to imagine an individual, say on an island - but not necessarily, growing enough produce to feed himself and his livestock requiring trade with others. A man who cultivates the soil - hunts or sustains livestock for meat and clothing - crafts his own abode from the environment, would be exempt from requiring trade to produce his own wealth for himself. Granted, this ignores many of the benefits that trade enables, but I would suggest it is a consideration omitted from your rationalization here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should stick to the ethical ideas before you try formulating a political philosophy. 

 

First try and work with direct quotes from Rand and then use real world examples with citations to demonstrate what you find problematic with her ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should stick to the ethical ideas before you try formulating a political philosophy. 

 

First try and work with direct quotes from Rand and then use real world examples with citations to demonstrate what you find problematic with her ideas.

 

Just to clarify, all I attempted to do with Part I is to show that the statement "I live for myself" (taken as the new oath) is less contradictory than "I do not live for others" (taken from the current Objectivist oath "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."). It is a criticism of the entire philosophy, not some particular application of its oath. In most cases, your oath can be applied properly and noncontradictorily, but it can also lead to violence and/or destruction (as in Ragnar Danneskjöld's case). I wanted to show that no violence or destruction is necessary in the first place when there is a harmonic evolution through Neo-Objectivism. What I have posted is not complete. My claim of integration has not been supported yet. It is a connection to the upcoming Part II, but first I would like you to feel accustomed to the philosophy before I post anything else. I should have posted them together--please excuse this error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have posted them together--please excuse this error.

Oh not! Not more of the same re-writing your own version of Objectivism, so that you can convince yourself that you've found some problems that you will now resolve by showing us that market minds can and cannot be lived for and also for others. And if the integration of the many into the dual is sought, then it is possible if only the market were to be slightly redefined into a more complete, robust notion.

After all, markets are an epistemological concept and a social concept before they are a moral concept, and none other than Stiglitz has said that though their "...power ... is enormous, ...they have no inherent moral character." So, Objectivists need to understand that the things they think are contradictory, may not be so. Alexander Hamilton said "A national debt, if not excessive, will be a national blessing". Objectivists need to understand the non-linearity in sentiments like this, for the Gods that be did not make a law that all causal relationships must be linear...as every school kid who studies the anomalous expansion of water well understands.

It is vital to understand that communism does not spring from people like Stalin, but from the cry for freedom and rights of men who have been denied their natural right to walk freely on the earth, just like the next guy... with no respect for fake man-made rules like nobility and titles. It flows from the yearning to live as an individual human being, but as an individual within society...since that is how the human animal lives, and prospers by such living. So, clearly we can see that Objectivism with its stress on the individual carefully combined with its championing of the market is a brother-idea to Communism with its stress that we are all equal in rights carefully combined with its championing of the proper role each of us play in our societies. How are they different? they are almost the same!! If Stalin could take such a noble idea and use it to justify his totalitarianism, surely another dictator can start with an Objectivism idea and use it to justify his own tyranny.

Further, both Objectivism and Communism start at the common base of a realistic, naturalistic world-view, free of mysticism and Gods that were invented by ignorant primitives. Upon this base, they both champion reason. And in morality, they focus on this life of man -- here and now -- not on an after-life, not on rituals, not on prayers, not on mother earth. Man's life on earth is the standard that they both share. As eixplained above, in the abstract, their politics are close... pulling down theocracies and monarchies, and calling for the rights of each man, within the market or the commune. Surely it is not too much more than semantics that these two great ideologies arrive at nearly the same principles, with a few words and minor concepts changed. Going further, it is uncanny that even in aesthetics, both seem to think it is okay and good for art to champion their moral and political ideal.

There, you have your integration, though it is completely false.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ilya, your posts are mostly incomprehensible and arbitrary nonsense... a series of sentences put together to make it seem like they're saying something.

I don't find the post hard to understand, it's just a misunderstanding that is common, where a positive statement is taken then compared to a negative statement, as if the negative statement exhausts all possible alternatives. I've heard people say that Rand only took capitalism to be good BECAUSE communism is bad, i.e. constructing a dichotomous view.

It would seem like A is equal to "I live for myself" and ~A is equal to "I do not live for others", but ~A in this case is simply all non-As! So while B is ~A, C is also ~A. ~B is also a non-A. Of course, strictly speaking, if we only have A and B, all we can say is that the two are opposed in some manner - we need to conclude that B is exclusively a ~A rather than a fact to integrate into A+B.

Rand did argue to show that living for others is incompatible with living for yourself. She did go on to argue that living for others is exclusively ~A, i.e. a contradiction.

Neo-Objectivism? This is just regular Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't find the post hard to understand, ...

He lost me at "reality is the market", and my comment was really not about this one post. If he's abstruse, I think it serves him best to know; but if you and others can understand it easily... ...fair enough. I reckon your response addresses it.

 

[Meanwhile, I did the communism-objectivism integration as public service ;)  ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part II. The Theory of Emotional Economy

 

1. Introduction

 

Would you like to live in a world where there are no taxes, no material costs of production, no military, no wars, no crime, no corruption, and there is just one law – emotional love? This world is real and practicable. There will be no financial crises that are caused by emotions economists cannot predict. In the beginning and transitionary stage (T), we will live in a hybrid economy with more than one currency (or dimension to our living). However, in the long run and ideally, there will also be no taxation necessary because, instead, it will be either a pure emotional economy or an advanced hybrid economy.

 

2. Basic mechanics

 

There are positive and negative emotional responses that can be measured (a sharp interstitial interval on an electrocardiogram [ECG] is negative, its round edge is positive, as shown by Institute of HeartMath’s neurocardiological research and technologies; Science of the Heart, pp. 18-9, 44; some quotes from the book). A rubber bracelet on your hand can measure your heart rate, has an electronic scanner, and holds an account connected to the National Emotion Bank (the NEB) that authorizes it. To pay is to give “thanks” and be scanned or send it to a public account number through a number pad. A scan is activated by an appropriate thought response. When someone pays you directly, your reputation grows by the person's positive response or decreases from a negative response (for transactions with an emotional credit, see Section 6).

 

3. Reputation

 

The reputation is the key to the social and career success. More expensive purchases and stores may require a reputation clearance. Reputation will not decrease through purchases, one cannot pay directly to one’s own account, and one is not scanned continuously – only at transactions volunteered by the purchaser.

 

To be employed as a CEO or some other executive with power and influence over others, one will be required to have some minimum reputation. One can also make one's account public within the company or outside of it. If it's a public figure outside a company, he or she is allowed to permanently publicize his or her account. The reputation at the moment of publicizing will be frozen and will not decrease or be lost, unless the person dies. It is also impossible to transfer individual reputations (for other types of accounts, see Section 8). This way the employees can find the public account online (or through advertisements or word of mouth) and may pay positive or negative emotions to this person over distance (for negative responses on public account, see Section 6).

 

The government will be a republic, so people who will take care of the NEB, courts, and the police department will be an electorate that will make all the decisions in addition to electing a leader. Being a member of an electorate will also require reputation and a public account.

 

4. Special accommodation

 

For people with artificial hearts or heart/emotional problems, a more expensive device will need to be developed in the later generations of the economy (see Section 9 for generations of economy). The accommodation device will be a cap (using EEG [electroencephalography] instead of ECG) that will access the impulses of the emotional center of the brain and accurately interpret them into positive or negative emotions and accurate gradations thereof. A person will be allowed to enter the market whenever he or she will be conscious of the purpose and usage of the device (the same as with bracelets). Love and appreciation will be the universal currency.

 

5. Basic outline of features

 

There will be three kinds of accounts: individual, company (see Section 7), and property (see Section 8). Two types of each account: private and public. Private account numbers (whether individual, property, or company) will not be known by anyone and will only use encrypted traces, but one’s account transactions and reputation balances can be checked online on the NEB’s website. For economic gradations, see Section 9. For a simplistic representation, see the Figure 1. For more detailed information, see Figure 2.

 

Figure 1: Infographic

Figure1_infographic.jpg

 

 

 

Figure 2: The Formal Structure

Figure2_the_formal_structure.jpg

 

 

 

6. Emotional credits and debt

 

There will be emotional credits (what you are being paid over time) and debts (what you have to pay over time), but only one payment to a particular account per day will be allowed by the NEB (this is true of any payment, not just debt or credit, except for stores). Debts will have no interest, will not change in value, and will only be counted in terms of the minimum amount of personal daily responses in which they have to be paid off in full. However, profits on one’s account can help pay debts faster (see additional features in Section 10). Some debts may also require minimum emotional responses (in a later generational economy, see Section 9), so people will have to learn or find ways to increase their positive emotions while working, climbing the career ladder, or being public figures. Since reputation will not go below zero or a set limit (as in public accounts), negative responses may automatically become debts. An ability to maintain a constant positive disposition will be like a permanent wallet with money and will be indispensable as well as helpful in getting others to pay off one’s debts. There will be no bankruptcy because all debts must be paid off, and all payments will be genuine and will come from the heart. Disbanding a public company will unfreeze the company’s reputation to pay off any debts and may deplete connected property accounts, if necessary. Only company’s reputation can be transferred to connected individual accounts as profits. Only company and property accounts can be bequeathed. The only way to lose a reputation and debts is dying a natural death. Disbanding a property account also destroys all of its reputation.

 

No multipliers of any kind will be allowed to increase emotional payments, so managers and employees will be motivated to have close personal relationships. This means that a manager will have to pay each employee per task, quota, or day, depending on business practice or contract.

 

7. Stores

 

In a hybrid economy, hybrid payments may be required or motivated. For example, a less expensive gas price per gallon plus one emotional payment for the whole purchase. However, in the long run, there will be two kinds of stores. In the beginning there may be stores that are less expensive, convenience outlets to shop for items of first need, and these stores will not require any reputation of its customers. The following is an example of a simple grocery store purchase in a developed emotional economy.

 

Take two gallons of milk. As you are walking past an exit scanner, it will blink green (positive), red (negative), or yellow (error) after your bracelet as well as the codes of the products will be scanned. A positive payment is divided and distributed to the store and the producer (whether national or not, no tariffs will restrict international trade, only a choice of the store owner(s)), who receives only one payment for all produced items in a single purchase. Since businesses will ideally have no costs of production, it will not matter whether a payment is received for one item or many. In a different instance, a negative payment will be automatically sent to the payer's account as an emotional debt, the positive equivalent of which (or more, if it takes several lesser payments in the later generational economy) will have to be paid to the automatically saved trace of the store's private account. In the case of an error, either scan again or wait for a store employee with a store's account bracelet to approach you and motivate a positive response.

 

Ultimately, the store's account will follow its programmed procedure on distributing the payment among all the owners of the company’s account (if the account does not own an emotional debt, which needs to be paid first). In the case of more expensive stores, there may be a reputation requirement in order to shop there. In this type of stores, all items will cost a specific amount of emotional points, so purchases will either require an emotional debt or will have to be paid along with a remainder (in a later generational economy, see Section 9).

 

8. Property

 

You can create a property account (whether private or public) that will be connected to an individual or company account, but only in form and not in contained reputation. You can make a profit on the property reputation when it is sold on an emotional credit. Property can be measured as a percentage of a company account. If you are alone connected to it, it belongs to you 100%, but by connecting others, the percentage will become shared.

 

You can even self-insure your own property. Imagine, for example, getting up at home every time in a good mood and sending a positive response to the account of your apartment (one can do so online through the private account). Every day, your reputation will grow as a result. And if someone other than you will destroy this apartment, and he or she is proven guilty by a court decision, then this person (or people) will own a reputation debt to your account plus potentially an additional penalty of emotional debt (as for any other crime). This credit can also be used toward a purchase of another apartment (or house). However, a reputation requirement will be in order unless you insured your apartment by an insurance company that already has an ongoing relationship with real estate sellers.

 

9. Emotional gradations

 

This will be an evolutionary economy - spiritual as well as technological. Its development will depend on improving technologies that distinguish emotions with 100% accuracy. Initially, in the first generation of this economy, all positive emotions will be read as +1 ep (emotional point) and negative eps as -1. In the second generation of the economy, there will be low and high gradations of emotions, so that the maximums will now be +2 and -2 eps, and so forth, each generation increasing the maximum by one ep. In other words, the generation of economy equals the amount of emotional gradations, also quantitatively called eps, possible in that economy. The economy will never stagnate because the maximum strength of an emotional response of the previous generation will be equated to a higher ep of a new generation. The prices may rise, since the payments can increase, although the amount of emotional responses can stay the same. For example, consider the fifth generation with five gradations (e.g., 1=peace, 2=satisfaction, 3=joy, 4=happiness, 5=euphoria). The maximum response in the first generation can only equal a peaceful state in this latter generation.

 

The currency of the previous generation may increase in value for the following generations. The bank will convert currencies automatically. However, all decimals will be rounded down to the nearest whole number. This can be considered the system’s price for an exchange of currency. In a similar manner, until the time when the national banks will be coordinated by the global bank, exchange rates of different national banks will have to exchange the values accordingly in order to match the generations where the payment will be received (payee’s generation - Destination Generation or DG; whereas payer’s generation is Original Destination or OG). So, in the case when different generational economies coexist, for example, +1 ep paid in the first generation will become +2 ep in the second generation economy. For another example, to convert the currency of the 2nd generation to the 3rd, the transferred value or payment of the home economy will have to be multiplied by the generation of 3 (DG) and divided by 2 (OG). Hence, the formula:

 

(the value to be exchanged *DG) / OG

 

e.g., say a payment is 1 ep in generation 2. In generation 3, the value will become:

 

(1 * 3) / 2 = 1.5 eps, which means that the maximum payment of 2 in the lower generation will equal the maximum payment in the new generation. The converted final value (i.e., 1 ep), however, will be separate from the decimal value, which will have to be absorbed by the system for the exchange to the bank of DG. This decimal remainder of the conversion of that payment will not be in effect (to be considered absorbed by the system).

 

Prices and reputation requirements may rise (as decided by business owners) when people will gain an opportunity to send improved moods in the new generation. In the primary interests of the government, the economy will constantly grow and develop.

 

10. Additional features

 

The website (www.neb.org) will be very flexible. It will not only motivate reputational increases through advertisements (e.g., “Give a Thanks for…”), but also through a dynamic and competitive reputation ladder. Additional online features will include: being able to cancel time accounts (when sending more than one response in a day to be distributed on daily basis), regulating the disbursement of profits toward your debts (setting percentages or weights of importance of debt accounts or forestalling some payments altogether), disabling your account (as a protective measure in case your bracelet is lost and while waiting until a new bracelet, connected to the same account, arrives), and setting up secure online transactions (for private business owners who can administer credits to clients through the website).

 

Part III. Argumentation for the Theory

 

1. Defense against weaknesses

 

Self-induced syndromes are fascinating phenomena. They will be great case studies in any society, and their research will help in identifying the factors of people self-regulating their emotions and becoming more psychologically resilient. There will be a need for people to develop an ability to consciously control and optimize emotions in the new economy.

 

As for drug-induced states, it will be a relief for individuals who will be struggling in the new economy. Not everyone will want to do drugs, and limited dealing with drug-addicts can hinder the growth of their reputations in the long run. I am sure that people who do drugs will be recognized by trained company managers, whether on the spot in an interview or from work performance. So far, very few can control their emotions, but it does not mean that in the future no one will. So, getting very rich in this state is not guaranteed, since there will be a discrimination against these people and reputation growth is relationship-based, but the government will not enforce any side. Remember that the government will not regulate the economy in any way; it will only serve as an equitable judge, protector of order and peace and will maintain the economy in safety.

 

The sadists will be the fogyish people still enthralled by the purely competitive edge to living. What I have to say to these people is so: be who you may, but the ultimate goal is genuine love. This society that I am proposing to build allows people all their freedoms, yet it also is much more than a mere market, it motivates a true cooperation and a spiritual evolution on the personal level to control one’s emotions (the evolution from bottom-up, not top-down [like globalization]), and at least this makes it a better alternative to our current paradigm.

 

Some important terms to remember: M for monetary economy, E for emotional economy, T (M+E) for transitionary hybrid economy, G for the goal of a taxless (not tax-obligated) complete economy. G can be a pure E, a different economy, or even a T, where M, learning from E, can have taxes voluntarily paid as donations.

 

Money changes hands in business and trade relationships. However, a "thanks" will as easily replace those, especially in the area of friendships, love, and family that are not covered by money and not reflected in M. Besides, if it's hard for one to generate a positive response in public, one can always get emotional debt and pay it off in the solitary comfort of one's home. Do not confuse the greed for money and the greed for love. These greeds conflict in M but not in E. Think like this: love is wealth, and wealth is love. People may convert their possessions into positive emotions. I am betting that more will convert and the rest will have no choice but to adapt. What will win in our world: positive or negative, if they are balanced? This whole project will not work if the majority will not pick up on it. But if the majority will, the world we live in will change, and the rest will adapt to it.

 

The government will control the NEB, courts and the police. People's rights to live a free and happy life will be defended. However, this is in the long run, of course (let's call this ideal goal G). In the beginning (or transitionary period T), it may work as a business with no way to sow justice. That is why it is paramount for the majority and the government to support this system. Let us not mix G and T. There will be no prisons only if everyone will be in E (or some G). However, not much in our world will change when T will begin. It will start with people wearing bracelets and trading with others with bracelets because they will share similar values. How is that going to negatively affect the monetary people? It won't. Discrimination or violence are still against the laws in M, so it will be the same then. The government will not segregate people depending on what economy they support, or will it? Please keep in mind that E will start in M. There will be no area, at first, where E will not overlap with M. People from E will have a choice to exit M to start a community somewhere else, but probably only after M would crash. This whole project will start in M by the people who will support E. The jurisdictions we have in M will cover those in E while in T. There will be no physical punishment in E (or some other G), only fines. But in T E it is in the best interests of the people to support G.

 

Love will be free, only motivated by a standard of living to increase (being always negative will not increase it, and no payments to one’s own account will be possible). Love is a relationship. Selfishness is the relationship. Therefore, love is selfish. The idea of self will have to change. It is not about physical bodies of self or others anymore. It is about those nonphysical, emotional relationships that connect all bodies. However, it can only start with the self.

 

This economic theory is all about adding a moral and ethical aspect to economics because people believe that an unregulated economy is chaos and anarchy. Let’s ask: Why do others believe that a free economy is chaos? The reason they believe this is that there had never been created a universal set of morals for an economy. Neither Christians nor Marxists provided a moral code for economics. Objectivists provide such a code. But Objectivism is an ideology, not an economy. An ideology is always exclusive, and there will always be people who disagree with it and thus do not give their assent. Neo-Objectivism is not just an ideology but a system of economy as well. There is no need to accept the ideology by itself. One will be free to choose what to believe and yet share values with everyone regardless of their philosophical values or beliefs.

 

This is not a debate for an ideology (which is a losing debate). It is a completely new debate for a completely new economy. People do not have to understand, believe, or even like the economy they are in. People may hate money and still use it. The same thing applies to E. People will not have to believe, understand, or love the emotional currency. This new currency will become transparent and unquestionable just like the axiom of money is today.

 

2. Reasons for assent

 

In E, the government is employed by the citizens to do three things: 1) maintain the servers that will store emotional scans; 2) perfect the accuracy of scans and improve the technologies required to make those scans; 3) help resolve conflicts and maintain peace and order in society through the court system and police. There will be more freedom than we have right now and less regulations and infringement in personal lives because E is a self-regulating economy. It will be a market economy where people will be truly responsible for their values and trade because they will internalize it. People will not be lost in happiness because negativity will still be a part of the system, as its cost and constraining factor. Drug-induced individuals and sadists will be discriminated against just as they are in this system. Think of it this way: E will keep everything from our monetary economy (M) but will resolve the following: 1) the Infinite Growth Paradigm leads to financial disasters in M, but not in E, as it’s always evolving, and it will be optimal to store the values on the servers than to produce or obtain material currency; 2) friendships, natural cultures, and other metaphysical values and relationships will become valued more than money and thus produced and motivated much more freely (i.e., it will be an idealistic/realistic society); 3) people will become more cooperative and less competitive (in the bad sense of non-Objectivist, immoral competition) because, among many other reasons, there will be no way to steal or bequeath individual reputation, which will be erased at natural death. Neo-Objectivism will be an actual moral economy, not just a moral economic ideology, which is Objectivism. It’s a facelift to Objectivism.

 

This requires a completely different interpretation of the government. Since we skip socialism in order to integrate markets with a global communistic society, the government becomes a financial and judicial political institution and authority. It sets the standard of currency, produces it, and generates the economy. The court system and its judgments is another important function of the government. Everything else is secondary. The government is not only a bank ith its standards of currency but also a court with its standard of justice.

 

Without seeing how it works in practice can lead to the danger of overtheorization, but let’s say that maybe it is possible for such a government and society to operate even without police, just as military will not be required. Only empirical evidence will show the results, but so far we have to compare this theory against the current socioeconomic model.

 

3. The alternative that is the current paradigm

 

The greed, or motivation, for money as a material substance and as a means to an end conflicts with the greed for knowledge (open-mindedness) or the greed for love (love of society) as ends in themselves. It is not the greed for money that we need, but the greed for relationships with others, that is, the greed for ourselves. Money is rational and not balanced with emotions; money is incomplete. There is no human emotional element inherent to money. But emotions complete money and help make us human. On the other hand, money alone is coming from an inhuman apparatus, that is, a machine. Worshipping the value of money is like worshipping perfect competence for making money – both means to an end – and thus becoming perfect machines, unfeeling and intransigent.

 

Humans are on their way to becoming such industrial machines. And once they become automatized, they will not only lose their bodies and consciousness, but also their souls. Emotional economy is the only way provided right now to save humanity from the conversion into perfect, competent machines. Unfortunately, not everyone can be an Objectivist. Even though Objectivism is proclaimed to be universal, it is not universal because not everyone supports it and never will. There will always be other ideologies in existence, but Neo-Objectivism is different. It is an economic theory more than just a particular, and thus limiting, way to think and live. The only particularity is the name, which was given to it more as a dedication than anything else.

 

However, if emotional currency is in conflict with anything (including money), then there is a problem with it. If it can replace money without conflict, then there is no problem. We simply need to add humaneness to the economic sphere, add a heart, a vibrant, qualitative, and lively energy of emotions to the frozen, cold, quantitative, and logical energies of monies (or gold or equivalent material values). Emotional currency will also add a healthy competitive/cooperative edge to personal relationships. I should note that money cannot apply to personal relationships at least for non-Objectivists, as the research by Machael J. Sandel has shown (see this video). If you love competition, also, why not let emotional currency compete with the monetary one and see which one will win in the future for the future? Although I do not have authority and I am only one mind, what I have to say deals with everyone, and ultimately, I think, both currencies will survive, but it will change our thinking and the way we live our lives for the better.

 

It is called psychological resilience when one self-regulates one’s emotions that reflect socially through a self-regulating economy, and all of this is a key to a healthy lifestyle and a friendly society. Extensive research by the Institute of HeartMath has shown that the heart has its own independent neurological net (little “brain”) and affects our perceptions and intelligence. The synthesis of the heart and the brain of the nervous system produces quantifiable coherence states that positively influence our overall health, strengthen immune systems, and cause various positive changes in behavior and lifestyles (see Science of the Heart).

 

Ayn Rand never mentioned how to transition into the free market capitalism without violence, a revolution, or a strike of the major industrialists. None of those things are happening. What need to be done are not the radical measures of Atlas Shrugged, but merely the support of the government and the public to implement the new and peaceful economy. Economy and society are equally important, and neither individualistic market economy nor collectivistic society should be emphasized over the other. Wealth and health should both be chosen, as both are a requirement for life.

 

4. Implementation and implications

 

The first thing that we must do to make this a reality is to change our thinking from purely monetary to additionally emotional because many problems of the world are connected to the current economic system, as shown in the documentary Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (2011). Implementing it in stages and in specific locations, and then transitioning to the new economy will only eliminate problems in the long run when everyone will get used to the new system. Since the emotional currency can only be genuine and everyone will start equally (with zero reputation), money cannot be converted to it, unless by selling the already owned property for emotional credits, but everyone can start living in the two currencies to the point when the emotional currency will cover every aspect of human relations in the world. Then money can be abandoned, if necessary.

 

The emotions that control the economy will be controlled by rational minds without conflicts. Together, we can make it a reality. This new economy becomes a market of untapped potential - a new marketing system will have to be designed for it. Managers, attracted by the supporters of the system, may issue savings coupons to customers with bracelets, thus differentiating their businesses from those purely monetary ones of their competitors.

 

One has to remember that economy is the soul of society. We want a friendly society and a free economy. We do not need a conflict between Democrats and Republicans, Marxists and Objectivists. The answer is Emotional economy because emotions help make us human. Positive emotions will benefit the society, and negative emotions will cost it. This is the time for collaboration between Democrats and Republicans, Neo-Objectivists and non-Objectivists, no matter who you are. This is the future. First, we need to create a subsidiary of the Federal Reserve that will be the National Emotion Bank. A website will be created that will provide access to bracelet owners and a reputation ladder to be displayed publicly only with consent. Second, we need to create a monetary business for manufacturing these bracelets (make them different colors or we can even put watches on them with number pads to key in public account numbers in the later generations). The goal with the business is to give bracelets away with no payment required or make them very inexpensive and affordable. That’s why the government and public support is crucial. Third, we will need to get these bracelets and start using them by converting as many of our relations to emotional as possible. It can become like a new game between friends, lovers, and family at first and businesses and countries (other NEBs) at a later, global stage of development, when the creation of the Global Emotion Bank will become possible.

 

This work is dedicated to Ayn Rand and her followers, the Objectivists, because, without you and Ayn Rand, this idea would not have been possible. The greatest payment that I can give you for your support is not only my thanks but also having me on your side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ilya:

 

Until this morning I had assumed that you did not truly understand what you were saying.  You seemed like a Keating or a Hallsey, to me; someone who did not realize the nature of their own convictions.

There is no human emotional element inherent to money. But emotions complete money and help make us human. On the other hand, money alone is coming from an inhuman apparatus, that is, a machine. Worshipping the value of money is like worshipping perfect competence for making money – both means to an end – and thus becoming perfect machines, unfeeling and intransigent.

Humans are on their way to becoming such industrial machines. And once they become automatized, they will not only lose their bodies and consciousness, but also their souls. Emotional economy is the only way provided right now to save humanity from the conversion into perfect, competent machines.

 

It took me some time to grasp precisely what you meant by that last sentence.  If that was your intention then you did an exceptionally thorough job of unintelligibility, except in two distinctive places:

 

Objectivism is an ideology, not an economy. An ideology is always exclusive, and there will always be people who disagree with it and thus do not give their assent. Neo-Objectivism is not just an ideology but a system of economy as well. There is no need to accept the ideology. . .

This one, because of the goals it implied.

 

This work is dedicated to Ayn Rand and her followers, the Objectivists, because, without you and Ayn Rand, this idea would not have been possible. The greatest payment that I can give you for your support is not only my thanks but also having me on your side.

And this one because it went too far.

You spent paragraph after paragraph describing the reasons for this Utopian society, being very careful to hide its morality behind mountains of pointless chatter; this society which you want specifically to erase Ayn Rand's effects on history- and at the end, you gave her a thoughtful little dedication.

 

It is too obscene to be accidental.  So congratulations, you will now become the very first person on my 'ignore' list.

 

Live long and prosper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is too obscene to be accidental.  So congratulations, you will now become the very first person on my 'ignore' list.

Considering that what I am going to say is going to be ignored anyway, I will be brief. If you are not on the way to allying with transhumanists and becoming invincibly ignorant and extremely conservative dogmatics like fundamental Christians, then you have misunderstood me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part I. The Philosophy of Neo-Objectivism

 

The problem with Objectivism is that the following two statements are considered the same:

1) I live for myself.

2) I do not live for others.

 

However, 2) does not imply that you live for yourself. You may live for no one, not even yourself. So 2) is confused with:

3) I live for myself, but not for others.

 

4) “I live for others” is contrary to 1) but contradictory to 2) and 3). Hence the contradictoriness to 4) unites 2) and 3) and makes them seem to be the same statement.

 

By the definition of the current Objectivist model, the reality is the market, and the real market is others, that is, the sum of individual minds, and life is inseparable from the market because the market and all items traded are caused and co-created by the minds.

3) “I live for myself, but not for others” => not for the market caused by the minds. However, without the market there could be no money, and the market involves a trade between a minimum of two people in order to make money. You are not living for the sake of what you produce, but for the purpose of trading (or sharing) it with others. It is a formal logical fallacy called “black-or-white fallacy” to state that “I live for myself” and “I live for others” are contradictory. Instead, they are contrary and can be dialectically integrated. The negative statement must be removed to avoid the logical contradiction.

 

1) “I live for myself” is not contradictory because you can add a positive statement “and for the market,” and “myself,” limited to this case, implies a relationship to the market. A relationship has two equally distributed ends, and it starts with a relationship to oneself. We can therefore say that “I live for myself” is “I live for the relationships with others.” So, the new oath will be:

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will always live for my own sake.”

 

There is now possible the integration without contradictions of free-market capitalism and global communism, the market and the society. This idea was sought in and was missing from Atlas Shrugged.

 

 

Your "reasoning" reveals that you do not understand Objectivism.

 

 

You cannot claim to build upon nor criticise something you have yet to understand.

 

 

 

I thought perhaps it was an Age or a Language impediment but now I think you simply do not understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your "reasoning" reveals that you do not understand Objectivism.

 

You cannot claim to build upon nor criticise something you have yet to understand.

 

I thought perhaps it was an Age or a Language impediment but now I think you simply do not understand.

Then I want to understand how you understand it. Help me out with this internal look. I have read The Virtue of Selfishness, and Rand there mentioned that you may do things for the sake of others but only in emergency situations. It's true, we are not living in an emergency situation, as commonly known. We are living in peace. So, who cares? Well, I like being proactive. This philosophy is for the time when new financial crises will show whether Objectivists have learned to care for others... or not. Even though caring for others is allowed in some instances/exceptions in Oist philosophy, it is not stressed enough in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you want specifically to erase Ayn Rand's effects on history- and at the end, you gave her a thoughtful little dedication.

 

It is too obscene to be accidental.  So congratulations, you will now become the very first person on my 'ignore' list.

 

Live long and prosper.

 

I apologize for continuing this discussion while being ignored for supposedly wanting to "erase Ayn Rand's effects on history" if that is even possible. Here is my analysis of "Rand's effects on history" (additions are welcomed):

1) the 60s:

a) LaVey's Satanism inspired by Ayn Rand;

b ) the sexual revolution, for promiscuity was a big part of Rand's life and her characters;

c) Neoconservatism, which lead to the wars in the Middle East because Americans became morally superior and just against other cultures;

2) the 90s: the social collapse and dissolution of the U.S.S.R. caused and spread by ideological, cultural, and moral corruption from America;

3) the 21st century:

a) Alan Greenspan and the financial crisis of 2008;

b ) the Tea-Party that caused the government shutdown of 2013 and stalled all social operations, thus causing the loss of billions of dollars as well as the irresolvable conflicts between Democrats and Republicans...

What's next?

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you have one correct point in your analysis, but if we are voting on what's next some of that American moral corruption could spread to regimes like the one in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Syria and dissolve them, may help end the middle east conflicts

Edited by tadmjones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you have one correct point in your analysis, but if we are voting on what's next some of that American moral corruption could spread to regimes like the one in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Syria and dissolve them, may help end the middle east conflicts

That's a positive thought. Except the US-installed presidents can become much worse despots. Iraq and Iran are two examples.

 

P.S. Do you have positive thoughts about America also?

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I want to understand how you understand it. Help me out with this internal look. I have read The Virtue of Selfishness, and Rand there mentioned that you may do things for the sake of others but only in emergency situations. It's true, we are not living in an emergency situation, as commonly known. We are living in peace. So, who cares? Well, I like being proactive. This philosophy is for the time when new financial crises will show whether Objectivists have learned to care for others... or not. Even though caring for others is allowed in some instances/exceptions in Oist philosophy, it is not stressed enough in my opinion.

 

 

The idea that you live for your own sake and not for others is a moral distinction and in fact a moral discovery that is to be contrasted with prior definitions of morality and the good.

 

When the individual was subjected to a morality which defined the good such that the beneficiary was God, or the community, the individual's very life is owned by the God or the community, the individual lives and acts at the pleasure and with permission of the God or the community, and neither lives nor acts by right.

 

When one lives for one's own sake, he knows that morality is a guide to action and that he is the beneficiary of that guide, that the good, the standard of morality to guide his actions is his life and that he is self sovereign.  He lives and acts by right, and at the pleasure and permission of no one and no thing.  He owes no unchosen duty to anything whatever, but must recognize by use of his rationality that his actions have consequences.

 

A man may tend his sheep, plant his tomatoes, and keep his house in good repair.  He gains great value by doing so, but he does not live for the sake of his sheep, his tomatoes, nor his house.  If he is rational he knows they provide him with values to support and enhance his life.  In following a morality which has his own life as the standard he will act to ensure the sheep, the tomatoes and the house are such that his life is supported thereby.  THIS is a consequence of his acting for himself, not a result of his acting "FOR" those things which are of value to him.

 

In this way a rational man, an Objectivist, acts for himself, and for himself alone as the ultimate end, even when he deals with others.  When a man cares for his property or his loved ones, it is because he values them, i.e. they are values to his life.  He does not live for them, he has them for the betterment and support of his life.

 

For a man to act for himself, he must take care to do what is necessary, he must care for his values, to do otherwise would be careless and self-detrimental... i.e. to be careless or not to care would literally be self-sacrificial.

 

 

Rational selfishness is acting only for oneself and although it has nothing whatsoever to do with altruism or self-sacrifice it certainly does not require that he not care... in fact it requires precisely the opposite.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this way a rational man, an Objectivist, acts for himself, and for himself alone as the ultimate end, even when he deals with others.  When a man cares for his property or his loved ones, it is because he values them, i.e. they are values to his life.  He does not live for them, he has them for the betterment and support of his life.

 

For a man to act for himself, he must take care to do what is necessary, he must care for his values, to do otherwise would be careless and self-detrimental... i.e. to be careless or not to care would literally be self-sacrificial.

 

Rational selfishness is acting only for oneself and although it has nothing whatsoever to do with altruism or self-sacrifice it certainly does not require that he not care... in fact it requires precisely the opposite.

 

Well written. Now, do I understand correctly that, in other words, everyone is a means to his end? Then he is also the means to the ends of others. All values are the means, not the ends, right? So, everyone and everything (besides oneself) are values only as far as they are the means. So, if the rational man did not realize that something was valuable, would his life be negatively affected? Is that necessary? What if he does not think he is in trouble, never gets in trouble, or does not know better (as Objectivists do not want to know everything and cannot, for that matter) for, say, using the world as the means to his ends? He cares for the world as long as he has not destroyed it, as long as it's valuable for his life. Once the world is destroyed, he will find another world, and the cycle repeats, right? Is this how much you value and thus care for the world, nature, culture, and society? They can come and go, but the individual stays, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well written. Now, do I understand correctly that, in other words, everyone is a means to his end? Then he is also the means to the ends of others. All values are the means, not the ends, right? So, everyone and everything (besides oneself) are values only as far as they are the means. So, if the rational man did not realize that something was valuable, would his life be negatively affected? Is that necessary? What if he does not think he is in trouble, never gets in trouble, or does not know better (as Objectivists do not want to know everything and cannot, for that matter) for, say, using the world as the means to his ends? He cares for the world as long as he has not destroyed it, as long as it's valuable for his life. Once the world is destroyed, he will find another world, and the cycle repeats, right? Is this how much you value and thus care for the world, nature, culture, and society? They can come and go, but the individual stays, correct?

 

I do not believe individuals "as such" ARE values or means, not literally.  Values are gained and kept... people are not property.  Now that said, relationships forged with other people CAN and are valuable to a rational man's life and are the means to successful and peaceful (not having to worry about war and injury etc.) existence.

 

To say a "person" is literally a means to something I think is a distortion.... but the relationships can be characterized in this way, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rational selfishness is acting only for oneself and although it has nothing whatsoever to do with altruism or self-sacrifice it certainly does not require that he not care... in fact it requires precisely the opposite.

I have nothing to contest, nor even add to your post.  It was beautiful.  However, I believe we are being played and I find it painful to see efforts like yours being spent on ends like his.

---

 

Then I want to understand how you understand it. . .

This seems to be a request with a very specific sort of motivation; a motive that most of us, on this forum, know all too well.

 

This philosophy is for the time when new financial crises will show whether Objectivists have learned to care for others... or not.

This is a reference to his actual motive; the thing he means by those words:

 

Would you like to live in a world where there are no taxes, no material costs of production, no military, no wars, no crime, no corruption, and there is just one law – emotional love?

 

The sadists will be the fogyish people still enthralled by the purely competitive edge to living. What I have to say to these people is so: be who you may, but the ultimate goal is genuine love.

And his own description of the alternative state of non-love:

  

Worshipping the value of money is like worshipping perfect competence for making money – both means to an end – and thus becoming perfect machines, unfeeling and intransigent.

 

Humans are on their way to becoming such industrial machines. And once they become automatized, they will not only lose their bodies and consciousness, but also their souls. Emotional economy is the only way provided right now to save humanity from the conversion into perfect, competent machines.

 

He did not call this non-love evil or destructive.  He called it perfect.

 

"It's good to suffer.  Don't complain.  Bear, bow, accept- and be grateful that God has made you suffer.  For this makes you better than the people who are laughing and happy.  If you don't understand this, don't try to understand.  Everything bad comes from the mind, because the mind asks too many questions.  It is blessed to believe, not to understand."  -Ellsworth Toohey

 

If you find yourself struggling to even begin to comprehend that then take a long, hard look at this.

Emotional economy is the only way provided right now to save humanity from the conversion into perfect, competent machines. Unfortunately, not everyone can be an Objectivist.

---

 

Ilya Startsev is not a diabolical mastermind like Immanuel Kant or Ellsworth Toohey.  He only intends to be one, once he gets the hang of it.

Once you've got a mental handle on everything above, read this:

This work is dedicated to Ayn Rand and her followers, the Objectivists, because, without you and Ayn Rand, this idea would not have been possible. The greatest payment that I can give you for your support is not only my thanks but also having me on your side.

 

And realize the full meaning of "I want to understand how you understand it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe individuals "as such" ARE values or means, not literally.  Values are gained and kept... people are not property.  Now that said, relationships forged with other people CAN and are valuable to a rational man's life and are the means to successful and peaceful (not having to worry about war and injury etc.) existence.

 

To say a "person" is literally a means to something I think is a distortion.... but the relationships can be characterized in this way, yes.

And I am arguing that people are relationships, literally. Minimally, a person has a particular relationship to himself or herself and to his environment, although that's based on his or her relationships to other people, such as his parents, friends, loved ones. Even a trade is a relationship between a buyer and a seller. So, in other words, people are all connected to each other. There are no completely isolated individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×