tadmjones

Since axiomatic concepts are identifications of irreducible primaries, the only way to define one is by means of an ostensive definition—e.g., to define “existence,” one would have to sweep one’s arm around and say: “I mean this.” Definitions Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 41 If existence is/ has axiomatic primacy, then the 'this' being ostensibly defined by the sweeping of the arm are 'all' the objects of sense perception, so the 'cause' of the objects,no? What I am questioning is , is the awareness of 'this' , the experience 'as' fundamental at least equally fundamental that 'primacy' is somehow incorrect?

We stipulated that consciousness and products of consciousness are existents, and the question about the expansion of the universe following the actions of existent producing sentient beings should also follow, no? Unless mental extistents don't 'count', that their state of being is different from the state of being or nature from the nature of 'things' that make up the finite universe.

Without an implied physicalist monism , is there a coherent argument in favor of the validity of sense perception?

Ideas, emotions, and consciousness are existents. So as long as there are sentient beings the universe is expanding?

My interpretation of O'ism as being based on and grounded by non contradictory identification of physical reality is mistaken?

That is what I meant. O'ism understood in that frame says reality is dualistic and assigns primacy to one pole. Not very parsimonious.

Automatization is memory. Asking ‘when’ was really about questioning the idea of ‘tabula rasa’ , because without innate ideas as content, they need to be created by individual experience and mental functioning. I’ve never been comfortable with the idea of innate faculties without content that results in individuals experiencing universal qualities. And I’m very pro-consciousness ,lol. Especially of late, I now see primacy of existence as a formulation of pure, hard, or strict physicalism. I’ve lost my faith in matter independent of awareness, consciousness. I say loss of faith based on the realization that I’ve always accepted the idea that the external , objective world is ‘made’ of matter. And that matter is a substance and different in being than awareness. If philosophy is to provide explanation of my relationship to reality, the primary axiom is I am, pure awareness. Objectivism as system is a way to navigate the relationship between human intellect/cognition and the external/objective world. But it doesn’t say much about the relationship between my awareness and reality.

You are chiding a critic because you doubt their grasp of the subject matter. If emotions are products of recall, then it should stand to reason that an explanation of how the functioning of memory as an aid to cognition would be pertinent and its lack could suggest a less than conclusive investigation. As it is obvious by my use of the webs , I do not see an entry in the Lexicon for 'memory', are you aware of other sources , or do you think that subject isn't as tied to emotional response as I am considering?

So memory is infallible ?

When does one start to make conscious value judgements in a rational schema that then directs the contents of an emotional response or recognition thereof?( in O'ism)

Well the front for money laundering SBF ran was a purported 'movement' called that, too. In non O'ist terms rational altruism would be synonymous/analogous to benevolence. The 'rational' qualifies the 'evil', metaphorically or course.

Nothing wrong with a little rational altruism.

Historically some of the high brows were pretty racist and commie/fascist.

Is the subjectivist-mindedness a causal factor in their misapprehension of non dogma as dogma? The critique does usually seem to come from an unsatisfying practice of personal ethics and moralization. Premise checkers don’t normally seem to have disagreements with politics or capitalism.

Non contradictory identification isn’t as much an art as it is a crucible. In its most physicalist form , the chemical reactions in a crucible do not follow the play of art and the molecules don’t produce any contradictions of identity.