Ilya Startsev

Yes, I meant existents as differentiations of existence. The danger in thinking about existence qua existence is the potential to lose sight of one's unique relationship to it. All relationships start from yourself. I don't know why Objectivism keeps going back to existence. Life is a specific experience.

Colbert is funny Here are the books I have found so far (but I have read only the first one--it's free, just need to register): 1) Science of the Heart 2) Basic and Clinical Neurocardiology 3) Neurocardiology Eiuol, heart does not produce emotions. The way I understand it, the emotions are merely expressed through the heart. You can see that from your changing heart-beat. Emotion is a change in heart-rate. Emotion is embodied by a pulsation of the blood tissue, which is a part of the circulatory system regulated by the heart. I claim that the heart is indeed conscious (heart is the soul, as mentioned in the Bible; Aristotle also called heart the place of common sense) in its own way. Emotions are differentiated from thoughts this way: Thought is a change in brain activity. Thought is embodied by an impulse of the nervous tissue, which is a part of the nervous system regulated by the brain. The aforementioned neurocardiologists explain emotions through psychological coherence with the brain. I don't think they directly link emotions with the heart; they only state that heart is autonomous and has great effect on the brain through emotions and that one can perceive differently through the heart as well. P.S. This is also emotion: "The emotion involved in art is not an emotion in the ordinary meaning of the term. It is experienced more as a "sense" or a "feel" " (1971:28). Emotion implied is not merely a word or some mental construct. It is an actual experience. P.P.S. The heart can be forced to change either through a heart transplant or a physiological activity. I am not sure how emotions happen in these cases, for there is not enough research done to differentiate physiological emotional and non-emotional states. Such research will be paramount for the emotional economy.

Before I answer your questions, we need to understand the definition of ontology as "the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such." I would also like to point out how Rand faced this discipline by questioning the nature of man, "what he is and where he is--i.e., he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts" (1971:25, original emphasis). In other words, her ontological abstraction is: Object--Context. However, this is not enough for a complete ontology. A complete, concrete ontological study will include the analysis (categorization or taxonomy, entailment, and inference), not merely a general metaphysical claim. Rand's claim lacks differentiations, and it is like looking from existence's point of view (which I call APEIRON in the model below)--this is indeed a dangerous viewpoint, for it forces one to be independent from anything/one specific, while our true, differentiated existence depends on our concrete contexts experientially. There are many ontological models out there that show what kinds of existences there are and how they are related. I have already shown my own, preferred ontological (as well as epistemological) model, and I show it to you here again (updated and updating): Particle--Void Atom--Field Molecule--Structure Organelle--Cytoplasm Cell--Matrix Tissue--? Organ--Aura Body--Environment Society--Nature Race--World Sphere--System Star--Nebula Hole--Cosmos Source--Vacuum Multiverse--Ratium Omniverse--Limits APEIRON The following illustration includes the way to interpret left and rights sides of the model. You can see that there is no conflict between the two-valued and the many-valued logic. The multi-valued logic is the context (the continuum), whereas the two-valued logic only shows the objects. Calling scientific evidence quackery only because it is not widely known is in the same vein as Rand's name-calling. I can see how you support her hate rhetoric. Not only Objectivists do not want to believe that the heart "does anything but pump blood." Transhumanists do not believe in that as well, nor fundamental scientists who associate our selves with brains. The evidence is there; however, from what I have found, there is only one conflict: the amount of neurons in our hearts. Maybe it varies from person to person, but the research by Rollin McCraty (Ph.D.) has shown that "[t]he heart's nervous system contains around 40,000 neurons" (Science of the Heart, p.4), whereas Andrew Armour claims that "they only number about 20,000 or so." Indeed, this requires more research from other scientists, and people in general need to overcome the idea that the brain is dominant over the heart. P.S. "emotions originate in the brain" and "emotions happen in the brain" do not contradict what I have said. Indeed, they complement. What you mean is the emotional center in our brains, and emotions are initiated from there, but nothing more.

Ok, what you misunderstand is that love as an experience goes through the heart, but is originally generated by the brain. The confusion is in this quote: "Love is the expression of philosophy" (1971:27). I want to differentiate love as an experience and love as an idea or an impulse. Love comes or is generated from the brain, where, in my words, philosophy is the content of the mind. Since love is generated from the brain, it is also an expression from philosophy but an expression through the heart, where, in my words, the sense of life is the content of the soul. Such expression is indeed proven by neurocardiologists. The heart has neurons and complex neurological nets that are independent from the brain. The heart also has more and stronger connections to the brain than the brain has to the heart, and this explains why emotions have greater effect over thoughts than vice versa. Any kind of hate by Rand is baseless because it is directed at what she did not understand, at that in which she saw no value, which is still inherently there. Just because you do not see a value in something, it does not mean that it has is no value. Others see value in mysticism because they can understand it. They are also logical, but their logic is different because it is many-valued. I can understand both Objectivism and mysticism because the two-valued and many-valued logics in my head do not conflict. Mysticism for Rand is an umbrella term. Here are quotes from Atlas Shrugged (digital): 1) "the idol of instinct and the idol of force—the mystics and the kings—the mystics, who longed for an irresponsible consciousness and ruled by means of the claim that their dark emotions were superior to reason" 2) "all those impotent mystics who prattle about their souls and are unable to build a roof over their heads" 3) "hatred-eaten mystics, who pose as friends of humanity" 4) "there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness" etc. Now tell me that Rand did not use the rhetoric of hate in relation to "mystics."

In addition, from The Romantic Manifesto (1971:12): "men have outgrown the practice of seeking the guidance of mystic oracles whose qualification for the job was unintelligibility" and ibid., 27: "one of the most evil consequences of mysticism--in terms of human suffering--is the belief that love is a matter of "the heart," not the mind, that love is an emotion independent of reason, that love is blind and impervious to the power of philosophy." All of these quotes, and I am sure that you can find more (as well as the instances of not understanding by Roark, Dagny, and Rand herself), are judgements of mystics. However, it should also be clear that these judgements are based on insufficient understanding of mysticism. In fact, it is slander. I have studied mysticism for 10 years, and I can tell that, for example, Blavatsky's theosophy is about integrating science and religion where the integration is based on the premise that "there is no religion higher than the truth." Indeed, they claim that "love is a matter of "the heart," " and I totally agree with that and, more than that, provide you evidence for it from the Institute of HeartMath's research, especially their book Science of the Heart and other related books, such as Neurocardiology: Anatomical and Functional Principles by J. Andrew Armour, M.D., Ph.D. What is completely clear, though, is that none say that love (or heart, sense of life, soul) is in conflict with reason (or mind, philosophy, consciousness). This is a totally groundless claim by Rand herself who implanted it into mysticism against reason. I consider you an intelligent person, and, thus, I judge that you are able to understand that mystics have no conflict with Rand's ideology and ideas, such as "when love is a conscious integration of reason and emotion, of mind and values, then--and only then--it is the greatest reward of man's life" (ibid.). In fact, they (e.g., Drunvalo Melchizedek, Rupert Sheldrake, Ken Wilber, etc.) have been doing the same thing. Rand came up with new ideas, but she differentiated herself negatively from others. She did not want to be a mystic, so she called others mystics, implying something completely evil and irrational, even though most of those I named are also scientists. Please, keep in mind: it is very hard to accept those who hate you. In fact, it is very hard to even consider (not even speaking of love) those who only hate you in return. And for most people, who are non-Objectivists and therefore labeled mystics, the fact that they are hated and harshly and unfairly criticized remains whether they put an effort into studying Objectivism or none, where the second is a more obvious choice. It has been difficult for me as well, but I think that I am finally breaking through the barrier of hate that Rand has created around Objectivism.

I made a mistake. Consciousness is not a thing, it's a self. However, it's a self who identifies with a body, which is a thing, but the nature of consciousness requires identification (perception, integration, conception) with other selves/bodies. The latter part is completely ignored by Rand, and thus, she consequentially makes the same mistake of consciousness as a thing (a body) versus consciousness as a relationship of self to other selves (including the relationships of bodies).

Do you learn everything you need about the nature of your consciousness from observing and experimenting with the table? P.S. From ARL on consciousness: "before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something" (my emphasis). In other words, Objectivists do not need others or anything social with which to identify. From the Romantic Manifesto (1971:13): "Art belongs to a non-socializable aspect of reality [...] the nature of man's consciousness."

Do you agree with their views on economy? I realize that markets are not natural, but they are human. Nonetheless, we can make markets to be in harmony with nature and can build wonderful societies on top of them. How can dreams be involuntary? Aren't they related to our volition, especially the lucid ones?

Ok, here is another way I understand Objectivism and experientialism. They both integrate subjectivity and objectivity, albeit differently. This is interesting for comparison. Objectivism integrates subjectivity and objectivity by putting self (subject) into objective context (reality) through rational ethics. Thus, the ethical relationship of self to context will be objective, albeit different for each self. Experientialism integrates subjectivity and objectivity by applying objective methods on cultural experience (subject) through the vehicle of conventional/conceptual metaphor. Thus, objective standards can be applied experientially, albeit differently for each culture. P.S. Forgot to mention: Neo-objectivism integrates subjectivity and objectivity by putting self and others into the objective context (the market) where self and others connect emotionally (subjectively). Thus, the emotional relationships of self and others are reflected objectively (economically) while being within and inseparable from the context.

I didn't know that. Thank you for pointing it out. So, intrinsicism is not part of Objectivism, but experientialism is now a fourth side. I wonder how it relates to Objectivism. The knowledge and hence some form of understanding is relative to an individual, and a mind as a whole and reality are absolutes. I agree. I think the authors of that book absolutize metaphors. The examples that they provide are very casual and would not be used by everybody even in the same culture. More than that, they suggest using objective models only on metaphors, thus setting metaphors to be the only way of understanding reality. It's more like they are trying to make metaphors our new "objective" reality.

They are calling themselves experientialists, and they are repeating what I have said on many occasions: "But the real world is not an objectivist universe, especially those aspects of the real world having to do with human beings: human experience, human institutions, human language, the human conceptual system" (ibid. 193). Experientialists differentiate themselves from subjectivists by saying that there are still constraints in the world made by our culture, but these constraints are comprehended from a cultural viewpoint, versus that of a single individual. Experientialists differentiate themselves from objectivists by claiming that interaction, not truth, are fundamental to human understanding.

Metaphors We Live By is not so simple after all. Here is their direct criticism of objectivism (as a philosophy since 1854) on page 175: "What objectivism misses is the fact that understanding, and therefore truth, is necessarily relative to our cultural conceptual systems and that it cannot be framed in any absolute or neutral conceptual system." It also provides plenty of examples of how metaphors are inseparable from our language. Reference: Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. 2nd ed. University Of Chicago Press, 2003.

Hmm, I don't like the usage of "more right." Did I use it originally? If so, I apologize. Yes, you are right, but now we need to differentiate between perception as the act of sensing or using senses and perception as the integrated whole or a worldview. The latter perception is closer to the meaning of consciousness, am I right? P.S. Confusion is in the definition of perception as well: 1) the act or faculty of perceiving, or apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding. 3) the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept. P.P.S. By a better way to think about reality you mean logic, correct? P.P.P.S. I don't know if any of you have read Metaphors We Live By by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. It's a subjectivist account with interesting arguments. It inspired me to continue our discussion so. I am trying to understand whether they are confusing different perceptions too. Maybe you can help out. Here is a quote from them: "meaning depends on understanding. A sentence can’t mean anything to you unless you understand it. Moreover, meaning is always meaning to someone. There is no such thing as a meaning of a sentence in itself, independent of any people." Now I wonder how one can learn a language without others. There is a logic in language, and logic depends on absolute truths. Logic is a way of thinking that integrates more of the senses (or at least integrates the ones that are cognitive). It is a better way to integrate perception, although we are limited in perceptions, and thus there is no better way to perceive. Am I right in my thinking? This ends up with the idea that one can change one's consciousness for the better. However, what if there is a way to open up new senses? Bah, then I am just making it too complicated. Let's just stick with the evolving consciousness. So, you say that industrial consciousness is better than natural consciousness, right?

The difference between a human and an animal is the purposes they serve, hence the purposes their forms of perception serve. Similarly for human cultures. All cultures serve purposes depending on their environments. Some exist in harmony with natural environment, others create artificial environments through industrial culture. The question is whether one is better than another for YOU. Yes, you can change from being an animal to being a human - that's called evolution. Yes, you can continue being an animal or being a human - we have both, even through some evolved. All human cultures are equally right in the way they perceive their environments. It is not a question of whether objectivity or subjectivity is better; it is merely a question of choice. P.S. Although few Russians live better today than back in the U.S.S.R., when you talk about the overall living, today is much worse than before. The physical evidence that I depend upon is that the amount of drug addicts and alcoholics skyrocketed after the collapse (from an interview I personally conducted with a specialized doctor in Russia).

I considered New Buddha's post about "4 forms/animals" a joke and hence played on it as well. Of course what I mentioned are not forms of perception, but neither are ticks a form of perception, and I don't think there is a way to know how they perceive in the first place. I totally agree with what you said. Totally. However, I see a great potential in Objectivism. It is a philosophy that can be accepted by simple-minded individuals (although not the majority), but it can be a philosophy for the greatest of intellectuals as well. In all the years of research, I have never encountered a philosophy quite like Objectivism before, and, frankly, your philosophy once again ignited my love of intellectual digging.

You forgot #5) the fly. They are indeed different and various forms developed by each are more suited for their individual realities: human must be objective and logical, the hawk more visual and clearsighted, the wolf a better tracker of prey, the tick should grasp more tightly, and the fly quick at turns. I may be wrong on those because I am culturally conditioned, so please correct me and add anything you see fitting.

Reading about Rudolf Steiner here is what I found: "Steiner disagrees with the kind of libertarian view that holds that the State and the economy are kept apart when there is absolute economic competition. According to Steiner's view, under absolute competition, the most dominant economic forces tend to corrupt and take over the State, in that respect merging State and economy." In other words, the state and the economy must be kept independent from each other, and cooperative economic life is the best way to do it. P.S. Ibid.: "Steiner held that State and economy, given increased separateness through a self-organizing and voluntarily more cooperative economic life, can increasingly check, balance, and correct each other for the sake of continual human progress. In Steiner’s view, the place of the State, vis-a-vis the self-organizing, cooperative economy, is not to own the economy or run it, but to regulate/deregulate it, enforce laws, and protect human rights" (my bold emphasis). P.P.S. Before you scream that Rudolf Steiner is a mere spiritualist and cannot understand Objectivism, here is another quote: "Since taxes are controlled by the state, cultural initiatives supported by taxes readily fall under government control, rather than retaining their independence."

So far, this is the only criticism of Neo-objectivism. I want to point out to you, from III.2: "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." The monetary corollary to the National Emotion Bank is The Federal Reserve Bank (and its 12 subsidiaries). The Federal Reserve is not a tyrant. The banks do not rule or condition your lives. They facilitate them. And the market cannot exist without a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve System was created "in response to a series of financial panics." Please, direct criticism at the Federal Reserve System, so I can more clearly see the problems that you have with Emotional economy. P.S. Before coming up with arguments against taxation, I would like to point out that the Fed serves as a central nervous system of the country, that is, its brain. The Neb would then serve as the circulatory system, that is, the heart. "The heart" has no taxation, for it uses a non-material, unlimited currency.

Yes, but are you conscious of these bodily functions? No. Therefore, these functions operate on a subconscious level. I will read about Ken Wilbur, thanks for the tip. P.S. I know I am going on a spiraling tangent here, but let it be so for diversification purposes. My first argument is against Wilbur's "The relation between individuals and society is not the same as between cells and organisms though, because individual holons can be members but not parts of social holons." Can a society function without individuals? No, because individuals are members of a society by choice and hence are also its parts. I see the same confusion in Objectivism. Remember that we are a part of our context - the market. And the market is the foundation of society. Hence we are also parts of the society. But the difference between the market and the society is that the first is a sum of individuals in their environments (with explicit relationships through sex and money), and the second also includes their implicit relationships (like friendships and cooperatives). It's pure insanity to say that individuals "can be members but not parts of social." Here is a definition of member: "a person, animal, plant, group, etc., that is part of a society, party, community, taxon, or other body."

Unless you are solely attempting to make a joke, you are completely misunderstanding me. I said exactly what I meant. Are you conscious of your physical body when you are asleep? No. Hence, body consciousness is actual consciousness, and what you call unconsciousness is a subconsciousness. You have taken my idea of "In sleep, people become their minds, whereas a body does not play a role in sleep" from the point of view of a body. However, you confused here that it is not bodies who sleep but people, viz., their consciousness. P.S. I guess I should add that the state of the subconscious can be interrupted by transference to (our) consciousness or through physical body interaction. Although we are subconscious in sleep, we still have a connection to consciousness in this reality, but, to someone who is asleep, our reality will be superconscious. Here is a simple illustration from our reality (the reality of our consciousness): Organ--Aura (subconsciousness) Body--Environment (consciousness) Society--Nature (superconsciousness) Anything beyond these can be considered unconsciousness.

I cannot account for the effect of blue cheese, but when the body sleeps, so does one's consciousness. P.S. Lucid dreams is when one's (body) consciousness becomes mind consciousness. P.S.S. It is the body that "wakes up," and consciousness follows. By "sleep," I meant the dream state. The body does not dream.

Yes, to differentiate consciousness from subconsciousness, it is like a state of wakefulness and sleep, respectively. Here are also some interesting relationships to ponder: consciousness (self) a part of reality logic (science) a part of philosophy deduction a part of induction? P.S. And indeed, in my philosophy, subconsciousness is a different self. That's why sometimes they say that to sleep is like to die. In sleep, people become their minds, whereas a body does not play a role in sleep.

CriticalThinker2000: This means that I was confusing the physical form and the form of perception. How do the two relate? You cannot will a form of perception, but you can will a physical form into expression, right? You see, I used the word objective as it's used in physical sciences. Now I see that Objectivists have created a new terminology for objectivity that is not related to physical objectivity. Can you explain to me the difference? Maybe the reason that David Kelley has confused the two is that there is not enough differentiation of these concepts of objectivity. Yes. Now you see my confusion and conflation of physical and metaphysical. I have to be honest, I knew nothing of this metaphysical stuff before I learned of Objectivism. I have been accustomed to scientific objectivity. I really appreciate all of your comments. This discussion is very helpful. I am not trying to trick you. I am genuinely interested in philosophy, and so far I can only communicate with Objectivists like you on these topics. And for this I am indeed grateful. New Buddha: So, the form of perception changes with consciousness. I want to add that if it is a body with some form of a nervous system, it has some kind of consciousness, although sensual integration is not the same like ours (it involves no linear logic). Consciousness is not just a human trait. The idea here is that metaphysically we all exist separately (our consciousness (perception) is separate and independent from others), but all come from objective reality. I agree with this now. You mean five forms? Five physical senses, that is. And yes, they are all equal and, for example, sight should not be treated superior to other senses, such as taste or hearing. Platonic forms, as Aristotelian forms, are really souls. These Ancient Greek philosophers believed that the form constituted the body. Here is something I grasped from Wikipedia: "[T]he first genuine scientist in history" Aristotle used a "method [that] is both inductive [philosophical] and deductive [scientific]. "[H]e introduces the concept of potentiality (dynamis) and actuality (entelecheia) [...] the potential being (matter) and the actual one (form)" as "one and the same thing." "Aristotle also held that the level of a creature's perfection was reflected in its form, but not preordained by that form. Ideas like this, and his ideas about souls, are not regarded as science at all in modern times." Now the scientists consider matter as a form to be permanent and objective, whereas the soul to be outside of matter and form, too dynamic (impermanent) and subjective to be studied. This is a complete distortion of Aristotle's original views. P.S. I want to clarify that a soul, to me, is a part of consciousness. A mind is another part of consciousness. Consciousness, then, is primarily composed of a soul and a mind. The physical forms of perception (the five senses) are from the mind, whereas emotional perception is from the soul.

Let me reiterate some things, so I may be clearer on my own understanding. Correct me if I am wrong. Objects indeed have forms, but these forms do not constitute objects. Yet, objects are formed by nature or people, but forms do not form objects. So, reality and consciousness are not interdependent or mutually exclusive; consciousness simply depends on reality. You are saying that consciousness is dependent on metaphysical reality, but the reality is independent from consciousness. What about physical reality? Metaphysical reality is a concept of existence based on perception of physical reality. It originated from our consciousness. Therefore, reality cannot be changed by conscious will alone. However, our consciousness is inseparable from our bodies, which are objective. We can change reality with our bodies, and those bodies are controlled by conscious will. Can I say that consciousness can indirectly change objective reality then? P.S. It's interesting that we are dependent on reality and can change it, but reality is independent from us and cannot change us. But reality can influence us, no?

Here is a little schema: You know: Consciousness <-> Perception -> Reality (objective) <-> (objective) -> (objective) -> means metaphysical causation <-> means integration I believe: Consciousness <-> Perception <-> Reality (objective/subjective) <-> (objective/subjective) <-> (objective/subjective) <-> mean integration and relationships The act/agency of perception in life (not necessarily in a scientific observation unless you live like this) involves a subjective dimension. I was wrong previously to state that perception is completely subjective. I need to stress that all metaphysical concepts are objective and subjective simultaneously. I only have problems with the following: 1) objectivity without subjectivity (or reason without emotion, self without others); 2) subjectivity without objectivity (or emotion without reason, others without self); 3) neither subjectivity nor objectivity (complete nihilism or irrationalism).