Ilya Startsev

CriticalThinker2000: It is a part yet has no relationship to objective reality. You are saying that parts of whole are not related. If this is the case, it is complete fragmentation and hence there can never be any whole, and thus objective reality, from what you say, cannot exist. This changes the question. Objective reality then becomes a domain of metaphysics and hence of the same nature as consciousness. Bodies are material vehicles of our consciousness, and the market environment is the material vehicle of our reality. Am I understanding this wrong? So, you believe that you exist without relationships to anyone or anything? Consciousness or self cannot exist like this. It is a self-delusion, and sooner or later something from the human starts missing. That something may just be the human's soul. Only robots exist independently from their reality, but robots do not have consciousness. Indeed, I do not differentiate between self and consciousness. Self can only be self-consciousness. Hence if reality is without consciousness, it is without self. But if my consciousness is a part of objective reality, then it is a subjective reality, since consciousness is subjective. (Edit: I still misunderstand how you consider consciousness objective and at the same time alive and dynamic.) To remind you, consciousness is not a study of physics or any material science. Consciousness is not material but metaphysical. I am conflating self and consciousness but neither is an object of perception although both are forms of perception, or, I should say, sources of perception. So, consciousness is a part of objective reality but exists independent from objective reality. Hmm. How can you perceive reality objectively unless objectivity is a part of your consciousness? And if objectivity, as you believe, is greater than your subjectivity, you call that reality objective. To me this sounds more like a belief than conviction. Although the belief is very strong, as it's supported by science, and hence becomes entrenched into a conviction. It is an absolute defence mechanism like in psychology in order to protect oneself from one's social environment. In fact, it substitutes social reality. However, you can also ask psychologists whether such mechanisms work to the benefit of the individual. More than that, they are like a consciouness that was killed inside of you and thus becomes unconscious. Thank you. It is an important idea I think I was missing from my comprehension of Objectivism. The contradiction to me is that both consciousness and reality are metaphysical, yet there is no relationship between the two. So, objective relationship to reality is that there is no relationship? frank harvey: I knew you were going to bring up social conditioning like from Brave New World and pick specifically the bad parts. Conditioning like this is evil. However, language and industry are also socially conditioned, and both evolve. So, is language and industry bad? No. We need to concentrate on the good in evolution, not the bad. Besides, the bad does not really evolve. It just gets worse and harder to kill.

From Wikipedia: "Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a perfectionist ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a transhuman phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution [viz, "a proactive approach to human evolution"]. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change." Please explain where you see collectivism here. I don't have a problem with this.

Going back to the question of existence, here are some definitions of objective reality that I found: 1) Objective reality is how things really are (A.H. Almaas). 2) Objective reality is whatever remains true whether you believe in it or not (Lawrence D’Oliveiro). 3) Objective reality is that which does not require our participation for its existence (Montague?). In other words, objective reality is a description (of reality, things) that is without the self. It is not a reality in which I exist but a reality that exists independently from me. It exists where I am and where I am not. For example, vacuum around the Andromeda galaxy is an objective reality. Or some pulsar far in outer space is an objective reality. But anything that involves people is not necessarily an objective reality. For example, my family or the market of some community in America is not an objective reality because it cannot be measured independently from the people who constitute it. An objective reality thus excludes the scientist who measures it. Objective reality is thus considered a conviction, not a faith. A conviction by whom, might I ask? A conviction by some individuals who do not believe to be an inseparable part of objective reality. In other words, they are convinced that they are not (important). It is a self-deprecating conviction, is it not? Then you say: "A is A," and thus think that you put the mind back into the picture without realizing that you have put only the rational descriptions of reality and might have made yourself believe in being independent from everything and everyone else. Like a savage in the wild woods, or like a mind that is floating in vacuum, completely independent from any relationships to it. So, to conclude, I would ask: is the "conviction" of objective reality worthy for a human? It is probably worthy for being a subhuman, like an objectively existing inorganic molecule in its crystal prison. I don't know about you, but I exist in a market, and I call this market (environment) my (actual) reality. My environment is not merely a house, a nearby road, or an orange that's in my kitchen or in a nearby store, or all of Earth completely. My environment includes those like me. Nonetheless, I would accept any definition of objective reality that would state that objective reality is not what humans think of it. But that would mean that the objective reality would not only exist independently from humans but also would be independent from human descriptions thereof. Then it would constitue a vague, ambiguous concept of faith, not a conviction. The meaning of objective reality would be changed to be too unspecific, and hence it may not constitute the same thing.

Let me elaborate more. Emotions are automatic when they are directed at anything without a mind. For example, I like to play particular computer games and my emotions are automatically positive with some kind of games and negative with others. However, whenever another person is involved, there is an overlap of emotions because emotions are, through relational connections, reflected upon each constituent member of a collective, whether it's a friendship, family, community, or the entire society. The more emotional connections there are, the more difficult to define emotions as automatic. The possibilities become truly endless. For example, if my good friend wants to play a game with me - even a game that I hate - I might actually get positive emotions from that game. The same thing about other people. I like slim brunettes and do not like fat people (sexually), but if some slim brunette is cold and ignores me whereas a fat lady is happy and I like the emotions that she expresses, I might get more positive emotions from the latter than the former. To sum up, whenever people enter the equation of "emotions are automatic from mind," things get a lot more complicated and subjective and thus nearly impossible to predict, but not necessarily so.

I want to stress: "Promote the good you see in them" (versus seeing them as "just a swarm of Keatings"). Excellent post overall.

Thank you for mentioning this. I can see now how her followers, such as yourself, are making her philosophy into a truly positive and grand achievement. Connections are simply relationships, nothing more nor less. These relationships can be strong, such as intracommunal bonds in social capital, or weak, such as intercommunal bridges between individuals in different communities. A connection is initiated by one's free will. It starts with an emotional perception of another (through one's heart) and feeling the other's response to your action (words are also actions, as Kenneth Burke argued). Once the emotional connection is established, the mental connection is underway to find whether your thought patters cohere. Once coherence is found in both emotional and mental connections, the full relationship is established. Thus, relationships are both subjective and objective.

This sounds great. In theory. How it's applied in practice for Objectivists - I have no idea. Do I agree with the whole then or maybe with only some of its parts? I still do not understand myself why I get so many intense negative emotions from Objectivism. I hated so many parts of Atlas Shrugged that, frankly, it was the hardest book that I have ever read. You can see from many comments I wrote on it that I radically disagree with many parts. I felt intense abhorrence for what Rand wrote. The Virtue of Selfishness was better, but maybe because some of the best articles were written by Nathaniel Branden. My only criticisms were for Rand's articles in it.

This rings true with Emotional economy:

Harrison: And you are confusing a mere critic (a hound dog) with someone who tries to help you build Capitalism without a revolution. dream_weaver: In Objectivism, trading with money and with emotions are separate things. Emotional economy is perfectly reflected on the commonality of all trade in this quote from the trader principle: "Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit—his love, his friendship, his esteem—except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect" (my italics). I interpreted this payment economically and literally. In my opinion, rational and emotional values should be inseparable. Eiuol: I am understanding what you said about money metaphorically. However, money is a purely rational currency. Emotions are not inherent to money; emotions are inherent to humans, who may or may not use money. If there is no such thing as free emotions, but only automatic emotions, surely it is restrictive. What is being restricted is the way you think. However, emotions are free and given complete freedom in Emotional economy (because negative emotions there are also very important), the lifestyles and worldviews can also be freed. The only thing that will not qualify as a value in the emotional economy is a lack of emotion. I argue that it is presumptuous to argue that all people can follow the Objectivist oath. People also want to help others not only because that's what their minds tell them, but because that is what their free souls desire. "to live for" I interpreted as "to connect to." Such connections are emotional as well as mental and they are the ways we live our lives. The idea of conflict with help involved I took from something I read in the review of a book on Rand's biography: “No one helped me,” Rand [... wrote], “nor did I think it was anyone’s duty to help me.” In fact, her family and American friends helped her quite a lot. She moved in with, and borrowed money from, relatives in Chicago, one of whom owned a theater where she watched hundreds of movies for free." I would agree with you that her relatives helped her and did not live for her, yet what they did was a big part of their lives (and hers as well). This sense of life is completely lacking from my reading of Objectivism. To me, emotional connections stimulate mental connections (when values are reflected/perceived in the person of another). Therefore, emotional connections are also values. Helping someone you like should be considered a virtue because you are doing something valuable for your own sake: connecting with another who is a value to oneself. In all the hate and criticism against "mystics," Rand had lost track of this because her enemies became a bigger part of her life than her friends. Here is a quote from The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Nathaniel Branden, who helped make The Virtue of Selfishness as well rounded as it is: "I don't know of anyone other than the Church fathers in the Dark Ages who used the word "evil" quite so often as Ayn Rand." EDIT: Additionally, Eioul: I am reading about social capital, and I am led to believe that it will be successful. We are comparing a small intransigent market in the middle of nowhere and a national and then global market. Wouldn't you want to be a part of a market with a GDP of a nation?

I sigh at your post. Emotional shares are merely a percent one owns of a company where one works. They cannot be inflated because they are not traded. They are shared. Appreciation is a better term for the emotion that is used for trade. One pays with appreciation for any goods or services. Just as monetary economy did earlier, emotional economy needs to develop first before entering the more advanced industries created by the mind. The growth of emotional economy would be slow, but at least it can happen without violence and/or destruction, at which Objectivists seemingly aim. Money avoids any emotion of appreciation - thus we have corrupt and impersonal business practices and our personal lives are lacking the genuine emotional aspect for the same reasons. Adding a bit of personality is what our business world needs right now and crucially. Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged that business and personal trade should be based on the same principles. Yet, you separate business and personal relationships. You value money and personal values differently. Why not connect them? For some reason that eludes me, you do not want to try to understand all of this. You think we have no souls, but only some automatic emotions. Who is a robot now?

In a private conversation with Repairman, some questions pertaining to the topic were raised, and I post them here in my wording to maybe clarify the topic more for some of you: 1) Is neo-Objectivism an ideology and an economic system? 2) Where are the goods produced? 1) Yes, neo-Objectivism is an ideology and an economic system. 2) The larger industries, like the oil industry, will have to wait until E is sufficiently developed. In the transitionary period, the monetary economy (M) will still control all the industries. However, there is a way to convert it into pure and ideal E. The manufacturing, labor, trade will happen the same way as in M, except payments will not be intrusive in the business and can be made without limit. Because of such limitless payments, there will be no material costs of production. One simply pays emotional debt for all the goods, pays his workers emotionally, and the customers will pay for produced goods emotionally as well. The prime motivation is to increase the individual reputation (i.e., the standard of living, which will be individualized like in Capitalism), and the fastest way to do that is through a mass-manufacturing company that will distribute profits to its owners. The distribution of profits happens similar to dividends nowadays. The more shares (i.e., percent) of the company you own, the proportionally higher profits will be distributed directly to your account, which will be connected to the company account. One wants to grow one's shares, right? This will be similar to how employees are offered to own the stocks of the company where they work. However, I do not see how trading emotions can happen on the stock exchange. Here, one needs to increase one's competence and use it as a means to directly persuade the owners of the company to give you a percent of the shares in order to hire or keep you in the company.

Oops. I apologize. Edit: here is something you said: The neo-Objectivist oath is not the same as the Objectivist oath besides the first being an affirmation and the second a negation. The main difference is that your oath does not allow other people to help you. My oath does. The issue here is that it allows this only in Emotional economy. Hence the philosophy and the economic theory are linked and cannot be taken separately.

dream_weaver: Indeed. But sex, even though it is under the same category, is a poor example because the sexual relationships that those characters had were shallow, come-and-go type of relationships. If they were living together, yes, I would say sex becomes a part that's inseparable from their lives. But otherwise, sex is just an activity removed from context and is not the actual life. The best example of expressing emotions in all books by Rand that I have read was in The Fountainhead, when Roark hung out with his friends during the construction and especially after the completion of the temple. However, they were friends because they were all "objective," and hence this makes me think that Objectivists would not befriend anyone else because you do not believe in friendship with people who cannot be categorized as objective (such as myself, for I consider myself to be beyond objective). Similarly, on some occasions in Atlas Shrugged, trade was categorized to be voluntary and only with the same type of people like oneself. This is a fragmenting hegemony, not a true trade or friendship that is boundless and can include anybody. Eiuol: How can you value others deeply if you do not connect with them? Are you talking about selfish values that do not reflect upon others? It's like an inner world that cannot materialize and be shared with other people. This is the biggest issue that I have with Objectivism. I call this fragmentation, and I prove in my model that it leads to alienation from existence. One cannot exist without one's context, and our current context is others and the market. I welcome you to disprove my model or find any contradictions in it. I welcome any counterarguments. How can you include people in your life if there "should be no connections between oneself and others"? Those are the best people. I will keep looking. That is why I persevere, and I will not lose my hopes with Objectivism.

Yes, this is an interesting topic. Rand claimed that she could supposedly give a reason for all emotions she ever experienced in her life. The emotions for her are an automated system like a machine that can be controlled by the mind. I only agree with the latter part about control. In fact, I think people ought to find ways to control their emotions. However, emotions are not physical. They have nothing to do with a binary logic machine, whereby the latter only helps with an initial firing. They are not artificial. The only thing that is artificial about a person is anything but emotions. His mind can be like a machine, as in transhumanists' case. Their bodies can be machines as well. But their emotions are functions of a free organism, a free soul. A zombie or a robot are unable to experience emotions. A truly free person has emotions; slaves or troubled individuals suppress emotions. And this goes back to the question of philosophizing or theorizing about emotions. That's fine, but it does not help in expressing them. I want you to show me any part of Objectivism or Rand's novels that shows a way to experience emotions, that is, experience through the heart, not merely having them in one's mind. Having emotions in one's mind without a reflection upon the heartbeat is an empty shell. One needs to keep in mind that, even while brains have an emotional center, hearts also have a neurocardiological brain that can be used to communicate with your mind of the central nervous system. P.S. By "control," I mean regulation. By "not physical," I mean not studied in physics.

That's fair. Living in America after Russia, I see that people here are really not sharing much commonality together - commonality not in a materialistic but in an idealistic or realistic sense. People are not interested in others' inner worlds, only in their own. Because of this, the relationships become shallow, unemotional. I see many psychological problems stemming from this. If people don't care about your ideas, philosophies, worldviews, but only with how you look (if even that) or what you like to eat or what kind of car you drive or something inconsequential like that, one is like in a prison here. Even speaking with you is not that important. At least there is an Objectivist forum and collective - thanks for that. Even speaking with a counselor is not about you but about your performance of talking about yourself without a guarantee of getting any kind of truly personal attention. When I lived in Russia, I was not like this. I was sociable, always went out with my friends to the forest, had picnics with kebab out on the fresh air, or I invited friends to my apartment or they invited me to theirs and played board games, discussed personal things, and such. It was not about living in isolation and only going out with others into some public, neutral place, and then returning back to one's ivory tower. Even family relationships are so neutral in America. Indeed, most people are probably raising their children with a complete disregard to their inner worlds or with a lack of interest in child's freedom and his or her guidance. Sure, so much freedom is great, but connections are lost and people become their own islands. In America, I am surprised not everyone is an Objectivist yet. They indeed contradict themselves, and Objectivism is perfectly suited for them. In Russia, things are very different. Even in the U.S.S.R., people had unbelievable freedom because no one cared about laws and did whatever they desired because the people are very free spirited. So, to reiterate, the values are not the people per se, but the ways to connect with those people, to feel emotions for them and with them, to be hospitable, caring, soulful, etc. There is no requirement for this, but there is seemingly no need for this in America either. But I feel even in my own isolation that you do not have to have something in order to believe in it. One can eat a cake with a friend and have some left over for another time. One can simply believe in such connections and be oneself. But Objectivism rationalizes that no such connections should be there. And that any form of belief is evil. Evil, evil, evil... that's what Objectivist main concern seems to be - it’s not about people, including oneself. I indeed see a problem with all of this. Relationships that are not economically reflected in the U.S. seem pretty irrational to me, and hence - useless. Why do something for which you receive no appreciation, no emotion back? However, emotional currency is exactly the cure, not a dystopian one like in Brave New World, but an emotional one, where one can value one's relationships a lot more.

The mind for transhumanists is in binary logic, A is A, and thus easily convertible to an electronic brain. It is removed and independent from natural reality (our environment) and thus in line with their vision to be immortal ("perfect" in body and hence with the potential to be perfectly competent). My mind and intuition are in conflict about Objectivism - that's the problem in my trying to understand it. The mind tells me that your philosophy does not contradict itself. My heart tells me that there is something missing and thus something wrong with it. What's missing, I presume, is others (in the relationship sense). Otherwise, what else? The heart? Your replies are very agreeable, Eiuol, in contrast to many comments by others, such as StrinctlyLogical (e.g., this). Since I am not able to agree with all Objectivists, I am at an impasse at who is a true Objectivist. What I mean is that all of you are trying to be objective, but some of you are missing or not showing the "others, heart, etc." part and some have it and use it to defend Objectivism (although this also comes up in the most unusual ways, such as the popular post by StrictlyLogical, where he speaks of values that, to me, necessarily are, in order to connect with others, love, soul, heart, intuition, etc.). Do you see my problem in trying to "understand you?" The emotional parts are inseparable from you, but you try to ignore or misrepresent them in your philosophy. Yet, your philosophy is your lifestyle and the major part of your lives. This contradiction is what my intuition cannot accept. It is not a logical but a pathetic contradiction that, nonetheless, should not be ignored by any of you. I have been jabbed by Spiral Architect in this post, where, he suggests me to do the following: "You find some like minded people and buy some land legally and establish your collectivist village that allows people to enter it voluntary. It has to be voluntary otherwise you've obliterated our stance, but within it you can organize all you want. It's your land so under our system of Government you can dispose your property as you desire. [...] We both then win. We have a free society so we can live and you have your collectivist center that can live without violating the rights of others. You can live your life that way for as long as you can." Ironically, I have found that an Objectivist (or someone who supports objective values) is trying to create a country based on your principles. It is called New Utopia and is a possible historical precedent for Objectivist Capitalism. Have you ever heard of it? It may be fake and a waste of money, but this makes my point clearer, I hope: who are Objectivists? Do you want Capitalism or not? It seems that digressing from Objectivist philosophy is as easy and common as the failures of its opponents (i.e., socialists). I understand the issue of trusting me with my ideas and theory. The issue is that I am still alive. Maybe posthumously someone else would stumble upon my post #11 and decide to invest into the National Emotion Bank and the technologies mentioned and finally make your Capitalism a reality. That will be a worthwhile investment.

Harrison, thanks for pointing out the weaknesses of post #11. There are indeed errors on my part. I need to analyze the reason for the failure of the rhetorical fear-tactic that I used. I was thinking that Objectivism cannot remain a minority philosophy and survive without allying with others, such as transhumanists (i.e., robots, machines). I thought so, in error, because I saw many similarities between the two philosophies. I have spoken with several transhumanists, read their rationales, and found that they believe in the primacy of mind, associate themselves with mind, and think that bodies are machines, viz., merely sums of individual particles, atoms, and molecules. They want to find a way to create a synthetic brain, download their minds or consciousness into it (they also confuse mind and consciousness, besides confusing organics and inorganics), and live in perfect artifical bodies (i.e., avatars, surrogates). I believed that the integration of Objectivism and transhumanism without contradictions would be a simple matter. The addition of Objectivist code of ethics to their philosophy would complete it, and transhumanism will add an evolutionary (albeit artificial) and technologically progressive edge to Objectivism. Then the Objectivist conflict with society would degenerate (i.e., fall or fragment as through my model) into the transhumanist conflict with all organic life. However, Objectivism is concerned with the primacy of reality, and it is a self-sustaining philosophy and lifestyle. I predict a long and prosperous future for you for at least two thousand years. Nonetheless, Objectivist intransigence would then equal the selflessly ignorant perseverance of Christianity unless you find new and influencial ideas (that are acceptable by the majority of others) to finally build your dream - Capitalism. Go ahead and ignore (in post #11) all instances of where I try to connect Objectivism with transhumanism through machines. The main idea that I tried to express in post #11 is that money can be substituted with a different, yet rational (as well as emotional) currency. I tried to argue against sNerd's counterargument #7 in Integrating Wealth and Health and prove that "all incentives do not have to be monetary." More than that, I have shown that such different incentives can be inherently tax-free and provide a method and motivation for comfortable living. The reintegration of this economic idea into Objectivism led to the creation of the neo-Objectivist philosophy with the new and more efficient oath and where help from others can be easily acceptable for the sole reason that emotional payments can be limitless. The individual emotional reputation retains the selfish element and the incentive to still keep increasing one's competence and the standard of living. Hence, my claim that Capitalism can be integrated with Communism, the market with the society, the self with the others, the beginning with the end.

So, Eiuol, with those terms [A is “to live for myself,” B is “to live for others,” ~A is “not to live for myself,” ~B is “not to live for others”], the Objectivist oath given by John Galt becomes: "I will ~B, and others will ~A." The Neo-Objectivist oath is: "I will A." I think the latter is more elegant and allows more freedom, such as "I will A [and B]" or "I will A [and ~B]."

Brevity is a virtue [more of which] I wish I had.

Just to be clear, here are my terms: A is “to live for myself” B is “to live for others” ~A is “not to live for myself” ~B is “not to live for others” To differentiation and integration I would add fragmentation that comes from alienation and isolation. And did you mean that “[a]wareness of the external world [precedes] the awareness of mental content and emotional identifications”? If so, then we are in complete agreement, for indeed our consciousness in Body--Environment is more direct than the consciousness in Organ--Aura.

I think I agree with you, but I also think that we are going in circles. What do you think about post #11?

You are confusing "consciousness" as self-awareness with "mentality" as perception. It's true that they are inseparable, but they are also distinct. I also want to point out that perception can be emotional, as elaborated in the book Science of the Heart. Hence consciousness can be considered to be composed of mental and emotional perceptions, or perceptions through mind and soul (corresponding to brain and heart and their systems). The point of the entire thread is post #11. Hence you missed the point. "I live for myself" and "I live for others" are only mutually exclusive in two valued logic with excluded middle. In many valued logic, they can occur at the same time (i.e., myself and others are conceptually related). For example, I live for my relationships with others. Just as light is a particle and a wave at the same time because "particle" and "wave" are contrary (opposite), not contradictory (conflicting). Objectivists would wrong first on the assumption that they would be wronged (attack is better than defense). An example is the nuclear attack on Japan in WWII. If I understand Objectivism correctly, you support that act.

True only for the metaphysics of the mind. But the way mind's consciousness directly perceives it is in the firings of neurons and pulsations of the nervous tissues - quite different from how we interpret it. P.S. For further discussion on the topic, please refer to this thread. P.P.S. Also, emotional connections in human relationships do not fit "A is A." They are subjective and hence require a higher order logic to control them. Many-valued logic is one such logic that can handle reality most accurately. Both Christian and Objectivist moral codes use two-valued logic (good versus evil, and both praised Aristotle). For example, what is better "to be wronged or to wrong"? To be wronged is better for a Christian (Aristotle also leaned toward this as did Plato), but to wrong is better for an Objectivist. However, here is how many-valued logic would work in Neo-Objectivism: to wrong or be wronged equally. In other words, both become patients and actors at the same time. This is truly beyond good and evil as Nietzsche predicted.

Since the question refers to my model, I show the appropriate realities from it here: Body--Environment Society--Nature Race--World All three are different realities. To know which one you are in is to know what you are conscious of (what you perceive and feel directly). Since you are conscious of your body and can only directly perceive your surroundings, which is basically the market, you are living in the first reality. You are not conscious of society or nature (even with the help of the Internet, since you can ever be aware of only one thing happening there at any one time), and you are very far from being conscious of the entire world (i.e., planet). Even astronauts are not conscious of the planet and can never directly perceive it completely, since it's round and in three dimensions. Seeing an object is not the same as being completely conscious of it, which happens only through subjectification. I hope that this is not so hard to understand. I see an issue in believing (or worse: being convinced) by pictures or videos (or experiences) of others and take them not merely as evidence, but as the only objective reality in itself. This mixing up and jumping realities through faulty analogies that lead to contradictions is the problem. Your reality is where you are, not where others are without yourself. The latter can be called a virtual reality, though - I have no problem with that.

I was wrong to state that in the name of Objectivism. Market is a reality in my model, not Objectivist model. I should have written it so: "By the definition of the current Objectivist model, we live in the market, which consists of others, that is, the sum of individual minds, and life, for the purposes of this discussion, shall be considered inseparable from the market where all items traded are caused and co-created by the minds."