Ilya Startsev

From Atlas Shrugged: "That was our plan. It was based on the principle of selflessness. It required men to be motivated, not by personal gain, but by love for their brothers." Forced to love. Rand hated being forced to do anything. She calls it "pure evil" and adds: "look at it--remember--and some day you'll find the words to name its essence." The problem is that she found the wrong word for this "essence"--altruism does not mean to be forced to do what's right. Here is a passage from "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Nathaniel Brandon:

For myself, I already integrated them, and I have already shown this on many occasions and in many different ways. Now, as concerning you, your idea of "self" interests me. It is a metaphysical conception of mind. You use it to integrate your soul and body. You did not like it when I said "calcified reason," and you would not like me to apply this to mind. So, in your perception, mind is an entity that should never change, right? Should it ever grow and learn to become greater? Should it be used for a worldwide business versus a smaller and a more independent one?

A question to all of you: What purpose do you live for?

This made me laugh! Nicky: The U.S. Constitution is the moderation.

I am apologizing for floating on a surface in some commentaries or potentially ignoring interesting ones. The complex depth, amount, and radically different views make it difficult for me to answer (or even simultaneously keep in my mind) all the ongoing discussions. Please be patient and bear with me. I am wagering to understand and reach the greatest clarity in all of comments and discussions here. Leave none behind, however small or seemingly insignificant they are. We will have to dissect them as much as possible. bluecherry (Welcome back!): I am not sure how to address it since I neither feel equal compassion for everyone nor familiar compassion for anyone, but I do feel compassion depending on circumstances. Revolutionary War is an interesting case, but since England was in a despotic regime, it was good that Americans broke away toward freedom. None of the rest seem like extremes to me. Even the civil war in 1861 was good in as far as integration and cultural tolerance goes. Remember that everything can be broken down into smaller extremes, whether good or bad, so, yes, I now know that I should have mentioned that there were fragmenting extremes (bad) and integrating extremes (good). (Look at the model.) I am against the bad ones, or, I should say, I am against people being for them. Yet, the depth of my philosophy allows the descending branch of "evolution," but only for those who understand the intent and reasons behind it. Considering that very few know my philosophy completely, people should stay away from the descending path. 1) Awareness is not static; it grows as the person matures (hopefully). 2) The relevance to that quote is direct, although inverse. In other words, awareness first, acting second. This is what we are working on here. I am against forcing people to do something of which they are not aware, remember? I didn't understand what he was asking me. 1) All aspects of personal growth. 2) Chaos and randomness. I don't know about you, but I don't see much order in today's world (Except, perhaps, the force to pay monetary fines for breaking laws, but it is only economically-centered or job-centered, especially with quota reforms for police officers that were created since the Reagan administration.) I am asking for more than happiness, not less. Ask transhumanists on this. They would argue otherwise. Besides there are a lot of scientists and engineers these days who would rather abandon emotions than live with them. I felt that we were talking about the privacy of emotions. An expressed emotion is an action (remember we are not just talking about emotions as ideas in one's head) and thus an external condition in addition to an internal one. Privacy of thoughts, on the other hand, is another subject matter. I meant it as a conundrum, but it's interesting how you picked up on it. What I meant to say is that I am neither selfless nor selfish. However, if you want to take that statement literally, then think of "self" as dynamic and phenomenological. So, let me flip it for you, and please excuse the earlier puns, selfish becomes the first one (pure Objectivist), and selfless the second (pure Marxist). I am trying to show that I am neither one, but I am integrating both. Remember the first law of dialectics: unity and conflict of opposites. Also think of Tao and Ying and Yang, as the illustration, in my opinion, is appropriate. Nicky: I hope that you mean the right side of the model I have shown earlier. Repairman: As long as it does not regress into the opposite, which happens quite often if not always (looking time-wise). This nation, in my opinion, has been losing freedoms since the get-go.

theestevearnold: I feel compassion for people or expressions whenever I believe in them. Compassion for me is an experience I feel when inner tears put pressure on my eyes and heart's beating is quickened. It can be something depressing, but it does not have to be. It can be compassion over others' happiness or wisdom, or even a well put phrase. Eiuol: It contradicts my view of reality. I feel and know that any extreme is a bad thing. Name me an extreme that was actually good (besides Objectivism ). Here is a paradox: am I selfless if I don't care about others or am I selfish if I value Society more than myself? Here is how I put it: my ego is stretchable, so I can cover the world. The idea is context. You can read my first autobiographical essay about it in contrast to Rand's experience: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7pOANzX5TRnTmpGRmhjVGNUWkk/edit. Awareness is evolutionary scope. Our life is all about acquiring this awareness, and there is all the time in the world to acquire more of it. As long as people are not invincibly ignorant, this growth of awareness should work out. This keeps coming up due to some misunderstanding, probably, so let's try to clear it up. Are you talking about a type of personal awareness that is outside of one's physical body? Think about a dialectical continuum with 100% on one side and 100% of the opposite on another side. Let's divide those percent by 100 to make them into smaller numbers and add signs for clarity of difference between concentrations (keep in mind that they are still percentages). Now, look at our level: there is (linear) bodily consciousness (+1), some transitive consciousness (+0.75, -0.25), indifferent awareness (+0.5, -0.5), some transitive consciousness (+0.25, -0.75), and (nonlinear) environmental consciousness (-1). The continuum is infinite for all intents and purposes. It is also physically manifest. Do any of these parts fit your view? If not, maybe you are onto something I am missing. I am very interested in your analysis. But it's there (in my explanations) for all to see, no? Are you trying to put this sharing into a different category of consciousness? It's hard to understand where you are coming from since I had no psychology (other than 101) or sociology courses, so please be more specific by providing examples. No, but I am talking about harmony that results from them. Think this way: first "same purpose and future goals" then "harmony." It's a causation. Then there is no evolution on individual level. Is it just happiness that people need? Maybe they simply want to become cyborgs to be "happy," what then? For me, happiness is way too conventional. If it's bound by wealth and economics, then it's another bog like religion.

Hence my main dislike of transhumanists, especially the 2045 Initiative started by Russia. They want to become independent from their environments. Cutting one's natural and emotional environments off is not the right way to go. We can send them away from Earth to explore other systems, though, if their project would even work in the first place. However, I would rather not think about space exploration and colonization until humankind reaches the level of Global and unified Society. Otherwise, we would be jumping over a level, which can lead to unfavorable consequences. A similar jump was performed by Lenin when he forced Russians to change from feudalism (with some rudiments of capitalism) to so-called socialism.

I am not saying that everyone should go out and start interacting with his/her natural environment like the architect Howard Roark did. What I am saying is that we should match this type of interaction with our own environments. For example, I am trying to attain a balanced relationship with my (mental) ideological environment. As long as everyone's interactions with environments are so, and these environments are in harmony with each other because they are being shaped for the same purpose and future goals, we would have satisfied the "essence" of these two ideologies.

I would also like to present a quote from "The Fountainhead" of the right relationship of humans toward their Environment. This balanced relationship is exemplified by Howard Roark's Monadnock Valley excerpts: "man's work should be a higher step, an improvement on nature, not a degradation." "the goal was these buildings, part of the hills, shaped by the hills, yet ruling them by giving them meaning."

I am convinced that the meaning of this shared "essence" is that Environment is developed into Society not by anybody indifferent to Society, but by people who share their values about Society. In other words, Rand was right about selfishly not caring about others and bonding only with those who reflect one's values, but Marx was right that those values should be of Global Communism, true Society.

The idea here is that both Objectivist and Marxist "essence" is correct and I love it, but only as long as other developments of this "essence," i.e., other ideas, do not lead them into a regression into extremes. Neither individualism nor collectivism are correct on their own extreme grounds, since they are inseparable and not independent from each other, and this "essence" is what unites them, and we should never ignore that.

Never mind. I will read the books that 2046 recommended and will post my reports here. (Once I complete Atlas Shrugged, that is.)

My point is that I got way off topic and have nothing else to add.

Biological evolution. DNA is not the answer since it only controls the production of proteins.

bluecherry: The faith-logic is basically that state of indifferent awareness that is in the center of all levels of the model. It is the critical point of synthesis of an extreme and its opposite. It is impossible by Aristotelian laws of logic, so I call it faith-logic. Because of it, there is a transformational development connecting all levels. It has to be because without it we won't exist. However, there is no way to explain it. Congrats! Nicky: Most of the entries come from Ayn Rand: http://aynrandlexicon.com. Why create a lexicon if one uses conventional definitions of words? Repairman: 1) "to make or become rigid or intransigent" (dictionary.com). In other words, logic that does not develop further (e.g., linear versus nonlinear). 2) Self+"absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control" (ibid.) Eiuol was right - it happens at the expense of one's emotions. Be my guest, I always love criticisms.

Nicky: From Ayn Rand Lexicon: "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses." "Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work—pride is the result." Mystics are saying that one's enjoyment of productivity depends on loving what you create. Learning from it is developmental impetus of every human being (except Rand).

theestevearnold: To me, this is just sad. I wish they would, but with so many atheists, materialists, capitalists, transhumanists, and Objectivists in this world, it seems close to impossible. No. Should compassion be banned also?

Repairman: Are you sure about that? I am pretty sure dictionary.com agrees with my definitions. If not, show proofs for your statement. I also don't want you to ignore that Rand herself did exactly what you wrote up there. In fact, she created a lexicon all of her own. Thank goodness, I have not gone that far.

Eiuol: And I want to give it time. I am a theorist and only apply my theory in my own life. In only that regard can you count me as a revolutionary. But then, so will be you. Repairman: Yes. No. This is funny because faith is about the ultimate goal and the way to deal with it. It is actually the opposite of what you wrote here. Then ignore everything I say.

That is a position of personal faith, is it not? Forget about religion in this discussion. Just like Rand created non-religious ethics, I created a non-religious faith.

Repairman: As far as I know it is funded by the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which is non-profit. It seems that you only read criticisms of it. For starters, read my post #66. Later, I can come up with further arguments as need arises. I have my own philosophy, and I don't call it Marxism. I call it faith-logic. Unfortunately, and this is my own shortcoming, at present I am not able to provide a complete version of it for you, since it's written in Russian. However, I am able and eager to explain its details (and the model contains most of them, read post #40), if you wish to learn my point of view. Because they are already integrated in my mind. I am just trying to find ways to bring forward my understanding by looking at extreme views of Objectivism and Marxism. If you would rather have me shut up - just say so. I was just called a bubblehead and a bigmouth on the 2045 Initiative discussion, and I am not going to post there again. If they are not interested in my ideas - their loss.

theestevearnold: What if they don't show or do it? Does it mean that they did not like it? I don't like you calling it supernatural, since it is a part of nature on the same level with it, not above it. This is the third time in this thread that I am mentioning it: The Global Consciousness Project.

theestevearnold: The question then is how you find out about it. Do you watch people's faces and decide what they feel or do you feel this, and so you know? If you feel it (maybe in addition to seeing faces), then my explanation holds. Please consider scope before equating all groups/societies. Eiuol: I agree, so let's agree that I am not trying to change your way of thinking. I am only trying to integrate these two systems or at least most of their ideas in my own ideological landscape. I am a pessimistic Communist then. I don't care whether my principles would be materialized in my lifetime.

bluecherry (I wish I knew your real name): Frankly, I think that "We the Living" is great in all respects. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was really able to connect with Andrei. His Trotskyite, pure view of Communism is exactly what I believe in. Minus the revolution, of course - now that we know that it does not work this way. In that context, I can see how suppression of emotions could become a usual behavior. Eiuol: I believe that indifferent awareness can be much above primitive. For me, the word primordial fits better. Yes, I know of it, but I have a counter hypothesis that language acquisition is not only about information but about emotional interactions as well, which is why native language is spoken intuitively versus strictly following theory like in foreign language learning. Russian is a great example of a language that does not wholly fit into his binary principles and parameters reasoning for the same reason. Analog thinking is not a part of his minimalist program. It's about English-centric mechanization of the human mind. (In case you were wondering, I had completed a doctorate seminar in linguistics with a professor from Harvard University.) That actually sounds interesting and rings true to me. So, you are basically saying that structures are posteriorly imposed on languages. This is a powerful evidence against my criticism. I am glad that you shared it. Wow. Thanks a lot! (Why 2046? Is it some special year? It reminded me of 2045.com)

bluecherry: I used that argument to say that Rand disqualified Nathaniel Branden by saying that he abandoned Reason. But judging by what he had to say, I think she was incorrect. What needs to be realized is that Objectivists do not hold a monopoly on Reason. Otherwise, it's a dictatorship. So, you are a young'un? So am I You are an Objectivist I like.