monart
-
Posts
184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
19
Posts posted by monart
-
-
On 4/22/2024 at 9:18 AM, tadmjones said:
Atman is Brahman
Â
So Atman is (in) the Self and Brahman is (ultimate) Reality?
-
On 4/23/2024 at 10:13 AM, Boydstun said:
. . . However, if she did, and if she wanted to say that her philosophy had not changed in any of its essentials by this change, that might take quite some tall argumentation.
. . . Three professional Objectivist philosophers have very possibly picked up original ideas of mine (published in the 1990's, also the 2004) and incorporated them in their written presentations without giving any credit: . . .
. . . All record of it is erased by thermodynamics eventually, just as all record that humans ever existed. What mattered was only while life was.
Â
In asking the "what would Ayn Rand..." question, I am presuming that she and you were both seeking the truth and each would change one's mind according to facts and logic when presented with them. So if she could grasp your reasoning as valid, she would revise her ideas, or if she could refute your reasoning, you would revise.
Those Objectivist philosophers:Â If it weren't merely the result of coincidental independent work and they didn't credit you, it's a serious injustice that engenders unpleasant resentment.
Life is tenacious, especially human life. Before thermodynamics could eventually wipe out humanity, the unending power of reason will find a solution, including maybe discovering laws that supersede (but not contradict) thermodynamics.
-
On 4/22/2024 at 7:04 AM, KyaryPamyu said:
Advaita is less influential in India than Objectivism is in the West. It differs from Objectivism in that it's not a full "system", so no ethics or politics is involved. In other words, it's pure metaphysics. Further, it's not meant to amend any common-sense facts, but only to situate those facts into their wider context (the Absolute). I suppose you could say that Advaita Vedanta is practically useless, much like poetry is practically useless. But in a deeper sense, both are "useful" in that they enrich our experience of regular things.
I'd say the "collection" part is crucial for differentiating Rand's position from others. No one (except Gorgias) disagrees that something exists. But they've been fighting for millennia over what exists.
"Advaita . . . it's pure metaphysics." But any philosophical metaphysics has epistemological, ethical, and political implications, even if not explicated. If Advaita is "much like poetry", and less like philosophical metaphysics, then, yes, Advaita could be interpreted to suit a given ethics.
Yes, "existence" as an axiomatic concept "collects", subsumes, contains, refers to all things that exist, at the same time that it underscores and reiterates the fundamental fact that if they exist, they exist. This repetition is a reminder and a cognitive guardian against the absurdity of denying that existence exists, i.e., that existence does not exist. One of Rand's innovation is her axiomatic conceptualization of reality as:Â "Existence exists. Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification." Without explicit grasp of these axioms is why "they've been fighting for millennia over what exists".
-
21 hours ago, Boydstun said:
I have not communicated with any philosophers associated with ARI on the philosophy I have developed; one is a Facebook 'friend' and can get any feedback he has for me to me easily; I don't expect any.
So, ARI philosophers (and the philosophers associated with TAS/TOC/IOS) know of your work and seem to be (publicly) ignoring your work? Or they too busy? Is that partly because you're not a "regular" scholar and not worth their time?
(I'll stop asking these less-relevant questions and give time, instead, to resume studying your "nutrient-dense" monograph.)
-
21 hours ago, Boydstun said:
I don't think that Rand should go along with "We live" at the same level as "Existence exists." That is for two reasons. . .
Even if that were so -- based on your study of all her relevant works (including the transcripts of her ITOE workshops) -- do you think that, after you demonstrate your reasoning to her and answer her questions of clarification, she would still disagree with the axiomatic status of "we live" you place next to "existence exists"? Hers was an active, honest, and genius mind, and hers was a benevolent, loving, romantic heart.
Â
Â
-
On 4/20/2024 at 2:30 PM, Boydstun said:
My monograph These Hours of Resonant Existence sets out the philosophy I have created, in ten brief chapters, in a way hopefully accessible to some of the generally educated public: no traditional technical terminology from philosophy, and, unlike my usual substantive papers, no citations or references, supporting or contrasting. I have not yet composed two of the chapters: VIII. Science and Mathematics and IX. Logic. These will be more technical due to their topics. I have excellent education for them, and, should I live a few years more (which I expect), I’ll get those done, although their lengths may be longer than the other chapters.Â
I had minored in Philosophy in my first college degree, which was from University of Oklahoma (Physics major) in 1971. I continued to learn more philosophy across the decades, but it was not until January of 2014, that it occurred to me that I likely had a pretty full original philosophy in my head, and that I should try to get what was there on paper and work on it. I had not earlier set out to create a new philosophy. I had simply loved philosophy and never stopped learning it and mulling it over.
One Saturday in the 1980’s, I got home from work at my commercial job, and, no sooner had I come in the door, I announced to Jerry:* “I figured out what I’ve been doing all these years.” “What?” “I’ve been making a mind.” Now I know also I was making a philosophy.
In the history of Western philosophy (which I know a bit about), the two philosophies most worth comparing and contrasting with mine are Rand’s and Kant’s. In my next post in this thread, hopefully tomorrow, I’ll try to do a run-through of significant likenesses and conflicts between my philosophy of Resonant Existence, as shown in the monograph so far, and Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism.
In my judgement, the philosophy you've developed is worth presenting by you and worth examing by Objectivists. I'm still engaged in contemplating the significance of your "Existence exists, we live". (And, of course, I wonder what Ayn Rand would think about it. Did you attend any events of Ayn Rand's speeches before she died? Have you communicated with any of the philosophers at ARI?)
-
21 hours ago, tadmjones said:
Advaita Vedanta experience, awareness starts with e as primary and subjective. It says all experience involves a subject that is aware of an object and that finding the locus of the awareness is the finding of, or the realization of the self, the witness consciousness.
The analytic meditation technique they employ is called "neti, neti", when translated from Sanskrit it mostly means "not this, not that". To 'see' the locus of the consciousness you identify all of the subject/ object relationships in an 'act' of experience to discern the 'ultimate' subject/subjectivity.
An example would be to sit in front of a vase with a flower in it and analyze the experience of seeing the bloom. Right away it is obvious that the flower is not you it is an object of your awareness. You notice you are using your eyes to see the flower but that the 'seeing' isn't 'in the eyes'. You then notice the eyes 'convey' the visual image to the mind/brain for contemplation, discrimination and identification of the object. And then you notice that the experience of the knowing that you see the flower is the awareness of the object or product of the brain/mind. You can also notice that the awareness that 'sees' the flower, and all 'seen' things, is a static ever present locus. It was the same awareness prior to that particular experience of the flower and continues to be that locus, irrespective of the changing conditions and functioning of the eyes and mind.
In Advaita Vedanta Consciousness is: not the body, not the mind, not an object, not many and not two. Non dual.
Â
Thanks for elaborating. From your explanation, I can understand (somewhat) how this perspective may heighten and concentrate one's grasp of the whole (undivided) Self/Consciousness -- as long as I keep in mind that Consciousness is consciousness of Existence, and is not only or primarily consciousness of itself, without existence being there at all.
-
On 4/21/2024 at 2:54 AM, KyaryPamyu said:
It doesn't refer to "Existence", which Ayn Rand took to be the collection of all existents. The Absolute is what those existents have in common, i.e. their genetic origin.
Here's an analogy. Ayn Rand looks at the world and says "Look, clay objects!" (existents); Advaita looks at the same world and says: "Look, clay!" (the Absolute).
....
Thanks. I know a bit more about Advaita. How influential is this philosophy on the people in India? Is India's historical and contemporary cultural-political-economic state a consequence of this philosophy?
(Regarding Ayn Rand's concept of "Existence": It doesn't just refer to "the collection of existents". "Existence" is an axiomatic concept referring to the basic fact of all existents: that they exist. Hence, her primary axiom of reality: "Existence exists -- and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists." "Existence" subsumes, not merely "collects", all existents, conceptually integrating them by the very fact that they all exist. So Rand would see and say, in different contexts, both "clay objects" and "clay", and would say that rainbows are metaphysically what they are, independent of how, epistemologically, the range of colors are conceptualized and defined. She would also say that existence precedes consciousness, that, without existence, there would be nothing to be conscious of. And she would also say that some, not all, existents are conscious.)
-
Existence may be both Resonant and Radiant, thanks to Mother's Love. . .
. . . Which reminds of this:
Â
At Sunrise (Against the Wall)
By Rosa Zagnoni MarinoniÂ
They pushed him straight against the wall;
The firing squad dropped in a row;
And why he stood on tiptoes,
Those men shall never know.
Â
He wore a smile across his face
As he stood primly there,
The guns straight aiming at his heart,
The sun upon his hair;
Â
For he remembered, in a flash,
Those days beyond recall,
When his proud mother took his height
Against the bedroom wall.
Â
-
On 4/19/2024 at 8:29 AM, KyaryPamyu said:
Â
Advaita Vedanta opts for a different solution: mind and matter are classifiable together because they are aspects of the same Absolute. For all intents and purposes, "mind" and "matter" are related to the Absolute as "woman" and "daughter" are related to Taylor Swift. They are aspects of the thing in question, not ingredients making it up.
"Nature is visible spirit, spirit is invisible nature." ["Natur ist hiernach der sichtbare Geist, Geist die unsichtbare Natur"] - F.W.J. Schelling, Ideen
According to Advaita Vedanta, does this "Absolute" refer to the one absolute, immutable, objective reality of Existence? Or some other, separate "ultimate reality"? Does it hold that there is mind in all matter, or just in some matter?
-
On 4/19/2024 at 6:28 AM, Boydstun said:
this "we live" does not arise in that second-moment 'corollary axiom' movement. No. This "we live" is right there in the first phase containing "existence exists." The two are a yoked pair right there at the base.
Â
Â
I did consider briefly if your "existence exists, we live" is a "yoked pair", each equally at the same axiomatic base, but I took the sequence as indicating an abbreviated movement from the former to the latter, and sought to explicate the intermediate corollaries. I will think more on this.
-
On 4/19/2024 at 5:22 AM, tadmjones said:
There are dualist schools of Hindu philosophy, but Advaita is non dual. For me the most attractive element is the realization that the Vedic philosophies/religions are consciousness centered inquiries.
How does that help your quest for the self's "tie-in" to objective reality? May not there be risks that "consciousness centered inquiries" could lead to a metaphysical subjectivism of primacy of consciousness, and away from the objectivism of primacy of existence?
-
On 4/18/2024 at 2:50 PM, Skylark1 said:
His Twitter/X page indicates conspiracy theorist. Could be hypothesizing, but he sounds pretty convinced to me.
For more of what sounds to you like a "conspiracy theorist", see the topic Remembering the Pandemic Tyranny: How to Establish a "Pandemic Tyranny
-
On 4/18/2024 at 1:34 PM, Skylark1 said:
Conspiracy theorist.
If one is an independent thinker, living in objective reality, one would say, "What are the facts?" If one isn't, then one may say, "conspiracy theorist" or "conspiracist", and not really know what one is saying.
"The labelling of (ill-defined) "conspiracist" is frequently used to intimidate, discourage, and dismiss examination of facts that contradict the official, authorized, mainstream narrative. "Conspiracy Theories", as a pejorative label, was first propagated to marginalize those who pointed out counterfacts to the official "lone-gunman" explanation of the JFK assassination. And again employed against the 9/11 "Truthers". So, it's not unexpected, that it's being used against the "covid deniers". But being used here in a forum of independently thinking Objectivists should be just an aberration." (From here.)
"How do you define "conspiracist"? You repeatedly resort to using "conspiracist" as if it can wipe away facts; in this case, the fact that no documentation has been found or presented for the isolation, purification, and distinctive identification of SARS-CoV-2 (with properties that causes the deadly and contagious Covid-19). " (From here.)
Â
-
On 4/17/2024 at 10:21 AM, Boydstun said:
 . . . I have not included in the present presentation the axiomatic aspect that my metaphysics can take on (which is detailed in my paper "Existence, We"). . . .
“Existence exists, we live.” "The act of grasping that statement implies that things exist, including you and I conscious living selves, our consciousness being something alive and being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."
Based on my understanding of this, I would make this series of propositions:
Existence exists. Existence is identity. Consciousness is conscious. Consciousness is identification. Consciousness is alive. Some existents live. I live. Others live. We live.
-
On 4/17/2024 at 11:13 AM, tadmjones said:
Their ruminations on consciousness and awareness. I'm extremely attracted to Advaita Vedanta.
Â
How are you understanding Advanta Vedanta such that it appeals to you? It posits a dualistic reality of an illusionary phenomenal self/world and a true ultimate self/world, doesn't it?
-
18 hours ago, tadmjones said:
The 'tie in' I'm looking for is a satisfying ontology that reduces the 'cause' or describes a fundamental base to the subjectivity of my awareness. Having become recently introduced to Vedic philosophies, I've been checking a whole lot of premises !!
Â
My grasp of the integrated mind-body improvement of one's health and the self-realization of one's purpose through rational, productive living in consonance with objective reality, is satisfying and sufficient to link my self to Existence. In your quest, what in Vedic philosophies attracts you?
-
23 hours ago, Boydstun said:
I'd like to mention also, concerning the Objectivist metaphysics, that it was not "Existence is Identity" that Rand posed as a corollary of "Existence exists." It was something else, something one could infer if one were making the statement "Existence exists." The thesis "Existence is Identity" can be argued to be something fundamental about Existence, and it can be shown that under Rand's various categories, looking to deny "Existence is Identity" lands in contradiction, and is therefore false. The thesis "Consciousness is identification" is also not a corollary, but a definition of what is the most fundamental sort of consciousness, with any others, such as in dreams or perceptual illusions, being derivative with respect to the fundamental consciousness. Philosophers of mind today have called success consciousness that type of consciousness Rand took for fundamental.
Â
Rand’s “corollary axiom” with “Existence exists,” you recall, runs this way: “Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists” (Rand 1957, 1015).
Â
So, you explain that "Existence is Identity", and "Consciousness is Identification" are not exactly condensed re-statements of “...something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists”? I understood it as being such, since Rand, a few paragraphs later, writes, "...the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification." You explain why this isn't a re-statement, but a more derivative inference. I'll continue to reflect on that.
-
21 hours ago, tadmjones said:
Yes I wish Stephen as many good years as he wants!
It's possible, today in the US-C of A, to live healthily to a hundred or more. I, myself, have a healthy-hundred as my goal. At 74, I'm as fit mentally and physically, overall, as the usual 64 or younger (even with the poor start of my malnourished childhood in the poverty of Maoist China). Whatever one's age or condition, one could live more healthily and longer. See "The Five Doctors" and the Comment following it. The key to a healthy self and a longer life is to be healthy every day in every way for the rest of your life. A healthy self is integral to the continual betterment of one's life-long self-knowledge and self-realization. Could this help you to "tie in [your] selfish subjective experience/relation to . . . objective reality"?
-
23 hours ago, tadmjones said:
Stephen's mind and their products are one of a kind! Though the longer I contemplate objective reality , the more bereft I come to see no satisfying guide to tie in my selfish subjective experience/relation to all of It.
Ayn Rand lived long enough to discover and present an immense system of thought as that guide you seek. If Stephen lives to a hundred, he may write a magnum opus to also help you further along.
-
My comment at Stephen's FB page:
"Existence exists, we live." I follow your explanation of the inference from the former to the latter. Besides the corollaries of "Existence is identity" and "Consciousness is identification", I also know "Life iives", and "One is alive". What are other corollaries that lead from "one(self)" to "other" to "we"? Isn't the "other" an other "one", and "we", "more than one"?
-
For a brilliant, innovative synopsis of all Existence, see the new These Hours of Resonant Existence by Stephen Boydstun. It reads like metaphysical poetry.
-
-
For a brilliant, innovative synopsis of all Existence, see the new These Hours of Resonant Existence by Stephen Boydstun. It reads like metaphysical poetry.
Objective Reality and Objective Living
in Psychology and Self Improvement
Posted
It's true that Objectivism "starts" with the primacy of existence, as contrasted with the primacy of consciousness. Your "conscious experience of determinate objects" presupposes the primacy of existence. If your "experience" is not experience of existence ("determinate objects"), then what is it experience of -- non-existence? If "experience" is not a consciousness, then is it a non-consciousness? Consciousness prior to existence is consciousness of non-existence. But prior to or without existence, there is no consciousness -- what is it conscious of, if not existence?. Consciousness conscious of nothing but itself, without prior consciousness of existence, is consciousness of nothing, is no consciousness.