dream_weaver

"If one must avoid imposing moral ideas by force, then one must renounce force altogether—i.e., practice pacifism." I do not think this is the position he is advocating, rather it is taking the anarchist view to the extreme to reveal the contradiction. Proper moral ideals established in the context of the recognition of individual rights permit the intervention by force when an individuals rights are violated, which can only happen by the initiation of force by another. Your earlier assessment of "It was irrational philosophy that led us down this wrong path, and only a rational philosophy can correct it." could be restated in Binswanger's words from "Consciousness As Identification" where he stated the anti-conceptual mentality (irrational philosophy" cannot grasp (not easily anyway) the conceptual mentality (built via a rational philosophy.) Capitalism, including the privatization of schools, and the proper role of government should wholly embrace that education is far too important to be left in the hands of government.

I think Rand stated it quite eloquently in Galt's Speech: "It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own." If I am imposing my rational morality onto the attacker, it is only by administering justice to a situation where justice needs to be executed here and now due to the immediacy of having to deal with an irrationality which has escalated to a physical threat at the moment. Was Binswanger's position only stated on the HBL, or is it available for first hand observation elsewhere?

"As a form of direct, non-propositional awareness, the perception of similarity needs no justification for the same reason that direct perception of objects needs none: it is not the kind of awareness that can be true or false." It seems to allude to non-propositional episodic memory also qualifying as being neither true nor false in this passage: "One issue is the mere frequency of perceived similarities, and plausibly one could possess rough non-propositional episodic memory of relative frequency, given enough repetition." I would tend to identify these as the crux of his presentation, with episodic memory serving as the basis for semantic memory. (edited for text size)

The closely guarded secret of the perfume industry is the carefully selected pheromones used to mix their aromatic concoctions. Examined under high powered microscopes, these highly essential ingredients to the scent industry, were sorted based on the response observed by highly trained specialist when exposed to photographs of mature earthworms. For many years a significant portion of this raw material had to be discarded due to either a mixed response or no response what-so-ever. Due to tightening economic concerns, the bean counters, three former U.S. Navy bean counters and three from Lima, Ohio, summoned their marketing strategists to a meeting to express their concerns. The marketing strategist, after some consideration, charged their development team with finding a use for these undeveloped resources. The rest, shall we say, was history, or was it herstory, - or should we say it was theirstory. As an aside, studies investigating the longterm side-effects of females using the male pheromones, or males using the female pheromones have been kept quietly under lock and key as to not alarm the general public. Studies regarding gender-neutral, gay and lesbian pheromone effects are as yet inconclusive.

Voted.

I am struck by several passages I've looked up in trying to better address this issue. On page 119 of OPAR, The law of contradiction is the fundamental principle defining the method of reality-based thought, whatever its forms or complexities. (The study of these forms is the subject of the science of logic.) I was under the impression that logic was integral to epistemology, but on page 3 we read: Epistemology is the branch that studies the nature and means of human knowledge. So, both the science of logic and epistemology have their specialized studies. On page 41 it is suggested that: Science, indeed, is nothing more than the conceptual unravelling of sensory data; it has no other primary evidence from which to proceed. The conceptual unravelling is in its essence the process of concept formation. On page 74 it is suggested: To understand man—and any human concern—one must understand concepts. One must discover what they are, how they are formed, and how they are used, and often misused, in the quest for knowledge. If the summary of Kant's error was that he attempted to use reason to show how reason was invalid, a similar error could be made by implicity relying on the validity of concepts to try and demonstrate how they might be invalid.

Peikoff summarized it this way straddling page 172 of OPAR: The point is that one cannot demand omniscience. One cannot ask: "How do I know that a given idea, even if it has been proved on the basis of all the knowledge men have gained so far, will not be overthrown one day by new information as yet undiscovered?" This plaint is tantamount to the declaration: "Human knowledge is limited; so we cannot trust any of our conclusions." And this amounts to taking the myth of an infinite God as the epistemological standard, by reference to which man's consciousness is condemned as impotent. The given idea: logic. Proved on the basis of knowledge men have gained so far: validation New information as yet undiscovered: unperceived

I know this, because I can be aware of the process of myself applying the previously formed concepts to new previously unperceived concrete instances. From rocks, trees, dogs, cats, to non-first-level abstractions like number, judaical proceedings, applications of the fundatmental concept of method referred to as logic, etc.

At the end of chapter 2 in ITOE, Rand points out that the "unit" is at the base of both mathematics and conceptualization. 1. A concept is not formed by observing every concrete subsumed under it, and does not specify the number of such concretes. A concept is like an arithmetical sequence of specifically defined units, going off in both directions, open at both ends and including all units of that particular kind. For instance, the concept "man" includes all men who live at present, who have ever lived or will ever live.An arithmetical sequence extends into infinity, without implying that infinity actually exists; such extension means only that whatever number of units does exist, it is to be included in the same sequence. The same principle applies to concepts: the concept "man" does not (and need not) specify what number of men will ultimately have existed—it specifies only the characteristics of man, and means that any number of entities possessing these characteristics is to be identified as "men." Observe that the concept is formed from the perceived concretes. It applies to the unperceived concretes as well. While you are using perception to form the concept and derive any knowledge about it, you are conceptually applying it thereafter

A simple starting point for grasping axiomatic could be: ax·i·om·at·ic adj \ˌak-sē-ə-ˈma-tik\ Definition of AXIOMATIC 1: taken for granted : self-evident <an axiomatic truth> Declaring something to be axiomatic does not take into account what something needs to be in order to qualify as axiomatic.Something can only be declared to be axiomatic if, and only if, it meets the criterion established by the concept. In order for something to be self-evident, it must be so without the use of proof or reason. If you are attempting to appeal to proof or reason to substantiate a claim, then the claim is not axiomatic. Appealing to proof or reason to substantiate a claim requires the use of concepts. Concepts in turn require the use of reason to form and use them correctly. Certain concepts are considered to be axiomatic, not in the sense they are reached without the use of proof or reason, rather that any attempt to apply proof or reasoning, that is to analyze them (i.e. reduce to other facts or break into component parts) is not possible and that they are implicit in all facts and knowledge. Can you name any concepts which would be subsumed by this criteria.

What, if anything, do you consider to be axiomatic, esp. in a philosophic sense?

Then I may not be getting the gist of the discussion. It appeared that may have been the distinction missed. The rain is good for crops (a man-made phenomenon, which relies on the m.g. of rain, seeds, ground,etc, but the rearrangment of nature to serve a purpose the aspects of nature are required a.k.a. good for that purpose.) To me, a tsunami is neither good nor bad until considered in relation to the man-made choice of where to live, build, produce - at which point Japan serves as a recent example of the role it can play in the destruction of those factors. A rogue wave is simply a rogue wave. Add the element of the man-made: ship, navigation, trip etc., a rogue wave is not a necessay element to sail across the ocean, thus it would be considered bad in that context.

The metaphysically given is neither good nor bad. It simply is. Existence does exist independently of us. It is what man does in conjunction with existence that is always to be judged, not existence itself. While the rain may be good or bad for the crops needed for a village to survive, the context is still one of that of the man-made vs. the metaphysical. It is not the rain that is good or bad, but for the man-made aspects the knowledge of how the rain serves in that purpose. It is not "the rain is good" in and of itself. The rain simply is. The rain is only good in the relationship it serves to the crops, and how that serves to survival.

I would call that those very good characteristics to apply the principle of measurement omission to. Equivocation intended.

I couldn't help but notice, your dream of having a treasure chest full of silver and gold only seems to be missing the size specification. It could already be fulfilled.

At what point does it become clearer. On the island, it seems clear to you at 50%. Is it as clear using 3.5 billion of 7 billion people? What you are advocating sound like: Most men are producers, one man is a thief. Because there are enough producers, thievery is sustainable long-range. The island scenerio clearly identifies which activity is beneficial and which is destructive. Is sustainabiltiy the measure of inductive proof? Is it the sanction for an abberrant activity?

Color has a continuum across it's spectrum. Sound has its continuum as well. While certain fragrances may have a distinctively feminine or masculine aroma, is there a clear dividing line? Even the same fragrance worn by different individuals emit different aromas. How do you use 'unisex' as a criteria to evaluate the aroma, i.e. if the fragrance is pleasant or repugnant? Personally, I like the aroma of Old Spice. I've used it for years. Aside from wearing an occasionally gifted cologne, you highlight an area I've never given much thought to. I do know that every time I go past the entrance to Perfumania, I wonder how anyone can distinguish one specific aroma in an arena possessing such a cacophony of scents.

Try putting a man on a desert island. What activities would he need to engage in to ensure his survival? Would those activities be examples of producing or stealing? Seed stock, is the seed from the harvest set aside to plant for the next season. Could you loosely consider eating the seed stock as a form of stealing from the seed set aside for planting to consume? What would the consequences of that be? Place two men on the island. Add the element of stealing to the mix. If one is the producer and the other a thief, what are the long/short range consequences. What would the long/short range consequences be if the thief did away with the producer? What would the long/short range consequences be if the producer did away with the thief? Would you consider the principle(s) revealed in such a microcosm applicable to a macrocosm?

The difference lies in the metaphysically given vs. the man-made. The metaphysically given is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Judgment of the man-made is proper.

Let's suggest that the actual demonstrable "first chicken" and "first chicken egg" were simultaneously discovered. Would carbon dating, or other methods of ascertaining their antiquity be accurate enough to provide the answer that one preceded the other? Could it be shown that the discovered "first chicken egg" was not laid by the discovered "first chicken" (setting aside the dilemma of what laid the egg)? Could it be demonstrated that the specimens discovered where indeed the "firsts", and not just the earliest demonstrable units? While the answer is "simply dependent on the given context", is it possible to establish the objective context necessary to answer that particular question, given our current understanding? edited to add

We are using "order" in two different contexts here. The epistemological context of order, that is organizing the perceptual data based on the "order" observed metaphysically arising from an objective understanding of the law of causality. The order is epistemologically established by consciousness as identification of existence as identity. Hydrogen acts as hydrogen. Oxygen acts as oxygen. Electricity acts as electricity. A process that involves hydrogen, oxygen and electricity, each acting according to their nature, results in water. The description of this is epistemological. The data this description was derived from is metaphysical. Relating the concept 'hydrogen' to the entity 'hydrogen' is a process of validation. Relating the proposition describing water as the result to the laboratory exercise involving the actual entities described is a process of proof.

The order that we see in the universe is a product of our minds. This product is the result of several processes. The organization of the sensations, a result of the causal interaction of objects with our sense organs, into percepts performed automatically by the brain is an overview of one process. The processing of the percepts by the mind via differentiation and integration based on the perceptually given similarity into first level concepts is an overview of another process. Note that the process is the transformation of the raw materials via a given process into a new arrangement. The light (the raw material) refracted off the object to the eyes (the process) registering as a sensation (the new arrangement) The sensations (the raw materials) automatically integrated by the brain (the process) into percepts (the new arrangement). The precepts (the raw materials) processed by consciousness via differentiation and integration (the process) into concepts (the new arrangement) The three stages listed here (the raw material) organized in such a way that the new arrangement is the raw material for the next step (the process) aides in abstracting the concept order (the new arrangement). The order is produced by the mind by processing (transforming or reorganizing) the raw materials or data it observes (existence). It is also worth noting here that the order described above is not in the mind of a young child. The young child has the sensations organized by their brain into percepts automatically for them, but what order exists in his or her mind of what he or she is observing?

In order to acquire it, it must exist. The less there is of it, the more dear it will be. An economic collapse suggests that most production will have likely come to a near standstill, and in the area(s) it occurs, that is pretty much what happens. The goods are not only much more difficult to find, they will be far more expensive than under normal economic conditions.

The conceptual classification of chickens and chicken eggs already exist. The nature and extent of their differences from and similarities to other existents can continue to be expounded upon. Would the simultaneous discovery of both the "first chicken" and the "first chicken egg" significantly alter that? Would the known methods of establishing their antiquity enable you to answer the question?

My brother and I used to banter back and forth in the back seat on long trips as kids. I recall one trip we were trying to decide just how much money we wanted to have when we grew up. Eventually, one-up-man-ship brought us to the inevitable - I want to have *all* the money in the world. I remember my mom interjecting at that point: "If you had *all* the money in the world, what do you suppose would happen when everyone else discovered where it had gotten off to?" While copper, silver and gold are commodities, pork bellies, orange juice and coffee have also provided avenues for wealth to those who prudently act on the understandings they have garnished over the years. Study what goes on during an economic collapse, you may discover that the silver you acquired will trickle out at a rate much faster than you anticipated in the pursuit of those goods required for survival. While money certainly makes trade easier, is that the sole source of wealth you desire to be surrounded by?