Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dream_weaver

Admin
  • Posts

    5525
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    235

Everything posted by dream_weaver

  1. It was a full moon tonight, and I was in a ghost-town…but I had not seen any ghosts. Too bad, because that sure as hell would have won a Pulitzer. Driving back down the long, lonely roadway that is Highway 67 (thank god—I heard the Devil got his killing done on Highway 61) I expected a wolf to appear over the horizon on one of the splotchy hills, howling head-up at the moon. But Hollywood reality never conforms to reality Hollywood. All I saw was blackness, stars, and a road sign. Your metaphors are quite different than what I am accustom to. This is the only one that really stuck in my craw, so to speak.
  2. On perception, Binswanger in his lecture on ITOE's Abstraction from Abstraction makes a point that should be pertinent here. Paraphrased, and a bit ad lib'd: Perception does not need to see the door, then the wall, nor does it see the wall, then the door. Perception does not require observation of the floor before the ceiling, nor the ceiling prior to the floor. Perception does not separate the man lying on the grass from the grass, it merely transmits what it registers: the man and the grass, to the brain. Perception merely registers what is there. Out of sight, out of mind. That is the nature of the perceptual level. It is tied to occasion of sensation by object. /Paraphrase. This being said, the development of concepts is hierarchal. The object impinging on the sense organ: the sensations integrated into the brain into a percept: the percept moving through the (implicit) "entity" to the (implicit) "identity" and later the (implicit) "entity" to the (implicit) "unit" allows us to form our first concepts. Our first concepts are 'Concepts of Entity' for it is the percepts we first organize conceptually. It is only much later that we are able to take the (implicit) "identity", and isolate it from the rest of our perceptual awareness and integrate it into a concept. Only after we have the concept 'identity' are we able to conceptually integrate it as fundamentally at the base of human knowledge as the "Law of Identity" which is the foundation of the "Concept of Method" known as logic. We are not saying that perceptual data is above logic, we are saying that we derive logic from perceptual data. Like the concepts of 'God' and 'justice', 'logic' cannot be directly seen, directly touched, rather are conceptually grasped. This partial 'reduction' of logic to the perceptual - identifies the hierarchal (logical, not chronological) chain of concepts that are inter-related to our initial (implicit) first encounter with "identity" and allows us to validate the concept. This method of 'hierarchal reduction' can also be performed with the concept of 'justice'. This method of 'hierarchal reduction' has never been performed with the concept of 'God', which is why it is identified as an 'invalid concept'.
  3. Is that never use anthing silly Steven Hawkin says, or never use anything silly Steven Hawkin says. It it difficult to discern the difference in this usage. edit: Sorry, I just had to ask.
  4. This assumes that stillness is the natural state of the universe, does it not?
  5. Now that you mention it, Peikoff left them off two of three places cited. A little earlier in ITOE, Rand stepped through the (implicit) concept "entity" --> the (implicit) concept "identity" and followed with: The implicit concept of "unit" is "the (implicit) concept 'unit'" arrived at in the third stage being used to reach both the conceptual level, and to count, measure and identify quantitative relationships. Notice, after making these two distinctions, he returns to stating "the same (implicit) concept" is at the base and start of the two fields. (An aside: Never as a kid, did I ever think that I would ever find a use for the limited exposure, I have pretty much long since forgotten, of sentence diagramming.) edit to add: I agree with the nitpick. Thanks for pointing that out.
  6. Considering nearly all "Arguments for the Existence of God" reduce to "Debating Epistemological Bases", keeping this in this thread would allow the view of the progression. I have found the thread thus far interesting, and although I do not have the breadth of knowledge in 'formal logic' you appear to possess, I have found myself challenged trying to identify what I consider your flawed premise (which I believe lies somewhere in your view of concepts) and what I view as a struggle I perceive you as going through, which I had to pass through about 20 years ago on my own. edited for missed capitalization.
  7. If a search is done on 'follicular lymphoma' - this result certainly is not highlighted in the article. Follicular lymphoma is a common type of non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL). It is a slow-growing lymphoma that arises from B-cells, a type of white blood cell. It is also called an "indolent" or "low-grade" lymphoma for its slow nature, both in terms of its behavior and how it looks under the microscope. While hair certainly has follicles, less known to the average laymen might be that there are also dental, lymph, ovarian and thyroid follicles as well.
  8. Rand moves into measurement at this point, where Peikoff begins to describe the conscious processes. Rand is so emphatic in the pronunciation here, whereas Peikoff appears to apply much less stress to this aspect. Peikoff specifically mentions ITOE as a reference for those who are interested in delving into concept-formation more deeply as he begins his section on concept-formation as an introduction to Miss. Rands introduction. I just happened to have both texts open and was reading them when this noticed this difference. Asserting that something is, has so much more emphasis that just suggesting that it might be. I do like the identification of the shared concept as the base of the two fields. I guess after such a powerful lead-in, I am left wondering why is there so much less degree of emphasis.
  9. In order to understand man, or any other 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.

  10. I would concur with context-dropping. I guess I got carried away with identifying some of the various aspects that gave rise to the concept.
  11. The implicit stages would be 'entity', 'identity', then 'unit'. Knowledge would be the relationship of the propositions concepts which are the relationship between perception and identity. Conceptual consciousness is what rises above the level of percepts.
  12. Let's take a little look at history. Prior to the discovery of the Americas, the continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa were considered the known world at the time. With Asia to the east, and Europe and Africa to the west, many areas in the middle were referred to the near-east at the time. Considering that the Americas were discovered and then its population and resulting civilization were predominately from the western portion of the 'then known' world, America is considered the west. From America (which is referred to as 'the west') the 'old-world' is all to the east. Europe and Africa become 'near-east', the Mediterranean or central portion the 'middle-east' with India and China being now referred to as the 'far-east'. Philosophically, civilization tends to take on some characteristics that have been classified as 'western' semi-democratic/republics. The 'far-east' is viewed as the Asian or Chinese authoritarian / totalitarian oligarchy with figurehead leaders, and the 'tribalism' of the middle east being a loose catch-all, if you will. Religiously, the old-west and now the Americas are predominately 'western religions' - Christianity and Judaism, contrasted against what are referred to as the eastern religions, Hindu, Confucius, Jainism, Shinto, and the middle east predominately Muslim. It may be a failure here to just distinguish some of the crucial differences here.
  13. In two other specifications of temperature, 0°F and 0°C are merely reference points on a 'measuring stick'. I was thinking the article was lending support to consider 0°K similarly. Personally, trying to comprehend that 0°K produces stasis say in a hydrogen atom in the sense that the electron somehow comes to a standstill is a little difficult to get the mind around. As to 'entropy', Binswanger's assessment that it amounts to saying that which is most likely to occur, will, seems similar to the idea that chaos is an order that the mind has not categorized yet.
  14. The link within the primary article stated that it had already been done. I am at a disadvantage at this point as to understanding the technical jargon at this point.
  15. I should have asked you, Jacob86, with a more precise set of questions: What is the concept 'consciousness' then? How was the concept 'consciousness' formed? How should the concept of 'consciousness' be used, or how could the concept of 'consciousness' be misused, in the quest for knowledge?
  16. This had to have been stated somewhere in this thread already. Peikoff states in OPAR: "In order to understand man - or any other 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."
  17. If you understood this position on "Z" (concepts), you would understand that this is the fundamental issue.
  18. In otherwords, you do not understand, because you have not grasped how to validate your concepts.
  19. Something is getting missed here, that is for certain. The answers you are using for your questions appear to have you in a quandary. You claim to desire to grasp the method Miss Rand identifies to know these answers. She outlined the methods in ITOE, and Peikoff elaborated on them in OPAR. The funny thing about these methods is that they actually have to be used to discover if they work or not. It is almost like trying to analyze a complex recipe by just reading the ingredients, and the steps involved to assemble them, to understand want what it tastes like. Until you actually assemble the ingredients as described by the recipe - you can only try to imagine what it might taste like at best. If I walked into a culinary school and told the students and teachers that I would like to learn how to cook, and they took me in to try and accommodate that expressed desire - and during the course of my stay, I continue to respond to the instruction with - well, I would really like to learn how to cook but I don't understand how the utensils interact with the ingredients, while you never appear to be picking pick up any of the utensils, handling handle any of the ingredients, or performing perform any of the methods or processes being explained, what might the outcome be? [add] And on top of that, while attending this institution, expressing that you already know how to cook, that the students and teachers are doing it wrong, but that you would really like to understand their method of cooking while you teach them how to cook.
  20. Learn how to validate your concepts, and you will have the answer to "what is" identification, and "What does" non-contradictory "mean." The O'ist position is more accurately identified as reason vs. faith, not perception vs. faith. Here is a quote to ponder from Miss. Rand as well. "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it." edited to add quotes around "mean."
  21. Are you excluding awareness from perceptual? I can be aware of my thoughts. I can be aware that I am identifying concepts to transmit via my fingertips to a computer screen that I anticipate you will see. I am aware that I consider the concept of 'analysis' in my mind, and I am aware that I am aware of considering it. I consider this as perception. While you cannot be aware of the thoughts in my head, you can examine the thoughts in your mind and conclude that you are either aware of your own thought, and if you want to infer from that, and what you know about 'man' extend that capacity to others. What you wrote is similar in some ways to my post #500 which outlines the 'Concept of Method'.
  22. Since all knowledge came from that which has been perceived, . . . if you have not perceived it, how can you have knowledge of it?
×
×
  • Create New...