dream_weaver

I am reminded by this thread of the 'Chicken Little' story. Who will help me plant the wheat/corn. Who will help me weed the wheat/corn. Who will help me grind the wheat/corn. etc. to which the reply every time was 'Not I', said the various other farm animals. This one has two endings apparently. The altruist ending where the meager bread produced was divvied up to even those who did not help, and the more capitalist ending where those who did not help in the production of the bread, did not partake in its consumption.

I wish I could claim it as my own to confer it, but the individual who I heard it from has since passed away and as a patriot and Objectivist, would not mind it being spread further.

The emboldened statement states that the concept is invalid, not arbitrary. The method of developing concepts is based on a relationship between existence and consciousness - the data of sense provides the material for abstracting our concepts. The analytic/synthetic dichotomy is not based on Rand's theory of concepts. It relies on divorcing the concepts from reality, and counts on you treating them as floating abstractions for its power. Unicorns are described as horses with a horn, both of which are observable independently, and via the human capacity for fantasy allow us to conjure an image in our minds of what that might be. While horses are a real and valid concept, and a horn is a real and valid concept as an attribute of rhino's, bull's and buffalo's, - the stolen concept is applying the horn to the horse, ignoring that it belongs to the latter. Declaring that something is automatically true is an example of using true as a stolen concept. The true is an end product of a method that need be discovered by man's mind. This method is identified by the science of epistemology. The science of epistemology relies on concepts to assert the methods it discovers. A method of validating your concepts is necessary to validate your propositions. I only need to come to terms with how intellectually honest you are being. What we are discussing here is conceptual, not purely perceptual. Your original post suggests familiarity with Objectivism. Your assertions do not suggest that you have integrated much of Miss Rands Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, especially her breakdown of the method or process by which concepts are formulated. If what Rand proposes is so illogical, self-contradictory and disastrous to philosophy and human knowledge in general, why does this and other similar threads generate so much interest? Are you just trying to 'save' Objectivist's from their errors by pointing them out in this manner? Or does the certainty that Objectivist acquire via the application of a methodology that is in alignment with reality draw you to honestly try to grasp why it is different and what sets it apart from the others? Or could it be that there is a fear that if Objectivism becomes nearly as prevalent as Aristotle's influence observed as 'common sense' is, the ramifications that would hold for those who desire to place the 'whim' above the 'what is'?

Leonard Peikoff addresses this in OPAR in Chapter 5 under the subheading The Arbitrary as Neither True Nor False. Dog, Cat, Man as against tree, flower, grass are integrated under Animal, or Plant. Animal, Plant, Insects as against rock, dirt, water are integrated under Living Organism, or Inanimate Object. Living Organism, Inanimate Object can be integrated under Entity Likewise, Entity can be broken down, or reduced back to the perceptual level by tracing the logical heirarchy that gave rise to it. Invalid Concepts cannot trace their roots logically or heirarchially back to the perceptual level. God, ghost, demons, are examples of such. Most attempts to validate these rely on Stolen Concepts to smuggle in a false sense of validity, and only then with those who have not have a firm grasp on establishing the validity of the concepts as referenced in the ITOE quote you acknowledge agreement with. Edited to add: Even if the words and the concepts they refer to can be validated by the relating to them to the existents which gives rise to them, the proposition still needs to align with the directly observable, or be based on other propositions that can have their veracity established as well.

I would further augment this with the 'shall not be infringed' portion of Article II of the Bill of Rights. If you do not know what your rights are, you do not have any.

Have you considered ITOE pg. 48

Rand and Peikoff have both written on 'religion as philosophy': Religion, as a philosophy, is still a power which no man can abstain. It is a compromise between poison and food, faith and reason, the poison of faith and the need of reason to properly feed the mind. By smuggling in one lie packaged among nine truths, religion often destroys or stunts the development of the capacity to discern the difference on one's own. Another question that comes to mind: what religion could fully integrate Rand's theory of concepts? This is a future civilization worth developing.

I think I misread what you had originally written, in light of this response. If an individual, regardless of how religious, resorts to reason and evidence of the senses to bring about an advancement in knowledge, by what criteria do we lump this under a "the true nature of religion in civilization's development."? Just because an individual is unfortunate enough to have been stultified by exposure to religious influences during the course of their life, does not exempt them from grasping that there may be something more to discovering what is actually in reality true despite perhaps a lifetime of religious indoctrination? Is this an application of 'religious philosophy', or did some of the truth that religion need smuggle in to appear plausable, burst forth in an erudition - at which point - is it mysticisim at play, or the kernal of truth that germinated and brought forth the fruit?

Peikoff acknowledges this? What Peikoff acknowledges is mysticism is a primacy of consciousness approach. If you want to demonstrate that Mysticism is validated by experimentation, be my guest. Is this what you are asking to be used as a method of congnition that leads to a validable and provable source of truth?

The verb “oblige” (to bind by oath, contract, promise, etc.) dates back to 1325, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. “Obligate,” which came along in 1533, adds a moral dimension to the sense of obligation; it means to bind morally, or to put (a person) under a moral obligation. Reality is non-negotiable. Reality simply is. While obligate arises as in a legal context, reality assures that if you step off the edge of the Empire State Building, choose not to eat, or take a nap outdoors when the temperature is below 0° that you will comply. In the context of philosophy, in the branch of epistemology as the science of the methods of knowledge, ethics as the science of the methods of living one's life - it identifies if you do 'x', 'y' should follow. If you don't do 'x' but do 'z' instead, a different consequence awaits. The law of causality, a corollary, is action appied to identity. It would suggest that the action you choose initiate, as an entity will determine the effect.

Corrolation is not causality. Protestant Christianity is not just a US phenomena. The US was developed from a study of historical principles, and while some of the individuals involved attended church, it was an understanding of the problems inherent in monarchies, feudalship, and democracies that helped for formulate these United States. The United States was not established on 'a set of mystical views about the supernatural origins of, workings of, and purposes of reality, and what that implies about the living of human life.'* *'John Ridpth, Religion vs Man'

I'm having a flashback to the Lilliputian character named Glum from The Adventures of Gulliver. He would always say in a pessimistic voice, "We're doooomed. We're all doooooomed."

Personally, it came across as atoms are not more significant than tables, or tables more significant than the universe. Erase human consciousness and you have no hierarchy. As scientist, there is a tendancy to fall into the idea that 'atoms are the real stuff' and wow, subatomic particles, well, they blow even atoms away'. In previous conversations with my co-worker, this is the line of thinking he is enamored with. Causality to him is not action applied to the law of identity. He wants to know that water, comprised of hydrogen and oxygen, - how do hydrogen and oxygen 'know' to 'become' water. Atoms are comprised of protons, neutrons and electrons. How do these subatomic particles 'know' to become the elements. Newton discovered the gravitational constant. What gives rise to gravity, and 'what chose' the gravitational constant. I am trying to avoid getting into that here, and your earlier reply pointed out an avenue that I had not considered taking. It is as if the 'blinders' are on, and the focus is reducing it back to axioms as the given. Perhaps a steering into the formation of concepts may give him (and myself) a run for the money. Quite frankly, this R(ule)M(aker) approach has grown about as old as turning missionaries away from the door on a Saturday morning.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Locke's family were Puritans. At Oxford, Locke avoided becoming an Anglican priest. Still, Locke's nineteenth century biographer Fox Bourne thought that Locke was an Anglican and Locke himself claimed to be an Anglican until he died.

While I have read Human Understanding, I am not as familiar with Samuel Rutherford's contributions. As to Locke, while religious in many ways, I do not view him as an attempt on the religious establishment to be a 'driving force of civilization', rather someone who attended church, and attempted to understand how the human mind comes to grasp the world via the application of reason. Aquinas was an example of a rationalist who in the face of Aristotilian data, attempted to renconcile faith by getting Aristotle's views to fit the religious conclusion Aquinas had already accepted as incontrovertable by that time in his life. As Christianity tries to take credit for the formulation of these United States, a crass attempt at revisionist history, its attempt to do so should become a part of the historical evidence, and ultimately the relationship between history and religion will allow us to look for religion in the one place it deserves to be found: in history.

So you may selfishly hoard all the rhetoric for yourself?

The application of Aristotilian logic to the observation of physical phenomena in the case of Newton's induction of gravitational force (discovery) augmenting our understanding of the universe in which we find ourselves differentiates itself from the 'evolution' of religion modifying its rationalizations to continue to appear viable in the face of its credibility being undermined by discoveries which challenged the veracity of religious positions to prevent its becomming irrelevant.

dream_weaver: Good morning, Mr. Serious Thought. Were you able to make it over your 'speed bump'? co-worker: No. And I'm trying to come up with a way to put my thoughts into words. Must that be resolved to move on? dream_weaver: It appears I may have made an error yesterday. Vic pointed out the following: I am not sure if your co-worker understands the concept of "identity". It isn't right to say that things *have* identity. "[The abstracting of identity] is not the abstraction of an attribute from a group of existents, but of a basic fact from all facts. Existence and identity are *not attributes* of existents, they *are* the existents." (Ayn Rand, ITOE, 6. Axiomatic Concepts, 5:1 - 5:2) co-worker: 2 things; 1. Who's Vic? The name you've given your third mind? 2. 'The abstracting of identity'. That's a strange sentence using abstract as a verb. My understanding of abstract was that it is something that you cannot touch, an idea or a feeling. BTW, nice job listing the source as if it's in the 3rd Testament. dream_weaver: 1.)Vic has chosen to withhold his name and location. Chuck from New Baltimore, MD found the conversation an interesting read. 2.) Abstracting is concept of consciousness denoting a process / activity, hence, verb. I would have listed the source a bit differently. dream_weaver: I would have put it more like: Ayn Rand stated in ITOE, on pg. 56 . . . I will have to inquire what the 5:1-5:2 is referenceing, as only the chapters are numbered. co-worker: Ah yes, you mentioned posting this. Now it makes a bit more sense. I was beginning to think you had several personalities running around in your mellon. So Chuck's amused and Vic thinks I need help on Identity. Maybe he's right. Can you explain his position? dream_weaver: I did. What, of his citation, do you not grasp, and why? co-worker: It's a bit difficult to read. 'Existence and Identity are the existants'. Yet identity is not an attribute? dream_weaver: Probably why it took me so long to understand it. Her material is dense, in the sense that she does not mince words. Identity is not an attribute. dream_weaver: Is who ' co-worker' is, an attribute, or is it your ID? co-worker: Her editor earned his money. It is my ID. OK, I have 3 rubber bouncy balls. Two are red and one is blue. Other than that. They are virtual clones of each other. If we take the two red balls, other than the fact that one is on the left and one is on the right, what gives them identity? dream_weaver: Existence is identity, consciousness is identification. dream_weaver: Or, as stated earlier: "[The abstracting of identity] is not the abstraction of an attribute from a group of existents, but of a basic fact from all facts. Existence and identity are *not attributes* of existents, they *are* the existents." Pg. 56, ITOE by Ayn Rand. co-worker: Can Identities be the exact same? dream_weaver: You stated it. You have 3 rubber bouncy balls. Two are red and one is blue. Other than that, they are virtual clones of each other. From the observers perspective, one red ball is on the left and one red ball is on the right. dream_weaver: Well, the left one is the left one, and the right one is the right one, and if the locations were swapped, you might have difficulty noting that perceptually. co-worker: Um, those would be 'my' observations, not identity. What if these balls were on Pluto and observed by no-one, do they cease to have identity? I don't think so. dream_weaver: So, an existent does not require consciousness in order to exist? Wow. Who would have known? co-worker: Clever. We'll deal with that one at another time I'm still not seeing how an existants attributes are not part of it's Identity. dream_weaver: An existants attributes are not part of it's Identity? Since when? co-worker: "Existence and identity are *not attributes* of existents" dream_weaver: Correct. Existence and identity *are* the existents. co-worker: This is starting to sound like a version of Abbot and Costello's "Who's on First?" I understand that each existant has it's own, individual, identity. To me, that Identity is made up of it's attributes, or ingredients. Going back to my red bouncy balls on Pluto, other than they are both individual balls created at different times, are their Identities identical? dream_weaver: An existent does not 'have' it own identity, the existent *is* it's identity. If there are two red bouncy balls on Pluto, there are two of them, and from our current understanding of physics, they cannot occupy the same location simultaneously, so one of the balls would indeed, not be the other, even if they were indistinguishable from one another over and above that. co-worker: Can an existant's Identity change? Or be destroyed or created? dream_weaver: Only via causality, I would imagine. co-worker: I'm not sure I've changed my position on Identity, but I do understand that an existant will always have it's own unique identity. Let's move on to how the Universe is not prior to atoms. dream_weaver: It occurs to me that there me two contextual uses at play here. Mr. Physics that you like to play has a sense of identity invoked may have a different context than a philosophical usage of identity. co-worker: That may be the issue. Although I don't see how they can be that much different. dream_weaver: Philosophy studies knowledge, Physics studies matter. dream_weaver: I don't see how they could be identical. co-worker: OK, so I'll try to use O'ism's version of Identity. Can you give me a definition please? co-worker: Given what we've discussed so far, it almost seems synonymous with Existence. dream_weaver: In the tautology department is the phrase "A is A", which is to say: A thing is what it is. co-worker: "A is A" Wow. Brilliant detective work. So what's the definition? dream_weaver: Look it up. It is in the Lexicon. http://aynrandlexicon.com/ http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/identity.html dream_weaver: So, do you have the definition now? co-worker: Not really, but I guess that will have to do. That was more of a description of examples with some opinions thrown in, but I think I understand your view of Identity. Let's move on. dream_weaver: That would appear to be your opinion. co-worker: Would you care to give me 'your' version of the definition? (Like I previously asked). dream_weaver: Like I previously did? co-worker: Sorry, did you give me one of your own words or are you referring to the link that sends me to the three paragraph example/opinion, what it is/what it's not "definition". .=? dream_weaver: You can identifiy a detective, but apparently you are not one? co-worker: Time to remove that "Private Dick" from my door eh? Can we move on now? dream_weaver: Yeah. 99.9% of the people who purchased Dr. Binswanger's Abstractions from Abstraction lecture, agree with his 'opinion'. co-worker: 2 things; 1. Is that 99.9% value based on fact or 'your' opinion? 2. That's probably because 99.9% of his readers already agree with everything he's going to present. Now, back to how the Universe cannot exist prior to Atoms.... dream_weaver: In your opinion, what else is there, other than opinion? co-worker: Good point. Where did we leave off yesterday? dream_weaver: Lost your bread crumbs? co-worker: When you're hungry.... dream_weaver: When you're tired. . . . co-worker: When you're tired you eat bread crumbs? dream_weaver: As good an opinion as any other, would you agree? dream_weaver: So it would seem, anyway. co-worker: I do not agree. I think that opinion needs some work. So, if I remember correctly, you were just about to explain how the Universe cannot exist prior to Atoms? dream_weaver: That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Your confusion about the primacy of existence is showing again. co-worker: I don't mind that showing, I just don't want anyone to see my dangling participle. Can we please move on now? dream_weaver: I would explain my observations, but that would rely on a relationship between the words I choose, and what in my observations they refer to. co-worker: You were explaining just fine yesterday. I have no problem using your observations and the words you choose for what your observations refer to. dream_weaver: You should have a big problem using my observations. My sense organs transmit that data to my consciousness, not yours. co-worker: I'm glad you pointed that out, I completely forgot my consciousness is not yours. Maybe you could 'describe' what your observations are, or at least what they should be, in order to get to how the Universe cannot exist prior to Atoms. If I didn't know you better, I'd start to think that you don't know. co-worker: But since I respect your views, even if I don't agree with them, more than almost anyone I can think of, I'm sure you're just getting to it. dream_weaver: Your grasp of the primacy of existence is showing agian. co-worker: Don't you mean 'lack of grasp' or 'confusion of'? dream_weaver: No, I think I mean your disagreement with a validable observation is illustrated by referencing the potential of the universe existing/not existing. dream_weaver: It like many of the religionist do, when they steal a perfectly valid concept as 'create/creator/creation' and disregard the logical/hierarchial references to the various perceptual data that give rise to it, drop the context for which it is valid, and apply it to the universe to try and justify their invalid concept of a supernatural (outside of nature/outside of universe) creator. But you do not analyse concepts in that manner. co-worker: Wait, wait, backup. When did *I* reference the potential of the universe existing/not existing? dream_weaver: Something about the universe cannot exist prior to atoms. How quickly we forget. co-worker: My apologies. I don't remember the exact quote we were originally discussing from (Dr. ?) Binswanger. I thought it was something like this; "The Universe cannot exist prior to Atoms". If it's different, and it sounds like it is, can you please repeat that statement? dream_weaver: Metaphysically, the universe is not prior to atoms, atoms are not prior to universe. It is epistemologically we tend to rank them. Wipe out human consciousness, the atoms, the rocks, the planets, the solar systems the galaxies, the universe are just here, simultaneously. It all real, top to bottom. You want to know what is real? Reality. That is what is real. (that is paraphrased, I am sure.) dream_weaver: Yes. Dr. Bisnwanger. co-worker: Yes, that's the one; "...the universe is not prior to atoms,..." I agree that atoms are not prior to the universe. Yes, human consciousness is here and witnesses this universe, but with or without it (and I think we both agree there was a time before human consciousness) the universe had to have an order of events. So I'm anxiously awaiting an explanation for how the universe is not prior to atoms. Sorry about placing the 'existing' in there to cause confusion. Time for coffee.... dream_weaver: Wait? You agree that atoms are not prior to the universe. You disagree then, that the universe is not prior to atoms? Not only do you have no explicit axioms that you care to share - you vacillate like an oscilloscope portraying images of varying electrical quantities on many other things. co-worker: Mr. Funnyguy Yes, if atoms exist, then that would mean that the Universe exists as well for the atoms to become reality. Yes, for atoms to exist, the Universe and it's framework for atomic structure must exist - prior to the very first hydrogen atom. Yes you're right, I don't have any axioms. But if "A is A" is my competition, then let's see...um...yes: "A is prior to A" (Atoms must exist prior to Apples). My next T-shirt Slogan. dream_weaver: I'll stick with my Marvin the Martian coffee mug, thank-you very much. co-worker: You're not going to buy a T-shirt with the Axiom I slaved over for countless seconds on? Now, where were you on trying to explain how the Universe is not prior to atoms? (better?) dream_weaver: No. Thanks. I'll pass. co-worker: Wow, that's not like you to give up. The only way I can see this statement being valid is if, and only if, atoms (as a whole and complete set) are eternal. I find that unlikely and illogical. dream_weaver: At which point, I would suggets that in the heat of the extemporaneous delivery, he selected the word 'atom' rather than 'matter'. co-worker: While that does change the situation some, I would have preferred him to say "The Universe is not prior to existants". I would have a difficult time argueing with that. Unless RM is considered an existant RM is an obscure reference to 'Rule Maker' - his 'answer' to things like: Who choose the gravitational constant that Newton identified? If the universe is finite, who choose the specific quantity of 'finiteness'? Who decided that when X combination of a proton, electron and neuton have X properties and Y combination has Y properties? A varient, I believe on the invalid question of: What 'caused' existence to exist?. dream_weaver: Like seeking for a 'cause of matter', or trying to draw a square-circle, some things are not worth pondering. dream_weaver: Applying 'cause' to matter, is once again, a stolen concept. If you trace the logical and hierarchial steps to what in perceptual reality gave rise to the concept of 'cause' - what is antecendent to matter in order to be it's cause? 'Nothing' cannot be the cause of anything. dream_weaver: And in the case of your desire to wish that gravity is chosen some how, choice only arises in the context of volitional consciousness - consciousness only arises in the context of organic material. Once again, a stolen concept, chopping out the requirements of what gives rise to the concept to apply it in a context it does not apply. dream_weaver: All knowledge is inter-related. Inter-relating one's own knowledge is volitional. Discovering and applying the method for arriving at what may be considered valid knowledge, is volitional. It is not automatic. dream_weaver: Three absolutes, as a sort of 'acid test' - a kind of gate review, if you will. If the information does not pass the 'acid test' - it is futile to bother trying to inter-relate it any further.

Something for me to work on. It points out something that could use a little introspection to isolate. Curious though, 5:1 - 5:2 provoked this response: co-worker: 'The abstracting of identity'. That's a strange sentence using abstract as a verb. My understanding of abstract was that it is something that you cannot touch, an idea or a feeling. BTW, nice job listing the source as if it's in the 3rd Testament. dream_weaver: Abstracting is concept of consciousness denoting a process / activity, hence, verb. What is 5:1 - 5:2? Never noticed ITOE referenced in this way before.

A little background. This co-worker began with an inquiry as to who Ayn Rand was to me, (picture on wall, and Lexicon on desk, trying to contrast the position with another co-worker he occasionally discusses theocratic positions with. Eventually, this has led to him arriving at a position that the O'ist position was indistinguishable from religion, that the axioms are simply a matter of faith and cannot be proved (with which I agree, they cannot be proved, only validated). Since validation is something an individual must undertake themselves, this is an attempt to step though the validation process in a systematic manner. In a way, I perceive this as an expansion of Peikoff's 'tomato' example given in OPAR in conjunction with my rudimentary grasp of ITOE, to try and contrast validation from proof, which appear to be synonomous to this individual, or garbled on my behalf. In an ongoing conversations with a coworker, the epistemological position that somehow atoms are hierarchically superior to the universe as a whole, rather than a metaphysical symbiotic relationship spawned the following conversation, posted with verbal permission with the names removed. I am posting this for two reasons that come to mind. 1.) It is open to critique to further my discussion skills. 2.) It may serve beneficial to someone trying to present 'validation', esp. of O'ist Axioms. Here goes: dream_weaver: My apologies for a subtle mis-statement yesterday. Binswanger actually stated that "atoms are not prior to the universe. The universe is not prior to atoms." Hopefully that clarifies it for you. co-worker: How does he validate that the universe is not prior to atoms? dream_weaver: Via the conceptual grasp of three axioms which are implicit in every act of awareness, and the identification of the principle of the Primacy of Existence. co-worker: Really? So explain how these axioms, and the identification of the Primacy of Existence validates that statement. dream_weaver: Explain to me your understanding of the process of validation. co-worker: Your validation (proof) should be all the understanding required. Sounds to me like you don't have one. dream_weaver: What is the difference between validation and proof again. (seems you balked the last time I asked). co-worker: You are unnecessarily moving away from the previous question. I can judge for myself what I deem as valid. I'm curious as to what you think makes this statement valid. dream_weaver: I'm not moving away from the question, I am seekeing to understand what you consider a.)validation, b.)proof and now c.)judgement - to me, what appear to be interrelated concepts. What is the criteria you are appealing to for your judgement? How can I provide you the data you seek, unless you can quantify what that data is? co-worker: I will respond after, not prior, to your answer. dream_weaver: Ok. dream_weaver: Let me know when you figure it out. co-worker: Figure what out? dream_weaver: If you haven't figured that out by now, I don't know what to tell you that I haven't already tried to say before. co-worker: So you have no reasons that the statement is valid. Only to say, "It's in the 3 axioms." That's pretty poor. dream_weaver: You must be right then. I must be taking it on faith and not reason. You appear to have great faith in that. dream_weaver: What was the difference between faith and reason again? co-worker: Good question. co-worker: For me; Valid - Something that has a true basis and a true result. Proof - What is used to show the validity between that basis and result. Faith - no proof for believing or agreement. Reason - Proof for believing or agreement. dream_weaver: Validation: The relationship between the concept and the perceptual observation that gives rise to it. Proof: Retracing the logical steps between proposition and the perceptual observations that give rise to it. co-worker: Ok, now for your anticipated answer. dream_weaver: Are our identifications of validation and proof in harmony? co-worker: They appear to be, although yours is much wordier.. dream_weaver: So, in an example of say 'length' you look at three objects such as a pencil, a straw and a match - you perceptually identify that they are similar and yet different at the same time. The similarity, you abstract from the three entities and seal the conceptual difference with the word 'length'. conceptual difference = conceptual observation co-worker: That's your valid reason for 'The universe is not prior to atoms'? dream_weaver: No, that is an example of tracing the development of a very simple concept. The concepts you are asking about are at least 3 abstractions removed from the perceptual level. co-worker: I'll give it a whirl. Go ahead. dream_weaver: I'll let you. co-worker: No, I mean, I'll let you validate that statement as best you can. I'd like to see dream_weaver's reasons for agreement. dream_weaver: Do I have to validate pencil, straw and match, or is the proof laid out for the validation of length sufficient? co-worker: Nope, that's understood. dream_weaver: Length is an attribute that penciil, straw and match share in common. Would you agree that they also share in common the attribute that they exist? co-worker: Yes I would. dream_weaver: Would you agree that in observing the pencil, the straw and match, that you are aware/conscious of them? co-worker: Yes I would. At this point, three objects, a pencil, a 12" ruler or we call scale, and a compass point about 3 1/2" long from a drop-bow compass, were hand carried to my co-worker to visually interact with for the next few questions. dream_weaver: Substituting a compass point, and scale for the straw and match would you agree that they possess the attribute of length and exist, and that you are too, aware of them? dream_weaver: (Near the 1 inch mark on the scale, can still be made out [DREAM_WEAVER] where it had been written onto the metal, fingernail polish applied over the writing, and over the years of handling, appears as it does now.) co-worker: I dunno. Looks like it says "[CO-WORKER]" in bold, fresh black permanent ink. But yes, I agree that they all possess the attribute of length and they exist and since I too exist, and am observing them, I am aware of them. dream_weaver: Do you think you would recognize that particular scale again if presented with it for identification? co-worker: I believe I would. dream_weaver: If you studied the pencil and compass point in fine enough detail, do you think you would recognize those particular items as well? co-worker: I might. For arguements sake, let say I would. dream_weaver: So would you agree that each of those items have their own specific identity? While he was away from his desk, I retrieved the objects. co-worker: Yes. And someone absconded with them. dream_weaver: You allowed my personal effects to be absconded with? co-worker: Not intentionally. Luckily, for both of us, we've established that they have lenght, exist, and I can identify them. Or maybe it was just a dream.... dream_weaver: You are drinking out of 'your' coffee cup, I presume? co-worker: Ahhh! It's Santa's! Oops. dream_weaver: Still haven't found Santa. I know he is somewhere in the house, I have just not run back across him lately. So would it be fair to claim you could identify your coffee cup and my scale based on their identities? co-worker: Yes I would. dream_weaver: Did you drive the Caravan in today? co-worker: I did not. I've never owned one. dream_weaver: Minivan? co-worker: Ah, yes. I owned a Plymouth Voyager. dream_weaver: Do you park all your vehicles in the garage? co-worker: No sir. I'm in good shape if one of the three is in the garage. FYI, I parted out the minivan 3 or more years ago. dream_weaver: Has it been that long since I've taken a ride with you up to the Thai Sty? co-worker: You were in the minivan? I didn't have too many passengers in it. Fun little truck. dream_weaver: It had a sensor out on it, if memory serves me. It had been out for some time, and was judged not be a cost effective repair. co-worker: Sounds like you were in it. Anyway, back to your validation... dream_weaver: Do you have a mustang, which exists, that you are aware of when it is in your vacinity, and you could identify it from other similar mustangs? co-worker: Yes. We've now established that I can multitask and identify many existants. Are we going to list everything that I am aware of and can identify? If so, I'll need to get more coffee. I have been through more abreviated versions of this conversation. This time, the intent is to try and drive the point home via simple repetition. He has let me know to move on from specific, unique items, to more generalized application of the same principle. dream_weaver: Do you have the concept 'man' in your repertoire? co-worker: Referring to 'male' or human? Do you smell something bad? dream_weaver: Human. I detect no aromas at the moment. co-worker: Yes, I understand human. I'm either getting used to it or it's dissipated. dream_weaver: How many men does the concept 'man' refer to? co-worker: All of them. dream_weaver: Have you seen them all? co-worker: No. However, I also understand the concept 'Martian'. And I, nor any other 'man' has seen one, to my knowledge. dream_weaver: Are you done? co-worker: I'm even wearing a T shirt from one right now. [Yes, he was indeed wearing a Marvin-the-Martian t-shirt.] co-worker: Yes, I'm done. dream_weaver: Does your concept of 'man' extend to those who existed in the past? co-worker: Yes. dream_weaver: Would your concept of 'man' encompass and include those which have not yet been born? co-worker: Hmm. No. Those I would consider 'potential men' or 'proposed men'. There's no guarantee that they'll be born. dream_weaver: If they were born, would they be included? co-worker: Yes. dream_weaver: Does man possess the attributes that pencil, scale, coffee cup, compass point, and mustang do of existing, you can be aware or conscious of them, and each one of them individually is specifically what they are, i.e.: possess identity? (currently existing man, today, within a 300 mile envelope of earth) co-worker: Yes I would say so. dream_weaver: Yes, you would say so, or yes, they do? co-worker: Yes, they do. dream_weaver: Would you concur that every pencil, scale, coffee cup, compass point, and mustang, that either currently are, or have been, too, exist (or existed), if you were in their vicinity could be aware (or could have been aware in the case of those things that are no longer present in that particular form) and each and every one of those objects are or were specifically what they are or were? co-worker: That is quite the run-on sentence, but I concur. dream_weaver: Would you concur that rocks exist, can be observed, and each one is specifically the rock that it is? co-worker: Yes, yes, yes! They all exist and stuff. OK, let's move on. dream_weaver: You asked me to confirm Binswangers statement on an mp3 that you have not listened to, which I stated rested upon a few basic axioms and and principle, didn't you? co-worker: Did he go about it this way? We've established that several different existants do exist and have identity. If I let you keep going, we'll be talking crayons in about 10 days. dream_weaver: He assumes you have already validated the axioms for yourself, and are in concurrance with the principle identified. co-worker: Ok. Well I would say you and I are in agreement so far... dream_weaver: You stated that seveal different existants do exist and have identity (and you can be aware of some of them, but do not require to be aware of all of them to extend the same status)? (You may have just found a minor shortcut) (i.e. we may be able to trim back part of that 10 day anticipation) dream_weaver: If we take the concept of dog, cat, bird, and man and contrast them with say tree, or rock, can we use the concept 'animal' to include all the animals in the same way we included each man in the example with 'man'? dream_weaver: If we take the concepts of grass, trees, bushes, flowers, etc, can we use the concept 'plant' to include al the plants in a similar fashion? co-worker: With ya so far. dream_weaver: Can we also take the concepts of 'animal' and 'plant' and contrast them from inanimate objects, such as rocks, lakes, dirt, etc as 'living organisms' and apply the same three attributes of existing, percievable, and each with it's own specific identity? co-worker: Yes. dream_weaver: Do you suppose that applies to each and every inanimate object as well? co-worker: Yes. dream_weaver: What if we took each individual existent from the group of 'inanimate objects' and considered that which it has in common from the group of 'living organisms' - could we identify each of those objects under the 'concept' entity'? co-worker: I suppose we could. But where would you stop at? The entity 'car' consists of many sub-entities. The list goes atomic. dream_weaver: From that statement, we will have to apparently break down car for you and illustrate how it too can be considered an entity, existing, percievable, and identifiable, such as the example of your mustang used earlier, or does that suffice? co-worker: That's fine. dream_weaver: That's fine, go ahead and show how car qualifies as an entity also, or that's fine, you understand how your mustang can be considered as an entity? co-worker: I understand how each component, including the whole, can be considered an entity. dream_weaver: So if we summarized where we are at the moment, it would seem that each individidual entity, individually exists, is individually percievable, and individually has identity? co-worker: Yes. dream_weaver: So put in other words: to conceptualize that existence exists, is to identify that every entity / existent, exists and grasp that they do. to conceptualize that consciousness is conscious, is to identify that consciousness perceives the existents. to conceptualize identity is to identify that each and every entity / existent, is precisely the entity / existent that it is. co-worker: I would consider those to be common sense. While nice to see in words, things exist, we can see them to know they exist and we are conscious because we know they exist. dream_weaver: And to further reword it: Axiom 1. Existence Exists. Axiom 2. Consciousness is conscious / awareness Axiom 3. Law of Identity Consider yourself essentially to have validated them for yourself. co-worker: Ok. Thanks for holding my hand through it. Now, on to where this states that 'the universe is not prior to atoms.' dream_weaver: Slow down, Marvin - where's the kaboom? co-worker: OK, let's continue. dream_weaver: Is a consciousness conscious of nothing but itself a contradiction in terms? co-worker: That's a speed bump. I will have to devote some serious thought to that. dream_weaver: That is what needs to be ultimately grasped conceptually in order to establish the hierarchy between existance and consciousness - i.e.: which has primacy. dream_weaver: I hoped you marked your way along the trail with some bread crumbs or something, or drew yourself a map of the territory so you can find your way back, in case you want to retrace your steps. To be continued . . . Respectfully,

If semantics is 1: the study of meanings: a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development as Merriam Webster gives us as a definitional starting point, the source of the disagreements boil down to a concept's implication/inference (shaded attachment of meaning) based on the writer/reader's contextual and hierarchal understanding (time lags, uncertainty and their consequences?) within any particular proposition. The Given, I have to take as existence/reality. I cannot fathom my sensual awareness being inconsistent with the Given, as the senses are automatic and non-volitional in their apprehension of data; they just sense what is there. The acquisition of patterns of sensations, are (per Rand) automatically grouped by the brain into perceptions as (implicit) entities. These 'entities' when 'summarily referenced back to prior sensations' move to an (implicit) identity when the mind recognises a perception (an isolated group of sensations) as 'I have seen this before'. The 'Man-made' is volitional. It is not necessitated, but it is contingent. The methods of logic is man-made. The expression "A is A" is man-made. Grasping it is a matter of correlating the 'concept' with the 'perceptual' via 'word' which is deliniated from every other word/concept via definition. Or in the case of reshaping matter in accordance with his understanding of how that matter may be reshaped into automobiles, houses, clothing, etc. I, personally, do not find this a clarifying restatement of the chapter in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology on Abstractions from Abstractions. I, personally do not find this a clarifying restatement of the chapter in ITOE on Concept Formation. You cannot separate mind from body without losing life, much less meaning, as it is we, as human beings (an integration of mind and body, an inseperable whole) that create (man-made) the meaning. A somewhat clearer articulation of 'The Man-made is volitional'. Once produced, however, it does move it into the realm of the 'Given'.

Thanks Grame. Slipped my mind. edit to add: And 'concept' is perceivable directly via introspection.

From Marc. anything that you can perceive directly is metaphysically a first-level concept. In the epistemological sense: any concept which is logically dependent upon other concepts is not first-level. Anything metaphysically that you can perceive directly (i.e.: entities) is the basis for an epistemologically based first-level concept.

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Pg. 30 starts the section on Idealism and Materialism as the Rejection of Basic Axioms, leading up to pg. 34 which was quoted.