dream_weaver

Thanks Michael - Some of the older paperback copies do not have that section in them. Fortunately, the research CD does. Context, context, context. Funny thing is, that was the reason for posting the paragraph before, to help establish the context. Duh. Thanks Eric, Time, space, location, size - Harry Binswanger commentary! and plenty of filler too.

I've heard it put 'time is in the universe, the universe not in time'. In a discussion the term 'space' came up, and after some searching, the quotation above was noticed. A lessor question would be is 'space in the universe, the universe is not in space'? The bigger point that leaped out at me indicated with bold: By what criteria or guiding principle can a more comprehensive list of aspects which do not get ascribed to the universe as a whole?

It appears the author is not well versed in the realm of ideas at all. A liberal smearing of poison ink atop some paper intended to be dished out for public consumption. Sadly, those that are most likely to be done in by its toxicity, will probably miss the antidote within the anecdote.

A retraction is in order here. Money, even as fiat currancy is not a floating abstraction. The law of identity even applies at this point. A U.S. Dollar is a peice of very special paper with inks on it. May the marketplace continue to aide and abet in bringing parity to the goods and services produced.

Try visualizing a very thin sheet, string or ball where you omit the dimension. In the case of a plane, the thickness must be something (hence the visualization of the very thin sheet), but can be anything. In the case of a line, the thickness must be something, but can be anything. In the case of a point, yes, it must have a dimesion, but again, it can be anything. The plane might also be described as where the 'air' contacts a 'face of the cube' - neither the 'air' nor the 'cube', rather a description of the 'extracted shape' where the two are in contact with one another. How much distance is there between the air molecules and where it touches the surface of the cube?

It comes from perceptual abstraction. We see a cube. From that we can abstract a planar face from it. Where two planes come to form an edge, we abstract the line. Where three of the planes form a corner, or where two or three of the lines intersect, we are able to abstract the point.

Back in the 1950's.

{An} abstraction without relation to the concrete—a "floating abstraction." Ayn Rand's first written use of this expression. from what was replied to:<snip> a definition of a specific currency like the dollar would be the amount of stuff it can buy. <snip> The topic references an objective money supply. Granted, a dollar is a differentia of the genus money. Yen, Yuan, Marks, etc (other differentia) all appear to have the same deficiency of having been severed from their concrete objective definitions. If money's immediate differentia have no relation to a concrete (inter-relating them to each other has the smell of circular reasoning to me) then the genus appears to be floating even higher in the stratosphere.

Let's see. In 1916, $1=10+ loaves of bread, just under 3 gallons of milk, just less than 3 dozen eggs, 4+ gallons of gasoline, or 50 first class postage stamps. Fast forward to 2010 and $1=1/3 loaf of bread, 1/3 gallon of milk, 8 eggs, 1/3 gallon of gas, or 2 first class postage stamps. Sounds like a pretty complicated, not to mention not rigidly defined objective definition. Thus, you are quite accurate in stating that the meaning changes, thus has no real identity (floating abstraction?) Huh? I only ask to identify objectively what a dollar is, and that is not what I want to know? I did not think I was implying dollar or space as a starting point, only as a concept that does not fall neatly into one specialty field or the other (economics/philosophy:physics/philosophy). Dr. Harriman points out that the invalid use of 'space' in the field of physics leads to many incorrect conclusions, and that philosophy should object to the non-objective use of the concept 'space' in that regard. In this case, he points out the reifying of the abstraction 'space'. Is the 'dollar' being reified?

Interestingly enough, in the 18 pages of threads returned on 'Dollar Definition' - and I admit, I have not waded thru the volume of posts here, surprisingly enough in an Objectivist community I have yet to run across the definition of a dollar. It appears to be a 'floating abstraction' having it ties back to reality severed back in 1913, and once set adrift, has been floating off higher up into the ether. Section 8 and Section 10 of the constitution refer to coining money. The 10th amendment suggests that congress outstepped its bounds in the creation of the Federal Reserve, and abdicated their responsability for regulating the value. Philosophic versus Economic issue - does the dollar definition fall on the line bordering the two sciences much like Dr. Harriman suggest that the definition of space is a philosophic point in the science of Physics?

The stick appearing bent in a glass of water, eventually testified to the 'automaticness' of the senses to deliver the sense data. It led us to discover that light alters speed and direction in that medium. In the observation of the optical illusion, some understanding of some geometric principles, selective application of shading are used to omit or augment the information to intentionally bring the phenomenon about. Perhaps 'context dropping' is a bit strong or even misapplied here - perhaps more likely the mind is 'jumping to conclusions' based on a skillfull presentation of selective evidence (selective recreation of reality).

Fair enough. Nixon severed the redemability in '72. Prior to that, the price was 'fixed' at $35. 5%=$223.49 10%=$1309.15 20%=$35723.60 I know what an inch and millimeter are, but trying to afix a dollar to an elastic standard makes economics more difficult to measure IMHO.

Well, 5%=$415/T. oz. Message? Just doing the math. Gas, Eggs, Bread, Stamps ran closer to the your stated average of 5%. If taxation for the purpose of raising government revenue is obsolete, why is the privately owned corporation known as the Federal Reserve viewed as an agency of the U.S. Government?

Funny you should bring that up. I was considering it for yesterdays post, and now you couched it nicely. 10 years ago, gold was ~$255/Troy oz. At 10%, that should equate to ~$660/Troy oz. today. At 20%, should come to ~$1580/Troy oz. The 10 year high/low in US$ is 1214.80/255.30 /Troy oz. with spot currently at $1128.70 (Hyper-Inflation is merely the speed that the ticket was issued for, after the fact? Worthless in 10 minutes or 10 years is still worthless.)

It was off the cuff, and if there is veracity to it, I want CD rights, should I do an ARI speach on the topic <grin> . . .

We are looking at an illustration here. The illustration is 'exploiting' an aspect of vision (shading) to generate a picture that can have multiple interpretations. Just a some words have multiple meanings, the context (angle of the light source) needs to be maintained to ensure an accurate assessment. Not knowing the location of the light appears to me equivalent of a tree falling in the forest, does it make a sound analogy.

Do I detect the nature of the Federal Reserve being exposed for what it is? When Money Dies, So do people, including Americans - by Gary North Fractional Reserve Banking versus Ayn Rand's Ethics or is it just Fractional Reserve Banking - by 'Helicopter Ben' Bernanke? Let us hope not.

Tim, You might find the Appendix in Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal on Man's Rights helpful.

Referring to philosophic knowledge being heirarchial: By dropping or simply not establishing a rigorous context of the inquiry, the responses can become as resplendent as the semantics permit.

One suggests not buying that which does not exist. The other, if you listen to the news, is advocating buying that which does not exist. Is there possibly a 'truth in advertising' issue here?

Proverbs 26:4 and 5 come to mind.

There is an invisible leprechaun making you type in this forum. If you cannot refute this conclusion, you have to think it is right Your premises are not self-evident. If you want myself or others to accept the validity of the claims of this J(uxtaposed)N(onsense), you will have to demonstrate their veracity in this arena.

Yes, you are listing premises. My question is what axiom(s) are you basing your premises upon?

While a temporal interval cannot be rigidly laid next to one another, selecting a standard to establish as a unit as done with length via the inch does permit us to identify differing and common durations. Every 0.25° turn of the earth on its axis is considered a minute. When light has traveled 186,000 miles a second has passed. While one cannot lay the events physically side by side, they can be contrasted in such a way as to quantify it. We cannot set a sound physically next to one another, yet we can calibrate or tune two or more instruments to 'middle C' or 440Hz. So yes, what is being expressed is that the similarity that time or length or frequency is, seconds, inches or 440Hz is a quantifyable unit subsumed within their respective categories.

There is an organization which is making inroads to addressing this issue. See: http://www.fellowshipofreason.com/