Soulsurfer

No, I don't. No, I don't. The descriptive phrase I provided was based on a view of "God" that is derived from an Objectivist perspective. In reality, the conclusion that "God" ultimately is nothing but a consciousness is a viewpoint that religious people don't necessarily hold. When a person says he believes in "God", therefore, it is a huge mistake to equate his professed belief with a primacy of consciousness metaphysics. I have found that in most cases, especially in young people, the concept of "God" refers to some portion of what others want it to stand for (often some kind of authority figure that can be used to rationalize for despotism here on earth). But it also stands for a misintegrated set of esthetic abstractions (and values) pertaining to what they value most in life: exploring this earth, integrating knowledge and seeking happiness and love. Of course, this belief system is communicated through poetry and metaphors rather than scientific facts. However, in terms of a deeper psycho-epistemology it could be translated to imply optimism, confidence and trust. If this is not what other people on this board have experienced, then all I can say is: too bad for them.

I don't know if the quoted text above was adressed to me. But, assuming that it was: No, I don't know what the word "God" means. I still don't know what that little name refers too. And you don't, either. Since it is an invalid concept, it has no cognitive meaning whatsoever (nor any value whatsoever). You are wrong in your conclusion that I "bend the truth a little" -- that's not what I am doing, nor have done. It would be true if I did it in my own head -- yes. But one doesn't have a moral obligation to tell people the "truth" if that telling is contraproductive to your own long-term rational interests. Check your own premises! Granted, if my wife had specifically asked: "Do you blindly believe in a supreme consciousness, that have created existence out of thought, and who can change natural facts on whim?" -- I wouldn't have answered "yes". But she didn't ask this. She asked whether I believed in God, which is exactly the same as asking "Do you believe in &#¤!#¤?"

I just have to comment on this, because the issues involved are really important. What matters is not a person's set of beliefs, but rather how he or she arrived at them. To find that out, you have to spend some time with that person. You may find that a so-called "God-believer" isn't really religious in terms of having an irrational psycho-epistemology. In my own experience, a lot of self-proclaimed "religious" individuals, especially if they are young, are actually very value-seeking subconsciously. They merely have a wrong conscious framework (religion) for the right (rational) subconscious values. But what if you are single and meet a lovely person, whom you are attracted to, and that person really thinks it is important whether you believe in God or not -- what do you do? You lie. You lie and say that you believe in God and then, when you are a couple, you constantly inject rational values into the relationsship. Give it a few years and you'll win, if you believe in free will. I have tried this myself. When I first met my wife, she was very religious. It was important for her that I believed in God. Since "God" is really a name or concept that doesn't mean anything to me, I said to her that I believed in "God" -- treating it as meaning "Existence" or "Love". And that was no lie -- I actually explained it to her that this was what God meant to me. And she was happy with that. However -- and this is important -- ever since I met her, I have managed to stimulate her mind in such ways that today she is actually a serious student of Objectivism. So what's the best situation out of these two alternatives: 1) Today I am a single man who is unhappy because a very important value is absent in my life (romantic love). I blew it when I had the chance, just because I acted on a very short-range view of what constituted "integrity". Rather than showing confidence in my own mind, I just had to slam my atheism in the open -- an issue that wasn't even important to me. The lovely girl I was once dating, who could have been mine, is now married to another man who insists that she attends church every Sunday together with his family, who practice BDSM with her, who breaks down her rational judgement and makes a doormat of her. She is living in a 24/7 relationsship. Her husband is now her master. Sometimes I wake up in the night. The nightmares are becoming more frequent these days. The thought of another man ramming his dick down her throat every day (which she accepts out of a sense of duty or "love"), drives me insane. 2) Today I am in a really great romantic relationsship with the woman of my dreams. I was strong enough to embrace her, to wash out the destruction that got to her first. She was mentally raped by evil through her childhood. Consequently, she was calling herself "religious" when I first met her. But I saw through that. I won, because I believed in her rational judgement over time. I believed in free will, I believed she would change her mind. She did. She is now my lover, best friend and fellow student of Objectivism. Of course, I chose the second alternative.

I would like to see a corner on this website where users could go for reviews, questions and comments in regard to recorded Objectivist lectures (and other products that might be of interest to students of Objectivism). The Ayn Rand Bookstore carries alot of such material, but they don't seem to have any user review and/or rating system (such as Amazon.com). I think that such a feature on the site would add more traffic and also attract more attention from serious students of Objectivism. What do you think?

Aha! Now I see why my reasoning is flawed. Here is what I say in my first post in this thread: Implicit in my reasoning above is the Primacy of Consciousness premise posing as the Primacy of Existence metaphysics. But it was obviously just a pose, and I failed to identify it as such. Observe the fundamental starting point here, i.e. the focus of my primary attention for subsequent philosophical reasoning: consciousness and its contents (not "something" -- existence -- which consciousness first has to be aware of in order to identify itself as consciousness). I was wrong in concluding that if I only omitted all that -- otherwise integrated --content (which I referred to as "measurements"), "Existence" would be extrapolated and show up as the irreducible starting point ("The Primacy of Existence"). Thanks, Stephen Speicher and Douglas Clayton, for your comments. I will now declare myself checkmate and continue my studies of OPAR by reading chapter 4 for the first time (lucky me!).

Ok, let's call it that: the totality of perceptually based knowledge. In a more general sense, I mean all the content of a person's mind, i.e. the contents of consciousness. Maybe "induced" is a better word than "inferred" here. (I have some minor difficulties expressing myself in English. For instance, I just noticed that I have repeatedly misspelled "measurements" as "measurments" in my previous posts.) To clarify myself: Yes, I think that entities and characteristics of entities are directly perceived by the perceiver. And yes, I also agree that these entities (and their characteristics) exist independent of any perceiver. But then I am also saying that these entities (and their characteristics) only make sense to speak of in an epistemological rather than in a metaphysical context. "Existence exists" does not imply that a physical reality exists. The same applies to aspects of that physical reality, such as "matter", "space", "time" etc -- they are not metaphysical in the deepest sense of the word. They could be said to be metaphysical, if metaphysics were based on epistemology rather than the other way around. Thus: I am claiming that Existence, in the deepest sense of the word, is out of space, time, size, mass etc (or more specifically: these categories (or whatever they are called) are not to be ascribed to existence as a total, but only to the aspects of existence that are perceiveable by human perception -- i.e. physical reality). Physical reality is NOT out of space, time, size, mass etc. But then physical reality is NOT the same as the total of existence!

Would your response be any different if I rephrased myself to this instead: What I don't understand is how the totality of perceptually based data -- or any entities, aspects, characteristics or measurments inferred from that data -- could be said to be equivalent of the totality of existence.

Let me first say that in a sense, I think "objective truth" is a redundancy, just like "free will" (there is only truth and will). Truth is the recognition of existence by will. There is no will apart from consciousness. There is no consciousness apart from existence. Yes, I can see that the existence of "objective reality" is consistent with the primacy of existence metaphysics. But I cannot see that "objective reality", when used in the sense of being equivalent to "physical reality" (which includes matter, space, time, mass, size et cetera), IS the total of existence! Can you bake an apple-pie without using any apples as ingredients? No? Then how can you ascribe facts ("time") to existence qua existence when those facts themselves are derived from the specific relationsship between your consciousness' mode of perception/cogniton and the data you perceive and integrate? Do I misunderstand your point? Existence exists independent of consciousness -- and thus also independent of any relationsship between consciousness and existence. I am not claiming that the objective facts of reality are manufactured by consciousness -- on the contrary. Entitites are "out there" independent of consciousness. Consciousness is identification of entities and their relationsships, attributes, quantities, qualities et cetera. Now, the way I see it, there is an important distinction to make between the aspect of existence -- i.e. physical reality -- as it is perceived by a consciousness, and existence as a primary axiom. I am not saying that there is a Kantian "reality as it really is". Again, on the contrary, paraphrasing Ayn Rand -- perception must exist in some form, but may exist in any form. I am saying, however, that (objective) physical reality is not the equivalent of the total of existence. Yes, physical reality is an aspect (or subset) of existence, as it is perceived and grasped by human consciousness. But, no, the physical reality of existing entities do not constitute existence as a total. Thus: One cannot blank out the apples and keep the apple-pie. And one cannot blank out consciousness and keep the perceptual data of consciousness by calling it "objective reality". (That sounds like Materialism or Naive Realism to me.) Yes, the source of that perception is independent of your consciousness. No, the data itself is not independent of the relationsship between your consciousness and existence. All measurements and abstractions are made within the contexts of that relationsship -- that's why I cannot ascribe "space" or "time" or "size" or "mass" to Existence, but have no problem in ascribing them to physical reality. They are objective facts to be discovered within the sphere of human cognition.

Thanks for your comments! The ball-on-the-table relationsship wouldn't exist unless there first existed a relationsship between the fact of perception and the fact of perceptual data. Yes, it is true that entities exist independent of our awareness or knowledge of them. No, it is not true that perceptual data exist independent of any perception. What I don't understand is how the totality of perceptual data -- or any aspects, characteristics or measurments inferred from that data -- could be said to be equivalent of the totality of existence. The theme for my focus here is: The invalidity of treating the non-omission of epistemological measurements as the objective metaphysical starting point.

I agree with this -- if, and only if, you refer to epistemological identifications of entities and relationsships that exist as objective facts within the reality of the relationsship between consciousness and existence. But, on the other hand, if you were to speak of existence apart from consciousness as such -- and then equated metaphysical existence with the epistemologically known physical reality of entities and relationsships (i.e. the physical reality that you have epistemologically measured by using your consciousness), I would not be able to understand the objective truth of it at all. And more than that: I wouldn't be able to see that it was consistent with the primacy-of-existence metaphysics.

If entities -- and relationsships among entities -- are said to exist independent of consciousness, then doesn't this establish a "stolen reality" in the sense that the measurements of consciousness are projected to exist independent of consciousness itself? I can clearly see why those measurements exist objectively within the context of the specific relationsship between an individual's consciousness and existence -- but I cannot see why those measurements (i.e. relationsships, forms, attributes, characteristics etcetera) exist objectively outside the context of the specific relationsship between consciousness -- any consciousness -- and existence. Isn't that Platonism? (Of course I am not accusing you of being a Platonist -- I am simply unable to understand, at this point, what exactly differentiates "platonic realism" from my (mis?)understanding of your approach in this case.) Suppose you were the only individual on the planet who could grasp the Objectivist axioms explicitly. I.e. you grasped that a specific, objective relationsship existed between your consciousness and the rest of existence -- and that it existed whether or not you grasped it explicitly. In that case, I can clearly see that such relationsship exists -- but not that it exists independent of your consciousness. Yes, it exists independent of your consciousness's grasp of the fact, but it certainly doesn't exist independent of your consciousness as such. The same applies to your consciousness's grasp of "other relationsships" within the primary relationsship between your consciousness and existence -- e.g. measurements such as "time" and "space". Thus: Time and space do not metaphysically exist apart from your consciousness (since that consciousness is part of the primary relationsship between consciousness and existence). But space and time do exist as potential epistemological identifications (or comprehensions or measurements) -- as objective facts -- within the existing relationsship between your consciousness and existence.

Because you implicitly seem to assume that the "something" -- in this case the universe as a whole -- is actually a thing (or a sum of things). It isn't. When we speak of bricks, cars, houses etc -- we could ask questions such as "what is outside of this house?" or "what is the mass of this house?". But when you switch from an epistemological point of view to a metaphysical one, it is invalid to ask questions such as "what is outside the universe" or "what is the mass of the universe?". In such a context there is no "outside" or "mass"!

Now I'm lost. The relationsship between consciousness and existence cannot exist unless there first is an existing consciousness and an existence. If consciousness is discarded, the entire relationsship cease to exist as well. In that sense, the relationsship between consciousness and existence doesn't exist independent of consciousness.

Thanks for your comment. However, I fail to see the validity of your conclusion that time does not depend on the existence of consciousness. Observe that I am not suggesting that consciousness creates time, or that time is an inherent aspect of the nature of consciousness (such as volition). Rather, I claim that existence is out of time and out of space. There is no "time" or "space" inherent in existence as such, apart from the specific relationsships which involve our consciousness. I.e., these relationsships exist when consciousness is part of that relationsship. If there is no consciousness, there is no relationsship to exist. If there is no existence, there is no relationsship to exist. Within the context of that existing relationsship, time and space exist. Outside of that relationsship, time and space do not exist. Is my reasoning flawed here?

Suppose that somebody suggested the following: "The universe includes consciousness. Thus, the universe has consciousness (or is conscious)." Now tell me what's wrong with that conclusion, and perhaps you'll also see why your conclusion that the universe has mass is invalid as well.

The metaphysical measurements of your consciousness, which are implicit in your arguments, do NOT themselves constitute existence in the sense of "the primacy of existence". In order to reach the axiomatic concept of existence, you have to omit all the measurements of consciousness (including matter, space, time, consciousness and mass). But if you say that "the universe has mass" and equate this meaning with "existence has mass, independent of the fact whether any consciousness exists to measure mass" -- that is to introduce a stolen concept. There is no "mass" or "space" or "time" or "consciousness" apart from consciousness. This is not to say, however, that there is no existence apart from consciousness. On the contrary, existence exists. That is why the particular measurements of consciousness is not to be equated with existence. (Philosophical positions such as Materialism and Naive Realism are both aspects of the primacy-of-consciousness metaphysics in this sense: they project measurements of consciousness onto existence -- i.e. they don't omit the measurements of their consciousness to retain existence as a starting point, rather they take these measurements or contents as the package-deal starting point.) (For the record: The above is entirely my own reasoning. I have only read the first three chapters of OPAR besides reading Ayn Rand's novels, so naturally I am not qualified to speak for Objectivism in any sense. However, since I do take my studies of Objectivism very seriously, I would very much appreciate if anyone who is more versed in Objectivism could comment on my comments. Are my conclusions correct or do they differ from Objectivism? If so, how do they differ?)

Applied measurement-omission: "Existence" (or "Universe") is what you retain when you omit all the measurements of consciousness. Such measurements certainly include space, time, size and mass. Thus, the proper Objectivist standpoint is not the one you claim it to be.

Please support this claim with rational arguments.

What follows below are my final introspective comments in regard to the subject of jealousy. I have been thinking about the involved issues as they have been raised in this thread and concluded that my "jealousy" is, actually, not fundamentally of a psychological nature at all. Instead, the whole issue boils down to philosophy, more specifically to values and the process of forming and integrating them subconsciously. I have certain automatized responses to such values, i.e. certain feelings and emotions that are triggered in certain contexts. For instance, If I see a disgusting piece of modern art, my emotional response (i.e. disgust) to it follows from my longtime formation of conscious convictions and values. I think it is a piece of crap and that the artwork itself manifests a volitional act of disintegration, an attack on the integrating mind (i.e. on rational-inductive thought). The emotional response to such attacks amounts to one thing: disapproval and negative judgements. The same logic applies to other concrete events and actions. So when my partner is acting contrary to my values, that naturally renders the emotional disapproval. The more important the value is to me, the more intense is the emotional response. Since my partner (and my romantic-sexual relationsship) is very important for my happiness, it follows that my partner is a very important value. What she does and doesn't do certainly affects my emotional responses. Some questions arise: Why is my partner acting in a certain way? What values or subconsciously integrated philosophical premises influence those actions? If my partner was more rational and consistent, the space for differences in regard to value-judgements would shrink; we would reach the same conclusions more often. But sometimes this isn't the case. Yes, we are moving towards that ideal as we are rationally communicating with each other while growing in knowledge and experience. But right now, in this moment, we are at the risk of drifting apart. So, what to do about it? Does life require compromise? In her excellent article "Doesn't Life Require Compromise?" (The Virtue of Selfishness), Miss Rand writes: "[O]ne cannot correct a husband's or wife's irrationality by giving in to it and encouraging it to grow." This is actually what all of my troubles with women is all about: trying to figure out what is irrationality and what is encouraging irrationality to grow. All my ex-girlfriends were very intelligent, beautiful and successful -- but it would just be a matter of time before our respective subconscious value-judgements crashed and burned when they met each other in certain contexts. It was always the same kind of clashes, usually involving either (1) the sanction of evil (irrationality), or (2) the sanction of things that might add pressure on the stability of our relationship (which, from my point of view, implied the sanction of evil and irrationality!). The way I saw it, she sometimes wanted to have her cake and eat it too. Her idea of taking herself seriously always included somewhere a rationalization to act on whim or asserting her feelings as the final arbiter on any issue. One typical clash of values between us always occured when she thought that her act of letting other men flirt with her was some kind of fun personal game that had nothing to do with our romantic relationsship. I, on the other hand, thought that her very act of doing so implied a sanction of a disintegrated attack on our romantic relationsship. Now, if my partner is mostly rational person and contributes a lot to my pleasure and happiness, although has some minor flaws -- I don't break up and sacrifice the entire relationsship just because the good isn't the perfect. Instead, I fight to the end, using the best communication skills and arguments I can find to support my values and make those flaws in her behaviour change to the better (and eventually disappear). A proper defense of values implies action (here I agree completely with Dr. Peikoff's conclusions in "Fact and Value"). Just as an Objectivist wouldn't tolerate or sanction those who tries to throw a bucket of mud at Ayn Rand or at any serious student of her philosophy (that includes me) -- or those who claims to be Objectivists while at the same time opening up the door for those who might want to try throwing that mud -- a man who loves his wife wouldn't tolerate or sanction that which obviously might threaten or destroy the romantic relationsship. In my world, that includes other men in certain contexts. The way I see it, a women (or man) who is seriously commited to a romantic relationship wouldn't tolerate any kind of behaviour that opened doors for potential other romantic and/or sexual partners. This issue is so important to me that if my partner doesn't approve of it or make it an effort to understand, accept and respect my position -- she cannot be my romantic partner. A good friend -- yes. A romantic partner -- no. This is theory-part. In practice, it is often very difficult and time-consuming to evaluate objectively whether or not a certain behaviour reflects an "ignorant mistake" or an "active choice" (a different set of value-judgements). In the typical situation or context we have different judgements in regard to a concrete. I may judge something negatively, she may judge it neutrally (i.e. being ignorant). So when she wants to go alone to a female friend's party, a friend who thinks it is "cool" to invite militant communists and other criminal men to the party as well, my reaction is the same as in regard to the modern art example I gave above: disgust and disappointment. I can choose whether or not I want to put my feelings on display. Do I make a scene when she's telling me at the restaurant that she might want to go alone to a party where the majority of people (in my conception) are evil? If I choose not to, I don't think that this implies emotional repression. If I choose to focus on positive values instead (such as having a good evening), I can file the negative value-judgement inside my head and analyze them later. That is all I will say for now. I certainly welcome any additional comments, but I won't be able to discuss this matter further (due to lack of time). Again, thanks for all nice suggestions and support!

If jealousy is limited only to an emotional state, then of course that state is as morally neutral as any other automatic subconscious responses. However, I don't think that jealousy pertains only to emotions and feelings, but rather to a whole package of subconscious material AND the way one chooses to deal with that material in action. In that sense, since there is a conscious choice involved, I do think that a jealous person could be regarded as either moral or immoral. My feelings are not tools of cognition. Just because I feel something is bad or painful, doesn't mean that I should act on that feeling as a substitute for an objective evaluation by a process of reasoning. Whenever I get jealous, I try my best to consciously focus on something else -- anything else but my feelings and negative thoughts. If this fails (which it mostly doesn't) then I get caught in a storm, and it is very difficult to get out of that storm by an act of choice. Now there is another aspect to consider in this context: values and integration. (This is, by the way, the part NONE of my professional psychologists can grasp.) Let me explain: When I look at the world, I strive to understand it as an integrated whole in regard to essentials. The same applies to everything else in my life (most of all to personal values; the higher the value, the more important is the level of integration). When I am successfully integrating, a sense of control CAN result from that. And when I am in control, happiness CAN result from that. I was the one who ended the relationsships with ex-girlfriends, when it occured to me that their behaviour and choice disintegrated my sense of control, thus also my long term happiness. What I value most in a romantic partner is her level of integration and honesty, as it is applied subconsciously (in the form of a rational sense of life) and consciously (in the form of consistent behaviour and understandable choice). So whenever an ex-girlfriend started to flirt with other men, just like that out of the blue, rationalizing the behavior by claiming it was her innocent little notion of having fun ("a women's right"), I found it disturbing and a flaw in her character. Because, no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't integrate that kind of "fun" at all. In essence, my response to such behaviour on her part would be: Why would you, if you value the integrity of our romantic relationship, want to spend time and effort flirting with other men or trying to build social networks that make it more easy to find potential partners? Why would you want to spend more time, not together with me, but together with friends and strangers? You see, many guys tell me that their wives or girlfriends have the liberty of doing the things they want, no matter what as long as it doesn't include another man being inside her body. They are not affected by their partner's choices, they assert, and of course they trust their partners completely. "Hell, my girlfriend could go to a rock-festival, sharing tent with polyamorist leftists -- I trust her completely" or "My wife can have a private dinner with another man she met at her work, and dance with him if she enjoys that. Why, actually I don't mind if she spends a weekend at his place, drinking some tea and discussing, because I trust her completely, she wouldn't cheat on me." I can't understand such attitudes at all. If my woman wanted to do any of these kind of things on her own, I would find that very unattractive in the context of our romantic relationsship. It would change my estimation of her. Sure, we could be good friends, but not romantic partners. It has nothing to do with me not "trusting" her. That's not the issue. The issue is rather this: If she chooses this or that, and it happens repeatedly several times, then I don't trust that the status of the romantic relationsship will last or get better. Sometimes there is an obvious clash of values involved. Why should I spend time on an individual who doesn't want to integrate, e.g. by eliminating the potential dangers to the relationsship rather than encouraging them? In my experience, a lot of women seem to rationalize such behaviour by suggesting that THEY want to be sure I am the right man for them. Her implicit rules are: If I hold her too loose, then I am not the right man for her; if I hold her too tight, then I am not the right man for her. The optimal balanced ratio changes constantly. "A women has a right to change her mind." A typical example of this type of woman would be, on a monday: "Oh, you're so authentic when you are jealous. I find it attractive when a man wants to own me psychologically, to make me exclusively his. I feel free when a man controls my behavior." The same woman on friday: "Oh, you're so ridiculous when you are jealous. I find it unattractive when a man wants to own me psychologically, to make me exclusively his. I am a free woman. I have a right to act on my whims. Don't you try to control my behavior!" On the other hand, making love to a woman feels like the highest form of integration possible to experience. I couldn't stand being without it. And if a woman can change, doesn't it follow that she could change to the better? Why should a man just give up because a woman -- especially if she is young -- engages in little acts of disintegration? Or is it just that from a man's point of view it is disintegration, whereas she sees it as integration? Are men really from Mars and women from Venus? Does faith in a romantic relationsship in a sense imply rationalization, chance or blindness? (I better stop writing now since this starts to sound like a Carrie column in "Sex and the City".)

I wanted to focus on the more abstract essentials pertaining to the morality of jealousy, rather than transforming this entire thread into a personal live session of psycho-therapy. I probably made a mistake by taking too concrete and sensitive details of my private life to a public level. My only excuse for making this mistake is to point out that I am desperate, failing to find any help whatsoever from the professionals. I thought that maybe a real-life concretization, although a most limited one, would better highlight some essential philosophical principles for further discussion. Since I have already said A, I might just as well say B and tell you what I will actually do to save my marriage and preserve my happiness: I will quit my job, sell some stuff I own and start a new career which allows me to spend more time together with my wife and the pursuit of other personal values (such as studying Objectivism). I love my work very much, but I am tired of feeding the evils in my country (75% of what I produce is taken away from me). Life is just too short. Thanks again for your comments.

Because I realized that it wasn't humor after I posted it, but couldn't change it. Or just to rationalize: maybe I wanted to demonstrate what happens when Soulsurfer doesn't apply objectivity to his own cognition.

Thanks!

I really think the wiki should have its own little subforum in the forum. That way, people will probably participate more. And the moderators could compile the best input in the official wiki. Here is what I suggest: Formulations of common questions regarding Objectivism. Each question has its own thread. Then have a contest for best answer (according to objective criteria) -- we could vote in a separate thread after a while.

Maybe the feeds already exist for the forum topics. Where is the RSS file?