Objectivist critique to video clip

[Haemp]

Greetings, Objectivists.

I recently got a YouTube video clip from a friend (who is a mystic). The base of our argument is his view of man - that everyone and everything is apart of everything else. Now this clip, as I see it, sounds very incoherent but I can't put my finger on a specific fallacy. My major concern is with the first argument for "The myth of myself".

I am curious about your views of the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d7WlE5D1kk

PS. Love the site, thank you all for providing the knowledge.

[Tenure]

Tell you what - explain what this guy's argument is. Go on, try to pin point what this guy actually argues. He states that one can't have an existent without existence ('One can't walk without walking in an environment'). But go on, listen through the video again. Does he actually make an argument?

[aequalsa]

Tell you what - explain what this guy's argument is. Go on, try to pin point what this guy actually argues. He states that one can't have an existent without existence ('One can't walk without walking in an environment'). But go on, listen through the video again. Does he actually make an argument?

Right, that's the problem. I watched both parts and I don't think that he said anything which was technically false. The problem seems to be that he alludes to some extrapolations without actually stating them.

"We can't be identified without the backdrop of the universe"(paraphrase)...therefore?? We are part of the universe? Well...yeah...but so what? Does that mean that we should change our politics since we are all part of the same unit? If a bear is eating us should we not concern ourselves with stopping him since our atoms will still be part of the same entity?

Or at the end of the second part...all that exists outside of our head is "waves," so colors and chairs and monkeys only exist inside of our heads? The fact that everything is made up of "vibrating energy" on a micro(or actually sub-nano level), does not alter the way we must interact with it on a macro level. This would be similar to saying hydrogen atoms bond together without regard to gravity therefore...we should ignore gravity as well. Of course, he never adds the "therefore" to any of his comments because they would be preposterous, so the listener is left to add their own.

Anyone with a more reasonable bent is going to say, "and therefore... nothing," regarding all of his comments. Less reasonable people will say "And therefore, I can scuba dive without a tank because I am at one with the water." Most will just say "Wow, that was deep, " and carry on with their day.

The movie in the background was very pretty. I liked the part where the city was built very quickly like the ultra slow videos of plant growth on the discovery channel.

Edited February 8, 2008 by aequalsa

[aleph_0]

Eastern philosophy actually prides itself on the fact that it doesn't make arguments--rather, it makes assertions to which a listener can assent or dissent. Eastern philosophers don't ask "Why," or "Prove it," which I take to be intellectual cowardice.

Back to the subject at hand. One thing that I find completely bonkers about this fellow is that he seems to say, "When you describe something, there is always an assumed or implicit statement at the end: 'And that's all, folks.' " For instance, when you describe walking, if you fail to describe the floor then it is assumed that you assert, "And there is no floor." That's completely silly, though. If I fail to talk about something, it is not to say that I deny its existence. If I describe the city limits of Los Angeles and nowhere else, I do not thereby assert that Los Angeles is a floating chunk of ground disconnected from the rest of the world and universe.

In short, some things can be described conceptually rather than extensionally. I.e. one does not need to describe the entire universe in order to make the one and only true statement in existence.

Now some of his statements make good enough sense, like "for every outside there is an inside; and for every inside there is an outside". But it's a relatively useless statement with none of the philosophical import that he intends. Just because one thing always seems to accompany another does not thereby make them the same thing. Case in point, the tired example "All animals with a heart have a kidney." Just because, every time you find an animal with a heart, you thus have found an animal with a kidney, does not mean that hearts and kidneys are the same. I would hope for the sake of this man in the YouTube clip that he not convince his doctor otherwise.

[aequalsa]

The fact that everything is made up of "vibrating energy" on a micro(or actually sub-nano level), does not alter the way we must interact with it on a macro level.

Got me thinking. I don't know if it's been identified as a fallacy or not, but if not it should be, because I run into it very often. I'll call it "the fallacy of obfuscation of scale."

For example, someone might go on a camping trip for a week with several friends. Everyone gets along and participates, sharing responsibilities. Two people set up the tent, two others start cooking, etc. So then they decide that, "see! communism works great." They ignore the more complete context that the small group has personal connections and a social pressure to contribute or risk being ostracized. That at that level, everyone is "watched" by everyone else. So group enforced integrity exists. When expanded to 300 million people, those affects mostly disappear. More is at play in the dynamic, of course, but the principle is that at different levels, different effects are primary and others disappear or become negligible.

This is why it is dangerous to use personal experience as a measure of identifying truth. A Nobel laureate in science could say, "I went to public schools, I am very smart, therefore public schools are good." They may have had exceptionally good teachers, or parents, or whatever, so their experience does not typify the nature of public schools.

[KendallJ]

I can't see the vid from here so I'm responding to the comments people have made, and what I've seen of this type of argument in the past.

There are 2 issues here.

a. He is probably attempting to claim something about the relationship between entities that is not true. He implies it, alludes to it, but never actually states it. Entities are related in reality only through their own nature and their causality upon each other, and nothing else. You have to sort out what he's trying to imply about interrelatedness above and beyond this. That's the package deal.

b. There is possibly an epistemological trick at work here too. Some of the quotes above are confusing, but if he ever implies anyting of the nature of (as is stated above) that "We can't be identified without the backdrop of the universe", then recognize that he's using consciousness to confer a metaphysical relationship between entities. Man's consciousness requires comparison, context identification, etc to identify and recognize entities. Thta does not however confer any actual dependency and relationship between such entities in reality. This is a variant of primacy of consciousness thinking, and it is the converse of what Aleph_0 mentions above. Just as leaving out the context when identifying something doesn't make that context disappear in reality, so recognizing the context doesn't confer any sort of relationship between the entities involved.

I like these sorts of problems that sort of set up these just barely plausible sounding conclusions that are really axiomatic non-sequitirs. I like to think of them a Binswanger problems since he seems to spend a lot of time on them. It's not a long chain of logic that breaks them, but some sort of integration directly back to axioms and the contradiction one has made. When you do that, the conclusion just look daft on the surface.

Edited February 8, 2008 by KendallJ

[softwareNerd]

I don't know if it's been identified as a fallacy or not, but if not it should be, because I run into it very often. I'll call it "the fallacy of obfuscation of scale."

Would this be similar to "hasty generalization"? Edited February 8, 2008 by softwareNerd

[Haemp]

Tell you what - explain what this guy's argument is. Go on, try to pin point what this guy actually argues. He states that one can't have an existent without existence ('One can't walk without walking in an environment'). But go on, listen through the video again. Does he actually make an argument?

That is exactly the point, and why his speech confused me - he throws a bunch of Zen arguments without really making a point. The thing that bothers me is, like someone else said: It is "intellectual cowardice". I agree that there is not really much technically wrong but there is definitely the political implication towards environmentalism and anti big business.

General argument: "He is right, we are all apart of everything, and nature is everything - therefore we must protect the environment". The torpedo to this one is, I take it, is to make them explain why his statements justifies environmentalism, and to pick their arguments apart?

Thanks allot for the response, makes things allot clearer.

[Thales]

Okay, I've watched the whole thing.

You want the first argument addressed.

He concludes, after the obvious point that you are connected to the world, and that many of your actions can not be explained without an environment, that

"You are something that the whole world is doing."

But, it doesn't follow, because we know not only that the world does things to you, but we also know that you do things to the world. Both things are in play. You can't argue that away. It's something we observe. How is he going to argue that away? I mean, you can't just say anything you want contra the evidence.

His second argument is a means to lead up to the conclusion that we have mystic experiences, but all he's saying is that we have two forms of consciousness. The "spot light" and "flood light" forms. The first is your focused attention, the second is your peripheral awareness of what's going on around you. He then makes the claim that we are taught to only identify with the first form and not the second. Finally he claims, without the slightest bit of evidence, those who are fully aware of their "flood light" consciousness have what is called a "mystical experience". It's just a flat out assertion without evidence.

Okay, he's also saying that the ego is an illusion, because of the points given above, but I note that *he* is saying it, and I don't think *he* is an illusion. I also note that I am saying he's wrong, and I don't think *I'm* an illusion. But, I'm as interested in "wholes" as he is, and when I put the whole together with the parts, by integrating my knowledge, I observe, per my points above, that his argument doesn't go together.

His primary mistake is more fundamental than a simple fallacy. His primary mistake is a disastrous method of thinking. His whole method is wrong. He's not taking all of the evidence into account and in some cases he's just making assertions without evidence.

[DragonMaci]

According to him we are the whole cosmos, we have a "universal self" and that is true of everything. But this would mean we have no identity and neither does anything else. This is of course utter bull.

[aequalsa]

Would this be similar to "hasty generalization"?

That is similar and connected but not exactly the same.

"This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:"

What I am pointing out is that the rules that apply can be different when scales change. If I have a large sample size(or whole population for that matter) in a study, say, then it is possible that I could induce the correct principles, but it is also possible that they could be ignored then too as is often the case in peoples political opinions.

[DragonMaci]

He also says that that 'I' is a location. That is also false; it is an identification.

Also, the consequence of his "having to describing all connected things in order to make a proper description" would be that we'd have to describe everything especially given that he says everything is part of one inseparable whole. This would mean that in our whole lifetime we'd barely even scratch the surface of describing anything. We just couldn't operate that way, so clearly his idea of descriptions is false.

[TuringAI]

According to him we are the whole cosmos, we have a "universal self" and that is true of everything. But this would mean we have no identity and neither does anything else. This is of course utter bull.

Actually the whole cosmos, where and when the entirety of time and space is a single unit, is itself existence and identity at once. There would be no way to distinguish between the two concepts at the big bang. It's only when and where the cosmos develops, even in the most minor of ways, that the two can be reguarded as seperate concepts. That is the cosmos of which we are presently a part.

Edited February 10, 2008 by TuringAI

[Montrevux]

That is similar and connected but not exactly the same.

"This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:"

What I am pointing out is that the rules that apply can be different when scales change. If I have a large sample size(or whole population for that matter) in a study, say, then it is possible that I could induce the correct principles, but it is also possible that they could be ignored then too as is often the case in peoples political opinions.

Fallacy of composition is what it sounds like.

[trivas7]

a. He is probably attempting to claim something about the relationship between entities that is not true. He implies it, alludes to it, but never actually states it. Entities are related in reality only through their own nature and their causality upon each other, and nothing else. You have to sort out what he's trying to imply about interrelatedness above and beyond this. That's the package deal.

I don't know what the "package deal" refers to but I assume that Watts is drawing on Buddhist Madhyamika that basically says the following:

Nothing exists absolutely, independently in isolation, but all things exist only relatively depending on their causes and conditions. E.g., this table seems to possess an intrinsic tableness, an identity belonging to a class of objects of a certain form that perform a certain function. But obviously it didn't just materialize as a table from that seemingly intrinsic tableness. Before it was a table it was lumber; before it was lumber, it was a tree. Its tableness is the result of causes other causes can remove. What sits here is more or less a temporary configuration of wood that we designate a table. But it can be used as a chair. If we were termites, we might call it dinner. Similarly, everything that exists in this universe exists because of an interdependent network of causes and conditions. Everything is empty of an intrinsic reality of its own. In short, the identity of a table is an imputed one, it is not intrisically real

Where does Objectivism find fault with this analysis?.

[lorean]

I don't know what the "package deal" refers to but I assume that Watts is drawing on Buddhist Madhyamika that basically says the following:

Nothing exists absolutely, independently in isolation, but all things exist only relatively depending on their causes and conditions. E.g., this table seems to possess an intrinsic tableness, an identity belonging to a class of objects of a certain form that perform a certain function. But obviously it didn't just materialize as a table from that seemingly intrinsic tableness. Before it was a table it was lumber; before it was lumber, it was a tree. Its tableness is the result of causes other causes can remove. What sits here is more or less a temporary configuration of wood that we designate a table. But it can be used as a chair. If we were termites, we might call it dinner. Similarly, everything that exists in this universe exists because of an interdependent network of causes and conditions. Everything is empty of an intrinsic reality of its own. In short, the identity of a table is an imputed one, it is not intrisically real

Where does Objectivism find fault with this analysis?.

I agreed largely with the first 8 minutes, the problem was with the implied conscious = ego and bad, subconscious = supernatural and good

[trivas7]

Eastern philosophy actually prides itself on the fact that it doesn't make arguments--rather, it makes assertions to which a listener can assent or dissent. Eastern philosophers don't ask "Why," or "Prove it," which I take to be intellectual cowardice.

But not every philosophic concept is subject to proof -- the primacy of existence, the law of identity e.g.

[prosperity]

But not every philosophic concept is subject to proof -- the primacy of existence, the law of identity e.g.

But, the only reason that happens to be true is because those concepts you mentioned (existence, identity) are axiomatic and self-evident. They are directly perceived, and that is why they require no proof.

I don't recall anything or much of anything in the video which was axiomatic.

Additionally, the narrator seems to be describing some variant of an absurd idea called "holistic biology".

Edited April 29, 2008 by prosperity