Integrating Objectivism and Marxism

[theestevearnold]

I am not arguing against the law of identity. All I am saying is that there is also a grey area that does not follow the law of identity

The law of identity is an absolute.

logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

Since you've named your brand of social subjectivism, Faith-Logic (not Faith-Sophistry), please reconcile your contradictory statements.

Edited February 12, 2014 by theestevearnold

[Plasmatic]

Louie said:

So it doesn't surprise me that you speak about consciousness in terms of physics than information theory. As far as I see, your theory of consciousness is more like a theory of physics, i.e. how entities form relations. There is no explanation or use of information anywhere. Then I go full circle and find this implies denying intentionality, which is about information in some way or another.

Just wanted to point out that by accepting Searle's view on intentionality you must then reject the use of information theory outside a mental context! This is his whole point about syntax vs semantics. Computers do not have intentional states. By the way "intending" is a form of intentionality in Searle's view.

[Repairman]

We must have the law of identity, but it is imcomplete, just as Western thinking is incomplete without Eastern (contextual) thinking, humankind is incomplete without people from both hemispheres.

 

Are you excluding North thinking? and South thinking? As for the law of identify, when you, Ilya, complete the law of identity, it may not translate to anything useful to anyone else.

 

Philosophy does not have to be "all-inclusive." Hotel accommodations are best when they're all-inclusive. Philosophy merely has to be right. Ilya, you wish for others to exalt you as a brilliant philosopher. I don't believe it is merely a matter of you being naive or that English is your second language. You have a serious self-esteem problem. You are desperate. Yogi Berra was a better philosopher, hell, Daffy Duck was a better philosopher. If you really want to become a cult leader some day, maybe we should include the thinking of Charles Manson, or Reverend Jim Jones. However, I seriously doubt if anyone identifying themselves as Objectivist would share a glass of Kool-Aid with the likes of you.

[Repairman]

Bring it ON!

 

 

The faith-logic is basically that state of indifferent awareness that is in the center of all levels of the model. It is the critical point of synthesis of an extreme and its opposite.

 

Be my guest, I always love criticisms.

Love'n it!

[Repairman]

Let us suppose the author of these words had a mental capacity comparable to the space between our sun and the Alpha Centauri star system:

 

 Here is the complete model with important missing elements (that socialistic countries ignored) where my imagination leads:

Particle--Void
Atom--Field
Molecule--Lattice
Cell--State
Tissue--Pulse
Organ--Aura
Body--Environment
Society--Nature
Race--World
Sphere--System
Star--Nebula
Hole--Cosmos
Source--Vacuum
Multiverse--Ratium
Omniverse--Limits
APEIRON

Sphere is a communication network reaching beyond worlds.
Ratium is virtual space (not cybernetic).
Limits is absolutely filled space, or space without time.
APEIRON is the whole model, that is - indifferent awareness.

Now let's suppose we could interpret this by using the thought process of mice. How long would it take to recognize the lunacy at work?

[Ilya Startsev]

Indeed, I'm not surprised. The Matrix is a retelling of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. People are denied knowledge of reality. Which version of reality do you choose?

L Ron Hubbard wrote science fiction stories, and established a school of philosophy. Ever hear of him?

Yes, but his fiction is very unrealistic. The reality I choose is Body--Environment that is connected to all other realities.

 

"Your house is your environment, and you share its space when you are in it. You are the inner part of the outer context. Environment is basically all you can perceive with your five senses at one time."

It's my environment, yes. I'm inside it, yes. I am not overlapping with the house itself though. It's just around me.

 

"Quantum physics repeats the idea of physical vacuum because energy does fluctuate that background of particles and anti-particles that we cannot see with our naked eyes."

So then that still would mean the vacuum was not "nothing".

 

"What's extraordinary to you sometimes is quite ordinary to me."

By extraordinary I here mean things which go beyond the well established, beyond the soundly proven. You've said numerous times here that you do not have such solid proof for lots of your ideas, in fact even that you have none at all in some cases. What is well established to be the case or at least be possible has already gotten the majority of the burden of proof taken care of, so a relatively small amount of proof is needed for any specific case where the possible thing is claimed to be or have happened. Meanwhile, if something isn't even a very well established possibility, then you have to go through getting it to become a well established possibility before you can get into dealing with a specific case. So, yeah, I'm not talking about things that are a matter of opinion or something like that.

 

"Meanwhile, if something isn't even a very well established possibility, then you have to go through getting it to become a well established possibility before you can get into dealing with a specific case." <-- This is also why I'm putting things like psychic dogs and such on the back burner for now. Those are specific cases. First I'm looking into if a possibility can even be strongly established.

 

". . . we need the law of identity, but I am against the law of excluded middle."

I've noticed this to be your position. I have not found anything here yet which goes against the law of excluded middle though. As for street lights, Green = one may go, red = one may not go. Yellow = one may go, but be warned that soon that will change. At no point is it neither "one may go" nor "one may not go". Lack of yellow light would just mean a lot more accidents when people were caught by surprise when who may go and who may not changed.

 

 

Whaaaaaat? Where are you getting this from? First off, it's possible to be poor and greedy and it is possible to be wealthy and not greedy. You listed wealth as having two components, greed and quality, but then said quality can be had without greed. I contend that quality already is the only component of wealth, or maybe just quantity instead, but quality is generally a better choice. Could you now define what you mean by greed exactly, or if you've already done so and I missed it because it was in a post to somebody else, could you point me to the post where you already did so? Until I'm sure exactly what you mean, I don't want to start getting into pro- or anti- greed, just note that wealth is very much separable from it.

 

Are you operating on the premise that wealth is a fixed quantity, that for one person to gain something another has to lose something? If so, we do not operate on that premise. We hold that wealth can be created and increase, thus one person can gain without somebody else losing.

You are overlapping with the space of the house, and thus share a part that is both you and the house.

Vacuum is not "nothing" only in realities which we do not yet understand. Just because we can bring something out of vacuum does not mean that we are actually bringing it from out reality.

You wrote: "Yellow = one may go, but be warned that soon that will change [and so should start stopping if too far from intersection]. At no point is it neither "one may go" nor "one may not go". Lack of yellow light would just mean a lot more accidents when people were caught by surprise when who may go and who may not changed."

Yellow light is neither green nor red but both, and this is my point.

"it's possible to be poor and greedy and it is possible to be wealthy and not greedy"

The greedy poor either waste resources or become wealthy. The generous wealthy have either changed from being greedy or inherited their wealth. Please, do not cut moments like pictures out of reality - we are talking about whole or at least most of people's lives here. I have not mentioned this idea about greed before, so I will define it thus: "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions." Note that all my definitions come from dictionary.com unless stated otherwise. The issue that I see with greed is how inherent it is to capitalism. For example, one generally cannot be not greedy without buying a car or a house. So, greed, an evil, is inherent to the system, and there needs to be found a way to eschew it. It seems that your view of wealth only includes quality, but the issue here is that it is not the common view. In order for the real view on wealth to become Objectivist, Objectivists need to find a way to incline toward the common people. In the infinite growth paradigm today, wealth is exactly segmenting out reality into rich and poor by taking from the poor. What does America do with smaller countries? That's right, it reaps out their riches and makes them poor. Iraq is a great example. I know that you are against the violence (so am I), but let's face our reality - violence and greed is in what conventional capitalists believe. I am happy that you are not conventional. Non-conventionality, however, can easily become radical and extreme (look at anarchists). I am worried about the same future for Objectivists if you would ever become popular globally.

 

That experiment with the dog (literally one dog) wasn't replicated. Not that I deny the results, but the interpretation has no reason to propose telepathy. Dogs have incredible sense of smell, and the way the data is split, it makes sense to say it's more about a dog's sense of smell. And even if I jump down the rabbit hole, it doesn't demonstrate that one, humans can do this, or two, that there is a collective consciousness.

Just to clarify and to not go so far off course of where I was originally, when I spoke of intentionality, I meant this definition:  "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs". This is very important to consciousness. One thing to ask first is what you need to have intentionality. Again, this is not intention, it's intentionality, a different concept. If you grant this as important, you need more than your idea that there is a middle truth or some sort of Hegelian antithesis. What is it that allows an atom to have intentionality, if everything is conscious? Perhaps you'll say they're too primitive for that, so are "dimly aware". At which point... there is nothing that differentiate rocks from people for having consciousness, and anything else. Still, awareness needs some kind of interpretation of information, anything less is talking about mere physics.

 

So it doesn't surprise me that you speak about consciousness in terms of physics than information theory. As far as I see, your theory of consciousness is more like a theory of physics, i.e. how entities form relations. There is no explanation or use of information anywhere. Then I go full circle and find this implies denying intentionality, which is about information in some way or another.

Elsewhere in this thread though, you offer a fine view of consciousness: "That is why I mentioned in the beginning that consciousness is like an engine. We move by our sheer will, which comes from our consciousness, which is within our mind, which is in our brain, the neuron network and neurological impulses." But it doesn't translate to "Society is conscious" at all. You spoke of neurons, and of course - they connect the mind. Society has no such connections, so... it can't be conscious. There is no means for it to be its own engine. Now, it's plausible to literally connect people someday in the future, but you're talking about telepathy even... Ugh, this would make more sense if you were trying to describe the plot of Serial Experiments Lain. Good anime, but... weird.

Your definition of intentionality is fine for humans (those with formed "literal" minds), but it does not work for others. However, a more general metaphysical definition of intentionality implies phenomenological pointing beyond itself by representing, or standing for, other things (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intentionality). So, for example, an atom can become a molecule (with help of other atoms of course) through intentionality.

Comparing people's consciousness to rocks is like comparing it to consciousness of crystals (Lattice). The difference between these two levels of consciousness is an infinity to the power of 4 (equate an infinity to a level of the model or a reality). This is how I calculate this: Particle is dimension zero, so from all levels above it, one must subtract 1 to find a proper level of consciousness. (One can also then divide by 2 in order to find a physical dimension). Hence Crystal is on proper level 2 (since it's on the right side, it's more like 2.5, but we round it down for simplicity) and Body is on proper level 6. Quite a difference in consciousness! And yes, if we ignore any awareness or consciousness, we merely regress into (physical) identities.

Concerning information, it's like intentionality for me as well. It lets the elements connect to each other by their own free intentions. I use intention and intentionality interchangeably because I believe in the following: In order to be something, one has to be it already. Hence intention = intentionality.

What I said about consciousness was metaphorical from the start. This is how I tried to explain consciousness to someone who, in my view, did not believe in it, so I misunderstood them. I explain my complete view of consciousness by mere motion. Engine is a metaphor, and the rest only pertains to humans. However, one can use minds, brains, and neurons as metaphors for entities outside of human bodies (that's an example of my metaphysical thinking).

 

Telepathy is outside of this discussion, so let's leave it to a realm of belief (although I advise you to read more on Sheldrake's work, since he had done a lot more experiments on humans and dogs and some had been repeated). The Internet, though, is a communication of a nascent global society and would pertain more to this topic.

[Ilya Startsev]

The law of identity is an absolute.

logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

Since you've named your brand of social subjectivism, Faith-Logic (not Faith-Sophistry), please reconcile your contradictory statements.

They are reconciled. There is white, grey, and black, or any three of anything. The problem here is that I am seemingly unable to explain it to you. Let's give it a try again by you giving me a contradiction that you find in my model.

 

Are you excluding North thinking? and South thinking? As for the law of identify, when you, Ilya, complete the law of identity, it may not translate to anything useful to anyone else.

 

Philosophy does not have to be "all-inclusive." Hotel accommodations are best when they're all-inclusive. Philosophy merely has to be right. Ilya, you wish for others to exalt you as a brilliant philosopher. I don't believe it is merely a matter of you being naive or that English is your second language. You have a serious self-esteem problem. You are desperate. Yogi Berra was a better philosopher, hell, Daffy Duck was a better philosopher. If you really want to become a cult leader some day, maybe we should include the thinking of Charles Manson, or Reverend Jim Jones. However, I seriously doubt if anyone identifying themselves as Objectivist would share a glass of Kool-Aid with the likes of you.

I think otherwise. Western and Eastern are metaphors that stand for contrasting and indefinite. Philosophy is a love of wisdom, and wisdom is "all-inclusive." A great example is Socrates, who went wherever he could to embrace everyone's views and assimilate them into his own. Philosophy is universal, science, on the other hand, is quite fragmented. Philosophy is about being right transcendentally as well as physically. This is a true philosophy, not that science-worship that is thought to be philosophy today. Objectivist philosophy has that hope of overcoming soulless and materialistically extreme science of today, and it's the reason I am on these forums. I am a Socratic philosopher, not scientist-imitator because I stand on my own ground. Hence, please do not call me pseudo-scientist or something like that.

 

I do not wish you to exalt me as a brilliant philosopher. I exalt myself as a brilliant philosopher and do not care about what others think of me or my philosophy unless I find a way to integrate it. I want or need no fame or riches. I have no name on my philosophy and will never "patent" it because I want it to be global and shared. I want people to know that there is this view in the world. Whether people want to embrace it or shun it is their right, but I will fight for it until my death. This will be my "two cents" I throw into the collective savings box of humanity

 

Let us suppose the author of these words had a mental capacity comparable to the space between our sun and the Alpha Centauri star system:

 

Now let's suppose we could interpret this by using the thought process of mice. How long would it take to recognize the lunacy at work?

Ok, here is the answer: an infinity to the power of 4. But, first, mice do not have a formed mind like humans do, but they are still on the level of Body, so this is of course a gross approximation, as you intended. If mice would form minds like humans did (which would take many millions of years of evolution, as you know in biology), then it would take the same infinities as for humans to exist on the level of Star--Nebula.

If you want me to be more specific in this ludicrous experiment of yours, be my guest and ask. Otherwise, let's be more serious about this. When humans say that they hear the voice of God (Source in my model) they are actually hearing their own voice that is trying to reach the level of Source--Vacuum. That is a jump of 6 levels. Now look at how much violence and how much wrong had been done by those religious fanatics throughout history. If you want to say that one Race is above all others (fragmenting Race--World level), then you have Hitler and his like to cause havoc in history. That's a jump of merely 2 levels. If you are like Lenin, then you completely ignore Body--Environment level and jump one level. See results and violence. Does the picture seem clearer now? No need to jump levels. If people only take APEIRON as the truth and jump a whopping 9 levels of evolution, the world will be destroyed and humankind will never shake off its self-destruction. Hence we have to work within the model, but never stop, as life is a constant battle toward an always greater future.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

You challenge me to "integrate Objectivism with Marxism".  Okay; integrate how?

 

Marxism says that there are two types of people, the "haves" and the "have-nots" and that the thoughts and actions of any given person are determined by their socioeconomic status.

Objectivism says that there is fundamentally one type of person, "man", and that all of his thoughts and actions are dictated by the things he accepts as true and how he feels about them (and that at any given moment his conscious mind has the veto power to think- or not think).

 

That's a logical contradiction.  And not only is a factual contradiction, but epistemological; if I attempt to resolve it, their respective methods for such contradict.

Objectivism says that I should think critically and accept nothing less from myself than the truth.  Marxism says that since I was born proletariat, I'm compelled to accept whatever the rich tell me to think.

 

You can't integrate that.  But since, from a brief survey of this thread you still seem determined, I'll play doctor Frankenstein for a moment.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Marxism and Objectivism both accept (as far as I know) reality to exist, so let's start there.

 

In Marxobjectism, reality exists for the "haves" but not so much for the "have-nots" who are prey to the consumerist illusion.  Unless, of course, the have-nots happen to be unfairly endowed with some special sort of perception (which accounts for all self-made men throughout history).

This special sort of perception would naturally be the mark of the "haves" since it's a source of immense power [over the little people].

Now, this special reality-perception couldn't be explained socioeconomically, so some element of volition might need to be incorporated.  Don't worry, though; we can fix that by declaring that the "haves" use their volition to keep everyone else enslaved by the illusion of determinist capitalism.  No proletariat would question it, right?

 

Now that we've covered the capitalist illusion, reality and reality-perception, we can move on to morality, which is where we hit our first 'real' obstacle.  See, Objectivism is driven at its core by a fearless quest into the future, where Marxism is motivated by a fundamental exhaustion towards life. 

Since those are polar opposites, we have to resolve them.  How?  Well, reality-perception is the method of the "haves" and we already know they're evil (by definition), while the only alternative is to deliberately lie to ourselves.

But since anything I do isn't my fault anyway (it's the "haves") I suppose that straightens it all out; the purpose of morality is to ease the suffering of the "have-nots".

 

Now, since the capitalist illusion is real and reality-perception is evil and "good" is defined as the absence of pain, we can staple some "individual rights" onto the top and call it individualism.

And if one were to do that, hide it beneath a screen of obscure and senseless vocabulary and flaunt it around as if it were worth something, we'd have precisely replicated Marx's method.

 

Now, looking at the original demand to wave my wand and "integrate", do you see what it was a confession of?

[bluecherry]

"You are overlapping with the space of the house, and thus share a part that is both you and the house."

I'm in the space that is inside the house, but I am not literally overlapping with the walls, the floor, the roof, etc. Thus, me =/= house, house =/= me.

 

"Vacuum is not 'nothing' only in realities which we do not yet understand. Just because we can bring something out of vacuum does not mean that we are actually bringing it from out reality."

If there's something there =/= nothing for as long as stuff is there. That's all that matters here. At least, I think it is . . . I am a little foggy on what we started discussing that the vacuum and nothing were significant to.

 

"Yellow light is neither green nor red but both,"

No, it isn't. Not as long as what we mean by green and red is "go" and "do not go" respectively. All yellow is is a form of "go". An advance warning that red (do not go) will be coming does not mean red (do not go) is already here.

 

The rest of that post, I asked you to define exactly what you mean by "greedy"/"greed". I cannot proceed until and unless this is done

[Eiuol]

Your definition of intentionality is fine for humans (those with formed "literal" minds), but it does not work for others. However, a more general metaphysical definition of intentionality implies phenomenological pointing beyond itself by representing, or standing for, other things (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intentionality). So, for example, an atom can become a molecule (with help of other atoms of course) through intentionality.

The definition you got isn't for the concept intentionality, it's for the concept intentional. The definition I got is from SEP, which is good for philosophy definitions. Intentional action is incidentally a form of intentionality, but it's not the same, so I gave you the definition given by the person who came up with the concept. In any case, I'm talking about states of mind, so of course it wouldn't work for atoms! That's the point - atoms don't have a power to be about or represent anything. I don't mean represent an idea to you, I mean the power so that the atom itself can think about states of affairs. If atoms can't represent anything, they can't *intend* to act.

You *can't* use intention and intentionality interchangably. That is equivocation and that's a problem. I'm trying to explain that as much physics you're explaining and really dense theory, you're missing important ideas that philosophers have thought about in recent history. Seriously, behaviorism fails because it doesn't take into account that animals need to represent states of affairs to act. You're just repeating those errors, but for some reason you haven't said consciousness is unreal. That's the only difference.

Plasmatic, on Searle's view, why can't information theory work outside a mental context?

[Repairman]

Harrison Danneskjold, thank you for the forthright observation of the lead topic. As a generalization, I tend to agree to some of your points.

 

You challenge me to "integrate Objectivism with Marxism".  Okay; integrate how?

You can't integrate that.  But since, from a brief survey of this thread you still seem determined, I'll play doctor Frankenstein for a moment.

If you page back to the beginnings of this thread, you will see your position repeated many times. Unfortunately, this has turned into the graffiti wall for a certain Mad Russian, bent on the mission of creating his own religion. For nine pages and going, any plausible intelligent engagement has been interrupted with his lush posting of delusional poetry and prose. Any attempt to seriously address the central theme adds his madness. If you doubt my sincerity, here is a recent sample:

 

They are reconciled. There is white, grey, and black, or any three of anything. The problem here is that I am seemingly unable to explain it to you. Let's give it a try again by you giving me a contradiction that you find in my model.

 

I think otherwise. Western and Eastern are metaphors that stand for contrasting and indefinite. Philosophy is a love of wisdom, and wisdom is "all-inclusive." A great example is Socrates, who went wherever he could to embrace everyone's views and assimilate them into his own. Philosophy is universal, science, on the other hand, is quite fragmented. Philosophy is about being right transcendentally as well as physically. This is a true philosophy, not that science-worship that is thought to be philosophy today. Objectivist philosophy has that hope of overcoming soulless and materialistically extreme science of today, and it's the reason I am on these forums. I am a Socratic philosopher, not scientist-imitator because I stand on my own ground. Hence, please do not call me pseudo-scientist or something like that.

 

I do not wish you to exalt me as a brilliant philosopher. I exalt myself as a brilliant philosopher and do not care about what others think of me or my philosophy unless I find a way to integrate it. I want or need no fame or riches. I have no name on my philosophy and will never "patent" it because I want it to be global and shared. I want people to know that there is this view in the world. Whether people want to embrace it or shun it is their right, but I will fight for it until my death. This will be my "two cents" I throw into the collective savings box of humanity

 

Ok, here is the answer: an infinity to the power of 4. But, first, mice do not have a formed mind like humans do, but they are still on the level of Body, so this is of course a gross approximation, as you intended. If mice would form minds like humans did (which would take many millions of years of evolution, as you know in biology), then it would take the same infinities as for humans to exist on the level of Star--Nebula.

If you want me to be more specific in this ludicrous experiment of yours, be my guest and ask. Otherwise, let's be more serious about this. When humans say that they hear the voice of God (Source in my model) they are actually hearing their own voice that is trying to reach the level of Source--Vacuum. That is a jump of 6 levels. Now look at how much violence and how much wrong had been done by those religious fanatics throughout history. If you want to say that one Race is above all others (fragmenting Race--World level), then you have Hitler and his like to cause havoc in history. That's a jump of merely 2 levels. If you are like Lenin, then you completely ignore Body--Environment level and jump one level. See results and violence. Does the picture seem clearer now? No need to jump levels. If people only take APEIRON as the truth and jump a whopping 9 levels of evolution, the world will be destroyed and humankind will never shake off its self-destruction. Hence we have to work within the model, but never stop, as life is a constant battle toward an always greater future.

[Repairman]

Ilya, only you would not recognize a notorious cult-leader, and my comparison of his works to your dreams. This is in response to a comment I made about the late great cult-leader, L Ron Hubbard, creator of Scientology:

 

Yes, but his fiction is very unrealistic. The reality I choose is Body--Environment that is connected to all other realities.

 

 

If anything you've written here, on this thread, were taken seriously by any one, they should know that Scientology exists, and that it is an option for them. Otherwise, they could wait for Ilya's Self-Dictatorship of Faith-Logic.

[Eiuol]

Any attempt to seriously address the central theme adds his madness. If you doubt my sincerity, here is a recent sample:

The point is to talk about it, and a lot of the time it takes a while to persuade someone away from an idea. Personally, I can get where he's coming from, so I engage and talk about it. Don't have to make a big to-do about someone being wrong, sometimes you'll get nothing out of a conversation so it's better to do anything else.

[Repairman]

Eiuol, if Ilya were talking about suicide, I would agree with you. He may have value. But his constant refrain in: "I'm right, because I believe it!" Do you really believe any of his "theories," and don't exclude any of the truly bizarre concepts his may have recanted? He exhibits an ingrained convict that everyone in the world is confused, and he, Ilya, is the only one who can lead them to "The Truth."

 

The point is to talk about it, and a lot of the time it takes a while to persuade someone away from an idea. Personally, I can get where he's coming from, so I engage and talk about it. Don't have to make a big to-do about someone being wrong, sometimes you'll get nothing out of a conversation so it's better to do anything else.

May I suggest that if you don't want others to comment on the insane and uproarious content of this open forum, perhaps you could co-respond in private email exchanges.

[Eiuol]

I don't mind you posting, I just figure you have better ways to spend your time.

[Repairman]

Among my minor means of amusement, I take up discourse with jabbering nut-jobs, for the purpose of exposing their misguided notions. Improving our society includes discovering the truth, exposing fraud, and reserving fantasy for fiction, not serious discourse.

[Ilya Startsev]

Marxism and Objectivism both accept (as far as I know) reality to exist, so let's start there.

 

In Marxobjectism, reality exists for the "haves" but not so much for the "have-nots" who are prey to the consumerist illusion.  Unless, of course, the have-nots happen to be unfairly endowed with some special sort of perception (which accounts for all self-made men throughout history).

This special sort of perception would naturally be the mark of the "haves" since it's a source of immense power [over the little people].

Now, this special reality-perception couldn't be explained socioeconomically, so some element of volition might need to be incorporated.  Don't worry, though; we can fix that by declaring that the "haves" use their volition to keep everyone else enslaved by the illusion of determinist capitalism.  No proletariat would question it, right?

 

Now that we've covered the capitalist illusion, reality and reality-perception, we can move on to morality, which is where we hit our first 'real' obstacle.  See, Objectivism is driven at its core by a fearless quest into the future, where Marxism is motivated by a fundamental exhaustion towards life. 

Since those are polar opposites, we have to resolve them.  How?  Well, reality-perception is the method of the "haves" and we already know they're evil (by definition), while the only alternative is to deliberately lie to ourselves.

But since anything I do isn't my fault anyway (it's the "haves") I suppose that straightens it all out; the purpose of morality is to ease the suffering of the "have-nots".

 

Now, since the capitalist illusion is real and reality-perception is evil and "good" is defined as the absence of pain, we can staple some "individual rights" onto the top and call it individualism.

And if one were to do that, hide it beneath a screen of obscure and senseless vocabulary and flaunt it around as if it were worth something, we'd have precisely replicated Marx's method.

 

Now, looking at the original demand to wave my wand and "integrate", do you see what it was a confession of?

I do not differentiate between "have"s and "have-not"s (they are a dynamic), but what I take from Marxism is the belief in Society. Let Society be undefined until we find what suits both individualists and collectivists. This is the new direction of this thread. What an individual strives for is wealth. What a collectivist strives for is a healthy society. The unresolved conflict is between wealth and health. Please, refer to the pivotal post #194 for more on this before we continue our discussions of integration.

 

"You are overlapping with the space of the house, and thus share a part that is both you and the house."

I'm in the space that is inside the house, but I am not literally overlapping with the walls, the floor, the roof, etc. Thus, me =/= house, house =/= me.

 

"Vacuum is not 'nothing' only in realities which we do not yet understand. Just because we can bring something out of vacuum does not mean that we are actually bringing it from out reality."

If there's something there =/= nothing for as long as stuff is there. That's all that matters here. At least, I think it is . . . I am a little foggy on what we started discussing that the vacuum and nothing were significant to.

 

"Yellow light is neither green nor red but both,"

No, it isn't. Not as long as what we mean by green and red is "go" and "do not go" respectively. All yellow is is a form of "go". An advance warning that red (do not go) will be coming does not mean red (do not go) is already here.

 

The rest of that post, I asked you to define exactly what you mean by "greedy"/"greed". I cannot proceed until and unless this is done

The space inside the house is a part of the house, and you are a part of that space. Let's first differentiate natural and artificial environments. Humans have a lot more entering their bodies from the natural environment, interaction is greater, and evolution there is possible. The artificial environment cuts humans from the natural one by providing secondary protection. Humans lose themselves in the artificial environments and either interact with nature indirectly through secondary materials that carpenters get from stores or through technological devices. To draw a parallel: imagine a particle inside an atom. It can either be a free radical particle or it can join atom's particles. The same is true of humans in their environments. They can either be free from environment (which leads to transhumanism) or a part of it.

So, when there is the yellow light, do you not feel like you should be stopping when you speed up? If you do, then this is an evidence that yellow also means "to stop." Ask older people how they view the yellow light. Here is how my grandpa defined the yellow light: "get ready to stop." Here is the rule of the road: "According to the law, every driver has to stop at a yellow light unless he or she is too close to the intersection to stop safely" (http://www.driversedguru.com/driving-articles/drivers-ed-extras/what-to-do-when-the-light-turns-yellow/). Hence yellow is a form of both "go" and "not go."

I defined greed as "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions." You missed a part of my reply.

 

The definition you got isn't for the concept intentionality, it's for the concept intentional. The definition I got is from SEP, which is good for philosophy definitions. Intentional action is incidentally a form of intentionality, but it's not the same, so I gave you the definition given by the person who came up with the concept. In any case, I'm talking about states of mind, so of course it wouldn't work for atoms! That's the point - atoms don't have a power to be about or represent anything. I don't mean represent an idea to you, I mean the power so that the atom itself can think about states of affairs. If atoms can't represent anything, they can't *intend* to act.

You *can't* use intention and intentionality interchangably. That is equivocation and that's a problem. I'm trying to explain that as much physics you're explaining and really dense theory, you're missing important ideas that philosophers have thought about in recent history. Seriously, behaviorism fails because it doesn't take into account that animals need to represent states of affairs to act. You're just repeating those errors, but for some reason you haven't said consciousness is unreal. That's the only difference.

Plasmatic, on Searle's view, why can't information theory work outside a mental context?

Ok, yes, I see how atoms will not have intentionality. In fact, intentionality is defined as a human characteristic. But how is it that atoms form molecules? They must be doing it without intentionality but by using some other form of consciousness of which we are not aware.

I appreciate you pointing out my inadequacies in philosophy. I am sure there will be some, since I am not as knowledgeable as you in this topic. Let me explain some other forms of consciousness in my view, so maybe you can find more errors. Let's examine the operation of our bodies that is not consciously controlled by our minds. For example, digestion is controlled by the digestive system, which perpetuates its own complex wave frequencies through the interstitial cells of Cajal. We are not conscious of it, but how can it work if it is not conscious at least of its own processes? The same can be said of any organism, entity, or even a body of another human being of whose consciousness we are not aware. We become aware of others' consciousness when we can identify with them. But what happens if we cannot? It does not mean that we can never identify with them. We are still in the process of understanding the nature of consciousness, and science is really helping with it. (Thank God for science! )

 

Harrison Danneskjold, thank you for the forthright observation of the lead topic. As a generalization, I tend to agree to some of your points.

 

If you page back to the beginnings of this thread, you will see your position repeated many times. Unfortunately, this has turned into the graffiti wall for a certain Mad Russian, bent on the mission of creating his own religion. For nine pages and going, any plausible intelligent engagement has been interrupted with his lush posting of delusional poetry and prose. Any attempt to seriously address the central theme adds his madness. If you doubt my sincerity, here is a recent sample:

Beautiful words, Repairman, as usual. I commend your skill of writing. Although I should realize your attempts to thwart me, I am still inclined to point out to your readers that I attempt to understand your point of view, but also share with you my own, since I also have a stance on everything like Objectivists do. What you consider madness is merely a conflict of our points of view. That's what we are here for: to integrate them. I have abandoned Marx, so the integration is really of Objectivism and my Faith-Logic, as you correctly assessed. It is beneficial for both sides and will make them stronger once integrated. Calling names will not help in this.

 

Ilya, only you would not recognize a notorious cult-leader, and my comparison of his works to your dreams. This is in response to a comment I made about the late great cult-leader, L Ron Hubbard, creator of Scientology:

 

If anything you've written here, on this thread, were taken seriously by any one, they should know that Scientology exists, and that it is an option for them. Otherwise, they could wait for Ilya's Self-Dictatorship of Faith-Logic.

Scientology is insane, but even there are some interesting ideas. The problem of this discussion is that I am not an expert on Scientology, so I cannot tell you more about it or how it relates to our points of view.

 

Among my minor means of amusement, I take up discourse with jabbering nut-jobs, for the purpose of exposing their misguided notions. Improving our society includes discovering the truth, exposing fraud, and reserving fantasy for fiction, not serious discourse.

The problem with your belief, Repairman, is that you are determined to expose my so-called "misguided notions," but you are unable to convince me of your belief in the wrongness of my view. Instead, you keep thinking that I misunderstand you while you yourself do not want to understand me. Hence it will be ever repeating, so I advise you to take a break from my "open forum" threads and come back whenever you are ready to discuss these ideas on equal grounds. I am glad that some members, especially Eiuol and bluecherry, understand this.

[Repairman]

Eioul, I may ask the same question to you:

 

I don't mind you posting, I just figure you have better ways to spend your time.

Directly to the point, I enjoy the forum; I enjoy writing. It relaxes and entertains me. This is a forum where people of a common interest meet and exchange their thoughts and, occasional, some information regarding an interesting topic. That common interest is Objectivism, and all matters related to Ayn Rand, her works, and philosophical approaches to current affairs in general. The title heading of this particular threat reads: Integrating Objectivism with Marxism.

While the topic of political philosophy now bears little relation to the subjects being discussed, the title heading will drawn attention from those interested in political philosophy. However, as I, and other, have discovered, this thread has degenerated into nearly ten pages of bedlam. The originator and primary contributor has not only recanted his statements about integrating Objectivism with Marxism, he insists on fielding answers and explanations to some magical-mystery ideology of his own design.

 

Eiuol, I realize you have humored Ilya on many postings. I am not attempting to analyze you. But do you honestly think self-identified Objectivists and other rational people should be prevented from making opposition and criticism, when, 1) this is a forum for Objectivists, 2) Ilya clearly has not made much more than a superficial study of Rand and Marx, when that should have been his first priority?

Granted, my earlier comments were a bit harsh, and I can't promise you a less acerbic approach in the future, but if you look even earlier in this thread, my comments were quite respectful and constructive.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Repairman

[Ilya Startsev]

Here is a quote I liked from "The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility: Second Version" by Walter Benjamin: "The ancient truth expressed by Heraclitus [the first dialectician], that those who are awake have a world in common while each sleeper has a world of his own, has been invalidated by film [and I would think the Internet]--and less by depicting the dream world itself than by creating figures of collective dream, such as the globe-encircling Mickey Mouse."

[Eiuol]

 

 But do you honestly think self-identified Objectivists and other rational people should be prevented from making opposition and criticism,

I don't think that. I responded to you without putting on my mod hat - I'm sure even Ilya grants the bizarre appearance of his ideas. The discussion is even related to the thread title still. I notice a lot of Hegelian type of thinking on Ilya's part, which is where Marxism built from.

[Repairman]

It doesn't alter the fact that commentary here is going to focus on political philosophy. And as bizarre as it is, Faith-Logic has taken over this thread. I don't think Ilya is aware of how strange it all appears.

 

I'm sure even Ilya grants the bizarre appearance of his ideas. The discussion is even related to the thread title still. I notice a lot of Hegelian type of thinking on Ilya's part, which is where Marxism built from.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Repairman

[Ilya Startsev]

It is a strange thread, indeed, but, as I said before, it's a challenge. If you would rather prefer nonchallenging content--well, I cannot help here. You also need to realize how challenging Ayn Rand's works are. I am still in search for an adviser for my thesis, since seemingly everyone at my university is opposed to her challenge.

Also, I would like to discuss with you Disney's cartoon Pocahontas. It is dreamy, but it has interesting qualities of individualist and collectivist integration on the grounds of unconditional love.

[softwareNerd]

...I'm sure even Ilya grants the bizarre appearance of his ideas.

"Appearance"?

[Repairman]

I am neither an expert on Scientology nor Faith-Logic, neither would I wish to be. Both are reject objective reality.

 

 

Scientology is insane, but even there are some interesting ideas. The problem of this discussion is that I am not an expert on Scientology, so I cannot tell you more about it or how it relates to our points of view.

 

 

But the very idea of considering either intellectual would comparable to accepting an invitation to have tea with the Mad Hatter.

 

 

Beautiful words, Repairman, as usual. I commend your skill of writing. Although I should realize your attempts to thwart me, I am still inclined to point out to your readers that I attempt to understand your point of view, but also share with you my own, since I also have a stance on everything like Objectivists do. What you consider madness is merely a conflict of our points of view. That's what we are here for: to integrate them. I have abandoned Marx, so the integration is really of Objectivism and my Faith-Logic, as you correctly assessed. It is beneficial for both sides and will make them stronger once integrated. Calling names will not help in this.

 

I accept your gracious compliment for my writing, however, I will continue my attempts to thwart you until you provide a clear and comprehensive argument. So far, this has proved to be farce on an infinite scale. If in fact you understand my view, you find I have no conflict. Only conflict with you. My argument is merely commentary on what I view as unmitigated fraud. When one has a conflicted argument, when one uses subjectivity as argument, when one faces a conundrum, one's premises are in error. Check your premises.

 

Indeed, the "Mad Russian" comment was a bit over-the-top. I will try to refrain myself in the future. But you do seem to boast quite a bit about the achievements of the Soviet Union, and Russians in general, as if you had something to do with their accomplishments by virtue of "being Russian." No one will blame you personally for atrocities committed by Russians, as long as you likewise don't try to take credit for their achievements.

 

So, integrate what ever you can. Don't let me stop you. But remember: you can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.