Integrating Objectivism and Marxism

[Ilya Startsev]

theestevearnold:

With all contexts being the same, except your relationship to the person, do you feel equal compassion for all people, whether you like them or not?

I feel compassion for people or expressions whenever I believe in them. Compassion for me is an experience I feel when inner tears put pressure on my eyes and heart's beating is quickened. It can be something depressing, but it does not have to be. It can be compassion over others' happiness or wisdom, or even a well put phrase.

Eiuol:

extremeness in terms of beyond a middle ground is not a problem, as long as it does not contradict reality

It contradicts my view of reality. I feel and know that any extreme is a bad thing. Name me an extreme that was actually good (besides Objectivism ).
 

how did you get from one's values to a global society?

Here is a paradox: am I selfless if I don't care about others or am I selfish if I value Society more than myself? Here is how I put it: my ego is stretchable, so I can cover the world. The idea is context. You can read my first autobiographical essay about it in contrast to Rand's experience: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7pOANzX5TRnTmpGRmhjVGNUWkk/edit.
 

people can't act for any end if they never had a drop of awareness about what they "really" acted for

Awareness is evolutionary scope. Our life is all about acquiring this awareness, and there is all the time in the world to acquire more of it. As long as people are not invincibly ignorant, this growth of awareness should work out.
 

In several of your posts, I haven't seen any sense that you believe consciousness is any "aboutness" to it, namely that it can't be about wanting or working towards an end or value.

This keeps coming up due to some misunderstanding, probably, so let's try to clear it up. Are you talking about a type of personal awareness that is outside of one's physical body? Think about a dialectical continuum with 100% on one side and 100% of the opposite on another side. Let's divide those percent by 100 to make them into smaller numbers and add signs for clarity of difference between concentrations (keep in mind that they are still percentages). Now, look at our level: there is (linear) bodily consciousness (+1), some transitive consciousness (+0.75, -0.25), indifferent awareness (+0.5, -0.5), some transitive consciousness (+0.25, -0.75), and (nonlinear) environmental consciousness (-1). The continuum is infinite for all intents and purposes. It is also physically manifest. Do any of these parts fit your view? If not, maybe you are onto something I am missing. I am very interested in your analysis.
 

I bring this up again because the sharing you suppose doesn't seem to even exist.

But it's there (in my explanations) for all to see, no? Are you trying to put this sharing into a different category of consciousness? It's hard to understand where you are coming from since I had no psychology (other than 101) or sociology courses, so please be more specific by providing examples.
 

Harmony does not depend upon shared values.

No, but I am talking about harmony that results from them. Think this way: first "same purpose and future goals" then "harmony." It's a causation.
 

We can also have harmony if we have an identical goal such as happiness, that may be a way that harmony needs agreement, but we don't need a "grand" goal like "Global Unified Society".

Then there is no evolution on individual level. Is it just happiness that people need? Maybe they simply want to become cyborgs to be "happy," what then? For me, happiness is way too conventional. If it's bound by wealth and economics, then it's another bog like religion.

[bluecherry]

"With all contexts being the same, except your relationship to the person, do you feel equal compassion for all people, whether you like them or not?"

The bolded is a key piece of Steve's question that your answer hasn't addressed.

 

"Name me an extreme that was actually good."

Revolutionary War (the war where the United States won their independence from England), abolitionism, wiping smallpox out by vaccinting so many people all over the world, surgery in general, I hear Steve Jobs was rather extreme in the conditions and demands he had for his company's products and employees, et cetera.

 

Also, side note, your position of absolutely always seeking a middleground is itself an extreme.

 

"am I selfless if I don't care about others or am I selfish if I value Society more than myself?"

Neither one is necessarily a right answer. The second is always incorrect, but I'd say it's theoretically possible atleast for a situation to exist where there are no other good people around as far as one can tell, thus at least in theory the first one could be correct. The first option is most likely to be true though, that somebody would be passing up a lot of potential positives for their own life by being indifferent to absolutely every other person. Main thing is, you've set up a false alternative here. Thee two things are not necessarily true if the other is false and there are other options.

 

"Awareness is evolutionary scope."

1) What? 2) That doesn't show any immediate relevance to the quote that you put right before it.

 

"It's hard to understand where you are coming from since I had no psychology (other than 101) or sociology courses, so please be more specific by providing examples."

You don't need to have any psychology or sociology classes to make a statement that something like what you've been proposing doesn't suggest. Until and unless their is evidence in favor of something existing, the default position is that it doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on one who says something does exist to provide initial evidence in favor of the existence of something. Then somebody who still contends it doesn't exist would have to show how the evidence is flawed to support their own position. So, first we would need you to provide evidence that such a thing does exist before we can get into much of anything specific.

 

"Think this way: first 'same purpose and future goals' then 'harmony.' It's a causation."

Perhaps true, however, if there are alternative ways such harmony can be had then (supposing we've already established that such harmony is definitely worth having) you would need to support why your particular method of gaining it is the best one.

 

"Then there is no evolution on individual level."

1) What kind of evolution are we talking here? 2) What is the problem with a lack of such an evolution?

 

"Is it just happiness that people need?"

We need food, water, and shelter too of course, though I'd doubt we could gain happiness without having those things first.

 

"Maybe they simply want to become cyborgs to be 'happy,' . . ."

How would becoming cyborgs lead to being happy? The fact that you have quote marks around that word also suggests that what you have in mind would not actually be happiness anyway.

 

"For me, happiness is way too conventional."

Alright, I know a lot of conventions suck, but sometimes there's actually a good reason a convention arises. Washing your hands before eating for another example. Being conventional alone is a terrible reason to reject something. Also, there's plenty of other stuff out there to get your novelty kicks from.

 

I skipped the "aboutness" part since I haven't been following that part of the discussion enough to say much about that.

 

Earlier somebody asked if you think privacy should be banned and you folowed with asking if compassion should be banned. It's entirely possible to have both privacy and compassion, but furthermore, while privacy could be attempted to be banned, it's not even possible to try to ban compassion anyway. Privacy is a state that is very action dependent whereas compassion is an emotion. Thus far at least, I don't think we've got the ability to render a particular feeling from being unable to work since it ll takes place internally, unlike privacy which depends on external conditions a lot.

 

[/answeringotherpeople'sstuff]

[Nicky]

It contradicts my view of reality. I feel and know that any extreme is a bad thing. Name me an extreme that was actually good (besides Objectivism ).

Exactly half of all extremes are good.

[Repairman]

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."-Barry Goldwater

[bluecherry]

". . . am I selfless if I don't care about others or am I selfish if I value Society more than myself?"

"Neither one is necessarily a right answer. The second is always incorrect, but I'd say it's theoretically possible atleast for a situation to exist where there are no other good people around as far as one can tell, thus at least in theory the first one could be correct."

Oops. I think I typed that wrong. It should say "at least in theory the first one could be incorrect."

[Ilya Startsev]

I am apologizing for floating on a surface in some commentaries or potentially ignoring interesting ones. The complex depth, amount, and radically different views make it difficult for me to answer (or even simultaneously keep in my mind) all the ongoing discussions. Please be patient and bear with me. I am wagering to understand and reach the greatest clarity in all of comments and discussions here. Leave none behind, however small or seemingly insignificant they are. We will have to dissect them as much as possible.

 

bluecherry (Welcome back!):

"With all contexts being the same, except your relationship to the person, do you feel equal compassion for all people, whether you like them or not?"
The bolded is a key piece of Steve's question that your answer hasn't addressed.

I am not sure how to address it since I neither feel equal compassion for everyone nor familiar compassion for anyone, but I do feel compassion depending on circumstances.
 

"Name me an extreme that was actually good."
Revolutionary War (the war where the United States won their independence from England), abolitionism, wiping smallpox out by vaccinting so many people all over the world, surgery in general, I hear Steve Jobs was rather extreme in the conditions and demands he had for his company's products and employees, et cetera. [...] Also, side note, your position of absolutely always seeking a middleground is itself an extreme.

Revolutionary War is an interesting case, but since England was in a despotic regime, it was good that Americans broke away toward freedom. None of the rest seem like extremes to me. Even the civil war in 1861 was good in as far as integration and cultural tolerance goes. Remember that everything can be broken down into smaller extremes, whether good or bad, so, yes, I now know that I should have mentioned that there were fragmenting extremes (bad) and integrating extremes (good). (Look at the model.) I am against the bad ones, or, I should say, I am against people being for them. Yet, the depth of my philosophy allows the descending branch of "evolution," but only for those who understand the intent and reasons behind it. Considering that very few know my philosophy completely, people should stay away from the descending path.
 

"Awareness is evolutionary scope."
1) What? 2) That doesn't show any immediate relevance to the quote that you put right before it.

"people can't act for any end if they never had a drop of awareness about what they "really" acted for"

1) Awareness is not static; it grows as the person matures (hopefully). 2) The relevance to that quote is direct, although inverse. In other words, awareness first, acting second. This is what we are working on here. I am against forcing people to do something of which they are not aware, remember?
 

So, first we would need you to provide evidence that such a thing does exist before we can get into much of anything specific.

I didn't understand what he was asking me.
 

"Then there is no evolution on individual level."
1) What kind of evolution are we talking here? 2) What is the problem with a lack of such an evolution?

1) All aspects of personal growth. 2) Chaos and randomness. I don't know about you, but I don't see much order in today's world (Except, perhaps, the force to pay monetary fines for breaking laws, but it is only economically-centered or job-centered, especially with quota reforms for police officers that were created since the Reagan administration.)
 

We need food, water, and shelter too of course, though I'd doubt we could gain happiness without having those things first.

I am asking for more than happiness, not less.
 

How would becoming cyborgs lead to being happy? The fact that you have quote marks around that word also suggests that what you have in mind would not actually be happiness anyway.

Ask transhumanists on this. They would argue otherwise. Besides there are a lot of scientists and engineers these days who would rather abandon emotions than live with them.
 

Privacy is a state that is very action dependent whereas compassion is an emotion. Thus far at least, I don't think we've got the ability to render a particular feeling from being unable to work since it ll takes place internally, unlike privacy which depends on external conditions a lot.

I felt that we were talking about the privacy of emotions. An expressed emotion is an action (remember we are not just talking about emotions as ideas in one's head) and thus an external condition in addition to an internal one. Privacy of thoughts, on the other hand, is another subject matter.
 

". . . am I selfless if I don't care about others or am I selfish if I value Society more than myself?"

I meant it as a conundrum, but it's interesting how you picked up on it. What I meant to say is that I am neither selfless nor selfish. However, if you want to take that statement literally, then think of "self" as dynamic and phenomenological. So, let me flip it for you, and please excuse the earlier puns, selfish becomes the first one (pure Objectivist), and selfless the second (pure Marxist). I am trying to show that I am neither one, but I am integrating both. Remember the first law of dialectics: unity and conflict of opposites. Also think of Tao and Ying and Yang, as the illustration, in my opinion, is appropriate.

Nicky:

Exactly half of all extremes are good.

I hope that you mean the right side of the model I have shown earlier.

Repairman:

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."-Barry Goldwater

As long as it does not regress into the opposite, which happens quite often if not always (looking time-wise). This nation, in my opinion, has been losing freedoms since the get-go.

[Repairman]

Have you ever seen so many words to say so little?

[Nicky]

 

As long as it does not regress into the opposite, which happens quite often if not always (looking time-wise). This nation, in my opinion, has been losing freedoms since the get-go.

No, it's been losing them since moderation became the new ideal.

[Ilya Startsev]

Have you ever seen so many words to say so little?

This made me laugh!

 

Nicky:

No, it's been losing them since moderation became the new ideal.

The U.S. Constitution is the moderation.

[Ilya Startsev]

A question to all of you: What purpose do you live for?

[Repairman]

I live for my own sake. I take pride in my accomplishments and convictions. If I am not an authority on any particular subject, I won't claim to be. If others wish to inflate their value and authority, I question their claims.

Now that that's out of the way, how do you propose to integrate Marxism with Objectivism, Ilya?

[Ilya Startsev]

I live for my own sake. I take pride in my accomplishments and convictions. If I am not an authority on any particular subject, I won't claim to be. If others wish to inflate their value and authority, I question their claims.

Now that that's out of the way, how do you propose to integrate Marxism with Objectivism, Ilya?

For myself, I already integrated them, and I have already shown this on many occasions and in many different ways. Now, as concerning you, your idea of "self" interests me. It is a metaphysical conception of mind. You use it to integrate your soul and body. You did not like it when I said "calcified reason," and you would not like me to apply this to mind. So, in your perception, mind is an entity that should never change, right? Should it ever grow and learn to become greater? Should it be used for a worldwide business versus a smaller and a more independent one?

[Ilya Startsev]

From Atlas Shrugged: "That was our plan. It was based on the principle of selflessness. It required men to be motivated, not by personal gain, but by love for their brothers." Forced to love. Rand hated being forced to do anything. She calls it "pure evil" and adds: "look at it--remember--and some day you'll find the words to name its essence." The problem is that she found the wrong word for this "essence"--altruism does not mean to be forced to do what's right. Here is a passage from "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Nathaniel Brandon:

Would you believe that sometimes in therapy clients speak to me with guilt of their desire to be helpful and kind to others? I am not talking about manipulative do-gooders. I am talking about persons genuinely motivated by benevolence and good will, but who wonder whether they are "good objectivists."

 

"Have I ever said that charity and help to others is wrong or undesirable?," Rand might demand. No, she hasn't; neither has she spoken very much about their value, beyond declaring that they are not the essence of life -- and of course they are not the essence of life. They are a part of life, however, and sometimes an important part of life, and it is misleading to allow for people to believe otherwise.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[bluecherry]

I'm not entirely clear on what you consider to be "familiar compassion".

 

" . . . but since England was in a despotic regime, it was good that Americans broke away toward freedom."

Why the "but"? And yes, that's exactly my point bringing up the revolutionary war. So, you concede at least one good extreme then?

As for the others, if you don't consider those extreme, then what do you mean by "extreme"?

 

"In other words, awareness first, acting second."

I believe that is the same general direction the person you were objecting to was going. You need to be aware of something before you can act on it, ie, you can't act for something you are unaware of. Consequent of this, somebody else so happening to benefit from something doesn't necessarily mean somebody was acting for the purpose of benefiting that other person.

 

"I didn't understand what he was asking me."

Oh, ok.

 

"Chaos and randomness. I don't know about you, but I don't see much order in today's world"

And what is the problem you see with such a lack of order? Yeah, we're on VERY different views here then. I see a TON of order all over the world. Perhaps I'll need you to elaborate on what your criteria is for something to count as "order" too.

 

"I am asking for more than happiness, not less."

I wasn't trying to say you were asking for less. By what standard would what you want be "more" than happiness and why should people care about such a standard?

 

"I felt that we were talking about the privacy of emotions."

Ah. Well, I suppose the person who asked the question originally would have to answer what he meant.

 

"What I meant to say is that I am neither selfless nor selfish."

So you neither are nor are not selfish. What then would you say is this alleged third option you see yourself fitting into?

 

". . . think of 'self' as dynamic and phenomenological."

Hmm? You lost me here.

 

"Remember the first law of dialectics: unity and conflict of opposites."

ibid

Edited February 5, 2014 by bluecherry

[Repairman]

Altruism: the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

 

For myself, I already integrated them, and I have already shown this on many occasions and in many different ways. Now, as concerning you, your idea of "self" interests me. It is a metaphysical conception of mind. You use it to integrate your soul and body. You did not like it when I said "calcified reason," and you would not like me to apply this to mind. So, in your perception, mind is an entity that should never change, right? Should it ever grow and learn to become greater? Should it be used for a worldwide business versus a smaller and a more independent one?

If altruism is any part of your "faith-logic," or what ever you call it, it negates any possible connection with Objectivism, let alone integration. Really, integrating Objectivism with Marxism? It was a fool's errant from the start. And yet you persist. But you do not persist in a comprehensive explanation of your original theme. Rather, you have been circumventing it, in favor of scatological banter, often mixed with confusing terms, which require even more unnecessary and confusing perspective. If the reason for this thread was to propose some intelligible connection(s) between Rand and Marx, you have failed. If you have sought to project random and unintelligible claims, you have succeeded. How many requests for clarity have you received for your statements? Far too many, I would say. If reason is not your preferred method of epistemology, you are not applying objectivity to your judgements. If reason is flawed, naturally one reconsiders one's premises. One can change, and that begins with changing one's mind. Your convictions of the world fifteen years ago are very likely different than your convictions today. Your reasoning was not "calcified," your premises were flawed. You may likely look back at these writings you've made on the preceding six pages with some embarrassment fifteen years from now. Your reasoning is not "calcified," your premises are flawed. If the fundamental laws of identity do not apply to you, you will continue to confuse others. You say you welcome critics, but you refuse to respond to the criticism, changing the subject instead. You no longer post on another site, after being accused of being a "big-mouth" and a "bubble-head." I will not resort to name-calling. As I stated in my short list of life's purpose, I seek to identify inflated authorities. As a matter of constructive criticism, Ilya, would you really believe the things you've written here if someone else had written them? Be honest with yourself. Be objective.

And why would my idea of "self" interest you? You don't even know me. Before you start analyzing others you've never met, you really ought to study the subject of your analysis. That applies to Objectivism, as well. You seem to have an extremely flawed understanding of it, and I do mean to the extreme.

[Eiuol]

Are you talking about a type of personal awareness that is outside of one's physical body?

Yes. You seem to suggest that there is awareness outside of bodies while the awareness outside of individual bodies as part of, say, a global consciousness of society. So your continuum is between embodied consciousness all the way to a consciousness of the universe outside of your body. The problem is I have no particular reason to say consciousness or even awareness can ever be outside of an individual body, especially since it is impossible to share identical mental states. We can have similar goals, but that doesn't mean we share any thoughts/feelings. Plus, there is no existing mechanism to connect our minds so that they could even possibly integrate into awareness (at least integrated briefly even!). At best, my actions can impact yours, but we are not literally connected. So, the "other" side (the negative) is not something I think can exist, any bit of the negative is not real.

That fits into the discussion on extremes. To get where we are coming from, use that same "dialectical continuum", 100% Object A is on one end, 100% Object Not-A on the other. Those are the extremes. You could be on either end, it depends on your knowledge. There is no "between" being A and not being A. An apple isn't 50% apple and 50% not apple. You could say a new fruit is 50% like an apple and 50% like something else, but it's wrong to take the "middle" where it is an apple but not an apple in the same sense. Basically, anyone should aim for being "extremely correct" because there is only one right answer. Replace those items for "True" and "Not True" and it's the same idea. You can use extreme to convey going off the deep end into irrational thought, but that's really the same as being willfully and extremely wrong.

I didn't understand what he was asking me.

Hopefully I clarified above. I was asking for some evidence for a global/social/collective conscious. The Global Consciousness project seems more like a hypothesis without any evidence yet.

You need to be aware of something before you can act on it, ie, you can't act for something you are unaware of. Consequent of this, somebody else so happening to benefit from something doesn't necessarily mean somebody was acting for the purpose of benefiting that other person.

Yup! That's where I was going. Even more, it means you can't become aware of your "true" intentions after the fact. You won't discover that you had an intent that you were unaware of, as if you were repressing the id's desire to satisfy visceral pleasures.

first law of dialectics: unity and conflict of opposites

I think Ilya is talking about something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis

[Ilya Startsev]

Ok, here goes another of my "rants," as Repairman would say:

 

bluecherry:

"familiar compassion"

I probably meant to say familial.
 

As for the others, if you don't consider those extreme, then what do you mean by "extreme"?

All of the following definitions match my understanding of the word: "farthest from the center or middle," "farthest, utmost, or very far in any direction," "exceeding the bounds of moderation," and "going to the utmost or very great lengths in action, habit, opinion, etc."
 

I believe that is the same general direction the person you were objecting to was going.

Then I wasn't arguing but simply restating the way I see it.
 

Consequent of this, somebody else so happening to benefit from something doesn't necessarily mean somebody was acting for the purpose of benefiting that other person.

Yes, but I think we should at least try reaching for the awareness of the benefits or other consequences that our actions impose upon others.
 

Yeah, we're on VERY different views here then.

I think our main difference is in our comprehension of freedom. I believe that there can be an order that allows freedoms for all. However, since the order would benefit all, these freedoms cannot be excessive, such as violence or any kind of destruction of others who are part of such order. There is always give and take with such freedoms. It's like "social contract," where all people follow rules of the road to be free to go wherever they want. There is freedom, and yet there is order in moderation.
 

By what standard would what you want be "more" than happiness and why should people care about such a standard?

Peace is greater than happiness. And world peace and unity is greater than all.
 

What then would you say is this alleged third option you see yourself fitting into?

As I said before, a self is a dynamic, phenomenological entity whose boundaries are stretchable. This self can be mind, soul, consciousness, awareness, etc. An individual body, however, does not work objectively. Unless it is a body of people, such as a society. I am questioning the kind of consciousness our president has. Is he just a body or can he, metaphysically, be considered a body of people? This, of course, only would work if people love him and see him as the center of society. Otherwise, indifference of people for their leader is a defining reason for not living in a society but by yourself.
 

Hmm? You lost me here.

You don't understand dialectics? Well, here is how I see it: dialectics is a methodology to solve problems in opposition to metaphysics. Metaphysics takes a "problem" (conditionally speaking) and puts it into different contexts to find a solution for it. Dialectics takes a "problem" and finds its opposite to see how the two can be integrated, so there can be no conflict. I found a way to integrate both methodologies. Metaphysics for me is like a metaphor, it is never exactly right, but may be approximately right, like "the possible worlds" idea in philosophy. Dialectics on the other hand finds the exact context and sees all entities as dependent on and inseparable from this context. Rand's metaphysics seems to be bound by a single context (what exists exists) of an individual and nature (commanded to be obeyed), but there is no middle ground. This was probably the question that Eiuol had. I actually think that Objectivist ideology becomes pre-Freudian in this light and impossible, since no conscious connections are found.

Repairman:

It was a fool's errant from the start. And yet you persist.

You completely ignored 2046's post #83. Please, read it carefully.
 

scatological banter

It is unfortunate that you do not take me seriously not because you think that I am playing you for a fool but because I am actually being serious and putting up my whole life's work on these pages.
 

Your reasoning is not "calcified," your premises are flawed.

The same thing I would like to say about Objectivist philosophy. It is sad that Rand learned in the beginning but never after writing her books. And the more she wrote, the more she suffered from her flaws in logic (her "particular method of reasoning or argumentation").
 

If the fundamental laws of identity do not apply to you, you will continue to confuse others.

This is 2400 years old. Do you realize how much we have learned since Aristotle? Have you looked into a contemporary textbook on logic? Why do you wish to be stuck with an ideology that never changes and only includes the scientific progress from Aristotle to Newton (read Branden's article on Rand's views, specifically lack thereof, on modern science)?
 

You say you welcome critics, but you refuse to respond to the criticism, changing the subject instead.

I apologize if I missed something. Please, repeat your criticisms. Do not forget that you missed a lot of what I wrote as well.
 

I seek to identify inflated authorities. As a matter of constructive criticism, Ilya, would you really believe the things you've written here if someone else had written them? Be honest with yourself. Be objective.

First of all, it's really hard to judge one's own original ideas, but I will try. I found no criticism on the elements of the model because those elements were completely objective and found on scientific evidence. Now, as for what happens between those elements (read: extremes) is the problem, as you see it, of my philosophy. I call it faith-logic because there is otherwise no way to connect those elements. And Objectivists do not connect them either because Rand opposed dialectics. She created a fragmented view of reality. Think of free radical particles floating around in a system. Do those particles help or do they help destroy the system as if they were cancer? Without unity, there is death, even if the only unity is based on partially objective faith-logic.
 

You seem to have an extremely flawed understanding of it, and I do mean to the extreme.

In case you didn't realize, most people easily misinterpret Objectivism from the start and start hating it right away. They call it hedonistic and materialistic, which it's not, but this is not evident from the first analysis (as some of my comments on We the Living show). I am the kind of individual who finds more and more about Objectivism and tries to reach its truth, even though it may be so hard.

[Ilya Startsev]

Eiuol:

especially since it is impossible to share identical mental states. We can have similar goals, but that doesn't mean we share any thoughts/feelings.

I choose to believe otherwise. So far I haven't found any conclusive evidence to the contrary.
 

Plus, there is no existing mechanism to connect our minds so that they could even possibly integrate into awareness (at least integrated briefly even!).

There is one: sex (i.e., the good kind that is love).
 

There is no "between" being A and not being A. An apple isn't 50% apple and 50% not apple. You could say a new fruit is 50% like an apple and 50% like something else, but it's wrong to take the "middle" where it is an apple but not an apple in the same sense.

Ah, but the middle is not a specific state. You see, in the middle, it does not matter what concentrations there are as long as they are equal - it can be 50/50 or 100/100 or 300/300 or 33/33. What happens there is beyond any logic or objective reality. It is the kind of flux that happens in the overlapping portions of the opposing magnetic currents. Only here the inner contracts and the outer expands, but there is some sort of vibration. The important thing here also is that, if you noticed, all of levels are made up of extreme elements in maximum contexts, so they are like their own complete realities. Of course, I could still argue on a phenomenological being of an apple, but it's more interesting to put it this way: our bodies consist not only of lower levels but also of fields, cells, liquids, solids, and gases from our environments. So one can then realize that a body can be 50% its own body and 50% a part of environment (this is in the best case scenario, of course; usually it's imbalanced). Another example is smart--stupid. A person can be called smart and (s)he may really be stupid or even become stupid later on and vice versa. People are not discreet entities throughout time but are "events" that constantly change. Physiologically even our bodies are completely replaced by new cells every seven years. They are not the same bodies that we had before in any way, yet we are stuck believing that they are. I am not saying the western way of thinking is wrong. I am saying that it is incomplete and needs to be integrated with the eastern perspective. Objectivism seems to be the greatest concentration of this western-type of thinking.
 

Basically, anyone should aim for being "extremely correct" because there is only one right answer.

If you are speaking of mathematics, then keep in mind that our reality is not only inherently mathematical, but mathematics is imposed on our reality just like language structures. It is not a complete view of the world. If our reality is mathematical, then you'd find an actual infinity in it. However, an actual infinity only exists as a mental construct, and it is never found in our physical reality.
 

Replace those items for "True" and "Not True" and it's the same idea. You can use extreme to convey going off the deep end into irrational thought, but that's really the same as being willfully and extremely wrong.

I am not saying that "True" and "Not True" are subjective, but they are inseparable and must be taken as a single whole. Fragmenting and integrating then becomes a second order of what's right and wrong, but, just so you know, there is a third order of these extremes. However, we still have to reach the second order first. Irrationality is only that which is not yet understood.
 

you can't become aware of your "true" intentions after the fact. You won't discover that you had an intent that you were unaware of, as if you were repressing the id's desire to satisfy visceral pleasures.

Never in your lifetime? Or are you not interested in discovering it?

[Eiuol]

"Never in your lifetime? Or are you not interested in discovering it?"
There is no such thing as an intention a person is unaware of, so it can't be discovered. Or at least, you need to provide reasons that I have intentions that I may be unaware of. Only Freudian psychology seems to entertain that as a possibility.

"Another example is smart--stupid. A person can be called smart and (s)he may really be stupid or even become stupid later on and vice versa."
Can a person be smart and not smart at the same time? I haven't said everything in the world is essentially static, and for Objectivism, the point is that what is true can't also be not true. No entity can be itself and not be itself at a single point in time. Yeah, there is modal logic to talk about uncertainties and possibilities, but even then you can't be certain *and* uncertain at the same time. You can be mistaken and be half-right, but half-right is still wrong, like half-finished paintings are still not finished. Anything else would be doublethink, as Orwell would say.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Eiuol

[bluecherry]

"I probably meant to say familial."

So then what did you mean by "familial compassion"?

 

"farthest from the center or middle," "farthest, utmost, or very far in any direction," "exceeding the bounds of moderation," and "going to the utmost or very great lengths in action, habit, opinion, etc."

How do the things I listed other than the civil war not qualify for these? Also, you didn't answer my other question there looking for confirmation on if you conceded that there was an extreme that was good regarding the revolutionary war example.

 

"Yes, . . ."

Alright, sounds like we're getting somewhere.

" . . . but I think we should at least try reaching for the awareness of the benefits or other consequences that our actions impose upon others."

If something obviously will impact others, we do recomend checking into what kind of impact that will be even when you are acting within the scope of your rights. Going ahead blindly is a good way to end up with results you don't like. However, various actions merit going to different extents in efforts to check into what will happen to others. Spending ages researching any potential, as of yet unforseen consequence of having tomato soup instead of onion soup for lunch is just ridiculously waisting time.

 

"I believe that there can be an order that allows freedoms for all. However, since the order would benefit all, these freedoms cannot be excessive, such as violence or any kind of destruction of others who are part of such order."

First sentence there, I think we'd simply say such order is a particular type of government we support. We wouldn't say there is such a thing as being "too free", but not because we support people being able to go around beating up strangers for kicks or whatever. A person is free to do what they so choose with their own life and their own property. But that's it. It is not exercising one's "freedom" to start forcing other people and their stuff around. That's just despotism. That's trampling on the actual freedom of others. I think a quote related to this sort of thing I see used often is something like, "You're freedom to swing your fist ends at my face." The earlier mentioned government's job is ensuring that people don't start trampling on the freedom of others.

 

By what standard would "peace be greater than happiness" and why should people care about such a standard?

 

"What then would you say is this alleged third option [that is neither selfish nor not selfish] you see yourself fitting into?" <- me

"As I said before, a self is a dynamic, phenomenological entity whose boundaries are stretchable. This self can be mind, soul, consciousness, awareness, etc. An individual body, however, does not work objectively. Unless it is a body of people, such as a society." <-- you

I don't see how this answers my question. However, "An individual body, however, does not work objectively" <-- what makes you say that? And how does a group made up of unobjective stuff secure objectivity?

 

Well, in what little knowledge I do have of dialectics, I'd say that not only do I not understand it but nobody understands it technicaly because it is an inherently incoherent attempted notion.

"Metaphysics takes a 'problem' (conditionally speaking) and puts it into different contexts to find a solution for it. Dialectics takes a 'problem' and finds its opposite to see how the two can be integrated, so there can be no conflict."

Could you perhaps give me an example here of how metaphysics would handle something and then how dialectics would handle that same thing? So far I'm not positive we're talking about the same thing when we say "metaphysics". I do know I've seen a wide variety of things called "metaphysics" before, so I figure I'll check to be sure.

 

"Rand's metaphysics seems to be bound by a single context (what exists exists) of an individual and nature (commanded to be obeyed), but there is no middle ground."

What would such a middle ground look like? In the middle between what and what? Metaphycis in Objectivism I'd say would contain existence as the context everything takes place in and it does hold that in order to change things one has to work with the nature of stuff, not against the nature of stuff, but that's not the totality of what Objectivism has on the topic of metaphysics.

 

"I actually think that Objectivist ideology becomes . . . in this light . . . impossible, since no conscious connections are found."

What kind of conscious connections? Connections between what and what else? How does this make anything in Objectivism impossible?

 

"So far I haven't found any conclusive evidence to the contrary [of it being possible to share identical mental states and thoughts/feelings.]"

You say you don't have evidence in opposition to this. Do you have any evidence to support it though?

 

"Plus, there is no existing mechanism to connect our minds so that they could even possibly integrate into awareness (at least integrated briefly even!)." <-- Eiuol

"There is one: sex (i.e., the good kind that is love)." <-- you

What makes you say this? I've got to say, if there was any obvious such connection during sex, then most of the world should be aware of it by now. If it isn't obvious, then you've got to write more on this than just basically "this does!"

 

I've got enough here for the moment. I'll let other people actually speak for themselves on the rest.

[Ilya Startsev]

Eiuol:

Can a person be smart and not smart at the same time?

Yes, but now you are looking at it internally through a continuum. There is no 100% smart or 100% stupid person; there is always a mix of two. The same for true and not true, but from different perspectives. You are true right now, but you may change your mind and grasp a different truth instead. From this new perspective on the truth, you may see that your previous truth in the past is both true and not true. Do you see where I am coming from?

bluecherry:

So then what did you mean by "familial compassion"?

The same lack of compassion that Rand felt towards her parents.
 

How do the things I listed other than the civil war not qualify for these?

What middle point are they going away from?
 

an extreme that was good regarding the revolutionary war example

It was an integrating extreme - an improvenent upon the English monarchy (feudalism -> capitalism).
 

"Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face."

Excellent quote.
 

The earlier mentioned government's job is ensuring that people don't start trampling on the freedom of others.

I think our view of government is in common here. I think that Leninists confused "owned by the people" (society) with "owned by the government." Government is not the whole society, but only its center. We need to make sure that people in their own groups own the resources, monetary funds, etc., and not the government. The government should only control the military (and draft, if necessary), police and fire departments, and courts, and anything else that others do not want to control, like the post office. If someone wants to invest him/herself, then government should allow privatizing it. Power to the people (society), not the government!
 

By what standard would "peace be greater than happiness" and why should people care about such a standard?

Only children would not understand the importance of peace. The idea here is being content and with peace with one's environment and society. Being a happy person with a lot of enemies who hate one's guts is not perfection, neither is being in an ignorant state of bliss. The standard is self-improvement in the most general sense.
 

What then would you say is this alleged third option [that is neither selfish nor not selfish] you see yourself fitting into?

The alleged third option is unnamed and for now taken upon faith(-logic).
 

An individual body, however, does not work objectively

There is surfacing more and more evidence about our bodies being "wavy," if you will. Our bodies are not continuous in reality. Think of virtual particles from which we are made up. Do those particles exist here and now or not? Neither one: they disappear and appear out of who knows where. I am not saying that this "faith" stuff is always going to be unobjective. In the future we will find more about it, will define it, and it will become a group of objective facts. As of right now, we are still searching for it, but our only intention is our faith that something is there that we do not yet know. I still cannot answer on the question about why do people need faith. I know that you consider it irrational, but maybe you can help me answer on this question in non-negative terms, please.
 

Well, in what little knowledge I do have of dialectics, I'd say that not only do I not understand it but nobody understands it technicaly because it is an inherently incoherent attempted notion.

Maybe in its synthesis, but what about the fact that everything consists of opposites for the same reason that everything has the opposite, namely, nothing. Isn't this coherent? Please provide a counterexample. I remember how one of my instructors told me about Locke's absolutely indivisible particle, but what about its context? That would be a spacial opposite besides the ends of time interval in which it exists. If you put it outside of space and time, space and time will still be inherent to it.
 

Could you perhaps give me an example here of how metaphysics would handle something and then how dialectics would handle that same thing?

When you look at the model, comprehending a behavior of an individual in a society as a cell in some state in a body is metaphysical, and talking about the direct contexts of those is dialectical. This is my interpretation of it. Others will explain it differently. But what I heard about the way metaphysics is used from philosophy is, in my mind, the way I showed it to you formulaicly. They may talk about historical metaphysics of Napoleon, for example, by taking Napoleon out of France and putting him into a different context and/or time. Or they can talk about particles taken outside of time. Whenever you look at something by itself and analyze its interactions philosophically it is basically metaphysics.
 

What would such a middle ground look like? In the middle between what and what?

I already talked about it. No one can decide upon this middle ground yet, as far as I know, so it's unknown, but logically known to be there, like this: Body X Environment, where X is the middle of the continuum. It is problematic to define because it is so phenomenological (taken as an event and being so eventful). In other words, it involves an undefined and general concept, such as: "in order to change things one has to work with the nature of stuff."
 

What kind of conscious connections? Connections between what and what else? How does this make anything in Objectivism impossible?

The idea of "sharing" that Eiuol mentioned and also conscious intentions that go beyond a physical body.
 

You say you don't have evidence in opposition to this. Do you have any evidence to support it though?

I choose to believe the interpretations of data gathered by the Global Consciousness Project. There may be other projects and evidence such as this, but I haven't come upon it yet.
 

What makes you say this?

I choose to believe experiences that some people shared of when they were completely aware of each other's feelings and thoughts to a great extent. Couples that have been married for a long time can also know what the other person wants to say sometimes. You can say that it's coincidence or even a habit, but I believe that they were able to strengthen this connection that I have been talking about.

[Eiuol]

From this new perspective on the truth, you may see that your previous truth in the past is both true and not true.

I was pretty specific saying that half-true is still wrong. Except, you were perhaps on the right track all along, and elements of the idea were probably correct. Thousands of years ago, someone thought the world was flat. Now due to some methods of geometry, we know that the world being flat is wrong. Portions of that idea were right, namely that the world is a surface, and curvature creates the appearance of flatness at great distances. It's even possible to represent the world as flat for maps. The problem is, part of the idea was maybe "all surfaces that look flat are flat", so the conclusion "the world is flat" is plain wrong, without qualification. Fortunately, concluding that an idea is false doesn't mean everything before is invalidated. The reason is, at least on the Objectivist account, that new concepts are built from earlier concepts, or as Rand phrased it, "abstractions of abstractions" (or from some perceptual content for a concept like chair).

Smart/stupid was a bad example, because those are usually used as a continuum. I could argue that a person is smart with regard to say, set theory, but stupid with regard to meteorology. Context is always needed. A better example is "I am less than 6 feet tall". I can't simultaneously be greater than or equal to 6 feet tall. That's what the law of identity refers to. You seem to be saying that since context varies and something always changes, nothing will ever remain true as we previously thought. You're sort of right, but there's no need to say truth itself varies. Human methods to discover what is true often improve, or some people use terrible methods, but that doesn't mean facts transform to true or untrue as soon as our understanding changes. People used to believe that the world is flat is true, then later people discovered that's wrong. Not the same thing as the idea being true at one point, then not being true at another.

 

 

The same lack of compassion that Rand felt towards her parents.

Presumably this is just supposed to be an example we all likely know about. I'm sure she said that she believed a family member should be valued *because* they're a family member. There needs to be better reasons. But still, she valued some of her family members at least, like her father and sister. As I recall, her mother wasn't so great. So, this is not a good example of lacking compassion. But if you mean that not automatically seeing value in a family member as so many do, then your example is fine, except the supposed lack isn't about lack of compassionate emotion.

 

 

I choose to believe experiences that some people shared of when they were completely aware of each other's feelings and thoughts to a great extent.

?? Contradiction.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Eiuol

[Repairman]

 

 

 

Yes, I believe that the planet is conscious, but I have no evidence for it, except the kinds of hypotheses you consider woo woo, e.g., Gaia hypothesis.

What other silly beliefs comprise your theories? Post #40?

[Repairman]

 Nature is conscious. There is no evidence for this yet, even though there is a reason for my concern to try to convince you. I realize it's hard to grasp or understand this.

So help us to understand, professor.

[Repairman]

The world does not have to alter itself to fit my will right away, but it may do so due to a potentiality of unforseen circumstances. I am not talking about miracles; I am talking about shaping the world and changing the reality in which we live in ways that are possible and avialable to us and our minds. A kind of transcendent thinking is required here. Not mysticism, just something that we know is possible, but we don't have it yet.

 

 

 

A world of your own, imagine that. Is this perhaps something like Disney World?

Oh, we don't have to suspend disbelief to go to Disney World.