Existence exists subsidiary thread

[frank harley]

Yes, but are you conscious of these bodily functions? No. Therefore, these functions operate on a subconscious level. I will read about Ken Wilbur, thanks for the tip.

 

P.S. I know I am going on a spiraling tangent here, but let it be so for diversification purposes. My first argument is against Wilbur's "The relation between individuals and society is not the same as between cells and organisms though, because individual holons can be members but not parts of social holons." Can a society function without individuals? No, because individuals are members of a society by choice and hence are also its parts. I see the same confusion in Objectivism. Remember that we are a part of our context - the market. And the market is the foundation of society. Hence we are also parts of the society. But the difference between the market and the society is that the first is a sum of individuals in their environments (with explicit relationships through sex and money), and the second also includes their implicit relationships (like friendships and cooperatives). It's pure insanity to say that individuals "can be members but not parts of social." Here is a definition of member: "a person, animal, plant, group, etc., that is part of a society, party, community, taxon, or other body."

First, the context of markets are a human construct. For better or worse, they are not 'natural'. In other words, we make ourselves market-contextualized to the extent that we want it to be at any particular time..

 

Next, you'd be far better off usinggthe textbook term 'involuntary' to describe non-aware brain activity. 'Sub-conscious' carries far too much baggage of Freudian mumbo-jumbo.

[Ilya Startsev]

Yes, it's the emotiveness of the market which led Stiglitz, et al to write that markets are fundamentally asymetric.

 

Much of his work, btw, was highly influenced by the 'heuristic' of Kahneman and Tversky.

Do you agree with their views on economy?

 

First, the context of markets are a human construct. For better or worse, they are not 'natural'. In other words, we make ourselves market-contextualized to the extent that we want it to be at any particular time..

 

Next, you'd be far better off usinggthe textbook term 'involuntary' to describe non-aware brain activity. 'Sub-conscious' carries far too much baggage of Freudian mumbo-jumbo.

I realize that markets are not natural, but they are human. Nonetheless, we can make markets to be in harmony with nature and can build wonderful societies on top of them.

 

How can dreams be involuntary? Aren't they related to our volition, especially the lucid ones?

[Ilya Startsev]

Some times [sic] a table is just a table....

Do you learn everything you need about the nature of your consciousness from observing and experimenting with the table?

 

P.S. From ARL on consciousness: "before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something" (my emphasis). In other words, Objectivists do not need others or anything social with which to identify. From the Romantic Manifesto (1971:13): "Art belongs to a non-socializable aspect of reality [...] the nature of man's consciousness."

Edited June 20, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[frank harley]

Do you agree with their views on economy?

 

I realize that markets are not natural, but they are human. Nonetheless, we can make markets to be in harmony with nature and can build wonderful societies on top of them.

 

How can dreams be involuntary? Aren't they related to our volition, especially the lucid ones?

Stiglitz is drawing consequences form market asymetry that suggest that  Pareto opthomality is an illusion. In only words, goods will flow to the extent that consumers know what to buy.

 

So if this is what you mean by harmonizing with nature, then, no.

[Ilya Startsev]

I have to say I am not so strong in theoretical economics and may not understand "Pareto Opthomality" most clearly. From what I gather and from comparisons, human world-dynamics is actually a purposeful behavior trying to reach unity with nature. Consumers do need to know what to buy, but the goods also need to be created by producers who are in sync with the ideology of consumers. This way, harmonization is achieved. You did not agree because its representation is one-sided in their theory, am I correct?

[frank harley]

I have to say I am not so strong in theoretical economics and may not understand "Pareto Opthomality" most clearly. From what I gather and from comparisons, human world-dynamics is actually a purposeful behavior trying to reach unity with nature. Consumers do need to know what to buy, but the goods also need to be created by producers who are in sync with the ideology of consumers. This way, harmonization is achieved. You did not agree because its representation is one-sided in their theory, am I correct?

Classical economic theory of the late 1900's was concerned with the justification of any system that would clear the market to enable re-production. Tha accepted standard of measurement became to be called 'Pareto' after the guy who devised the measurement.

 

So if this is what you want to call 'harmonizing with nature', that's fine with me. BTW, both Tolstoy and Melville wrote that moral goodness resides in the human agency that makes flow of goods optimal; 'evil' is its willfull stopping.

 

Rand, oth, breaks withthis tradition in defining Capitalism's moral worth as a securing of an individual's rights.Per her hissyfit when having been introduced to Hayak, it's safe to assume that she favored a moral, yet  inefficient capitalism over a mixed economy that works, yet only at the expense of personal liberties.

[Ilya Startsev]

Classical economic theory of the late 1900's was concerned with the justification of any system that would clear the market to enable re-production. Tha accepted standard of measurement became to be called 'Pareto' after the guy who devised the measurement.

 

So if this is what you want to call 'harmonizing with nature', that's fine with me. BTW, both Tolstoy and Melville wrote that moral goodness resides in the human agency that makes flow of goods optimal; 'evil' is its willfull stopping.

 

Rand, oth, breaks withthis tradition in defining Capitalism's moral worth as a securing of an individual's rights.Per her hissyfit when having been introduced to Hayak, it's safe to assume that she favored a moral, yet  inefficient capitalism over a mixed economy that works, yet only at the expense of personal liberties.

I see that you are an individual who is very learned in economics. Please, can you give a critique of my Neo-objectivist economic theory?

[frank harley]

I see that you are an individual who is very learned in economics. Please, can you give a critique of my Neo-objectivist economic theory?

Ilya,

 

What you're offering is a political economy--not 'Economics' as such.

Economics tries to deal with the allocation of scarce commodities regardless of the political system, while your offering a vison that's based on the workings of a particular system.

 

As such, i promise to read tonight and reply in some detail.

 

BH

[Ilya Startsev]

While reading Peikoff's The DIM Hypothesis, I am thinking that you may be right, Frank, that Objectivists who favor Peikoff's Objectivism are Neo-luddites because they oppose such technological innovations as quantum computing (which is real, by the way), since it does not match their retrograde model of existence-first-then-consciousness or their binary logic, which is doubtlessly obsolete for innovative research. They cannot grasp that to understand the whole of existence, one must invent and then test new innovative ideas to see if they reflect reality; otherwise, it is an impossible trial and error venture. They think that if they stare long enough, like newly born children, maybe they can get their concepts straight, without realizing that the kind of research that scientists are doing right now with the subatomic and the astronomic contexts go far beyond the simple luddite life here in an Objectivist realm.

[dream_weaver]

Ilya,
The failure to grasp the primacy of existence or the law of identity only demonstrates the failure to grasp the primacy of existence or the law of identity.

[CriticalThinker2000]

they oppose such technological innovations as quantum computing

 

They do? Any evidence?

 

 

They think that if they stare long enough, like newly born children, maybe they can get their concepts straight

 

They do? Any evidence?

[Ilya Startsev]

Ilya,

The failure to grasp the primacy of existence or the law of identity only demonstrates the failure to grasp the primacy of existence or the law of identity.

Greg,

In real life, the primacy of one's physical body and the law of identity are basic. But it takes some getting used to extending one's consciousness and quantum logic.

 

They do? Any evidence?

From what I was able to gather from reviews on amazon is that Peikoff opposes quantum physics (among many other fields). Although I have not read to chapter on physics yet, it makes sense to say that Peikoff's Objectivists probably hate quantum physics and quantum logic. I, on the other hand, admire the human achievement of quantum logic, sciences, and engineering.

 

I am surprised that you, Gentelemen, have not grasped the problem of Peikoff's Objectivism. Let me show you.

We know the first two levels of the model of Peikoff's Objectivism (Peikoff, Leonard. Understanding Objectivism: A Guide to Learning Ayn Rand's Philosophy. Ed. Michael S. Berliner. NAL Trade, 2012. p. 157). They are:

1. Existence exists.

2. Consciousness as the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

 

I notice that existence is indefinite in the model. I also notice that consciousness is definitely human. In order to get from indefinite existence to definite consciousness you must fragment the existence, so the consciousness becomes one of the fragments. This fragmentation is inherent to Objectivism. Do you like fragmentation? Personally, I think that fragmentation is death, and I advise you to abandon it.

[Eiuol]

I am surprised that you, Gentelemen, have not grasped the problem of Peikoff's Objectivism. Let me show you.

You can't make such a massive generalization from Amazon reviews... Have you actually talked to many people  about quantum physics? I really don't know the rest of what you're saying, I can't make out what you're saying as even Objectivism, just forcing a system into yours then using terms that don't work. Square pegs don't fit in round holes. "Fragmentation" is a loaded term, and people keep telling you that you misunderstand Objectivist epistemology. I don't mean "not agreeing", I mean not even understanding the claims. The result of your misunderstanding is seeing Objectivism as some sort of Cartesian Neoplatonism mixed with a form of Logical Positivism. What you're missing is everything about interconnectedness of all knowledge and all the views on perception (which you've sometimes taken to be the same as one's conceptual view of reality...).

 

Showing a "problem" before having understood the relevant claims, on any subject, is more like showing what you still don't understand.

[Ilya Startsev]

[...] What you're missing is everything about interconnectedness of all knowledge and all the views on perception (which you've sometimes taken to be the same as one's conceptual view of reality...). [...]

Indeed, I view Objectivist "interconnectedness of all knowledge" as a massive singularity. Let me show you how I apply the theory of concepts on "existence" from your model:

A newly born child is aware of definite existents and can integrate only senses into percepts. A matured human being can conceptualize indefinite existence because he or she is able to  integrate percepts into concepts. Awareness is not the same as consciousness, but consciousness is developed out of awareness. The epistemological problem that I see in Objectivism is that you equate awareness and consciousness, definite existents with indefinite existence. This is a major contradiction that you use to unite and interconnect all of your knowledge, but I am trying to make you understand that it is inherently flawed.

[Plasmatic]

llya said:

A newly born child is aware of definite existents and can integrate only senses into percepts. A matured human being can conceptualize indefinite existence because he or she is able to integrate percepts into concepts. Awareness is not the same as consciousness, but consciousness is developed out of awareness. The epistemological problem that I see in Objectivism is that you equate awareness and consciousness, definite existents with indefinite existence. This is a major contradiction that you use to unite and interconnect all of your knowledge, but I am trying to make you understand that it is inherently flawed.

It has already been amply demonstrated in your threads that you don't have a clue what differentiation or integration is. Add to that the nonsensical habit of taking one of the interpretations by physicist on quantum and other matters and proclaiming them as gospel simply on the grounds of consensus.

If you want to be sincere I suggest you try to demonstrate that you understand the difference between what Oism says about differentiation and integration as opposed to you, and then go on to other matters like WTF "indefinite existence" could possible mean. It sounds like you want existence without identity to justify your rejection of excluded middle.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Plasmatic

[CriticalThinker2000]

From what I was able to gather from reviews on amazon

 

 

 

Awareness is not the same as consciousness, but consciousness is developed out of awareness. The epistemological problem that I see in Objectivism is that you equate awareness and consciousness

 

What is it that you think the concept 'consciousness' refers to in reality? As Ms. Rand said: All philosophic con games count on your using words as vague approximations.

[StrictlyLogical]

Ilya:

 

You clearly have and promote beliefs which are inconsistent fundamentally with the philosophy of  Objectivism.  Irrespective of whether or not you actually understand Objectivism, your belief structure is clearly not a "new" version thereof any more than Depak Chopra's errant mysticism is "new science".

 

As such, please call your belief structure something other than Neo-objectivism.

Edited July 14, 2014 by StrictlyLogical

[Ilya Startsev]

If you want to be sincere I suggest you try to demonstrate that you understand the difference between what Oism says about differentiation and integration as opposed to you, and then go on to other matters

Oism differentiation: either A or ~A.

Oism integration: A is A (except this is not an integration, but an identity; when you talk about integrating two different things you go through the process of logical equation or double implication and then make it into logical identity where the most "objective" is on top, i.e., a replacement and then get to the other side of it by switching)

 

my differentiation: whether qualitative or quantitative, A, ~A, or both (really: Object or Context)

my integration: A and ~A (a sum/synthesis)

 

What is it that you think the concept 'consciousness' refers to in reality? As Ms. Rand said: All philosophic con games count on your using words as vague approximations.

Consciousness is identification. The problem is that you only use binary logic, like your computer.

[Ilya Startsev]

Ilya:

 

You clearly have and promote beliefs which are inconsistent fundamentally with the philosophy of  Objectivism.  Irrespective of whether or not you actually understand Objectivism, your belief structure is clearly not a "new" version thereof any more than Depak Chopra's errant mysticism is "new science".

 

As such, please call your belief structure something other than Neo-objectivism.

I can't, man. I already took an oath that is based on Galt's oath in Atlas Shrugged, and I use the theory of nested concepts, which is based on the theory of concepts from ITOE, and I believe only in the free-market economy.

 

P.S. Besides, existence is inherent to my primary principle.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[dream_weaver]

my differentiation: whether qualitative or quantitative, A, ~A, or both (really: Object or Context)

my integration: A and ~A (a sum/synthesis)

Thesis, antithesis --> synthesis. Take the new synthesis, treat it as a new thesis, find a new antithesis and re-synthesize. Or as the instruction on the shampoo bottle states: Wash, rinse, repeat.  

If this is so, then it must be an acute case of Hegelian-itis. Repeated exposures to varying doses of logic have revealed a very high degree of resistance to it thus far.

[Ilya Startsev]

Thesis, antithesis --> synthesis. Take the new synthesis, treat it as a new thesis, find a new antithesis and re-synthesize. Or as the instruction on the shampoo bottle states: Wash, rinse, repeat.  

If this is so, then it must be an acute case of Hegelian-itis. Repeated exposures to varying doses of logic have revealed a very high degree of resistance to it thus far.

Do you want me to critique Hegel's dialectic? As far as I know, Hegel was an idealist/rationalist who came up with a bunch of floating abstractions and played around with them dialectically. His method was right, but his topics did not reflect reality. A better way is to integrate Hegel's intrincisism/idealism/rationalism and Marx's subjectivism/materialism/empiricism and you get a better picture of reality.

[Plasmatic]

llya said:

Oism differentiation: either A or ~A.

Oism integration: A is A (except this is not an integration, but an identity; when you talk about integrating two different things you go through the process of logical equation or double implication and then make it into logical identity where the most "objective" is on top, i.e., a replacement and then get to the other side of it by switching)

Not even remotely close......or comprehensible.....

[Ilya Startsev]

Not even remotely close......or comprehensible.....

I don't know what you want from me then. Am I supposed to teach you Objectivism or are you supposed to teach me? It is perfectly comprehensible from the Neo-objectivist stance.

[Ilya Startsev]

Okey, let me give you some examples.

 

Examples of Objectivist integration:

1) mind/body becomes mind as consciousness is primary, body as emotion is automatic (from your model, 2 versus 10A, respectively);

2) analytic/synthetic becomes analytic primary, synthetic faultily implied by Oist integration (level 3 from your model);

3) existence/consciousness becomes existence primary, consciousness secondary (1 versus 2, respectively);

4) rationalism/empiricism becomes rationalism as reason is primary, empiricism as senses is secondary (4 versus 5; also, I know no Oist scientists).

[Eiuol]

Okey, let me give you some examples.

 

Examples of Objectivist integration:

Just... no... That's not what is meant by integration. Integration here doesn't mean a synthesis of thesis and anti-thesis. And as dream_weaver was getting at, you seem to be trying to treat Objectivism under Hegelian terms. Not as in Hegel per se, but as in Hegelians like Marx. Integration is observing a group of entities or noting some group of mental entities (e.g. concepts formed earlier), then uniting a subset of the group along some similarity. That's a one sentence version. Objectivism rejects those dichotomies you listed, it doesn't attempt to create an integration out of them to reach some transcendent truth. That's a totally different philosophical method and tradition.