Does Choice Presuppose Focus?

[Nxixcxk]

I remember reading in some of AR's books that the first choice is to focus or not.

But what I'm wondering is this: If choice presupposes focus (i.e. one must be focused before one can choose), then how could focus be the first choice?

In other words, the first choice is between these two choices: 1. Focus 2. To not focus

But if one chooses not to focus, then they must be focusing, since to choose presupposes focus.

I can visualize a person choosing not to focus and then slowly dieing b/c of that choice, but I'm unable to put this into a written, logical format w/o contradicting myself.

Maybe when Rand talked about choosing to not focus, she meant focusing on that which is inimical to one's life?

Argh, I'd bet there is some blatant form of concept-stealing or misconstruing that is going on here, but I cannot pin-point it, please help.

Thanks,

Nick.

[Pony Girl]

I remember reading in some of AR's books that the first choice is to focus or not.

You're thinking of Virtue of Selfishness, chapter 1 The Objectivist Ethics. P.22 in the paperback.

You can choose not to focus. It's called evasion. Evasion "is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment..." (For the New Intellectual p.127)

[Hal]

As far as I can remember from OPAR (the part on volition), Peikoff claimed the 'choice to focus' cannot be analysed other than to say that it happened. You cant ask why it occurred or why a person chose to focus, nor can you ask what reasons they had. You just have to accept that they did, as some kind of indeterminate brute fact with no possible physical cause or explanation. I recall thinking it was pretty similar to Sartre's idea about how the first choice is akin to a person creating himself out of nothingness.

If I'm mischaracterising Peikoff or misremembering what he said then someone please correct me.

Edited April 9, 2005 by Hal

[Dominique]

As far as I can remember from OPAR (the part on volition), Peikoff claimed the 'choice to focus' cannot be analysed other than to say that it happened. You cant ask why it occurred or why a person chose to focus, nor can you ask what reasons they had. You just have to accept that they did, as some kind of indeterminate brute fact with no possible physical cause or explanation. I recall thinking it was pretty similar to Sartre's idea about how the first choice is akin to a person creating himself out of nothingness.

If I'm mischaracterising Peikoff or misremembering what he said then someone please correct me.

pg 68 of OPAR says "Since one cannot ask for the cause of man's choice to focus, does it follow that, on this level, there is a conflict between freedom and casuality?[...] (pg 69) The content of one's choice could always have gone the other way [...] But the action itself , the fact of choosing as such, in one way or another, is unavoidable. Since man is an entity of a certain kind [...] he must act in a certain way. He must continually choose between focus and nonfocus. [...] This is not a violation of the law of casuality but an instance of it."

(pg 71) "Volition accordingly is not an independant philosophic principle, but a corollary of the axiom of consciousness"

so to answer your question Nxixcxk, "But if one chooses not to focus, then they must be focusing, since to choose presupposes focus."

I would say that to not choose, is still a choice. To focus is volitional and so presupposes conciousness, but it is a choice that is made continuously by the nature of conciousness. Conciousness' identity is volition, so it has to choose, but it does not have to focus.

Did that help at all? I'm just starting in on this stuff myself.

[Hal]

pg 68 of OPAR says "Since one cannot ask for the cause of man's choice to focus, does it follow that, on this level, there is a conflict between freedom and casuality?[...] (pg 69) The content of one's choice could always have gone the other way [...] But the action itself , the fact of choosing as such, in one way or another, is unavoidable. Since man is an entity of a certain kind [...] he must act in a certain way. He must continually choose between focus and nonfocus. [...] This is not a violation of the law of casuality but an instance of it."

Not that part, its where he talks about it being an irreducible first cause, since it 'turns the system of rationality on'. It's in the sense-data and volition chapter but I dont have a copy of OPAR with me.

Edited April 9, 2005 by Hal

[Dominique]

Not that part, its where he talks about it being an irreducible first cause, since it 'turns the system of rationality on'. It's in the sense-data and volition chapter but I dont have a copy of OPAR with me.

Luckily I do

How about this:

pg 59:

"The choice to "throw the switch is thus the root choice, on which all others depend. Nor can a primary choice be explained by anything more fundamental. By it's nature, it is a first cause within a conciousness, not an effect produced by antecedent factors. [...] No one can explain the choice to focus by reference to a person's own mental contents, such as his ideas. The choice to activate the conceptual level of awareness must precede any ideas; until a person is concious in a human sense, his mind cannot reach new conclusions or even apply previous ones to a current situation. There can be no intellectual factor which makes a man decide to become aware or even partly explains such a decision: to grasp such a factor, he must already be aware."

also:

pg 58 "Focus is not the same as thinking"

[Nxixcxk]

Ya Dagny that helps, thanks. I'm gonna have to think it over for a while before I come to a conclusion though.

[Nxixcxk]

Ahh, yes. Pg 58 OPAR: "To change the analogy: the choice to focus, Miss Rand used to observe, is like throwing a switch; it may be compared to starting a car's motor by turning on the ignition. (Whether and where one drives are later issues)."

This partly answers my question.

But in conjuction with this, the answer is complete:

Pg 59 OPAR: The choice to focus, I have said, is man's primary choice. "Primary" here means: presupposed by all other choices and itself irreducible."

"Untill a man is in focus, his mental machinery is unable to fucntion in the humans sense--to think, judge, or evaluate. The choice to "throw the switch" is thus the root choice, on which all others depend.

I see now I was trying to prove something axiomatic.

[Dominique]

Ya Dagny that helps, thanks.

That works too

[Capitalism Forever]

So now you're Dominique, Dagny, and Sarah, all in one!

[Dominique]

So now you're Dominique, Dagny, and Sarah, all in one!

Pretty cool ey?

I'm not complaining

[EC]

Pretty cool ey?   

I'm not complaining 

It seems that we have WonderWoman on the forum!

[TomL]

In IRC (live chat), Nxixcxk has gotten the relationship "pressuposed by" reversed. That is, when you say "consciousness is presupposed by volition" he might be thinking the reverse. Hopefully this relationship will be clearer to him the more he has questions of a hierarchical nature.

[Nxixcxk]

I think I have it down pat now Tom, although sometimes I have to think about it for 3 seconds or so before I use it .

[rameshkaimal]

Why an efficient cause does not apply to the primary choice to focus or not

The primary choice to focus is nothing but the decision to activate one's conceptual faculty.

Such a choice requires mental effort. If it required no effort at all, then every (normal) member of the human species would invariably make it. But in fact, they don't.

Just as a person who has a car, has to exert some physical effort to turn on the ignition, so also a person who has a conceptual faculty, has to exert some mental effort to focus his mind.

So, in order to default on such a choice, all that is required is for one to exert no effort at all, that is, to remain inactive as far as one's conceptual faculty is concerned. (NOTE: This is not the same thing as actively subverting one's mental content or evading.)

This means that it does not take effort to exert no effort at all. To say that it takes effort to exert no effort is a self-contradiction. It is like saying one recognizes property rights when one steals.

So in one sense, such a default is really not a choice but the failure to make a choice that is in accordance with one's nature.

But in another sense, since one is free not to make this basic choice, its default is still possible in reality, though it is not a valid alternative at all. If it were not possible, there wouldn't be a single member of the human species who failed in this respect, to begin with.

This is why the primary choice to focus or not, is free, that is, the concept of "why" (or cause) is not applicable to it.

Why a final cause does not apply to the primary choice to focus or not

In order for Man to have a reason (which is held in his own mind) for doing anything, he would have to first identify a logical relationship between certain facts of reality (the 'is'), and the action itself (the 'ought').

In other words, the concept of "what for" (or purpose), establishes a proper link between Man's cognitive abstractions and his normative abstractions i.e., between FACT and VALUE.

But this very process of establishing such a link requires that the mind be in focus. In other words, if the mind is not in focus, the process itself would not be possible in the first place.

So, if a "what for" is applicable to the primary choice to focus or not, it would mean that some content already exists in the mind even before it chooses to focus, which action alone is the first step towards acquiring any content, to begin with.

In other words, it would mean that there is some content in the mind even before it has acquired any content at all.

This is why the concept of "what for" (or purpose) is not applicable to the primary choice to focus or not.

The basic difference between the concepts of non-focus and evasion

Consciousness by its very nature, involves being in some state of awareness as such. In other words, there is no such thing as a person who is conscious but in whose mind there is absolutely no state of awareness at all.

Given this fact, if a certain state of awareness (which may not necessarily mean full focus) is objectively required in a particular context, then choosing to remain below the required level is tantamount to choosing to be out of focus, if one does not care to know what state of awareness is objectively required in this context.

On the other hand, if a person does know (whether implicitly or explicitly) that a certain state of awareness (which may not necessarily mean full focus) is objectively required in a particular context, and yet chooses to remain below the required level, it would be tantamount to choosing to evade one's knowledge in this regard.

In other words, in the first case, it is non-focus or a non-focal state of awareness, in the second case, it is evasion or an evasive state of awareness.

Ramesh Kaimal

[KevinD]

If choice presupposes focus (i.e. one must be focused before one can choose), then how could focus be the first choice?

In other words, the first choice is between these two choices: 1. Focus  2. To not focus

But if one chooses not to focus, then they must be focusing, since to choose presupposes focus.

The key to understanding this issue is the fact that there are levels of awareness.

LP defines "focus" as "the state of a goal-directed mind committed to attaining full awareness of reality." (OPAR, p. 56)

Your question implies that the only alternative to this state is one of literal unconsciousness. While it's true that one cannot choose anything when one is asleep, or in a coma, or dead, these aren't instances of being "out of focus."

A person can be operating at a low level of awareness — say he's just waking up, and is lazily stretching and beginning to notice his surroundings — when suddenly he perceives some fact which indicates that he needs to raise his level of awareness — say, smoke billowing out of the next room. At this point, he has a choice: He can choose to make himself fully aware of the danger (and act accordingly), or he can pull the covers over his head and go back to sleep.

As long as a person is awake, he's aware of reality on some level. Even at the lowest levels, he can still be be aware that he faces certain facts, or is in a certain situation, which demands a higher level of awareness from him.

This is what it means to be in focus: One's level of awareness is appropriate to grasping the facts relevant to one's situation, goal, concern, context.

[rameshkaimal]

The key to understanding this issue is the fact that there are levels of awareness.

LP defines "focus" as "the state of a goal-directed mind committed to attaining full awareness of reality." (OPAR, p. 56)

Your question implies that the only alternative to this state is one of literal unconsciousness. While it's true that one cannot choose anything when one is asleep, or in a coma, or dead, these aren't instances of being "out of focus."

A person can be operating at a low level of awareness — say he's just waking up, and is lazily stretching and beginning to notice his surroundings — when suddenly he perceives some fact which indicates that he needs to raise his level of awareness — say, smoke billowing out of the next room. At this point, he has a choice: He can choose to make himself fully aware of the danger (and act accordingly), or he can pull the covers over his head and go back to sleep.

As long as a person is awake, he's aware of reality on some level. Even at the lowest levels, he can still be be aware that he faces certain facts, or is in a certain situation, which demands a higher level of awareness from him.

This is what it means to be in focus: One's level of awareness is appropriate to grasping the facts relevant to one's situation, goal, concern, context.

Hello Kevin,

I'm trying to understand the basic difference between choosing not to focus and choosing to evade i.e., between the concept of non-focus and the concept of evasion.

So, given your example above, if a person chooses to pull the covers over his head and go back to sleep, wouldn't he be evading his own (perceptual) knowledge?

In that case, what would be the essential difference between choosing not to focus and choosing to evade?

Regards,

Ramesh Kaimal

[BrandonMV]

Will someone please explain to me how self-causation is not a form of indeterminism? Indeterminism maintains that there are some actions that have no causes. Self-causation holds that man chooses the causes that shape his actions, but that for the primary choice to focus cause does not apply. But to say that cause does not apply is to say that there is no cause. Therefore, it seems that self-causation must accept the thesis of indeterminism: there are some actions [such as primary choice to focus] that have no causes. Is this mistaken?

Edited April 22, 2009 by Enixyle

[aristotlejones]

But if one chooses not to focus, then they must be focusing, since to choose presupposes focus.

Truck. What truck! SPLAT!

<Φ>aj

[L-C]

Volition is a type of causation.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Will someone please explain to me how self-causation is not a form of indeterminism? Indeterminism maintains that there are some actions that have no causes.

You are thinking about causation as one thing acting on another or the antecedent notion of causality. Objectivism rejects this since it conceives of causation as an instance of the law of identity. In other words, an entity acts according to its nature. It is within or an aspect of man's nature that his consciousness is self-directed -- you can choose to direct it at your will. So, it is not as if man needs something acting on him in order to focus his mind or to think, he has the capability of doing that because he is what he is: Man, and he has volition, the ability to choose.

[Grames]

Will someone please explain to me how self-causation is not a form of indeterminism? Indeterminism maintains that there are some actions that have no causes. Self-causation holds that man chooses the causes that shape his actions, but that for the primary choice to focus cause does not apply. But to say that cause does not apply is to say that there is no cause. Therefore, it seems that self-causation must accept the thesis of indeterminism: there are some actions [such as primary choice to focus] that have no causes. Is this mistaken?

It is mistaken. Wrong part bolded. As Thomas pointed out this version of cause assumes one-to-one correspondence of input to output.

Try the "hindsight insight." Self-causation selects which of several causes was determining. When there is only one cause operating, men are indeed determined. Adult humans that are psychologically healthy always have the two contending "causes" of passivity or activity in their conceptual mental functions. These two causes are integrated together to form a new result, the will or self. Integration does not mean "adds together" with the strongest dominating. It is a new behavior at a different level, just as life is a new behavior of several molecules acting together which is not found in the molecules considered separately.

[BrandonMV]

You are thinking about causation as one thing acting on another or the antecedent notion of causality.

As Thomas pointed out this version of cause assumes one-to-one correspondence of input to output.

I don't think that I'm being understood. I am just saying that a choice, in the Objectivist view, has no cause; and this corresponds with the indeterminist's thesis that some actions have no cause. I am not arguing that there must be a cause, or for the antecedent notion of causality. Rather, my question is about the classification of the Objectivist position and why it should not be considered a form of indeterminism.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I am not arguing that there must be a cause, or for the antecedent notion of causality. Rather, my question is about the classification of the Objectivist position and why it should not be considered a form of indeterminism.

But being in focus and thinking does have a cause -- you are that cause, since you decide to be in focus and to think once you are in focus. It's not indeterminism because one doesn't find oneself in focus and out of focus randomly, you have control over that.

Your position, whether you know it or not explicitly, is that there is only either determinism or indeterminism, and as I have said, Objectivism rejects those as the only options. There is such a think as self-causation, whereby the entity causes itself to do something. In Objectivism, life is defined as self-sustaining, self-generative action. And in man, this take the specialty of self-sustaining, self-generative action regarding the functioning of his own consciousness.

However, consciousness and choice (in man) does not exist without there being a body that has the capacity to be aware of existence and to act accordingly, and in man he is not only aware of his consciousness but he can direct it. In other words, one must be alive and have a sufficient energy reserve to be able to focus and to think. This understanding though does not get beneath choice, since choice is a first-level realization, whereas nutrition and health are higher-level concepts. That is, the knowledge of your ability to choose comes before your knowledge of the necessity to be healthy in order to be able to think effectively.

Likewise, your knowledge of you being able to choose comes long before your knowledge of atoms and quantum theory; and higher-level knowledge cannot over-ride lower-level knowledge. In other words, you are directly aware that you do make choices.

[Grames]

I don't think that I'm being understood. I am just saying that a choice, in the Objectivist view, has no cause; and this corresponds with the indeterminist's thesis that some actions have no cause. I am not arguing that there must be a cause, or for the antecedent notion of causality. Rather, my question is about the classification of the Objectivist position and why it should not be considered a form of indeterminism.

I know what determinism is, and that it is false. What the hell is indeterminism? I will not assume it is the simple assertion that determinism is false. I suspect determinism versus indeterminism is a false dichotomy because determinism is a wrong understanding of causality and so indeterminism probably is too.