Objective Reality and Objective Living

[monart]

OBJECTIVE REALITY AND OBJECTIVE LIVING

 

[Here are some highlights, from the perspective of self-realization and self-betterment, of the meaning of the concept of Reality or Existence:  the widest, most abstract and fundamental of all concepts, subsuming and integrating all other concepts – yet, at the same time, it’s the most simple, concrete, directly observable concept, seen in each and every thing that’s real and exists. Reality exists all around; it’s all that which is there. One lives in reality and need to know it. One's rationality, morality, and sanity depend on knowing it.]

 

----------

 

Reality. Existence. Reality Exists. Reality is Real. Existence is Real. Existence Exists. A is A.

 

It’s worth repeating: Existence Exists. The reality of existence and the existence of reality is so fundamental, essential, absolute, so objective and important, it bears restating again and again – to underscore and re-affirm its primacy and its ultimate abstraction of all existents and all real things. It’s in this reality of all real things that we, as knowing beings, live and act, so this objective reality is the axiomatic basis of our real, objective living. Living objectively is living with respect for and in accordance with the reality, objectivity, and primacy of existence.

 

Reality is all that which exists – all entities, their attributes and actions – existing in all ways, at all times. Reality is _all_ that there is in existence, nothing more and nothing less. Even that which could be real comes from all that which is already real. Causality is reality in action. You can transform reality, i.e., re-arrange things, to re-create reality into a new form of reality, but it’s still something already existing that has changed or formed.

 

A tree is a tree, not a rock or an elephant. Rivers and landslides move down- not upward. Ice comes from water, not alcohol. Acorns grow into oaks, not tigers. Babies come from mothers. You need to eat in order to live. Money doesn’t grow on trees. Neither love nor reason can be forced. Politicians don’t produce anything good.

 

Only from something real comes something real. Nothing comes from nothing. There is nothing above, below, before, after, behind, in between, or outside reality. This one reality is all there is. There’s no getting around it. Reality exists, everywhere, everywhen, everyhow, in everywhat. If reality doesn’t really exist, you wouldn’t be here to know that; neither would you be here in the first place. If there is nothing, there is nothing.

 

Reality exists, reality is real, existence exists – this the deepest you can go in reaching for the most fundamental axiom of all we know and all we do. All proofs and justifications depend on this axiom, which itself requires no proof because its evidence for existence is its existence itself, and because it’s the basis of, and presupposed by, all proofs or by any attempts to deny it. All knowledge and action rest on the basic fact that reality and existence exists, existing prior to our awareness, consciousness, and knowledge of it. Objective reality is the absolute standard of truth for all that we know about existence and about our consciousness of that existence.

 

Existence precedes consciousness and has primacy over consciousness. Before or without existence, there would be no consciousness. Existence exists even without consciousness. Without mind, there is still matter. Real matter exists regardless of one’s mental awareness or evaluation of it. Whether one knows it or not, whether one likes it or not, existence is the object of consciousness: reality exists as it is: reality exists objectively, independently of minds and selves.

 

As formulated by Ayn Rand and presented in her Atlas Shrugged, “This is John Galt Speaking”, and in “Axiomatic Concepts”, in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, this is the first axiom of reality, with its corollaries: "Existence Exists. Existence is Identity. Consciousness is Identification". Existence exists and is identified by consciousness. To know is to know something as it is. Consciousness is conscious of existence by identifying its objective reality: by recognizing reality for what it is, not what one thinks or wishes it to be – by knowing that consciousness is objective Identification of existence, that existence has identity, that existence is identity, that to be is to be something, that a thing is what it is. That A is A.

 

Something exists or it doesn’t exist. Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Either something exists or it doesn’t exist, not both in the same respect. To exist, it must be a real thing, a something that is itself, not another thing in the same way. What things are, the Identity, and what they do, the Causality – This is Reality. Identity, that A is A, that A acts as A, is the starting point of the logic of all objective knowing. Since knowledge is essential to successful living, objective knowledge applied to living is objective living. Objective living is living in accordance with objective reality, with the basic fact that A is A.

 

Living objectively is acting with true respect for the facts of reality; which is, acting with reason – the human faculty of knowing reality existing as it is. Objective living is rational living; which is to recognize and respect, not evade and reject, the facts and logic of real existence; which is, acting with the virtues of independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride. Living objectively, being in touch with reality through reason is the way to a successful, happy, moral, and sane life.

 

How does one live objectively in everyday life? That is the purpose of one’s ethics: to provide a moral code to guide one’s objective rational actions in everyday life. “The Objectivist Ethics”, in The Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand, is a powerful essay on such an objective ethics. “The Metaphysical and the Man-Made”, in her Philosophy: Who Needs It, is another. Following Rand’s work, detailed presentations of this ethics are in Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, and Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality, both by Tara Smith, who also delivers speeches on Objectivist Ethics. One recent talk by her is “Objectivity Every Day”, recorded here -- (Search the ARI Youtube Channel.)

Edited January 15 by monart

[monart]

For a brilliant, innovative synopsis of all Existence, see the new These Hours of Resonant Existence by Stephen Boydstun. It reads like metaphysical poetry.

Edited April 14 by monart

[tadmjones]

Stephen's mind and their products are one of a kind! Though the longer I contemplate objective reality , the more bereft I come to see no satisfying guide to tie in my selfish subjective experience/relation to all of It.

[monart]

23 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Stephen's mind and their products are one of a kind! Though the longer I contemplate objective reality , the more bereft I come to see no satisfying guide to tie in my selfish subjective experience/relation to all of It.

Ayn Rand lived long enough to discover and present an immense system of thought as that guide you seek. If Stephen lives to a hundred, he may write a magnum opus to also help you further along.

[tadmjones]

5 hours ago, monart said:

Ayn Rand lived long enough to discover and present an immense system of thought as that guide you seek. If Stephen lives to a hundred, he may write a magnum opus to also help you further along.

Yes I wish Stephen as many good years as he wants!

[monart]

21 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Yes I wish Stephen as many good years as he wants!

It's possible, today in the US-C of A, to live healthily to a hundred or more. I, myself, have a healthy-hundred as my goal. At 74, I'm as fit mentally and physically, overall, as the usual 64 or younger (even with the poor start of my malnourished childhood in the poverty of Maoist China). Whatever one's age or condition, one could live more healthily and longer. See "The Five Doctors" and the Comment following it. The key to a healthy self and a longer life is to be healthy every day in every way for the rest of your life. A healthy self is integral to the continual betterment of one's life-long self-knowledge and self-realization. Could this help you to "tie in [your] selfish subjective experience/relation to . . . objective reality"?

[tadmjones]

I would venture that the mind that builds Starships for self betterment and added betterment to the universe, was on an implicit level rebelling and being 'finished with fire' as it were, while being subjected to the consequences of being surrounded by poverty, especially an unjust poverty.

Having been born in the US, I was blessed to not have been subjected to poverty. While never 'wealthy' or free of mundane monetary concerns , I nonetheless have never experienced existential want.

The 'tie in' I'm looking for is a satisfying ontology that reduces the 'cause' or describes a fundamental base to the subjectivity of my awareness. Having become recently introduced to Vedic philosophies, I've been checking a whole lot of premises !!

 

[monart]

18 hours ago, tadmjones said:

The 'tie in' I'm looking for is a satisfying ontology that reduces the 'cause' or describes a fundamental base to the subjectivity of my awareness. Having become recently introduced to Vedic philosophies, I've been checking a whole lot of premises !!

 

My grasp of the integrated mind-body improvement of one's health and the self-realization of one's purpose through rational, productive living in consonance with objective reality, is satisfying and sufficient to link my self to Existence. In your quest, what in Vedic philosophies attracts you?

[tadmjones]

2 hours ago, monart said:

My grasp of the integrated mind-body improvement of one's health and the self-realization of one's purpose through rational, productive living in consonance with objective reality, is satisfying and sufficient to link my self to Existence. In your quest, what in Vedic philosophies attracts you?

Their ruminations on consciousness and awareness. I'm extremely attracted to Advaita Vedanta.

 

[Skylark1]

Conspiracy theorist.

[tadmjones]

Hypothesist

[Skylark1]

38 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Hypothesist

 

His Twitter/X page indicates conspiracy theorist. Could be hypothesizing, but he sounds pretty convinced to me.

[monart]

On 4/17/2024 at 11:13 AM, tadmjones said:

Their ruminations on consciousness and awareness. I'm extremely attracted to Advaita Vedanta.

 

How are you understanding Advanta Vedanta such that it appeals to you? It posits a dualistic reality of an illusionary phenomenal self/world and a true ultimate self/world, doesn't it?

[tadmjones]

There are dualist schools of Hindu philosophy, but Advaita is non dual. For me the most attractive element is the realization that the Vedic philosophies/religions are consciousness centered inquiries.

[KyaryPamyu]

11 hours ago, monart said:

It posits a dualistic reality of an illusionary phenomenal self/world and a true ultimate self/world, doesn't it?

Not illusory as in "evil demon is tricking you", but more like "underneath all of this breathtaking diversity there's just plain atoms/some basic unity". People at a more complete stage of knowledge accept both diversity and its underlying unity as non-contradictory perspectives on the same world.

Advaita Vedanta echoes Spinoza's observation that two existents can't be classified into the same class (world) if they're radically different. For example, in popular culture we say that god is not situated on the Moon or in the Andromeda galaxy - he's located in another dimension entirely. That's an intuitive grasp of Spinoza's observation: god is too different to be classified into the same world as the objects we know.

With this, a famous problem enters the philosophical scene. A basketball has weight, size, rigidity, and as a consequence it can hit or push other objects (that likewise have weight, size, rigidity). In contrast, the mind totally lacks any of those qualities, so it's impotent to hit or push material objects. Its impotence extents to the entirety of the vast material universe, with the sole exception of one's physical body.

According to Spinoza, both mind and matter are in the same world, as against being separated in different dimensions (like we envision god and the world to be). So what is the basis for classifying mind and matter into the same world/class?

Well, we could look at Nature and observe that from a physical object, there emerges other physical phenomena, e.g. from a candle there emerges fire, from hot tea emerges smoke. Now, if only we could extend this principle, and say that non-physical mind emerges from matter, just like physical smoke emerges from hot tea! It would certainly solve Spinoza's problem.

Advaita Vedanta opts for a different solution: mind and matter are classifiable together because they are aspects of the same Absolute. For all intents and purposes, "mind" and "matter" are related to the Absolute as "woman" and "daughter" are related to Taylor Swift. They are aspects of the thing in question, not ingredients making it up.

"Nature is visible spirit, spirit is invisible nature." ["Natur ist hiernach der sichtbare Geist, Geist die unsichtbare Natur"] - F.W.J. Schelling, Ideen

Edited April 19 by KyaryPamyu

[monart]

On 4/18/2024 at 1:34 PM, Skylark1 said:

Conspiracy theorist.

If one is an independent thinker, living in objective reality, one would say, "What are the facts?" If one isn't, then one may say, "conspiracy theorist" or "conspiracist", and not really know what one is saying.

"The labelling of (ill-defined) "conspiracist" is frequently used to intimidate, discourage, and dismiss examination of facts that contradict the official, authorized, mainstream narrative. "Conspiracy Theories", as a pejorative label, was first propagated to marginalize those who pointed out counterfacts to the official "lone-gunman" explanation of the JFK assassination. And again employed against the 9/11 "Truthers". So, it's not unexpected, that it's being used against the "covid deniers". But being used here in a forum of independently thinking Objectivists should be just an aberration." (From here.)

"How do you define "conspiracist"? You repeatedly resort to using "conspiracist" as if it can wipe away facts; in this case, the fact that no documentation has been found or presented for the isolation, purification, and distinctive identification of SARS-CoV-2 (with properties that causes the deadly and contagious Covid-19). " (From here.)

 

[monart]

On 4/18/2024 at 2:50 PM, Skylark1 said:

His Twitter/X page indicates conspiracy theorist. Could be hypothesizing, but he sounds pretty convinced to me.

For more of what sounds to you like a "conspiracy theorist", see the topic Remembering the Pandemic Tyranny: How to Establish a "Pandemic Tyranny

[monart]

On 4/19/2024 at 5:22 AM, tadmjones said:

There are dualist schools of Hindu philosophy, but Advaita is non dual. For me the most attractive element is the realization that the Vedic philosophies/religions are consciousness centered inquiries.

How does that help your quest for the self's "tie-in" to objective reality? May not there be risks that "consciousness centered inquiries" could lead to a metaphysical subjectivism of primacy of consciousness, and away from the objectivism of primacy of existence?

[monart]

On 4/19/2024 at 8:29 AM, KyaryPamyu said:

 

Advaita Vedanta opts for a different solution: mind and matter are classifiable together because they are aspects of the same Absolute. For all intents and purposes, "mind" and "matter" are related to the Absolute as "woman" and "daughter" are related to Taylor Swift. They are aspects of the thing in question, not ingredients making it up.

"Nature is visible spirit, spirit is invisible nature." ["Natur ist hiernach der sichtbare Geist, Geist die unsichtbare Natur"] - F.W.J. Schelling, Ideen

According to Advaita Vedanta, does this "Absolute" refer to the one absolute, immutable, objective reality of Existence? Or some other, separate "ultimate reality"? Does it hold that there is mind in all matter, or just in some matter?

[tadmjones]

4 hours ago, monart said:

How does that help your quest for the self's "tie-in" to objective reality? May not there be risks that "consciousness centered inquiries" could lead to a metaphysical subjectivism of primacy of consciousness, and away from the objectivism of primacy of existence?

A non dual perspective equates the ‘two’ , primacy is I think an epistemological category in Advaita Vedanta.

[KyaryPamyu]

17 hours ago, monart said:

According to Advaita Vedanta, does this "Absolute" refer to the one absolute, immutable, objective reality of Existence? Or some other, separate "ultimate reality"? Does it hold that there is mind in all matter, or just in some matter?

It doesn't refer to "Existence", which Ayn Rand took to be the collection of all existents. The Absolute is what those existents have in common, i.e. their genetic origin.

Here's an analogy. Ayn Rand looks at the world and says "Look, clay objects!" (existents); Advaita looks at the same world and says: "Look, clay!" (the Absolute).

As for consciousness and intelligence, we can use the analogy of the color spectrum. At some point in the spectrum, the color red ends and the color orange begins. Objectivists look at the color orange and say "Look, here's where color comes into existence. Before orange came about, no other colors existed". By contrast, Advaita sees consciousness as a spectrum. The consciousness spectrum starts with mechanical causes (pressure and impulse), ascends to stimuli (plants), climbs up to first-person experience (higher animals) and culminates with conceptual consciousness (humans).

From the ultimate standpoint, the Absolute has nothing to be aware of but its own self. Knower and Known are the same entity. Advanced consciousness represents the Knower as "mind-stuff" and the Known as "matter-stuff". Neither mind nor matter are real.

To say that mind and matter are unreal is similar to saying that music doesn't really exist and that the ultimate reality is air molecules vibrating. Again, there's no evil demon tricking you. Mind (Knower) and matter (Known) are unreal only in the sense that Knower and Known are fundamentally the very same entity, separately represented only in consciousness.

If you're wondering why there exists more than one knowing subject, it's because the consciousness of the Absolute is perspectival. An imperfect analogy for this is how the very same person can view himself as: a father, man, brother, musician, gourmet, young etc. All of these perspectives are partial, but do not contradict the unity of the person. In the consciousness of the Absolute, those "roles" and the relationships between each role are generated according to stringent laws.

Of course, if one views consciousness as a "mirror", they'll probably scratch their heads at this concept; the Advaita view of consciousness is analogous to how a poem (conscious experience) can very exuberantly express something very plain (the Absolute).

Edited Sunday at 09:54 AM by KyaryPamyu

[tadmjones]

22 hours ago, monart said:

How does that help your quest for the self's "tie-in" to objective reality? May not there be risks that "consciousness centered inquiries" could lead to a metaphysical subjectivism of primacy of consciousness, and away from the objectivism of primacy of existence?

Advaita Vedanta starts with experience, awareness as primary and subjective. It says all experience involves a subject that is aware of an object and that finding the locus of the awareness is the finding of, or the realization of the self, the witness consciousness.

The analytic meditation technique they employ is called "neti, neti", when translated from Sanskrit it mostly means "not this, not that". To 'see' the locus of the consciousness you identify all of the subject/ object relationships in an 'act' of experience to discern the 'ultimate' subject/subjectivity.

An example would be to sit in front of a vase with a flower in it and analyze the experience of seeing the bloom. Right away it is obvious that the flower is not you it is an object of your awareness. You notice you are using your eyes to see the flower but that the 'seeing' isn't 'in the eyes'. You then notice the eyes 'convey' the visual image to the mind/brain for contemplation, discrimination and identification of the object. And then you notice that the experience of the knowing that you see the flower is the awareness of the object or product of the brain/mind. You can also notice that the awareness that 'sees' the flower, and all 'seen' things, is a static ever present locus. It was the same awareness prior to that particular experience of the flower and continues to be that locus, irrespective of the changing conditions and functioning of the eyes and mind.

In Advaita Vedanta Consciousness is: not the body, not the mind, not an object, not many and not two. Non dual.

 

[monart]

On 4/21/2024 at 2:54 AM, KyaryPamyu said:

It doesn't refer to "Existence", which Ayn Rand took to be the collection of all existents. The Absolute is what those existents have in common, i.e. their genetic origin.

Here's an analogy. Ayn Rand looks at the world and says "Look, clay objects!" (existents); Advaita looks at the same world and says: "Look, clay!" (the Absolute).

....

Thanks. I know a bit more about Advaita. How influential is this philosophy on the people in India? Is India's historical and contemporary cultural-political-economic state a consequence of this philosophy?

(Regarding Ayn Rand's concept of "Existence": It doesn't just refer to "the collection of existents". "Existence" is an axiomatic concept referring to the basic fact of all existents: that they exist. Hence, her primary axiom of reality: "Existence exists -- and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists." "Existence" subsumes, not merely "collects", all existents, conceptually integrating them by the very fact that they all exist. So Rand would see and say, in different contexts, both "clay objects" and "clay", and would say that rainbows are metaphysically what they are, independent of how, epistemologically, the range of colors are conceptualized and defined. She would also say that existence precedes consciousness, that, without existence, there would be nothing to be conscious of. And she would also say that some, not all, existents are conscious.)

[monart]

21 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Advaita Vedanta experience, awareness starts with e as primary and subjective. It says all experience involves a subject that is aware of an object and that finding the locus of the awareness is the finding of, or the realization of the self, the witness consciousness.

The analytic meditation technique they employ is called "neti, neti", when translated from Sanskrit it mostly means "not this, not that". To 'see' the locus of the consciousness you identify all of the subject/ object relationships in an 'act' of experience to discern the 'ultimate' subject/subjectivity.

An example would be to sit in front of a vase with a flower in it and analyze the experience of seeing the bloom. Right away it is obvious that the flower is not you it is an object of your awareness. You notice you are using your eyes to see the flower but that the 'seeing' isn't 'in the eyes'. You then notice the eyes 'convey' the visual image to the mind/brain for contemplation, discrimination and identification of the object. And then you notice that the experience of the knowing that you see the flower is the awareness of the object or product of the brain/mind. You can also notice that the awareness that 'sees' the flower, and all 'seen' things, is a static ever present locus. It was the same awareness prior to that particular experience of the flower and continues to be that locus, irrespective of the changing conditions and functioning of the eyes and mind.

In Advaita Vedanta Consciousness is: not the body, not the mind, not an object, not many and not two. Non dual.

 

Thanks for elaborating. From your explanation, I can understand (somewhat) how this perspective may heighten and concentrate one's grasp of the whole (undivided) Self/Consciousness -- as long as I keep in mind that Consciousness is consciousness of Existence, and is not only or primarily consciousness of itself, without existence being there at all.

[KyaryPamyu]

1 hour ago, monart said:

How influential is this philosophy on the people in India? Is India's historical and contemporary cultural-political-economic state a consequence of this philosophy?

Advaita is less influential in India than Objectivism is in the West. It differs from Objectivism in that it's not a full "system", so no ethics or politics is involved. In other words, it's pure metaphysics. Further, it's not meant to amend any common-sense facts, but only to situate those facts into their wider context (the Absolute). I suppose you could say that Advaita Vedanta is practically useless, much like poetry is practically useless. But in a deeper sense, both are "useful" in that they enrich our experience of regular things.

1 hour ago, monart said:

Regarding Ayn Rand's concept of "Existence": It doesn't just refer to "the collection of existents". "Existence" is an axiomatic concept referring to the basic fact of all existents: that they exist.

I'd say the "collection" part is crucial for differentiating Rand's position from others. No one (except Gorgias) disagrees that something exists. But they've been fighting for millennia over what exists.