Objective Reality and Objective Living

[tadmjones]

3 hours ago, monart said:

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.

Atman is Brahman

 

[tadmjones]

6 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

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.

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.

I've just recently become familiar with Advaita and Indian philosophies/religions in general , and obviously a little infatuated lol. But I think I'd say that India is more aware of, and the myriad adjacent traditions and religious schools and their impact culturally on Indian society as a whole is probably bigger than O'ism is in the west. 

The 'guy' that introduced the US to all things Hindu, Swami Vivekananda, made a big splash at the world expo in Chicago in 1893 and set up Vedanta societies in America. He was also culturally and politically effective in the Indian nationalist movement.

A quasi mythical personality credited with establishing Advaita Vedanta , Adi Shankaryra, just had a 108 foot tall statue installed at the historic site where it is said he taught . And apparently there is some kind of political strife involved with additional funding for more commemoration at the site, grumblings that can effect even Modi , if I'm seeing it right.

 

Edited April 22 by tadmjones

[KyaryPamyu]

37 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

But I think I'd say that India is more aware of, and the myriad adjacent traditions and religious schools and their impact culturally on Indian society as a whole is probably bigger than O'ism is in the west.

No doubt. But Monart's question was specifically about Advaita. The majority of Indians belong to the superstitious Shaivite and Vaishnavite denominations of Hindu religion. By contrast, Advaita is less religion and more philosophy. Popular with seekers but not with the masses.

[tadmjones]

54 minutes ago, KyaryPamyu said:

No doubt. But Monart's question was specifically about Advaita. The majority of Indians belong to the superstitious Shaivite and Vaishnavite denominations of Hindu religion. By contrast, Advaita is less religion and more philosophy. Popular with seekers but not with the masses.

Yes as to the level of indigenous adherents, but Shankarya widely associated with Advaita is a cultural touchstone because of his purported( various historical disputes with crediting) realignment of Vedic traditions in the sense of establishing Indian nationhood. Vikekananda called on that history in his advocacy of ending the British mandate.

Kind of like in the US everybody 'knows' George Washington, but they aren't all or even many freemasons, lol.

But also I think you are right in the that the philosophy is more known among seekers, just my fanboy buttons getting pushed, lol

Edited April 22 by tadmjones

[monart]

On 4/22/2024 at 7:04 AM, KyaryPamyu said:

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.

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.

"Advaita . . . it's pure metaphysics." But any philosophical metaphysics has epistemological, ethical, and political implications, even if not explicated. If Advaita is "much like poetry", and less like philosophical metaphysics, then, yes, Advaita could be interpreted to suit a given ethics.

Yes, "existence" as an axiomatic concept "collects", subsumes, contains, refers to all things that exist, at the same time that it underscores and reiterates the fundamental fact that if they exist, they exist. This repetition is a reminder and a cognitive guardian against the absurdity of denying that existence exists, i.e., that existence does not exist. One of Rand's innovation is her axiomatic conceptualization of reality as:  "Existence exists. Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification." Without explicit grasp of these axioms is why "they've been fighting for millennia over what exists".

Edited April 24 by monart

[KyaryPamyu]

5 hours ago, monart said:

Yes, "existence" as an axiomatic concept "collects", subsumes, contains, refers to all things that exist, at the same time that it underscores and reiterates the fundamental fact that if they exist, they exist. This repetition is a reminder and a cognitive guardian against the absurdity of denying that existence exists, i.e., that existence does not exist. [bold added]

Thanks to this "cognitive guardian", more and more people can now keep in mind that if a thing exists, then it exists 🤷‍♀️

IMO, the "axiom", if there is any, is this:

Conscious experience of determinate objects.

Notice that I didn't say "consciousness of determinate objects." I said "conscious experience of determinate objects". The difference is not insignificant:

- The referent of "experience" is just that: experience (regardless of its type, origin etc.); no other assumptions are made.
- The referent of "consciousness of" is:  an existential relationship between a physical object and a faculty of consciousness.

Objectivism starts with the latter, i.e. with an existential fact, rather than with the former. Quite a feat! If someone sees nothing wrong with this, then he should stick with whatever makes him happy.

Edited April 24 by KyaryPamyu

[tadmjones]

In principle , for the sake of argument, as a thought experiment etc ,yada, the external world could be mere appearance of a universe of entities whose attributes are not fully accessible to you the observer. Can an analogous proposition be made against awareness, could your awareness be manifest in other manner?

[monart]

On 4/22/2024 at 9:18 AM, tadmjones said:

Atman is Brahman

 

So Atman is (in) the Self and Brahman is (ultimate) Reality?

[tadmjones]

For non dual vedanta they are the same.

[monart]

On 4/24/2024 at 2:15 PM, KyaryPamyu said:

Thanks to this "cognitive guardian", more and more people can now keep in mind that if a thing exists, then it exists 🤷‍♀️

IMO, the "axiom", if there is any, is this:

Conscious experience of determinate objects.

Notice that I didn't say "consciousness of determinate objects." I said "conscious experience of determinate objects". The difference is not insignificant:

- The referent of "experience" is just that: experience (regardless of its type, origin etc.); no other assumptions are made.
- The referent of "consciousness of" is:  an existential relationship between a physical object and a faculty of consciousness.

Objectivism starts with the latter, i.e. with an existential fact, rather than with the former. Quite a feat! If someone sees nothing wrong with this, then he should stick with whatever makes him happy.

It's true that Objectivism "starts" with the primacy of existence, as contrasted with the primacy of consciousness. Your "conscious experience of determinate objects" presupposes the primacy of existence. If your "experience" is not experience of existence ("determinate objects"), then what is it experience of -- non-existence? If "experience" is not a consciousness, then is it a non-consciousness? Consciousness prior to existence is consciousness of non-existence. But prior to or without existence, there is no consciousness -- what is it conscious of, if not existence?. Consciousness conscious of nothing but itself, without prior consciousness of existence, is consciousness of nothing, is no consciousness.

[tadmjones]

How do you get from axioms to ordinality?