Hello

[Shol'Va]

The past few years I have been driving toward one ultimate goal, the elimination of the reflective element of my mind in favour of a more "obect oriented" approach. Now that I've caused you a mild headache what I mean by this is as follows -

I have striven to throw off those ideas and constructs created by measuring myself from the outside - shyness, charisma, diligence, laziness, "being me". I found that "who I am" is limiting what I can experiance and accomplish. Instead I have struggled to exist only in relation to the creation and changing of the materials around me. I no longer am a "hard worker" with 10 software updates made a day. I am an entity that sees a corrupt structure and resolves it, its resolution is the only evidence or existsence of my being in that moment. I am no longer "outgoing" I simply see an opportunity and sieze it. I strive exist purely, not even with a center outside of the objects and tasks in my mind. This means that any "heroic confrontation with the cosmos falling before the central power of my ego" is an experiance I have made intentionally beyond my grasp, I am firmly in the world of changing the material around me feeling the weight of time.

This has created an unbearable need for the new, the challenging. Life in short has become hell. Man can not exist in this way, and I would not classify this new form of mind a sustainable philosophy but more of a mood or disposition. To the extent I am aware of it Objectivism lends itself to this mood hence why I am here. Can anyone else relate to this?

Oh, the handle Shol'Va is a StarGate reference - One who has betrayed his God.

[JMeganSnow]

It's not terribly clear what you are intending to convey. My impression is that you're seeking to deal with individual activities as separate, discrete events instead of identifying them as part of a trend. For instance, if you were to be "outgoing", what that would mean is that you've identified several behaviors characteristic of outgoing people and you are intentionally trying to learn those behaviors as a group, rather than dealing with each individual situation as it comes up.

While this ad-hoc approach to life may be a helpful practice if you're, say, seeking to overcome a bad habit or train yourself into a better behavior, in doing this all the time you are intentionally disintegrating your consciousness by shutting off your *conceptual* handling of situations.

This yen for the new and the challenging sounds like a form of experential whim-worship to me, and is not something that would naturally arise from Objectivism. As I said, you might make use of your ability to break everything down into separate, consciously-identified component parts for a number of reasons, but always with a specific goal in mind. Operating at random is not a state to be sought.

Of course, I may have completely misunderstood you.

[Prometheus98876]

I dont know exactly what you mean to say eithear myself. I would have to agree with Jenni on this one, as far as I can tell whatever you mean is at least somewhat akin to what thinks it is.

That and a some of it sounds like meaningless mumb-jumbo to me, that or it is almost impossible to tell exactly what you might mean by some of it. would you care to try rephrase this in an easier to understand manner so we can be more sure what you mean?

[DragonMaci]

Unlike Dwayne and Jenni I feel that I know all to well what you mean and I am not keen on it. You seem to be interested in avoiding integration and responsibility. You seem to be focusing more on the physical and almost ignoring the mental. You also seem to be trying to avoid having a personality, trying to avoid being an individual. Your suffering comes not as a result of having nothing new to deal with, but as a result of your abandoning your mind for the physical. You are practising evasion of yourself, of your responsibilities to yourself, and of reason. Man cannot live as a man by doing this. Only through practising reason can a man live as a man. Objectivism is about living on Earth. To do that man must not avoid those things. Objectivism says this. That makes Objectivism and your principles incompatible. Therefore, it does not lend itself to your principles.

That is how I understand what you said, but I would be happy to be proved wrong. I would love to think you aren't really an evader.

Edited March 30, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Shol'Va]

Those were some valid points all around, and again what I'm experiancing is more of a mood thing not any coherant thought out way to operate. Let me reply to some of these points raised.

JMegan said "This yen for the new and the challenging sounds like a form of experential whim-worship to me"

Whim Worship as I understand its meaning in Objectivism is a kind of instinctual action - to follow the most immediate "good course". So an alcoholic drinks because it feels good and sees no consequent actions in his mind when he grabs a drink. This has a moral aspect to it, the drinker is putting his life ("as man") in danger thus making "Whim Worship" a negative. What I attempt to do is somewhat different. I try to take those morally neutral things I have little experiance with and pursue them because they are outside my normal range. For example a few years ago (when I began experiancing this new kind of mood) I started listening to country music as I had previously ignored it and in doing so actually found how it is good in its own way. Other such "morally neutral" areas would be introversion/extroversion (this one is debatable but not in any critical way to me), attraction to physical/mental behaviour (putting down the pen for a first game of basketball or vice versa). I should also add this attempt to move outside my normal range is not a constant. Doing so constantly is psychologically impossible. I mean to say that when opportunities arise to leap into a different and what I judge as morally neutral spectrum I try to do so.

JMegan said "While this ad-hoc approach to life may be a helpful practice if you're, say, seeking to overcome a bad habit or train yourself into a better behavior, in doing this all the time you are intentionally disintegrating your consciousness by shutting off your *conceptual* handling of situations."

What is meant by "conceptual" in that context?

JMegan also said " As I said, you might make use of your ability to break everything down into separate, consciously-identified component parts for a number of reasons, but always with a specific goal in mind. Operating at random is not a state to be sought."

I should add that I have a general goal which I can only describe as making my range larger. In each decision of this kind I ask whether it will make my abilities expand or not - deciding to take up the guitar to open my mind up to music, taking up sports to become athletic etc. A chess master was asked how many moves he could see ahead and he replied "only one, the best one". These decisions are not random, but they are not part of a great plan either. I took up the guitar because the ooportunity emerged to learn how music is made but I have no over arching plan to become a "guitarist" - being used in a band or what have you. Obviously there are time limits involved and in my time management you can see how I operate as well, setting daily goals as opposed to more longterm ones --> as far as these kinds of acts are concerned. Obviously like most people I have long term goals but these are more of a "moral" nature - finances, family, not smoking etc.

I hope that makes things more clear in that regard.

DragonMaci had good points and identifies some of the more extreme edges of how someone attempting the same thing could end up. I can definatly see how my phrasing could make it look like I fit the description so let me explain a bit better. What is personality?

I see personality as a kind of transaction. The best way for me to describe it is by an example drawn from my impression of Ayn Rand's greatest novel, "The Fountainhead". Howard Roark stands at the edge of the cliff, he sees wood for cutting, stone for blasting, great skyscrapers in his mind. In this moment only two things exist - the resources around him and the goal of building great things. Now a secondary observer will see Howard as a "personality", a great heroic being with pride and diligince, but these ideas are not in Howard's mind, they are secondary (second hand) to the fundemental process of creation. Howard does not care what another thinks about him, and while he may on reflection see the heroism of his action he does not seek heroism per se but to be faithfull to his great visions and constantly expand his powers to make these visions a reality.

While the Fountainhead seems to not explain his quest to create (if you were able to see it, PM me I don't want the thread to go haywire) I always thought of it as Roark building each building as his own home giving each of his works a fundemental connection to himself. When I'm at work I always get a sense of my power over my life by working to the best of my ability (a sense offered by pure capitaliam). In this way I gain some sense of self and the responsibility I have to mself to maintain it. However this idea of personality will remain secondary, a reflective element that depends entirely on how I act, something that expands because of my drive to make each action greater, to strive to break through challenges.

Or such are the times that I am proud of myself. Please reply.

Also, I'm seeing qoutes specially laide out on the forum and italics, bolds etc. My Explorer does not "toggle side panel" so I guess I need a new browser.

[DragonMaci]

What I attempt to do is somewhat different. I try to take those morally neutral things I have little experiance with and pursue them because they are outside my normal range. For example a few years ago (when I began experiancing this new kind of mood) I started listening to country music as I had previously ignored it and in doing so actually found how it is good in its own way.

What you are trying to do here is expand your experiences and thus yourself. While some experiences should never be expanded into, such as self-mutalation, in general this is a good thing. However, one can try to expand too far. One should limit oneself to things that are of interest and one will benefit from. For example, I plan to learn a few programming languages, but I will limit how many as not all languages will interest me or be of use to me. I will not learn the ones that do not fit into this category simply to expand my experiences.

Other such "morally neutral" areas would be introversion/extroversion (this one is debatable but not in any critical way to me)

I am not sure what you mean, but introversion is good as you will learn things about yourself and extroversion is good as will learn things about your surroundings. Both will benefit you immensely.

I see that I was very wrong about you. I am glad of that and I am sorry that I had you wrong.

Edited March 31, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Prometheus98876]

I am glad to see I was somewhat wrong about you as well. I can say that what I thought you were saying, as little as I coudl be too sure about is largely wrong after you clarified what you meant.

I might be missing the point, but what is so worthy about these "morally neutral" things?

[Shol'Va]

Prometheus98876 asks

I might be missing the point, but what is so worthy about these "morally neutral" things?

When I say moral in this context, which I think falls in line with the general Objectivist definition, are those things with a determinable survival value. Things like taking up the Guitar over playing chess, learning Java to build a wargame over watching Star Trek have no apparent survival effect but obviously have value in that they engage us in pleasurable ways. Keep in mind very little of our activity is now spent in an effort to secure our survival but is more geared toward self improvement. If I wanted to over think this I'd say something like how surviving as "Man qua Man" is polymorphous and does not follow the same standards of action and worth as "surviving for survival".

DragonMaci pointed out the follwing;

While some experiences should never be expanded into, such as self-mutalation

Self-mutalation is not morally neutral. To my understanding...though I hear in San Francisco........

My fundemental point here however is in the idea of existing through action. Before one can say "this is who I am" one must first say "I have done", one must want to do. Who you are, your idea is forged by the things you do and want to do. This to me is the essential nature of the first hander versus the second hander, do you agree?

[Cogito]

I am not sure what you mean, but introversion is good as you will learn things about yourself and extroversion is good as will learn things about your surroundings. Both will benefit you immensely.

The words you are thinking of are "introspection" and "extrospection". Introversion and extroversion are personalities, meaning withdrawn within the self with little or no interaction with others and very social/sociable and loud and "a presence", respectively.

[DragonMaci]

The words you are thinking of are "introspection" and "extrospection". Introversion and extroversion are personalities, meaning withdrawn within the self with little or no interaction with others and very social/sociable and loud and "a presence", respectively.

Oh, yes, sorry.

[Cogito]

A bacteria and Nirvanna

Does this have any relevance to the topic?

[DragonMaci]

Does this have any relevance to the topic?

As far as I can tell it does not.

[Prometheus98876]

When I say moral in this context, which I think falls in line with the general Objectivist definition, are those things with a determinable survival value. Things like taking up the Guitar over playing chess, learning Java to build a wargame over watching Star Trek have no apparent survival effect but obviously have value in that they engage us in pleasurable ways. Keep in mind very little of our activity is now spent in an effort to secure our survival but is more geared toward self improvement. If I wanted to over think this I'd say something like how surviving as "Man qua Man" is polymorphous and does not follow the same standards of action and worth as "surviving for survival".

I would say that these things are morally neutral. These are things that are possibly a better use of ones time than wasting it on pursuits that are of lesser value to you / f urther your life less (in which case they probably should be of lesser value to you). Those examples sound like they might be morally posttive, ie good, not neutral.

[softwareNerd]

Shol'Va, After reading your three posts, I'm still not clear what you are saying.

On the one hand, I gather that you are speaking of things that Objectivists would refer to as optional values (e.g. playing chess versus playing checkers). You're saying that you have decided to try out things that are new, to see if you like them. That's great; life has a lot of values to offer. Usually, one grows up being exposed to certain optional values: certain music, certain foods, etc. As an adult, it's great to experiment with the rich diversity of values out there in the world. Give yourself lots of choices, choose favorites from a wide range, and continue to look for more.

The second aspect I gather is that you are trying to break some old habits, by pushing yourself to do things that you normally would not do. As a rule, if one has some characteristic habit that one reviews and evaluates negatively, the simple fact of the evaluation is insufficient to ensure change. Often, even deciding "I won't do that any more" is insufficient. One has to make an effort to act differently, until the newly chosen behavior begins to come naturally (i.e., it becomes more automated).

The common thread to both these is that you end up with more consciously-chosen values and behavior.

Is that a correct understanding of what you're saying? Or are you attempting something different?

[Shol'Va]

I think everyone gets what I'm saying here. Everyone here also seems on the ball logically, so I think I'll hang around here for a while.