RohinGupta

I am working to convert content of the blog into a Video. Here is the link to a trailer –

Cultural Survey Ayn Rand’s insights into mind-body dichotomy, DIM Hypothesis by Dr. Peikoff, and my understanding of the differences between Aristotelian and Platonic Philosophy are applied here. The purpose is to survey ethical ideas in current culture, infer right ethical principles, and also understand the social reality of our time. — Whether it’s in supermarket, or career selection, or falling in love — every decision and corresponding actions have consequences. Actions that lead to a good life are right. A good life is a life that is healthy — physically, mentally, and emotionally. However, it’s not automatically clear which decisions are right or wrong. Some thinking and judgment are required to check correctness. This thinking and judgment are guided by the subject of Ethics. Further, intensity of thinking and impact of consequences range from very small to extreme. For example, career selection and love-related decisions are impactful, and decisions in the supermarket have relatively less impact. Purpose of Ethics is three-fold. First is to help an individual identify values. Second is to enable an individual to prioritize identified values. And third is to guide the individual, as he acts to achieve or maintain the identified values. The three criteria of ethics, identification, prioritization, and action on values will be used here to understand and judge different Ethical Systems. So here are various Ethical Systems: Altruism: Historically and widely popular, it calls a decision or action right if it involves intention to sacrifice values. This sacrifice may involve values owned by self, or values owned by others. Examples can be charitable actions of Bill Gates for sacrificing values of self. Or actions of socialist leaders in Venezuela and elsewhere, for sacrificing values owned by fellow men in society. So it’s clear that in Altruism, the main criteria for right and wrong is action aspect of Ethics. That is, a person is judged good by this Ethics if he or she sacrifices values. Identification and Prioritization of values is subservient to the decision to sacrifice. For example, Mother Teresa mostly just made death easy for the sick and homeless. But because she sacrificed her own life for others, she was given high moral credit, driven by the Ethics of Altruism. Further, in Altruism, the focus is on other people rather than self. Predatory Egoism: Like Altruism, Predatory Egoism also has sacrifice as the standard of right and wrong. Further however, it classifies an action or decision as right if the beneficiary of the sacrifice is the person making the decision. Examples can be Donald Trump maligning Amazon and Jeff Bezos, trying to sacrifice their reputation and therefore market, to appeal to his political followers; or many industrialists like Gang of Four in American Railways around 19th Century, pushing government regulations that harm competitors and therefore benefit themselves through coercive (forceful) monopolies. Here, too, focus is on other people rather than self. Hedonism: The most visible image of a Hedonist is a drug addict or a raging alcoholic. However, since hedonism refers to those who make decisions solely based on what they feel is right, often based on their mood, so hedonism should also include those who make career and love decisions primarily from their feelings, even if they are not using drugs or alcohol. Ethics of Eudaimonia:Eudaimonia is a Greek origin word which means human flourishing and prosperity. According to this system of Ethics, human happiness realized due to flourishing is the standard of right and wrong. (As against hedonistic happiness). However, when we go into specific principles of Eudaimonia, there is resistance to facts as the basis of Ethics. That is, whenever there is a conflict between the judgment / intuition / feelings about what is valuable, and facts that might have been basis of those values, then practitioners of Eudaimonia prefer intuition over facts. And therefore sometimes, Eudaimonia implicitly promotes altruistic thinking like charity as very important or helping colleagues over personal career etc. Rational Egoism:Like Eudaimonia, Rational Egoism also has life and well-being of the valuer as a standard. Unlike Eudaimonia however, here relevant facts are given primacy when in conflict with intuitive guidelines. Example of relevant facts is production as a fundamental element in human survival and flourishing, creating values like e-Commerce and factories from ideas, that is. Further, there is hierarchy or definite order in which the Ethical code is identified and then applied. Virtues or guides for obtaining values for flourishing are derived from flourishing life as standard, and after that organization of facts relevant for flourishing life. For example in this Ethics, we have virtues or guidelines that involve evaluation of individuals based on how they contribute to one’s productive purpose, or seeking of knowledge for purpose etc. Production rather than sacrifice as the focus of pursuit is the foundation for purposeful action in Rational Egoism. This is the fundamental difference between Rational Egoism and Predatory Egoism. Since the nature of valuer, wants of the valuer, and socio-ecological environment of the valuer is used for identifying the Central Motivation of his or her life, therefore Egoism or the view of self is a key element in this ethics. Further, since purpose is derived from facts, and executed based on Ethical Principles derived from facts, so Rationality is also the key element here. Actions of Steve Jobs, whether being able to visualize future benefits from technology, or praising good Computer Engineers, are examples of Rational Egoism. Overall, this is the only Ethical System, whichconsistently considers identification of values as primary. Eudaimonia being the system which inconsistently considers identification and prioritization of values as primary. Pragmatism: Discarding principles of any kind is the essence of Pragmatism. Whether principles are value-generating or value-destroying, Pragmatism holds that as long as an individual reaches out to principles for creating or protecting values, he is acting on a wrong premise. An example is a statement such as an idea may be good in theory, but is bad in practice. So rather than question specifics of theories or principles, the school of ethics rejects the need for principled and abstract thinking itself. So here too, like Altruism, identification and prioritization of values is secondary, compared to actions in pursuit of values. Categorical Imperative: Converse of Pragmatism is this school, where the need for Principle to be practically validated is completely discarded. So if any principle is raised to the Ethical level, then the school says it is wrong to attempt to consider its practical implications. For example, the school says charity or socialism as good should not be validated with facts of reality. Or even ideas like will of majority is always true, should not be validated. Further, the Ethical Principles that Rational Egoism or Eudaimonia correctly derive as right, are often misrepresented by the school of Categorical Imperative while executing. For example, earning more money is a right thing, as long as it improves flourishing life and does not involve coercion, overall, supporting the Central Purpose of the individual’s life. However, since Categorical Imperative disconnects this principle from practical aspects like flourishing, so this can lead to an unhealthy or irrational obsession with wealth. Therefore through the Ethics of Categorical Imperative, wealth becomes a distraction rather than the means to promote rational purpose and happiness. Therefore Categorical Imperative also falls in the same category as Altruism and Pragmatism, only more extreme. It completely discards identification and prioritization in favor of action. Divorcing What from How, that is. Nihilism: In Predatory Egoism, sacrifice of other people and their efforts for benefit of self rather than mutual benefit is considered. Nihilism goes one step further. Here the action or the decision is considered right, if it involves sacrifice, or more precisely destruction of values. (Destruction being the motive, with sacrifice as the straw man or the rationalization.) Unlike Predatory Egoism, here there is no intention to gain from sacrifice or destruction. Destruction is an end in itself. Example can be socialized medicine destroying medical institutions, without providing any tangible gain to anybody. Skeptical School of Ethics: This school focuses mostly on maintaining already achieved values, and not on creating new values. The examples of this school are nutritionists, environmentalists, Libertarians etc. (There is an element of nihilism also in this school.) The best of environmentalists focus on the negative impact human activity has on the environment, which in turn impacts humans back. The solution they offer is abstinence from progress itself. The worst of the environmentalists consider environment as an end in itself. And like Altruists, such environmentalists also want individuals to sacrifice for the environment, irrespective of whether the sacrifice provides overall benefit to the individual or not. Similarly, Libertarians focus on negative aspects of government only, some of them advocating anarchy rather than specific reforms. Since Production or Creation of values is low on the agenda of skeptics, they end up stalling the flourishing. (Values for flourishing being not just products but also methods, processes, guidelines like law and Constitution etc.). Flourishing refers to activities that make humans more capable of surviving. And therefore skeptics turn into nihilists by implication. Conclusion: Survey of various Ethical schools brings out a few types in decision-making: a type that is focused on sacrifice and destruction of Values; a type like Libertarians and Environmentalists, who look only at the negative aspects of Production; a type that considers flourishing life as the standard of values, but is reluctant to question sacrificial or Altruistic actions; a type that discards principled thinking and puts emotions over fact-based principles; a type that disconnects principles from facts and implications, making them out of context absolute. And finally a Rational Egoist, deriving decisions from facts about self and own environment, and using fact-based rational principles to execute these decisions. Of course, many subscribe to mixtures of these schools. For example, Altruism leading to a sense of entitlement and therefore Predatory Egoism. Or Pragmatism leading to Hedonism. At an even wider level, there are schools of Ethics that give primacy to actions on values. Here content of values involving identification and prioritization is mostly an afterthought. Rational Egoism and Eudaimonia, on the other hand, promote identification and prioritization of values before any decision related to action is taken. These give importance to What over How, Content over Form, and therefore are from the Aristotelian Philosophy. Remaining schools are different versions of Platonic Philosophy.

Based on feedback to previously musical video, added a voiceover in American accent. Checkout this updated video on human motivation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZQKk_x_gqs

Final draft of video It captures the essential concepts involved in Human Motivation, introduces the most popular model for motivating humans, identifies the gaps in that model and fixes them. So checkout the video and share the feedback here or in Youtube. Hope its useful...! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lmHBjgSSHI P.S: The ideas are derived from Central Principles of Objectivist Ethics

Hi All, I am in middle of converting the content of blog into video. Please check the first draft of part of video and share feedback. Pending : Voice over and parts explaining values, Central Purpose of Life, and Alternative model.

Please differentiate between civilized humans and animals. Also, some of your answers are in the blog. Hint - Productiveness as the core.

A more elaborate explanation is here https://medium.com/@rohingupta2k18/reinventing-maslows-model-of-motivation-5cdc0d173caf?fbclid=IwAR1A2QxMa6NfYpUeu_zkYQJPbPtDnWIdKzl5szrk3aTXobSQD3FQEiL97Yc P.S: The Maslow's model of motivation is widely quoted in many influential books of management. I use Objectivist Ethics, concept of Central Purpose of Life in particular, to improve the model and its application.

Maslow’s theory of motivation claims that first motivators are physiological factors like food, shelter, etc., after that safety factors like rule of law and insurance(protection in general), then meaningful social relationships, then social status and reputation, and finally an individual’s need to find himself or herself. The final one being self-actualization. From OEFO perspective, not a chosen few, but all adults are or should be motivated by self-actualization (OEFO refers to my book “Organizational Ethics from Objectivism”, from which the snippet is taken). The Central Purpose of Life (CPL) in Objectivist Ethics is quite similar to the concept of self-actualization. Other needs in Maslow’s model, ranging from physiological, safety-related, social, and emotional should be inferred and adjusted based on the CPL. For example, a CEO of an organizations will need a bigger social circle than a scientist(generally speaking), since the latter focuses more on in-depth study, and the former more on collaborative actions for building products and services. Safety is a negative factor and should not be the primary motivation. E.g., retiring early without having any clear CPL is not right. Also, the emotional part of the self should be fuelled using art or sports, such that one is sufficiently motivated to move towards their CPL. The same criteria is true for personal and other relationships. The contribution of each relationship towards the CPL should be evaluated. True, there are adults who have very destructive CPLs. Communism in Soviet Russia and elsewhere, Socialism in Nazi Germany, or many Socialist intellectuals and politicians of the Indian Left are a few of the examples of those having destructive CPLs. Also, among millennials, the non-productive purpose of enjoying as an ultimate end is popular. However, this too is not right as a Central Virtue, because it’s not derived from the Virtue of Productivity: The creation of products and services as a priority. These CPLs can be contrasted from the CPLs of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates 1.0, the founding fathers of America, Walt Disney, Narendra Modi, etc. Overall, irrespective of the value or the disvalue of CPL, the fact remains that humans are, or should be motivated by purpose.

Good Morning, today is Saturday, 16th March. Second part of the study-group starts now. Following is the scope for this week’s study ------ 1. CONTINUING VARIOUS CONNETIONS BETWEEN THE CENTRAL PURPOSE OF LIFE(CPL) OF THE EMPLOYER(S) AND EMPLOYEE a.) The CPL in a skewed social system. 2. Summary of apparent CPLs that do not subscribe to Objectivist Morality 3. Employer-Employee relationship in Government Jobs 4. Conclusion ------ I will publish questions that the participants can optionally answer. Participants can also summarize or outline the text. They can also select the portion of text, analyzing and synthesizing it deeply, chew the content that is. So here are the questions from this week's content (CPL = Central Purpose of Life.) Q1.) What does “skewed social system” refer to in this book? Compare it to Totalitarian system? Q2.) What does “CPL in skewed social system” mean in the context of Industrial Relations? Give example from outside. Q3.) What is common between the CPLs discussed up to the apparent CPLs? Q4.) What are two apparent CPLs discussed here? Q5.) Contrast “hobby first” approach from “Wages” part of Employer-Employee relationship? Q6.) Why are we studying apparent CPLs? Also share your experience of these apparent CPLs in your professional lives? Q7.) Explain psychological variations of apparent CPLs? Q8.) What do you think of “making as much money as possible” as a CPL? Q9.) Why should we study Employer-Employee relationship in government jobs? What is the approach that should be taken for this study? Q10.) Apart from what government ought to do, what else one needs to know, for understanding employer-employee relationship in government jobs? Q11.) What is the right role of government in the society? Q12.) What are the different activities governments have done in society? (May or may not be derived from right role of government in the society). Q13.) What are various drivers of government and government employees? Give examples. Q14.) How should constitutional driver be evaluated? Give examples from book or outside. Q15.) Which role in private organization can be compared to a role of politician in the society? Q17.) What should be done about the activities that government should not be doing in the society? Give examples from book or outside. Q18.) How should taxpayers driver of Government jobs be evaluated?

Good Morning, today is Saturday, 9th March. Main study starts now. Following is the scope for this week’s study ------ WEEK 1 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF AN ORGANIZATION 2. VARIOUS CONNETIONS BETWEEN THE CENTRAL PURPOSE OF LIFE (CPL) OF THE EMPLOYER(S) AND EMPLOYEE a.) Create value in same material form b.) Create complementary values c.) Learning work-specific skills d.) Discovering the CPL e.) Wages ------ I will publish questions that the participants can optionally answer. Participants can also summarize or outline the text. They can also select the portion of text, analyzing and synthesizing it deeply, chew the content that is. So here are the questions from this week's content Q1.) Which relationships are deepest in an organization? Q2.) From definition of an Organization, identify the key attributes of Organization, and list these in bullet points? Q3.) What is the difference between an individual and an organization, when they engage in transactional or contractual relationship? What is the similarity? Q4.) What can an employee do to become successful and happy? Q5.) Summarize different forms of business collaborations, sorted according to their complexity in an Organization? Q6.) What are different ways in which the business collaborations can be sorted in Organizational Ethics? Q7.) What are similarities and differences between purpose of an Organization, and Central Purpose of Life for an Employee? Q8.) Give examples of Purpose of various Organizations from the book and outside? Q9.) What is the significance of Employee’s Central Purpose of Life in an Organization? Q10.) Give an example of the connection of Employer-Employee CPLs from the book and outside? Q11.) What does create value in same material form mean in the context of Industrial relation? Give example from book or outside. Q12.) What does creation of complementary values mean in the context of Industrial relation? Give an example from book or outside? Q13.) Under what circumstances is creation of complementary values part of Contractual relationship? When is it part of Employer-Employee relationship? Q14.) What does learning work specific skill mean in the context of Industrial Relation? Give an example from book or outside. Q15.) How does management of Employee having “learning work specific skill” as main goal in an organization change, compared to an employee having previous two CPLs? Q16.) What does “Discovering CPL” mean in the context of Industrial relation? Give an example from book or outside? Q17.) What is the opportunity for an Employer, if the employee is in “Discovery of CPL” stage? Q18.) What does “wages” mean in context of Industrial relation? Give an example from book or outside? Q19.) How does management of Employee having “wages” as the main goal in a job change, compared to employee having first three, or even “discovering CPL” as the goal in an Organization?

Please check following links to get a glimpse of whats in store.1. Study Group on intellectual development of Ayn Rand - http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/28351-ayn-rand-chapter-from-the-power-and-the-glory/2. Study Group on how iPhone was conceptualized and developed - http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/29185-becoming-steve-jobs-how-a-reckless-upstart-became-a-visionary-leader/

Pre-study started yesterday ----------------- WEEK 0 CHAPTER 3 - COLLABORATION 1. Introduction 2. Business Collaborations - Purely Transactional, Transactional and Contractual, Purely Contractual - Employer-Employee relationship - Employee-Employee relationship - Employer-Employer relationship - Cultural Relationship, Government-Businessman relationship 3. Conclusion ---------------------- I will publish questions that the participants can optionally answer. Participants can also summarize or outline the text. They can also select the portion of text, analyzing and synthesizing it deeply, chew the content that is. So here are the questions from this week's content Q1.) Which subject does business collaboration belong to? In this chapter what are we trying to resolve? Q2.) Business collaborations are inferred based on which facts? Q3.) Explain with examples, transactional form of business collaboration? Q4.) Explain with examples, "transactional and contractual" form of business collaboration? Q5.) Explain with examples, purely contractual form of business collaboration? Q6.) What are similarities and differences between contractual relationship and employer-employee relationship? Q7.) What is the problem with having a contractual relationship with house maid? Q8.) What is the scope of employer-employee relationship? Q9.) Explain with examples employee-employee relationship? Emphasis can be on key attributes of this relationship. Q10.) Explain with examples employer-employer relationship? Emphasis can be on key attributes of this relationship. Q11.) Explain with examples, cultural relationship businesses have? Q12.) If possible, share examples and attributes ( both positive and negative ) of Government-Businessman relationship?

Mini version now available here - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07NWBS1SJ?fbclid=IwAR1oBovyShIf5wtAwtPCrFiwDpLmPG3VFZNz8eXEhosyqHvJ64fm-UJQgUs So those who may not have bought the full book, considering it complex, can still buy the mini-version and participate in the study-group.

Just posted following etiquettes for the upcoming study group. Etiquette is the art of facilitating trade by applying principles and rules of behavior to social situations. In this case we are trading ideas on particular topic, and etiquettes deal with how we should post and interact in the thread. Here are etiquettes designed specifically for study-group method of discussion. 1. THE NATURE OF POSTS IN THIS STUDY GROUP a. Focus on the Text. The study-group is a text-focused series. This means each participant's weekly post should be either an outline of the text, a summary of the text, a "chewing" on some point in the text, an elaborated question about a point in the text; or an answer to the weekly optional questions about the text. b. Unacceptable Substitutes. Not acceptable as core subjects of the main weekly posts are: personal comments; mere statements of agreement or disagreement; links to sources other than the particular text which is the object of study; criticisms of the author's style; or debate with the author. Any of these might be appropriate as an aside in the main weekly post. c. Duplication. Duplication of form is not a problem. Even if, by unlikely accident, all participants were to write the same kind of post (e.g., a summary of the text assigned for the week), the content will inevitably be different. d. Secondary Posts. Sometimes a secondary post (written after posting an outline, summary, etc. for the week) can increase learning about the text. Secondary posts are optional. Topics might include: showing a connection to another field; asking about the best study method to be employed for a certain text; or describing one's personal experiences with the subject of the text. Of course, these secondary topics, if very brief, can be woven into the primary post. 2. DO Do address issues, not individual SGO members. If Mike says "X and Y and therefore Z," address his argument, summarized in your own words, but without naming him. Do remember that no member has an obligation to respond to another member's questions, invitations, or comments. Do edit for typographical errors. 3. DO NOT Do not name other participants in your posts, but instead deal only with ideas. For example, you could write "The notion of 'necessity', as it is traditionally used, implies a false dichotomy of . . . ," instead of "John Smith's bizarre fantasy about 'necessity' in metaphysics . . . " or any other personalized statement. Do not link to, name, or discuss individuals, websites, or ideas not relevant to the topic discussed in a study group. Do not quote participants, but instead express their ideas in your own words. IMPLEMENTING ETIQUETTES I will be sending the message to the person in case I think the etiquette is violated. And he can edit accordingly, or reply back if there is misunderstanding. These etiquettes are adapted from etiquettes of Burgess Laughlin's study-group. Study Group Link is as follows:https://www.facebook.com/groups/146490542953558

Continuing my journey to apply Objectivsm into Management, I have started a study group. OVERVIEW The study will involve chapter 6, Organization, of the book "Reinventing Management: Organization Ethics from Objectivism". The chapter builds on the Employer-Employee and Employer-Employer relationships from chapter 3, Collaboration. Delving into relationships like creating complementary material values, skill building, wages, and Central Purpose of Life in a skewed social system. Details of the study-group are here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/146490542953558/ The book can be bought here - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07MH79D18 Once the study is completed, I will convert the group into a discussion forum for working professionals. The forum will cover topics related to work environment and work culture, career and job related discussions, business counsel etc.