Paul Mawdsley

Members
  • Content Count

    922
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Paul Mawdsley

  • Rank
    $$$$$$

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Whitby, Ontario
  • Interests
    Philosophy, Psychology, Theoretical Physics

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Paul Mawdsley
  • Articles
    Synthesizing Two Epistemological OrientationsObjectivist Ethics, the Empathic Perspective and MannersAuthentic and Civil Objectivist Living in a Social WorldGod, Euclidian Geometry, and the Church of Ayn Rand

Recent Profile Visitors

5,020 profile views
  1. Hey Michael. Ha, still a causality freak but learning other languages. Interesting and pertinent that you bring up Peterson so quickly. I've been studying his perspective for about a year now. I came across him while listening to Sam Harris' first podcast between the two of them, the one where they got stuck on the nature of truth. I found it fascinating precisely because each was stuck inside his own specific single story or paradigm or epistemic lens and unable to include the other's perspective. It so reminded me of the Einstein/Bohr debates about the nature of reality at the quantu
  2. Hi Michael. Perhaps the bigger problem is living within a single core story or ideology. Perhaps this was the root of the dogmatism that has always been a part of the Objectivist movement and is the root of the general polemical dogmatism that seems to have become so prevalent everywhere today. Maybe baring witness to and weighing a multiplicity of perspectives in a combined internal and external dialectic is a more balanced and integrating stance. We’ve figured out that physical things can behave at once as particles and waves. What if people behave at once as particles and waves? What if peo
  3. Hey Michael, Thanks for the cheerleading. The process of breaking down existing frameworks inside me, many of which have been absorbed from the frameworks embedded in our culture over a lifetime (or have been built as a resistance to them), to open to the possibility of new ones is not easy. Cheers are welcome...especially with glass in hand. There were parts of my life that were not working the way I wanted so it was time to make some changes. Earning a living within the framework of trading time and energy for money is one of those things. Instead I'm going to try packaging my perspective a
  4. Trust you to press the right button, Michael. My forward momentum has stalled the last couple of days. The need to define my niche is precisely the block in the flow. Here's where I'm at. I'm focusing on the self-help niche, specifically the romantic-relationship-in-crisis niche. This can be broken into three broad market categories: those in crisis because they are not in a relationship and doubt their worthiness; those in crisis because they are in an unhealthy relationship and lack confidence in finding the path to healthy; and those in crisis because they are breaking out of an unhealthy
  5. Carol and Tony, Thanks for your enthusiastic responses. A little explanation is in order. I have a passion for writing, for putting my way of being and seeing and thinking and doing into the world through words. OL has been my venue for exploring and developing this. (Thanks to Michael and Kat for this.) Unfortunately, I have built a life that consumes my time and my energy to the point where I have found little left for expressing this passion of mine. I came back to OL after a number of years, having gone through some self-transforming life experiences, because I have such a hunger to write,
  6. Thanks Michael. As with your previous post on stories, I am very interested. Today is Thanksgiving up here in The Great White North and I'll be shot if I go AWOL with a party for 16. I'll have to find time as the story of my day and my week unfolds. One thought: Our story of causality shapes how all our stories unfold. Our sense of causality shapes how we unconsciously process our experiences, shapes the options for action we project and shapes our available choices. This is why it is so important to explore and creatively shape our story of causality. Paul
  7. Michael, We are talking about the same thinking looked at from different directions. Looked at from the perspective of working from the whole to the parts you would conclude it is "story thinking." Looked at from the perspective of the parts to the whole you would conclude it is "causal thinking." Either way it is fluid, reciprocally causal, whole-to-part/part-to-whole thinking. It is why we both are drawn to discuss interconnected holistic systems. Paul
  8. Michael, I've always known we are on the same page using different language. Paul
  9. Is 'causal reasoning' the same thing (in your mind) as 'causal thinking'? William, It's funny, by asking me to put forward a definition you are asking me to translate causal thinking into logical thinking terms. Causal thinking is what we are born with. We see causal thinking processes as intuition or insights from our unconscious. It works along side metaphorical thinking beneath the layers of what we would consider conscious thought: logical thinking and mathematical thinking. In fact, it is metaphorical thinking restricted to realistic models of our experience, built from flowing images ra
  10. Paul, It makes for a poor-ass story. I'm serious. Story is how we think. It's fundamental to our awareness. To show how fundamental it is, think of all the wars throughout history. Most have been over differences in totally implausible stories that have no way of being proven. We humans literally kill each other in mass for not believing in each other's story. If you want a cause for why people don't accept the claim that the underlying cause of everything does not, itself, have a cause, there it is. We need a story. No good guys or bad guys in the causeless universe formulation. It ain't sexy
  11. Not what I'm saying. There is more than just mathematical thinking and modeling to take us beyond direct observation. There is causal thinking and modeling which can also take us beyond direct observation. At one time this type of thinking and modeling stood at the heart of physics. It's the baby that got thrown out with the bath water. Lowly tradesmen are the only ones who use causal thinking and modeling to any advanced level anymore. And we know they are lowly because they don't think in deep logic, abstract concepts and mathematical language. The irony is that Einstein was at once the de
  12. This is the essence of AR and NB's concept of causality. When understood it replaces the view of causality at the base of the current discussion and causes a paradigm shift that makes this discussion as interesting as a discussion on how many epicycles are needed to account for the apparent motion of Mars. I am trying to understand why people don't get this. Thanks Matt.
  13. Davy, As familiar as this article reads to me, I don't think I've actually read it before. Thank you. This article is clearly early in Branden's writing because it is written within Rand's language and worldview. However, there is no doubt that he has his own authentic vision and his clarity and insight are quite profound. Personally, I've always had a sense of resonance with NB's objective metaphysical foundations and the worldview that has emerged through his writing. My point of departure with him is on the level of his connectedness with the social element of his psyche and how this comes
  14. Hi Davy, I think you will find that NB writes more to the point on causality than AR. I'm sorry I don't have my references handy but you will find a page or two on causality in Branden's The Psychology of Self-Esteem. NB also briefly discusses the idea of metaphysical dualism in one of his later books (might be The Art of Living Conciously...I think MSK referenced it recently) and mentions that AR was in agreement with his thoughts in this area. Here he suggests that consciousness and matter may both emerge from a common underlying substance. While still vague, this is a step pointing the dire
  15. You made me laugh. A more appropriate analogy might be: what if the stick protruding from the water isn't really bent? Maybe there is something in the nature of light to account for the appearance of a bent stick rather than just associating it with other bent sticks. All we have to do is pull the stick out of the water...oh, we can't do that on the scale of light years. Guess we just have to assume the stick is bent...and the red shift is due to a Doppler Effect. What exactly is the evidence connecting the red shift to the Doppler Effect across cosmic distances?