An Empathic Lens and a Connected Universe

[Xray]

A question occurs: is it evolution that gives rise to the need for connection or the need for connection that gives shape to evolution?

If one accepts the premise that our biological condition is the result of an evolutionary process: the former.

But reciprocal influences play a role as well; and with the possibilities offered by e. g. genetic engineeering, man will probably interfere in future generations with the natural evolutionary process to an extent unimaginable by us who live just at the beginning of this new era.

[Dglgmut]

Xray, I guess it depends on the example. I was thinking of making people laugh when I wrote that. I certainly do take pride in making people laugh, especially strangers or people I respect. And the thing about people is that they exist, so an involuntary reaction like laughter is just as real an achievement to me as building something.

[Brant Gaede]

Wait a minute. I just had the thought... If Roark likes to build and take pride in his buildings, what's wrong with trying to affect people and taking pride in their love?

Imo one can't equate the two examples because the analogy does not match.

While it is understandable that someone takes pride in an object he/she has produced (or to the production of which he he/she has contributed substantially), trying to affect people in order to be loved has a touch of 'manipulating others minds' to it. So the "pride" in that case woud be not about the love one gets in return, but about one's ability to influence people. I don't think btw that 'pride' is the correct term for this.

Take out the "in order to be loved" and you still have something of a defective statement in its inclusiveness. We are always trying to affect people in our social relationships or sell them something, with filthy lucre being only one possible payment. The manipulation is one thing adult to adult and another adult to child. That is, if I try to manipulate you into an empathic response to my context as in me wanting to sell you something, it is your job to know what is going on and to go along with it or not to an appropriate extent. This is pre-trade trading. If I am a buyer and you a reluctant seller, I'm going to try to manipulate you into selling me what I want. If I or you use force or fraud that's a no-no and as of now the only way relationships can be objectified by a third party if not us. (Here is where libertarianism trumps Objectivism and may be one of [the] several reasons libertarianism and libertarians pissed off Ayn Rand.)

Now say I have a need to be loved or seen to the extent that might be described as pathological. That evaluation has to be somewhat subjective. It's the trying to get love and psychological visibility and how I comport myself that might cause a buddy to tell me, "Hey, buddy. I think there's a problem here." And so on and so forth. I once had a problem like this--not too bad--but when I saw it really bad in another person--forty years ago--that made it real to me in me and I was easily able to address and fix the problem--or so I've been telling myself ever since--simply by being aware of what I was doing and why. I then stopped doing it apropos my motivation and addressed the motivation. If I had been in deep, I might still be there. This has made me extremely sensitive to what I consider appropriate and inappropriate behavior, at least in me, regarding this. In others, I can see it coming immediately if I'm in focus. This also applies to bullying. I've never been a bully but am psychologically impervious to it. That took decades and includes authority figures like doctors and nurses. If it doesn't cost me anything I let them go on and on with their games until I get annoyed. Once a nurse did something with my father that wasn't right and I stopped it immediately. After things were right in my lights she then had the gall to complain about what I did, but I didn't care about her any longer so I let her yak away. A doctor who witnessed this--I interrupted his conversation with her--asked me if I was a doctor. No, but in that I once was the world's most highly trained medic--hardly true any more today--I know I can still do amputations--the medical profession can't put anything over on me by appeals to its authority.

--Brant

I never go to the mat with brain surgeons--a man's got to know his limitations

[Paul Mawdsley]

Connecting with people is an evolutionary human need

If you just take out "evolutionary" you are left with your naked bromide. All complicated life has this "need."

--Brant

A question occurs: is it evolution that gives rise to the need for connection or the need for connection that gives shape to evolution?

Does your question have any seeming gravitas?

--Brant

Brant,

Yesterday was a busy day for me. My girlfriend and I hosted a get together that included both my parents and her's, my brother and sister, 5 kids and 2 dogs. I was busy on a number of levels. Doing the stereotypical guy thing, I was in charge of the barbecue and the music. I was monitoring the kids to make sure things were good. I dealt with some tears when my daughter's friend smashed her iPhone screen. I mingled and chatted and played. I checked with my girlfriend intermittently to make sure her stress levels were doing good (I have noticed juggling mothers, mothers-in-law and food prep can be stressful). And I got to be with the people I care about most in the world, participating in the interactions and witnessing the social dynamics. I was seeing a whole lot of connecting going on. It was a good day.

I also took time to keep up on the posts that were coming in on the two threads I am participating in here on OL. When I asked the above question, it came from a state of flow in me. It didn't come from a great deal of focused thought...at least not in that moment. But it flowed from a place of a lot of previous thought about evolution theory and was meant as an attempt to pull back the covers a little on something that bugs me about standard neo-Darwinian theory.

Standard theory grew in a context of local, linear, mechanistic causal modeling. This modeling produces theories where the action of the parts are conceived as shaping the whole but the whole cannot be seen as reciprocating causally and affecting the action of the parts. Epigenetics seems to be opening a door to the need for different causal thinking and modeling in evolution theory just as quantum theory should be opening the same door if causal discrimination wasn't playing such a stifling political role.

Our thinking and modeling in evolution theory has been so myopic that we tend to see existing traits through the lens of a random mutation/natural selection engine only. So "the need for connection" must be the result of random mutation and natural selection, right? My sense of causality says there is more. First of all, the need for connection can be seen as an emergent property built into the fabric of life itself, in the same way that I see matter, gravitational fields and quantum fields as an emergent property of EM fields or the forming of new order can be an emergent property of a chaotic system. It can be seen as a type of "self-actualization process" applied to life itself, as a driving force in evolution.

Secondly, if we start with a view of reciprocal causation between whole systems and the parts of systems, we have a reason to look for ways the "need for connection" (seen as an emergent property of life itself) could have shaped evolution.

I guess I'm saying that, despite the fact that my question didn't come from a place of serious deliberation in the moment, and despite the fact that my focus was mostly engaged elsewhere, my question certainly had gravitas, Brant. I don't play shallow with ideas. ;-)

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

Once a nurse did something with my father that wasn't right and I stopped it immediately. After things were right in my lights she then had the gall to complain about what I did, but I didn't care about her any longer so I let her yak away. A doctor who witnessed this--I interrupted his conversation with her--asked me if I was a doctor. No, but in that I once was the world's most highly trained medic--hardly true any more today--I know I can still do amputations--the medical profession can't put anything over on me by appeals to its authority.

--Brant

I never go to the mat with brain surgeons--a man's got to know his limitations

I tend to give respect to the person...this can be kept and grown or lost. Respect for authority has to be earned...starting with being a decent person.

[Brant Gaede]

Connecting with people is an evolutionary human need

If you just take out "evolutionary" you are left with your naked bromide. All complicated life has this "need."

--Brant

A question occurs: is it evolution that gives rise to the need for connection or the need for connection that gives shape to evolution?

Does your question have any seeming gravitas?

--Brant

Brant,

Yesterday was a busy day for me. My girlfriend and I hosted a get together that included both my parents and her's, my brother and sister, 5 kids and 2 dogs. I was busy on a number of levels. Doing the stereotypical guy thing, I was in charge of the barbecue and the music. I was monitoring the kids to make sure things were good. I dealt with some tears when my daughter's friend smashed her iPhone screen. I mingled and chatted and played. I checked with my girlfriend intermittently to make sure her stress levels were doing good (I have noticed juggling mothers, mothers-in-law and food prep can be stressful). And I got to be with the people I care about most in the world, participating in the interactions and witnessing the social dynamics. I was seeing a whole lot of connecting going on. It was a good day.

I also took time to keep up on the posts that were coming in on the two threads I am participating in here on OL. When I asked the above question, it came from a state of flow in me. It didn't come from a great deal of focused thought...at least not in that moment. But it flowed from a place of a lot of previous thought about evolution theory and was meant as an attempt to pull back the covers a little on something that bugs me about standard neo-Darwinian theory.

Standard theory grew in a context of local, linear, mechanistic causal modeling. This modeling produces theories where the action of the parts are conceived as shaping the whole but the whole cannot be seen as reciprocating causally and affecting the action of the parts. Epigenetics seems to be opening a door to the need for different causal thinking and modeling in evolution theory just as quantum theory should be opening the same door if causal discrimination wasn't playing such a stifling political role.

Our thinking and modeling in evolution theory has been so myopic that we tend to see existing traits through the lens of a random mutation/natural selection engine only. So "the need for connection" must be the result of random mutation and natural selection, right? My sense of causality says there is more. First of all, the need for connection can be seen as an emergent property built into the fabric of life itself, in the same way that I see matter, gravitational fields and quantum fields as an emergent property of EM fields or the forming of new order can be an emergent property of a chaotic system. It can be seen as a type of "self-actualization process" applied to life itself, as a driving force in evolution.

Secondly, if we start with a view of reciprocal causation between whole systems and the parts of systems, we have a reason to look for ways the "need for connection" (seen as an emergent property of life itself) could have shaped evolution.

I guess I'm saying that, despite the fact that my question didn't come from a place of serious deliberation in the moment, and despite the fact that my focus was mostly engaged elsewhere, my question certainly had gravitas, Brant. I don't play shallow with ideas. ;-)

Paul

Well I'll grant you that you've beefed up your question, to which I really don't have an answer for it goes back to the first chicken and the first egg--at least to the emergence of complicated life.

Incidentally, it's one thing to champion non-linear thinking, but we understand it all, finally, by linear analysis. And it is through linear thinking that we make ourselves safe and can let creativity flow. Kind of entering a haunted house and letting ourselves be scared even knowing on the deeper level that we have nothing to fear.

--Brant

[Paul Mawdsley]

Incidentally, it's one thing to champion non-linear thinking, but we understand it all, finally, by linear analysis. And it is through linear thinking that we make ourselves safe and can let creativity flow. Kind of entering a haunted house and letting ourselves be scared even knowing on the deeper level that we have nothing to fear.

I appreciate your point, Brant, between linear and nonlinear thinking. There is an interplay between the two modes of processing. Linear focused thinking works better for separating out the parts and building from the bottom-up. Non-linear flowing thought is great for pattern recognition and pattern generation which is holistic and works from the top-down. When they work together they can each act as a guide for the other's processes. The holistic patterns we discover shape where the parts build to and the parts we have identified create the "dots" that our holistic patterns get shaped around. Again, we see reciprocal causation (and a balance in importance) between whole and parts, even in the way we think. It would be more accurate to say I champion the interplay between linear and non-linear thinking.

I think it can be argued that it is the breakdown of this interplay and a separation of linear and non-linear thinking that is responsible for many a "haunted house." Religion, for example, works by breaking this interplay apart. Take the stories and the metaphors produced from non-linear thinking on the one hand, and the rules (shoulds) for how to think and feel and act that come from linear thought on the other, and see how powerful a hold you can have on people when you inject this as a control system into their souls. If accepted, it causes a complete breakdown of their own independent interplay between linear and non-linear thinking and a breakdown of their autonomous creative systems in the most fundamental parts of life. I look at the ancient Greeks as the height of balance between linear and non-linear thinking. Take control of a person's (or a culture's) stories, and take control of their creative volition (more descriptive than free will) by injecting rule following, and you stand as puppet master and they are your puppet. Power seekers are driven to be puppet masters and are drawn to these control systems at every level. The greatness of the Greeks was brought down by this program and the last two thousand years has been defined by it. It goes well beyond religion though. It is in our churches, our schools, our places of work. It is in our homes. It is a software virus running rampant inside us, shaping how we feel about and see things, past on through our empathic connectedness with those we need. Our culture still struggles today to break free of it. I know I have felt it and fought it all my life. Now I'm really starting to see it. I like the idea of the covers coming off. I like the idea of a world where we take control of our own stories and take control of our lives through creative volition.

[Brant Gaede]

You seem to be fighting off your own personally determined determinism--like you're trying to find your way out of that haunted house. Be careful; you don't want to dive into an empty swimming pool just because there's a diving board.

--Brant

[anthony]

Not much to add, except I always enjoyed playing with the notion of "linear" and "non-linear" being one and the same. No dichotomy.

So - you are standing on what looks like a straight, flat line of existence and consciousness, but actually it's a tiny arc of a huge circle going past your visible horizon and coming right round to bump you on the ass.

I said it wasn't much: fun imagery.

[Edit: Off-the-cuff remark not meant to slight any metaphorical models

presented here.]

[Paul Mawdsley]

You seem to be fighting off your own personally determined determinism--like you're trying to find your way out of that haunted house. Be careful; you don't want to dive into an empty swimming pool just because there's a diving board.

--Brant

It was more of a cliff than a diving board...and I already jumped. I just trusted that there was water below and that I knew how to swim. Turns out it didn't kill me and it did make me stronger. The cliff, the darkness and the chaos below was inside me. Now there is nowhere I am scared to go and there is nothing I can't see.

[Brant Gaede]

You seem to be fighting off your own personally determined determinism--like you're trying to find your way out of that haunted house. Be careful; you don't want to dive into an empty swimming pool just because there's a diving board.

--Brant

It was more of a cliff than a diving board...and I already jumped. I just trusted that there was water below and that I knew how to swim. Turns out it didn't kill me and it did make me stronger. The cliff, the darkness and the chaos below was inside me. Now there is nowhere I am scared to go and there is nothing I can't see.

Ah, metaphors have set you free!

--Brant

careful Brantie rantie

[Dglgmut]

I thought of empathy in a different way just recently... The two lenses that you talk about, Paul, I think the difference between them has to do with objectification of self.

When we objectify ourselves, we ignore our true selves in the present. We identify ourselves with a concept, rather than the active process of our mind, and this is the "individualistic lens", or whatever you would call it.

It is necessary to objectify ourselves in order to take care of ourselves--to plan ahead, but it is impossible to enjoy ourselves fully in this state. This is the switching between lenses that is so important. We cannot objectify ourselves permanently, or else we will never be doing anything other than preparing to live... and badly, because:

Selfishness requires self-esteem. Self-esteem requires an honest perception of self, which self-objectification is not because it creates a duality: a perceived self and a perceiving self.

...Actually, it's when we objectify ourselves that we also objectify others. It must be a way of thinking, because when we empathize with others, we feel with them.

Objectifying is necessary for identifying. Objectivism was a better name for Rand's philosophy, for that reason, than her first choice, Existentialism.

Objectification seems to be at the core of the one lens, but the other? It's what most people call, "Being in the moment," but what does it really mean? Maybe self-objectification is necessary to get into that one mindset, while an acceptance of the mystery of the self is what allows us to go on little journeys with other people.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Not much to add, except I always enjoyed playing with the notion of "linear" and "non-linear" being one and the same. No dichotomy.

So - you are standing on what looks like a straight, flat line of existence and consciousness, but actually it's a tiny arc of a huge circle going past your visible horizon and coming right round to bump you on the ass.

I said it wasn't much: fun imagery.

[Edit: Off-the-cuff remark not meant to slight any metaphorical models

presented here.]

For my part, Tony, I assume all of us are coming from a place of authentic decency, understanding and a desire to participate in writing on the page we share. I have a well tuned antenna that alerts me to signs that this ain't so. To borrow from Michael, my story of you tells me you are decent and genuine at the core, and you have valuable insights to contribute. It also tells me you are weary of being misperceived and you have a sense of justice that doesn't like to see other's misperceived. When misperception and misattributions arise you have a warrior and protector at the ready to defend and fight.

The best dialogue emerges from a social space we create together where authentic decency and understanding are assumed, when we have an openness to the flow of evidence for reevaluating our perceptions and attributions, and when there is a sense of mutual trust that grows and gives the warriors and protectors a rest. I see no slight in presenting images, ideas and information.

For the longest time I struggled with seeing other people's metaphors. My thinking was incredibly literal. While this gave me a weakness with metaphors, it gave me a strength with creating more precise models of the world. This is a big part of what drove me to think the way I do about causality and the ways it is expressed in physics and psychology. I didn't want just a metaphorical description of things. I wanted to actually see the causal dynamics, in my imagination, of what happens inside an atom, or a light wave/particle, or a tornado, or my psyche, or my brain, etc. Now I have learned to play in the land of metaphors like everyone else, but I still like seeing through my causal lens.

The way I have come to see it, there is no dichotomy between linear/local and non-linear/non-local causation. The challenge is in seeing inside the reciprocal whole/part dynamic. The principle is this: the action of the parts gives form to the whole and the form of the whole limits the degrees of freedom of the parts. The parts act linearly and locally but do so in the context created by the shape of the whole, which exists and acts non-linearly and non-locally from the perspective of the parts and sets limits on how they can act, thus giving them only specific possible actions that can fit predictable probabilities of being taken.

It's like the parent seeing a world of options to buy shoes for their child to go back to school. The parent has a particular budget and style in mind and wants to influence the child without pushing or pulling them because this will lead to a fight and rejection. So the parent brings it down to three choices: the white ones, the red ones or the blue ones.The child sees themselves as choosing so doesn't feel pushed or pulled. The parent has already controlled for budget and style. The parent also knows there is a high probability of choosing blue because it is the child's favorite colour and can see a probability distribution of 60% for blue, 30% for red and 10% for white based on knowledge of the child's inner drives and tastes.

The parent has given shape to the system in which the child acts. The child is acting locally and linearly from her own motives but her behaviour is being shaped by the whole system the parent has created. (Btw- once you teach the child how to read the effects of the contexts and the whole systems in which they are embedded, the parent can't get away with this control system anymore. This works well for a 4 year old but is damaging when applied to an 8 year old. An 8 year old will feel manipulated because they are starting to sense the parent's control of whole systems.) This is fundamentally different to an action-reaction view of causation.

Causation is about why things behave as they do. When we think of the proverbial billiard balls, we see the actions of one ball being the result of the collision with another. What we have found from careful observations, though, is that action-reaction descriptions of the universe don't account for certain types of actions like the action of a photon in the double slit experiment. In fact, this observation led to the throwing out of causal thinking from the roots of modern physics completely, which has broken the use of visualizing causal dynamics as a tool of physics.

I came to see the causal dynamics of whole/part causation by visualizing how and why the particles in a vortex behave as they do. I realized that a particle would take a path defined by its existing linear action in the context of the spaces available for it to move. It will tend to travel in straight lines through spaces of least resistance. Since all the other particles in the system limit the space that our particle can move into, they limit our particle's degrees of freedom. Since the form or shape of the whole system is created by the nature and actions of the parts, the form of the whole system determines the degrees of freedom of our particle and, thus, defines the options and probabilities for its action. This is the essence of reciprocal whole/part dynamics. Non-linear and non-local effects emerge from local and linear actions in whole systems. "...it's a tiny arc of a huge circle going past your visible horizon and coming right round to bump you on the ass." ;-)

Paul

PS: If you apply this to Bohm's causal interpretation of QM, you get a local and linear explanation of non-local and non-linear effects that doesn't contradict relativity and opens the door to visualizing the causal dynamics of QM from the basis of complex patterns in the EM field. It also opens the door to a new way to visualize the gravitational field as emerging from the EM field with the formation of matter.

[Dglgmut]

The danger of empathy is related to self-esteem. We all want what's best for ourselves, but if we believe that others know what is best for us, then obviously we become vulnerable to misinterpretation and, worst of all, trusting a perspective that is against us (pitting us against ourselves).

I think the metaphor of different lenses is misleading. I believe there is degrees of empathy, and the Objectivist version has a strict limit: never to put another person's perspective before your own.

The collectivist mentality was summed up by Bill Clinton recently as the belief that "we're all in this together". It would be nice to believe that everyone had our best interest at heart, but that is simply not the case. Empathy should come naturally to us, as relating to people with whom there is no conflict of interest. Empathy is when we want what's best for someone else, but why would we want what's best for someone else if it conflicts with what is best for ourselves?

If we always focus on what is best for ourselves, we can empathize only, and automatically, when someone else shares that interest for their own reasons.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Calvin,

You seem to have an impressive nose for finding important patterns in the chaos of life's inner experiences. I enjoy reading your perspective on things because you are very good at pointing the way to interesting issues as you strive to make sense of things for yourself. I hope to find more time to respond over the next few days.

Paul

[Dglgmut]

Thanks Paul. Waiting for your post... but in the meantime I'll correct something. I said that we can get sucked into believing that others know what's best for us, but more precisely it is that we can believe that others have a more accurate view of reality than we do.

So it is adopting a view of reality in which we are not important that is dangerous.

[BaalChatzaf]

PS: If you apply this to Bohm's causal interpretation of QM, you get a local and linear explanation of non-local and non-linear effects that doesn't contradict relativity and opens the door to visualizing the causal dynamics of QM from the basis of complex patterns in the EM field. It also opens the door to a new way to visualize the gravitational field as emerging from the EM field with the formation of matter.

The Bohm-DeBroigle theory is at odds with Special Relativity which is well supported by experiment. The Gravitational Field has a very different geometry to the electromagnetic field. Kaluza and Klien tried to unite the electromagnetic field with the gravitational field and predicted effects never observed. The main problems is there are no gravitational dipoles. Or as Lawrence Krauss likes to say: Gravity Sucks.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Paul Mawdsley]

Thanks Paul. Waiting for your post... but in the meantime I'll correct something. I said that we can get sucked into believing that others know what's best for us, but more precisely it is that we can believe that others have a more accurate view of reality than we do.

So it is adopting a view of reality in which we are not important that is dangerous.

Calvin,

What if there is some reality in the view that "others have a more accurate view of reality than we do?"

I have always had a lot of confidence in my view of the objective universe. I have never doubted my ability to see it and make sense of it. However, I have also always had the sense that I was missing something very important that some people could see and understand in a way I couldn't. The events in my personal life over the last 4 years have changed this. I have learned to see the half of the universe that I could only feel or sense was there before.

Actually, MSK, right here on OL, has always struck me as one of those people who could sense the world in a way that I struggled to see. It's an ability to pull back the covers and see inside the world of hidden motives, feelings, visions, thoughts and agendas, which are read between the lines. It's the ability to read more in the tones, the non-verbal cues and the spaces we create around us, that shape social dynamics from the unconscious flow of our beings. While I don't always agree with Michael's take on things in this inner social space, I do believe it is his capacity to see this space and his ability to shape this space, from values of honesty, decency and a demand for mutual respect, that gives OL its form and subtly shapes every interaction here. I have certainly noticed that Michael has no time for people, or sides of people, that come from a place of self-elevating, self-serving power games. Our interactions have freedom within the limits set by the values of OL. These are Michael's values from his vision of inner (and inter-) social space. I like it here because of the space he has created.

I don't think Objectivism attracts many people who are gifted in these inner social spaces. Objectivism and the Objectivist culture can sometimes look like a special program for objectively gifted kids with stunted emotional/social skills. OL's values are a breath of fresh air against this backdrop.

If other people have a vision into parts of reality that we don't, this does not mean that our view is unimportant or that their's is more important. Learning through empathy is a very powerful tool. With a strong sense of self we can accept seeing through someone else's eyes as a means of connection and as a means of driving our own growth. Just last week I wrote an email to my ex-girlfriend thanking her for all she has helped me to see. She is truly gifted in emotional/social space. I never let go of the importance of my vision while opening to the value of her's. She helped me to see the half of the universe I was missing. My life has fundamentally changed because of this.

Paul

[anthony]

... but more precisely it is that we can believe that others have a more accurate view of reality than we do.

Following from this valid thought, is how accurately or mistakenly do others view the reality of us.

Don't we all watch others watching ourselves, and wonder what they see? Using our empathic lens, we might attempt to see through their own lens - and try to assess by what standards are they acknowledging and 'judging' us? Which lens are THEY employing, the empathic one too, the objective one, or the subjective?

This week's events has raised this again in our minds, not so?

A Westerner looks at Arab nations and wonders for the 1000th time :- how do 'they' see 'us'?

And, how do they see us seeing them?

Are they viewing the universal standard of individual humanity, truth and reason (through the objective lens) -

Not enough, it seems.

Are they seeing themselves through our eyes, sense our anger, fear and disrespect - and take note, learn, change and grow from that image?(empathic lens.)

A little, and for some people, I'm quite sure.

Or, are they in fact not seeing anything but their own narrow desires, self-righteous rage, and religious fervor, blinding all lenses except for their subjective one?

At the moment, many.

As for those lesser numbers who are the truly psychopathic bastards who plan, or approve of, the killing - they use an empathic lens, alright.

However, only so far as viewing the Westerner's fear and loathing - and gloating and reveling in the power it hands them.

[Paul Mawdsley]

PS: If you apply this to Bohm's causal interpretation of QM, you get a local and linear explanation of non-local and non-linear effects that doesn't contradict relativity and opens the door to visualizing the causal dynamics of QM from the basis of complex patterns in the EM field. It also opens the door to a new way to visualize the gravitational field as emerging from the EM field with the formation of matter.

The Bohm-DeBroigle theory is at odds with Special Relativity which is well supported by experiment.

Never said they weren't at odds. In fact, I specified where they are at odds: Bohm's theory requires non-linear non-local effects. On the surface non-locality breaks the rules of a relativistic universe. However, if our reciprocal whole-to-part view of causality can show how non-local effects can emerge from from local (relativistic) interactions, then we can see there is no conflict between the Bohm-de Broglie causal interpretation of QM and relativity.

Bob, please try to understand what I write before you try to negate it. There is no fun or growth in correcting misunderstanding.

The Gravitational Field has a very different geometry to the electromagnetic field. Kaluza and Klien tried to unite the electromagnetic field with the gravitational field and predicted effects never observed. The main problems is there are no gravitational dipoles. Or as Lawrence Krauss likes to say: Gravity Sucks.

The geometry of a sound wave is different to the geometry of atmospheric pressure and is different to the geometry of wind currents, tornadoes and hurricanes. Does this mean these different geometries are not all emergent from a field of air that makes up our atmosphere?

The EM field contains the geometry of electromagnetism and the geometry of light waves. Just because no one has been able to relate the geometry of gravitation to the EM field, this doesn't mean that this is not from where it emerges or that they do not have a common field of origin. Maybe I need to use a more fundamental and general term like energy field from which the EM field and other field geometries emerge. It might be that EM is more analogous to currents and gravitation is more analogous to pressure; different geometries in the same energy field.

I do find it interesting to note that the causation of a pressure field tends to draw objects in that field together. While it is actually a field of push, each object in the field creates a push shadow and, from the outside, it looks like the objects suck. The concept of zero point energy in the EM field suggests there is a fundamental push in the energy field. If we start with the picture that the field has a push instead of objects having a pull, does the universe, or the geometry of gravitation, look any different? If it does, which is the better fit with general relativity?

[Xray]

However, if our reciprocal whole-to-part view of causality can show how non-local effects can emerge from from local (relativistic) interactions, then we can see there is no conflict between the Bohm-de Broglie causal interpretation of QM and relativity.

Could you illustrate this "reciprocal whole-to-part view of causality" with a concrete example where you demonstrate and explain "how non-local effects can emerge from local relativistic interactions"?

[Dglgmut]

Paul and Tony, I have to go back to what I first said about believing that others can know what is best for us, better than we know for ourselves. The reason we care what other people think is because we believe they can judge whether we are living correctly or not. This is second hand morality--the kind that Rand talked about that makes men hate the idea of right and wrong.

It is not so much about reality as it is what is best for us. If we feel we are less capable of forming our own code of morality than accepting others', the result is obvious.

[anthony]

Paul and Tony, I have to go back to what I first said about believing that others can know what is best for us, better than we know for ourselves. The reason we care what other people think is because we believe they can judge whether we are living correctly or not. This is second hand morality--the kind that Rand talked about that makes men hate the idea of right and wrong.

It is not so much about reality as it is what is best for us. If we feel we are less capable of forming our own code of morality than accepting others', the result is obvious.

In the last resort, what is best for us, is that our minds can grasp reality - on our own.

Which means, sure, we will make mistakes, and very surely that other people will have a better grasp

than we do, at times. They may in fact - especially those nearest and dearest - know best about what

we should do, in a given situation. But all this doesn't remove the fact that in our own heart of hearts,

every person knows what is best, for himself - in the long run - is to be the authority of his own life.

Independence of mind does not by any means indicate separation from others. Far from it.

From a fleeting interaction with a stranger, to our deep involvements, it all adds value to one's life. (As one adds value to them as well.) Whenever mutual exclusion between these is raised, it should be dismissed as untrue.

The second-hander concept gets bad press, usually from critics of Objectivism who use it for a free

swipe at O'ism, I believe. They will ask: Well, then, why aren't YOU a captain of industry, a 'producer and creator'? Misinterpreting the concept as elitist in intent.

What the critics won't admit to themselves is that we are all - potentially, at least - 'first-handers'.

Whatever a man's ideology, from religious to communist, or however modest his work - by man's nature, rationality and volition - they are first-handers, too. But will a man recognize it or deny it? Will he act upon it? (which would naturally mean him dropping his previous ideology.) In these questions lie the crucial difference between rational selfishness and other moralities.

It's partly an emphasis thing: Rand emphasised mind-independence throughout all her writing - with emphasis on great movers and shakers in her fiction. (Too much so, is debatable..no, I don't believe that - literary licence should be afforded her.)

But does anyone think she didn't know that it takes all types of work to make the world? Anyway, she strongly stressed the positive, well ahead of the negative, misunderstood term, 'second-hander.'

However, that doesn't mean the extreme second hander doesn't exist. One who would be lost without the work and opinions of other people - and for some, the need to gain power over them.

Absorbing questions, Calvin, that could do with even further analysis!

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul and Tony, I have to go back to what I first said about believing that others can know what is best for us, better than we know for ourselves. The reason we care what other people think is because we believe they can judge whether we are living correctly or not. This is second hand morality--the kind that Rand talked about that makes men hate the idea of right and wrong.

Calvin, I disagree. Here you may be speaking for what you see inside you but my experience is very different. I care about people because I enjoy connecting and learning from them. I get pleasure out of interacting. I enjoy getting a sense of how they feel, see and think about the world...including their sense of me. I run my own business and enjoy the process of marketing and sales because I am very good at putting my authentic self, my values and my vision out there and seeing how people respond to me. I'm also good at listening to other people's feelings, vision and values so I give them a sense of validation and visibility that earns their trust. This is all part of the process of connecting. I run a specialized renovation company where I typically work closely with people for 3 to 4 weeks. This gives me a chance to step inside their lives for awhile and get a sense of what the world looks like through their eyes. I truly enjoy learning by allowing people inside and taking a look at the world through their relative perspective.

It is true that there are people, or sides of people, out there who are oriented to judge first, who live through the stories they have created for themselves, or through the stories they have adopted from their culture, and see us through a lens that must defend and elevate their sense of self at all costs...even at the cost of seeing the truth about reality, themselves and others. This is a sign of them being broken inside. Yes, there is a lot of broken people out there. I find AR's story on this to be part of the problem and a distraction from personal growth. Fuck the "second hand morality" bullshit! That's just another story created to defend and elevate the self while judging others.

The answer is to stop the approach of judging before understanding and pull back the covers to set truth and understanding first. It is to deal with the problem where it really exists and where we do legitimately have control: in the damaged parts of our own self.

In my personal life and in my business life I open to empathy and understanding first, through a layering process, because I open to information first before my stories take shape. We shape the emotional, behavioral and philosophical space we share with people whenever we engage in any form of relationship, at any level. I do everything I can to keep the people who put judgement, defensiveness, self-elevation and power games ahead of empathy and understanding out of my life. I turn away clients who do this just as I have distanced myself from personal relationships that do this. There is no way of engaging people, who approach life from a place of judgement first, with openness, empathy and creating a healthy, mutually shared space. They will not enter any form of engagement without controlling the space of the relationship. The void where their self-esteem should be demands this control in shared space. I choose truth and sanity and walk away from these people. I choose caring, connectedness and truth so I remain open to those who can meet me in a shared space where this is safe to occur. And I have my protector-self and warrior-self to push those out of my inner layers when I accidentally let the wrong people through.

I choose which people and who's insides, including their feeling, vision and thoughts about me, I allow through. I choose from a place of being open to the truth about me while being alert to signs of brokenness and controlling behaviour in them. This is putting empathy and understanding first while protecting the self.

It is not so much about reality as it is what is best for us. If we feel we are less capable of forming our own code of morality than accepting others', the result is obvious.

What I say to my kids every week is: What you feel, what you see, what you think and what you want is important because it is yours. This is the starting point of healthy psychology and of any healthy moral code. Lose this and your insides are broken. Break your insides and you become one of the people who put judgement, defensiveness, self-elevation and power games ahead of empathy, understanding and connectedness. You become one of the people that needs to be defended against.

Paul

PS: No one else's feelings, vision, thoughts or wants should ever be seen as a replacement for our own...ever. Other people's perspectives and stories are information we need to include inside our perspective but they should never replace our perspective. So much parenting is wrong because it is built around using shame and blame and guilt and intimidation and stories to replace a child's insides with the parent's. This has been the cause of so much damage. No parent or teacher or religion or philosophy or guru should ever be allowed by our culture to do this without being severely challenged.

[Dglgmut]

Sorry I will need to read over these replies again. But right now a couple things:

Tony, of course it is best for us is we are able to grasp reality with our own mind. And what I'm getting to, I think, is that we all want what's best for ourselves, and selfishness is not what needs to be advocated. I'll give an example below.

Paul, I wasn't talking about "caring about people", but caring about what people think. You can care about someone without caring what they think; parenting takes a lot of this, no? And often, caring what other people think (of us), does not entail caring about them.

An example of caring what other people think is a priest. Surely people have selfish reasons for being interested in what a priest can tell them. They want to be guided, for their own sake. The problem is not self-interest, but faith in oneself.

Self-respect can be looked at in two ways: having respect for yourself or treating yourself with respect. Self-esteem is specifically about how we see ourselves, though treating ourselves with respect may help us build self-esteem...

Rand claimed she had no faith, only convictions... Isn't it faith that we place in ourselves when we decide to face uncertain challenges?