Question on the gold standard

[dldelancey]

I deduce from this that in every life situation, you already know, or "see", as a result of previous cognitive decisions, what is your preferred course of action.

Not necessarily.

The ideal view that's closest to objectivity is calmly seeing every situation fresh and new with no previous intellectual of emotional prejudices, and then taking spontaneous action.

How would you ever know not to touch a hot stove?You can obviously feel radiated heat long before you get to the point of actual physical contact. However, someone who is not aware of what's going on around them can easily get burned simply by not paying attention.

That's the purpose of pain... to get you to pay attention.

Persistent unawareness of the world around you as a way of life can literally carry fatal consequences.

Greg

But if I can't use any "previous intellectual or emotional prejudices" then I can't know that radiated heat will cause me pain. I can't even know what pain is, for that matter. Which is it? I have my past experiences to inform me or I don't?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Greg,

Esther Hicks is the source of the current form of Law of Attraction. (Remember the book and movie, The Secret? It was originally based around Esther, but as the project grew, it seems like the producer got greedy and cut her out.)

Law of Attraction is a New Age concept that claims your intentions attract everything in your life like a magnet. (They talk a lot about vibration frequency.) But they have a specific way of looking at intentions.

For example, if a person wants to get out of debt and focuses only on that, over and over (and "waters" it with emotion), he will generally get more debt in his life. That's because, although he wants to be free of debt, he is focusing on debt. According to them, he should be focusing on abundance and not allow debt very much space in his mind. If he focuses on abundance, the universe will conspire to bring it to him.

You often sound like that, but with a Christian accent.

Without signing on to the metaphysics of this stuff, I often find wisdom in what these folks advise.

Michael

[moralist]

I deduce from this that in every life situation, you already know, or "see", as a result of previous cognitive decisions, what is your preferred course of action.

Not necessarily.

The ideal view that's closest to objectivity is calmly seeing every situation fresh and new with no previous intellectual of emotional prejudices, and then taking spontaneous action.

How would you ever know not to touch a hot stove?You can obviously feel radiated heat long before you get to the point of actual physical contact. However, someone who is not aware of what's going on around them can easily get burned simply by not paying attention.

That's the purpose of pain... to get you to pay attention.

Persistent unawareness of the world around you as a way of life can literally carry fatal consequences.

Greg

But if I can't use any "previous intellectual or emotional prejudices" then I can't know that radiated heat will cause me pain.

Feeling heat is neither a previous intellectual or emotional prejudice. It is an immediate sensory message which you receive LONG before you ever even have a chance to think about it or to fret over it.

[moralist]

Greg,

Esther Hicks is the source of the current form of Law of Attraction. (Remember the book and movie, The Secret? It was originally based around Esther, but as the project grew, it seems like the producer got greedy and cut her out.)

Law of Attraction is a New Age concept that claims your intentions attract everything in your life like a magnet. (They talk a lot about vibration frequency.) But they have a specific way of looking at intentions.

For example, if a person wants to get out of debt and focuses only on that, over and over (and "waters" it with emotion), he will generally get more debt in his life. That's because, although he wants to be free of debt, he is focusing on debt. According to them, he should be focusing on abundance and not allow debt very much space in his mind. If he focuses on abundance, the universe will conspire to bring it to him.

You often sound like that, but with a Christian accent.

Without signing on to the metaphysics of this stuff, I often find wisdom in what these folks advise.

Michael

Hi Michael,

I didn't read the book and didn't see the movie so I'm not familiar with that concept. But if it is what you're describing, it sounds kind of manipulatory to me, like something that's sold in seminars. I'd choose a different approach. If someone wants to get out of debt, they'd first need to understand the fiscally "immoral" behavior that got them into debt.

It's like the old joke:

Patient: Doc, it hurts when I do this.

Doc: Then don't do it.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Greg,

Anything can be manipulative, even Christianity.

When I discuss this stuff, unless I specifically talk about manipulation (scam, marketing, propaganda, story wars, and so on), I am usually talking about people who are sincere.

(btw - The LOA people would say what you did about the doctor. You guys sound more and more alike each day. )

Michael

[moralist]

Greg,

Anything can be manipulative, even Christianity.

If it's manipulative... it isn't Christianity. It's something else.

And I'll be more specific about manipulative. That was my first impression, not necessarily because of seminars. There's good and bad seminars for just about everything. But the concept itself struck me as lacking a moral aspect that leaves it open to being manipulative.

For example: what if I'm a drug dealer and focus on prosperity, will the universe also give it to me solely because of my focused intention and regardless of the morality of my actions? I know you just offered a brief thumbnail sketch, and I would think that there is more to it than that. But that was just an initial impression that the universe can be "gamed" for personal advantage.

When I discuss this stuff, unless I specifically talk about manipulation (scam, marketing, propaganda, story wars, and so on), I am usually talking about people who are sincere.

People can be sincere and also be wrong... although it would be better to be both insincere and wrong.

(btw - The LOA people would say what you did about the doctor. You guys sound more and more alike each day. )

Michael

It's just common sense to reflect on our actions and the consequences that they spin into motion. I'm pretty sure that idea could be found in many different systems. In fact that's evidence pointing to universality, when the same idea pops up in widely diverse ideologies.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If it's manipulative... it isn't Christianity. It's something else.

Greg,

Come on...

That's way too facile to take seriously.

Here.

Let me show you.

If it's manipulative... it isn't Objectivism. It's something else.

If it's manipulative... it isn't Law of Attraction. It's something else.

If it's manipulative... it isn't Buddhism. It's something else.

If it's manipulative... it isn't Islam. It's something else.

If it's manipulative... it isn't Communism. It's something else.

If it's manipulative... it isn't Big Government. It's something else.

If it's manipulative... it isn't Satanism. It's something else.

I could go on...

Hell of an argument, huh?

Michael

EDIT: I can't resist:

If it's manipulative... it isn't Greg. It's something else.

If it's manipulative... it isn't Michae.... Er...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For example: what if I'm a drug dealer and focus on prosperity, will the universe also give it to me solely because of my focused intention and regardless of the morality of my actions? I know you just offered a brief thumbnail sketch, and I would think that there is more to it than that. But that was just an initial impression that the universe can be "gamed" for personal advantage.

Greg,

The way the LOA people say it, if you try to game the universe, you will bring getting gamed into your life. The consequences will probably not be to your liking.

Drug dealers, for instance, will bring more drugs into their lives since that is what they focus on. Any prosperity they focus on will come with drugs.

Like I said, this sounds like the way you argue.

About personal advantage, according to them, of course you receive personal advantage from using their system. Why shouldn't you? The universe created you to gain personal advantage.

And isn't Christianity the same? You live your morality now for personal advantage in the afterlife. Right?

On that point, the only difference between Christianity and LOA is the time frame, not the personal advantage.

(Don't worry. I'll stop being a brat after a while. )

Michael

[moralist]

And isn't Christianity the same? You live your morality now for personal advantage in the afterlife. Right?

Wow, Michael... there's a lot to respond to so I'll take select some of your main points in ala carte as time permits.

Your description is not Christianity as I experience it in my own life. First, a question:

Can you see the moral distinction between doing what's right for a reward... and being rewarded for doing what's right?

Your answer determines whether or not its possible to discuss this topic. If not, there are plenty of other nifty ideas you offered for us to banter about.

Greg

[moralist]

If it's manipulative... it isn't Christianity. It's something else.

Greg,

Come on...

That's way too facile to take seriously.

Here.

Let me show you.

If it's manipulative... it isn't Objectivism. It's something else.

That's actually an excellent question, Michael.

Is the ideology of Objectivism manipulative?

Is manipulation considered by Objectivists to be a valid accepted mode of behavior consistent with the values of their ideology?

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Can you see the moral distinction between doing what's right for a reward... and being rewarded for doing what's right?

Greg,

I see a lot of semantics here, that's for sure.

I'm tempted to ask if you would do some of the things you do if there were no afterlife, but I don't want to play that way.

I believe--and I mean this--you do most of the stuff you do because you have decided it's right, and reward from another person or entity is not a factor, one way or the other. You do not do it for the reward, nor do you consider any reward later as a fundamental factor in choosing. That's what I sense.

I know that's the way it works with me.

I merely started in because you are so quick to insinuate that people are motivated by petty rewards if they are not Christian (the real Christianity that is, not what you consider the bogus brands.) That gets my playful antenna twitching because I just can't take that seriously.

In my view of life, good people, regardless of their ideology or religion, take their morality seriously. The do good and right because they have decided they want to be good and just people.

I'm a simple man.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That's actually an excellent question, Michael.

Greg,

No it isn't.

It's a terrible question.

Ideologies are not manipulative.

Only people are.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Can you see the moral distinction between doing what's right for a reward... and being rewarded for doing what's right?

Greg,

I see a lot of semantics here, that's for sure.

I'm tempted to ask if you would do some of the things you do if there were no afterlife, but I don't want to play that way.

I believe--and I mean this--you do most of the stuff you do because you have decided it's right, and reward from another person or entity is not a factor, one way or the other. You do not do it for the reward, nor do you consider any reward later as a fundamental factor in choosing. That's what I sense.

I know that's the way it works with me.

I merely started in because you are so quick to insinuate that people are motivated by petty rewards if they are not Christian (the real Christianity that is, not what you consider the bogus brands.) That gets my playful antenna twitching because I just can't take that seriously.

In my view of life, good people, regardless of their ideology or religion, take their morality seriously. The do good and right because they have decided they want to be good and just people.

I'm a simple man.

Michael

Ultimately, we scratch what itches us.

[Brant Gaede]

This thread has abandoned the gold standard.

--Brant

fiat discussion?

[Brant Gaede]

(Don't worry. I'll stop being a brat after a while. )

Michael

Leopard

Spots

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

If shit were as rare as gold, would we be longing for the shit standard?

[moralist]

Can you see the moral distinction between doing what's right for a reward... and being rewarded for doing what's right?

Greg,

I see a lot of semantics here, that's for sure.

Those are two completely different motivations. One grows into the other. Everyone who does what's right first does it for a reward, and they grow to do what's right for its own sake out of their love for it.

I'm tempted to ask if you would do some of the things you do if there were no afterlife, but I don't want to play that way.

That's a perfectly fair question. I personally don't give a thought to what happens after I die, because that takes care of itself.. However I do give a thought to what happens while I live.

I believe--and I mean this--you do most of the stuff you do because you have decided it's right, and reward from another person or entity is not a factor, one way or the other. You do not do it for the reward, nor do you consider any reward later as a fundamental factor in choosing. That's what I sense.

I know that's the way it works with me.

That's our common ground, Michael. We each love doing what's right for its own sake.

I merely started in because you are so quick to insinuate that people are motivated by petty rewards if they are not Christian (the real Christianity that is, not what you consider the bogus brands.) That gets my playful antenna twitching because I just can't take that seriously.

The moral principles contained within Christianity are not uniquely proprietary. They're far more universal, and can be found in many other religions as well as in secular ideologies.

In my view of life, good people, regardless of their ideology or religion, take their morality seriously. The do good and right because they have decided they want to be good and just people.

I'm a simple man.

Michael

I totally agree, and that's why I'm far more of a behaviorist than a dogmatist. I don't care why people do what's right. The why is irrelevant because the results are the same regardless of the reason.

Greg

[moralist]

That's actually an excellent question, Michael.

Greg,

No it isn't.

It's a terrible question.

Ideologies are not manipulative.

Only people are.

Michael

But what of the clearer and more specific question?

Is manipulation considered by Objectivists to be a valid accepted mode of behavior consistent with the values of their ideology?

[caroljane]

Have you ever felt the urge to manipulate a 2x4 in a cranial direction?

[Frediano]

Have you ever felt the urge to manipulate a 2x4 in a cranial direction?

Is that anything like a swift kick in the caudal direction? It is opposite, and yet, strangely, similar...

[dldelancey]

I deduce from this that in every life situation, you already know, or "see", as a result of previous cognitive decisions, what is your preferred course of action.

Not necessarily.

The ideal view that's closest to objectivity is calmly seeing every situation fresh and new with no previous intellectual of emotional prejudices, and then taking spontaneous action.

How would you ever know not to touch a hot stove?You can obviously feel radiated heat long before you get to the point of actual physical contact. However, someone who is not aware of what's going on around them can easily get burned simply by not paying attention.

That's the purpose of pain... to get you to pay attention.

Persistent unawareness of the world around you as a way of life can literally carry fatal consequences.

Greg

But if I can't use any "previous intellectual or emotional prejudices" then I can't know that radiated heat will cause me pain.

Feeling heat is neither a previous intellectual or emotional prejudice. It is an immediate sensory message which you receive LONG before you ever even have a chance to think about it or to fret over it.

But a sensory message has to be attached to an outcome for it to be helpful, and the outcome is learned intellectually or emotionally, right? For instance, I learned at some point in my past that radiated heat originates with something that will cause me pain, so I should not touch that something. If that learned outcome is no longer relevant to me, then I can't know that radiated heat is a sensory message that serves as an alarm to move away from whatever is generating heat. You want me to throw out the learned outcome of sensory messages, but still expect me to know how to behave in the future when I receive those messages?

[moralist]

Have you ever felt the urge to manipulate a 2x4 in a cranial direction?

What distinguishes humans from animals is the freedom to choose to act contrary to our intellect and emotions.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Have you ever felt the urge to manipulate a 2x4 in a cranial direction?

What distinguishes humans from animals is the freedom to choose to act contrary to our intellect and emotions.

Greg

Both at once? Maybe in an emergency, but you've not been talking about emergencies. Why would someone do this? No heart; no head; still human--only human!!!!!!!!!!!!

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Humans tell stories, live according to stories, and experience existence as stories.

Lower animals don't.

Humans point. Lower animals don't (well... maybe some elephants recently.)

Humans abstract from abstractions and express those through language. Lower animals don't.

There are lots of differences.

Michael

EDIT: OK... OK... This one's for Greg.

Humans pray. Lower animals don't.

[merjet]

Humans point. Lower animals don't (well... maybe some elephants recently.)

Some dogs do (trained for hunting).