I will not die it's the world that will end

[Brant Gaede]

You're just as welcome to your view as I am to mine...

...as each of us is getting what we deserve as the result.

Greg

Each of us are entitled to their own views. None of us are entitled to our own facts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This seems to be your favorite statement. What does it mean? That facts are universally true and views are as you say. I'm only saying this because it's not quite obvious if you are agreeing with Greg or not. He does say, at times, "subjective." I don't think you use that word while meaning it. You are agreeing with Greg for he has consistently said the same thing, but not quite as well. I'm mildly curious if you know if you and he are both simpatico on this. Now you mix these two together--facts and views--seeking commonality or reality convergence, truth and knowledge. We (oops!) do this so we (double oops!) don't bump into things and to make things work. This is the function of reason which is the reasonable use of thinking (facts + sundry inference + logic = the atomic bomb).

--Brant

[moralist]

You're just as welcome to your view as I am to mine...

...as each of us is getting what we deserve as the result.

Greg

Each of us are entitled to their own views. None of us are entitled to our own facts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This seems to be your favorite statement. What does it mean?

It means I'm not going to argue.

The objective reality of the consequences of each of our actions is the only thing possessing the power to convince anyone if their view is right or wrong.

Bottom line about death:

Go figure it out for yourself.

Greg

[RobinReborn]

Man... this thread keeps drifting off topic.

Though I think the on topic posts started off seeming to advocate a form of mysticism and have become slightly more rational.

If we can't transfer experiences to others, how can we know that we actually had them? The idea of an experience is different from the experience itself, but those things can be unified together by memory. You probably can't generate the experience of eating chocolate unless you eat chocolate, but it's not hard to carry some remembrance of the experience and not have every time you eat chocolate be as surprising as the first. If you think hard enough about how you've stored your experience in your brain, you can begin to explain it to somebody else. Their understanding won't be perfect, but that doesn't really matter for most things.

[Selene]

Man... this thread keeps drifting off topic.

Though I think the on topic posts started off seeming to advocate a form of mysticism and have become slightly more rational.

If we can't transfer experiences to others, how can we know that we actually had them? The idea of an experience is different from the experience itself, but those things can be unified together by memory. You probably can't generate the experience of eating chocolate unless you eat chocolate, but it's not hard to carry some remembrance of the experience and not have every time you eat chocolate be as surprising as the first. If you think hard enough about how you've stored your experience in your brain, you can begin to explain it to somebody else. Their understanding won't be perfect, but that doesn't really matter for most things.

Such a wise sage...

I nominate him as the Deputy Scold to William.

[anthony]

But one experience can be communicated, with enough verbal (or pictorial) skill and a good (focused) listener. However the aggregate of many, many experiences, induction - which may be reliant on the things that one doesn't see and experience (the dog that didn't bark), as much as what one does see - could only be communicated by the accepted name of the concept you finally establish. To find accord, two people would have had to go through the inductive-conceptual process individually: I'm quite certain that a concept would be hard or impossible to be broken down and passed on ("proven"), a posteriori.

[william.scherk]

Words can gum up thought, if ill-chosen or unclear or over-determined. Here are some stumbles over 'transferable experience.' On looking at Robin's first mention of this concept, I thought the sense was good, but the word-choice tended to allow readers to bog down on the surface. What are other ways that 'transferable experience' is possible? What other word-choices could illustrate the same concept, and help readers understand the underlying point?

I never heard of the idea or ever had the idea of a transferable experience until now. It makes no sense.

It's tricky. Experience is short-hand for personal experience. An example would be a kidnapping, torture and attempted murder. That there was a first-person experience is undisputable. But how can the person 'transfer' their experience to the mind of another?

I think, having considered Robin's remarks with linguistic charity, that the word transfer (to another human) can be replaced with 'represent' (to another person). Another word would be 'signal.' Here is Robin's paragraphs with some word changes:

Experiences are able to be represented, but any representation will be imperfect. The clearest example of this for me is a baby crying. He is representing her experience of distress to anybody within earshot.

As the baby grows its ability to represent its internal state to its parents will improve, but its state-signals can never reach perfection. In its teenage years it may signal and represent its internal state and experience by rebelling against its parents or even being violent. It may feel like nobody understands it and that internal experience can't be represented or signaled clearly, as intended. The experience state may not be represented at all. If human experiences couldn't be represented to another mind, then communication wouldn't be possible.

I will also redact Brant's reaction to the above.

A person's internal experience is one thing and the representation or signalling of a given personal experience is quite another. You've highlighted the difference. If I hear about other people's internal experiences. my actual appreciation of their states of mind or beliefs or gestalt is in my mind, built from that hearing. I can hear about a greater number of experiences than I can ever could ever actually experience in myself.

Another redaction, of Robin's latest comment:

If we can't signal, represent, describe internal experiences to other people, can we know that we actually had them?

The signalling, representation, communication of an experience is different from the experience itself, but both can be integrated in memory. You probably can't simulate in memory the experience of eating chocolate unless you actually have a memory of chocolate, but it's not hard to carry some remembrance of the experience and not have every time you eat chocolate be as surprising as the first.

If you think hard enough about how you've stored your experience in your brain, you can begin to explain it to somebody else. Their understanding won't be perfect, but that doesn't really matter for most things.

Some OLers are brilliant communicators who have worked hard on their ability to represent their emotions, experiences, knowledge and reasoning to others. Some are scolds, nitpickers, nitwits and worse. What characterizes the perfected OLer is a general willingness (if not aptitude) to put any claim to a rigorous test. This can seem aggressive, one-eyed, vainglorious, jejune, uninformed and worse, but is birthed from a reasonable place, to my eyes.

In the present thread, I think commenters have exhausted discussion of Rand's rather poetic epigraph. Everyone is likely trying their best to expressly communicate their thoughts, feelings, conclusions, and questions as new ideas are put up. Some enjoy expressing annoyance, pique, incomprehension, and dire epithets directed at perceived character defects. This is just the way humans are, sometimes. Tetchy, intellectually-offended, in a huff.

I think you have done a good job in avoiding pitfalls in personalizing discussion. That rarely shows dividends other than peevish grandstanding and injured amour-propre.

You will note Adam has no response to your last comment but an estimation of your intrinsic negative worth to the collective. Argumentum ad hominen, as they say. Attack the intuited personal character, not the argument. It's a fine line, I think, and the one most of us edge over to our disadvantage.

By the way, you have not got around to answering Adam's pointed inquiries about your personal life. I'll hang up and listen ...

[Selene]

You will note Adam has no response to your last comment but an estimation of your intrinsic negative worth to the collective. Argumentum ad hominen, as they say. Attack the intuited personal character, not the argument. It's a fine line, I think, and the one most of us edge over to our

disadvantage.

As you should know William, there is a difference between the rhetorical figures of thought/tropes of ridicule, sarcasm, irony and the argument ad hominem, see:

Within rhetorical invention, the topics or topoi are basic categories of relationships among ideas, each of which can serve as a template or heuristic for discovering things to say about a subject. "Topics of invention" literally means "places to find things." Aristotle divided these into the "Common" and "Special" topics of invention, the former being more general, the latter relevant to each of the three branches of oratory.

Common Topics Special Topics

Definition

Genus / Species

Division

Whole / Parts

Subject / Adjuncts

Comparison

Similarity / Difference

Degree

Relationship

Cause / Effect

Antecedent / Consequence

Contraries

Contradictions

Circumstances

Possible / Impossible

Past Fact / Future Fact

Testimony

Authorities

Witnesses

Maxims or Proverbs

Rumors

Oaths

Documents

Law

Precedent

The supernatural

Notation and Conjugates

Judicial

justice (right)

injustice (wrong)

Deliberative

the good

the unworthy

the advantageous

the disadvantageous

Ceremonial

virtue (the noble)

vice (the base)

Although the topics of invention were the starting places for composing or generating speech or writing within the rhetorical tradition, they were not the only beginning points. From classical antiquity up to the seventeenth century, imitation was equally important for providing material and formal models for students of speaking and writing. In fact, there is room to argue that imitative praxis and pedagogy better account for rhetorical composition historically than do the abstract categories of the topics of invention.

http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm

[Brant Gaede]

You're on your own, Bill. I'm a coward.

--Brant

don't appreciate the redactions

[moralist]

If we can't transfer experiences to others, how can we know that we actually had them?

Simple.

Each individual has their own experience. You know when you have your own experience, don't you? If you don't possess the self awareness to know for yourself, there is no human being on earth who can help you.

The idea of an experience is different from the experience itself...

Yes. That's the curse of intellectualism... to confuse a theoretical fantasy for the reality of experience. Living on that low level is nothing short of a disaster, for reality will be constantly reminding the intellect worshiper that they're bowing at the wrong altar. And what is reality's reminder?

Pain.

When the fragile wooden ship of subjective intellectual fantasy inevitably crashes on the cold hard unyielding boulders of objective reality.

Greg

[moralist]

But one experience can be communicated, with enough verbal (or pictorial) skill and a good (focused) listener.

Yes... with the prior existing condition that the good listener has had a similar personal experience to which they can relate the wordy description.

Greg

[william.scherk]

Adam, what a fabulous site, The Forest of Rhetoric. Thanks for posting the link. I couldn't find any reference to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, but hey. Here is the direct link to the page you excerpted from, Topics of Invention (the frames don't allow direct linking otherwise).

Here's a fun bit from the entry on vituperation. I can take some pleasure in considering this aspect of rhetoric:

Attack a person or thing for being vicious. After composing an exordium (introduction), follow these steps:

1. Describe the stock a person comes from:

   • what people

   • what country

   • what ancestors

   • what parents

2. Describe the person's upbringing

   • education

   • instruction in art

   • training in laws

3. Describe the person's deeds, which should be described as the results of

   • his/her evils of mind (such as weakness or indiscretion)

   • his/her evils of body (such as plainness, lethargy, or lack of vigor)

   • his/her evils of fortune (as lack of or corruption of high position, power, wealth, friends)

4. Make a disfavorable comparison to someone else to escalate your vituperation

5. Conclude with an epilogue including either an exhortation to your hearers not to emulate this person, or a prayer.

-- is this what you had in mind for "Robin Reborn"? Asking for a friend. I'll hang up and listen ....

Edited June 3, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

A number of reasons.

Glad you like the site.

My belief is that Aristotle's Rhetoric is one of the most important books ever written.

The misuse of the term today makes me insane, i.e., "Well that is mere rhetoric!"

I would have no problem if the boy scold sage in training just told be privately or publicly to mind my own business.

Second, my defensive OL hairs stand up when i read his posts.

A...

[RobinReborn]

If we can't transfer experiences to others, how can we know that we actually had them?

Simple.

Each individual has their own experience. You know when you have your own experience, don't you? If you don't possess the self awareness to know for yourself, there is no human being on earth who can help you.

The idea of an experience is different from the experience itself...

Yes. That's the curse of intellectualism... to confuse a theoretical fantasy for the reality of experience. Living on that low level is nothing short of a disaster, for reality will be constantly reminding the intellect worshiper that they're bowing at the wrong altar. And what is reality's reminder?

Pain.

When the fragile wooden ship of subjective intellectual fantasy inevitably crashes on the cold hard unyielding boulders of objective reality.

Greg

@Greg... I am beginning to understand why you have the reputation you have, rather than trying to come to a conclusion in a debate you seem to exacerbate differences...

I have my own experiences, but my experiences inevitably effect other people. In many cases, my cognitive reaction to my experience is largely based on how the experience could or would effect other people in my life. If your reaction to experience is different, it may indicate you have a great deal of difficulty empathizing with others.

There is no curse of intellectualism, Objectivism is an intellectual philosophy (Christianity is not). If you can't store some of your experiences and communicate them, you're no better than an animal living off instinct.

[moralist]

@Greg... I am beginning to understand why you have the reputation you have, rather than trying to come to a conclusion in a debate you seem to exacerbate differences...

There is no conclusion possible to arguing, because everyone here has already chosen the view they will take with them to their grave, unless the objective reality of the consequences of their own actions changes it. It's much more positive and constructive for each individual to define their view so that the difference between the view of others is made clear.

It's perfectly normal for different views to exist with their differences unresolved... because they can never be resolved... especially by futile arguing.

I have my own experiences, but my experiences inevitably effect other people.

As I see it, it's not your experiences, but rather your actions which effect others. Thoughts, emotions, and intentions are meaningless... only what people actually do matters... because only what people do makes this world what it is.

Greg

[Selene]

the crowd builds

even the social set heard about this battle between the young sage and the man who acts...

[moralist]

There won't be much drama here, because it takes two people to argue.

I'm totally ok with Robin holding onto his own view, as he's the one who reaps the consequences he deserves from it, and not me...

...just as I reap the consequences of my own view, and not him.

Greg

[anthony]

But one experience can be communicated, with enough verbal (or pictorial) skill and a good (focused) listener.

Yes... with the prior existing condition that the good listener has had a similar personal experience to which they can relate the wordy description.

Greg

OK, but I suggest the range of possible human experiences is finite, and given our ability 'to relate' with a similar experience, not unique.

What counts, and varies widely, is how one thinks and does concerning an experience, and the emotional aftermath.

I sometimes think you think that experience IS knowledge. Not so - if you do--each experience has to be given value, collated and integrated to build a reservoir of conceptual knowlege. It is this that can't be transferred as a whole to another person and that he must do for himself. There we are each alone, every man for himself.

Art's value to us is that fictional 'experiences' are spoonfed to one in the form of thoughts and acts by characters (who are "experiences", too) then gathered by the author into principles (concepts) by the outcome of the plot, according to what the novelist thinks is true and important.

Reality is quite messy and confusing, with often room for error/ambiguity in the moment, but a reader (or art viewer) hasn't any other choice but to grasp clearly what he reads (and sees) and as long as he doesn't evasively try to misinterpret it, finds compatibility with other honest readers. One might not like what one sees: some will reject it, others completely accept it - varying by their prior experience/existing knowledge of reality.

Art is shared experience and knowledge at its most effective I think. As you, with the capitalist and individual aspects of 'Atlas Shrugged', you instantly saw the truth in it.

[Brant Gaede]

@Greg... I am beginning to understand why you have the reputation you have, rather than trying to come to a conclusion in a debate you seem to exacerbate differences...

There is no conclusion possible to arguing, because everyone here has already chosen the view they will take with them to their grave, unless the objective reality of the consequences of their own actions changes it. It's much more positive and constructive for each individual to define their view so that the difference between the view of others is made clear.

It's perfectly normal for different views to exist with their differences unresolved... because they can never be resolved... especially by futile arguing.

I have my own experiences, but my experiences inevitably effect other people.

As I see it, it's not your experiences, but rather your actions which effect others. Thoughts, emotions, and intentions are meaningless... only what people actually do matters... because only what people do makes this world what it is.

Greg

Very thoughtful of you, Greg.

Let's put it to the test.

Brant: "Greg, that's not the way to use a hammer. You'll smash your thumb!"

Greg: "Brant, I'm not going to argue with you. You have your view and I have mine and only real life experiences, not thoughts, will make any difference."

Brant: "Uh, okay."

Greg: "OWE! OWE! OWE!"

Brant: "I'm impressed."

--Brant

"I was going to ask you how to wire my house."

https://youtu.be/YR5ApYxkU-U

[anthony]

@Greg... I am beginning to understand why you have the reputation you have, rather than trying to come to a conclusion in a debate you seem to exacerbate differences...

There is no conclusion possible to arguing, because everyone here has already chosen the view they will take with them to their grave, unless the objective reality of the consequences of their own actions changes it. It's much more positive and constructive for each individual to define their view so that the difference between the view of others is made clear.

It's perfectly normal for different views to exist with their differences unresolved... because they can never be resolved... especially by futile arguing.

I have my own experiences, but my experiences inevitably effect other people.

As I see it, it's not your experiences, but rather your actions which effect others. Thoughts, emotions, and intentions are meaningless... only what people actually do matters... because only what people do makes this world what it is.

Greg

And so, action without thought. Basic nonsense, Greg. Do it one way, one day, another the next*. No difference, for the effect on others or oneself. We don't all believe in God's Blueprint to guide us, you know.

*(You wouldn't wire a house this way.)

[moralist]

I sometimes think you think that experience IS knowledge.

Tacitly implied in my definition of experience is awareness. So:

Experience + Awareness = Knowing

I also make a distinction between knowing and knowledge.

Knowing is that above written active living equation... while knowledge is just the theoretical intellectual and emotional activity from reading books and the like, which has not yet become realized in one's life by acting upon it.

The Bible positively nails the idea:

"Faith without works is dead."

Or expressed more secular:

Thought devoid of action is irrelevant.

Greg

[william.scherk]

Action without thought? Action without reason? Hmmm. Is that a big seller around these parts?

Fun idea for an analysis: check how many times our Moralist has used the word "reason" on this forum, in his 3500-odd comments. See how many times he has explained the place of reason in human affairs. See how many times he has valorized reason. Estimate, from his behaviour here, the actual place of reason in his pantheon of excellent or necessary human attributes.

Before starting the fun hunt for Reason in his behaviour here, I'll lay out my probably-biased expectations ... and the null-hypothesis I will attempt to disprove.

1. Greg places little personal value on reason, except his own reasoning (eg, how he reasoned in investigating, planning, copying, building and testing his household effluent system)
2. Greg exhibits ignorance of the value of reason held by his interlocutors
3. Greg is suspicious of reason, because he does not understand or agree with its aims
4. Greg prefers intuition, mystical revelation, word-play, fallacy and magic to reason
5. Greg does not believe in 'testing' or 'trials' or 'critical inquiry' as a reasonable check on presumptive knowledge
6. Greg thinks those who reason well are of a separate class of human being to him
7. Greg believes the rigors of meticulous reasoning are pointless and stupid
8. Greg will denigrate any single OLer who disputes his own reasoning, with thoughtless and irrelevant invective.

I will try to disprove the hypothesis that Greg does not give a shit about reason.

And off to Google and its lesser-evil cousin, OL's search machine, I go.

[anthony]

I sometimes think you think that experience IS knowledge.

Tacitly implied in my definition of experience is awareness. So:

Experience + Awareness = Knowing

I also make a distinction between knowing and knowledge.

Knowing is that above written active living equation... while knowledge is just the theoretical intellectual and emotional activity from reading books and the like, which has not yet become realized in one's life by acting upon it.

The Bible positively nails the idea:

"Faith without works is dead."

Or expressed more secular:

Thought devoid of action is irrelevant.

Greg

Greg: Every thought is a thought of ~something~ do you agree? However, how many "somethings" surround us every moment?

Which to select -- so little time...

One could hop from instance to instance, giving 'thought' to whatever randomly jumps into one's sight and hearing, but it's not real thinking, only reacting. Thought is voluntary, not automatic, and begins with:

What is it?

Then, what value or dis-value does it carry for me (and for those I value)?

Lastly, how does it fit with what I already know - and/or does it require opening a new mental category?

Approached like this, thinking IS a form of action - not yet realized outwardly, but realized inwardly as the foundation of moral principle and conviction, which are as much knowledge, too.

It matters greatly that cognition is carried through into outward acts (which includes verbal articulation), not least because that's the core of integrity: A virtue primarily for one's own's sake, before its benefits to others.

Yeah, you'd hardly get anywhere without studying "the theory" first - e.g. electricity, sailing, etc.etc. Book theory, one could say is the combined experiences and concepts produced by those 'experienced' in their field. More important than that, one won't get far without turning one's own life-experiences into life-concepts and self-discovered theory into actuality. Thought, in advance of (and after) action.

A better quote for you: Action without thought is sterile, thought without action is impotent.

[moralist]

@Greg... I am beginning to understand why you have the reputation you have, rather than trying to come to a conclusion in a debate you seem to exacerbate differences...

There is no conclusion possible to arguing, because everyone here has already chosen the view they will take with them to their grave, unless the objective reality of the consequences of their own actions changes it. It's much more positive and constructive for each individual to define their view so that the difference between the view of others is made clear.

It's perfectly normal for different views to exist with their differences unresolved... because they can never be resolved... especially by futile arguing.

I have my own experiences, but my experiences inevitably effect other people.

As I see it, it's not your experiences, but rather your actions which effect others. Thoughts, emotions, and intentions are meaningless... only what people actually do matters... because only what people do makes this world what it is.

Greg

And so, action without thought. Basic nonsense, Greg. Do it one way, one day, another the next*. No difference, for the effect on others or oneself. We don't all believe in God's Blueprint to guide us, you know.

*(You wouldn't wire a house this way.)

Tony, I don't negate thought.... but am saying that in my view there is a hierarchy between thought, emotion, and action. The only thing that matters to this world is what people actually do. What people think and feel is unrealized action.

This idea may be unfamiliar, so I'll ask these simple direct questions:

Do you ever choose to act contrary to what you think and feel?

And if you do... why?

Greg

[moralist]

Yeah, you'd hardly get anywhere without studying "the theory" first - e.g. electricity...

My own personal experience has proven to be quite different from your description, Tony. This is how different views originate, through each of our different personal experiences.

I've been a successful prosperous electrical contractor for 35 years with no book education. So while I may be short on theory, I'm very deep in practical experience because I learn by doing.

Greg

[anthony]

All right, but not incompatible with my point. A boy sailing from 5yo could well be an expert yachtsman by his adulthood on nothing but doing it often and thinking about it constantly. What you did comes under "self-discovered" theory I mentioned. You had to still conceptualize your experience into knowledge, books or no books.