regi

Ayn Rand And The End Of Love

Recommended Posts

On 1/21/2018 at 9:20 PM, Wolf DeVoon said:

First off, this sounds like gibberish.

 

5 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

When a woman gives birth she is "settled." I'm like that, settled.

Wolf,

That first quote doesn't sound settled to me. It sounds like the woman giving birth while cussing everyone for her plight. (You didn't actually cuss, but the subtext was honking. :) )

Ever been near a maternity ward where deliveries are going on? Man, can those women cuss and blame things...

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

... doesn't sound settled to me. It sounds like the woman giving birth while cussing everyone for her plight.

I often say that I'm good at the obvious, but right or wrong I always say what I think.

Quote

normative abstractions are impossible without story

-- struck me as absurd. Not asking anyone to agree with me. Fire, ouch is not a story, it's experiential, tactile, physical, resulting in a normative abstraction. So is touch typing, sexual experiences, successful cooking experiments (compared to unsuccessful ones) and so on. Story is something completely different, whether related as a selective anecdote or a fictional narrative, and I disbelieve that normative propaganda "plays" if you know what I mean. It usually "bombs" and "smells" (more showbiz terms). Real story as I understand it explores the Unknown, speculates far beyond experiential, tactile, familiar life and its Bibles of various kinds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, regi said:

You mean you aren't impressed? I'm chagrined. How disappointing; you've ruined my whole evening.

Randy

Well, keep trying! List some more things that aren't good enough for you. The more things that you can establish as being so far beneath you, the more you'll appear to be great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

I know you're trying to help me, and that it seems reasonable to learn, grow, flower again. When a woman gives birth she is "settled." I'm like that, settled.

Not quite. Stubborn, but not settled. The old dog has been slowly picking up a few new tricks. The blustery con man who first came to OL.has been letting his guard down and being honest, and discovering rewards to doing so. He's been gaining some courage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Fire, ouch is not a story...

Wolf,

Yes it is. We are using different levels of narrative, but the foundations are the same: things and settings, time. people, actions, and reactions. Combine them (even when implied) and you get a story.

Fire is thing with implied setting, ouch is reaction, and for that to make sense, you need a person and an action, so those are implied. And you need a time, which in this context, is roughly implied to be now (or even past or future). Voila. Story.

In other words, "thing" is not a story. "Place" is not a story. "Time" is not a story. "Person" is not a story. "Act" is not a story. "React" is not a story.

Combine those and you get a story. Maybe a simple one, but a story.

In this context, like when discussing normative abstractions, I use story in this more technical sense, which, by the way, you can encounter all over the place in narratology, psychology and philosophy. When I critique a novel, I might use the term in the more limited meaning you are referring to (although I have some problems with your term "real story" and your qualifications).

Open a dictionary and look on any page. You will find each word (except for a very small number--I believe only two) has more than one definition.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

I sure hope you stay away from any con men who may be trained in the knowledge I am now studying.

You are a classic mark.

:)

PS - I didn't believe it when I read it, but you are flat out wrong on all three points. One surely is not aware of those things except for a small number of instances.

btw - Ever felt an emotion during a nightmare that woke you up? According to you, you surely must have been aware of its type and intensity, how and why it came about, and what was its root cause. 

Gimme a break...

:) 

Are you afraid to look at facts that may challenge what you already learned? You appear that way right now. But there's no need to be afraid. Rand's frame is solid even though several of her details are not.

Michael

Ha, Afraid, I am not! I have a long and established working relationship with my emotional state which is unmoved by skeptical doubts and many theories, faddish or serious - while I admit to being pleasantly surprised by emotions occasionally.

Why is the stock response raised to what one senses, perceives, observes and introspects (i.e. knows), always the oddities and aberrancies - e.g. the 'bent' stick in water - or, nightmares or hallucinations, or sometimes, psychopathologies? If anything, I think they prove the rule, of the *standard* of an awake, conscious, healthy and functioning brain/mind.   

The bulk of one's time and active experience, the undeniable cause and effect: identifying an existent->the pertinent value-> an emotion, holds true. Branden called this "self-programming", exampled by driving a car. You see a hazard ahead, you don't hesitate to calculate and think what to do, your automated emotion (alarm) signals you instantly to act, get out of the way - after a very fast visual identification and built-in value-judgment (your safety and well-being).

If many people haven't gotten into the simple habitual practice of not letting any emotional stone go unturned, particularly the weird or inappropriate ones, it prompts the question. Is the  lack of curiosity about the actions of one's mind, laziness or is it fear? A brief interlude is sufficient for introspection and it's all good, there is no downside to the benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, regi said:

Rodney,

Do you have another website other than linkedin. I'd love to see what you've written but I won't join anything.

Randy

Thanks for your interest. The only website listing my compositions is LinkedIn, but most of it is in my profile anyway--I just left out some things. Or do you mean actual scores?

Edited by Rodney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, anthony said:

Is the  lack of curiosity about the actions of one's mind, laziness or is it fear?

Tony,

In you I judge it to be intellectual laziness.

If it fits induction according to learned dogma, you are down with it. If you need to absorb new facts that might challenge that dogma, you resist like a Scientologist being shown a story about a Suppressive Person. He won't even look and neither will you.

Except he's brainwashed. I don't believe you are.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rodney said:

-I just left out a few lesser things. Or do you mean actual scores?

I know your main interest is music, so I don't mean to dissapoint you. I was actually interested in your, "epistemology relating to mathematics." Since I am interested in both epistemology and mathematics, I'm always interested in how someone else understands them.

Randy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, anthony said:

... your automated emotion (alarm)

Tony,

Is this an emotion you know consciously as to type and intensity, how and why it came about, and what was its root cause?

:)

33 minutes ago, anthony said:

... I admit to being pleasantly surprised by emotions occasionally.

Are these emotions you know consciously as to type and intensity, how and why they came about, and what was their root cause?

:)

Shall I go on?

The point is you can actually know this stuff, but not through introspection. You have to take measurements and compare them to a standard. And in order to do that, you have to have a way to observe the different components you are measuring. Introspection will get you far, but it will not get you there. 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, anthony said:

Why is the stock response raised to what one senses, perceives, observes and introspects (i.e. knows), always the oddities and aberrancies - e.g. the 'bent' stick in water - or, nightmares or hallucinations, or sometimes, psychopathologies? If anything, I think they prove the rule, of the *standard* of an awake, conscious, healthy and functioning brain/mind.   

Tony,

I'm going to answer this because of the enormous rationalization behind the question. When all a person does in a discussion is repeat dogma and refuses to look at normal facts, the other person tries to get his attention with more extraordinary facts. That's not a stock response. That's a form of last attempt--from frustration--to move the interchange to an actual discussion and not just listen to the equivalent of a parrot.

The presumption that a person who challenges dogma (or checks a premise) can only do so by ignoring the ordinary and appealing to the extraordinary is a rationalization that does not correspond to reality.

One of the few explicit sins in Objectivism is evasion. Refusing to look at a fact that checks a premise to the point of overturning it is evasion.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

In you I judge it to be intellectual laziness.

If it fits induction according to learned dogma, you are down with it. If you need to absorb new facts that might challenge that dogma, you resist like a Scientologist being shown a story about a Suppressive Person. He won't even look and neither will you.

Except he's brainwashed. I don't believe you are.

Michael

Wrong, Michael. What you call "intellectual laziness", is actually empirical laziness, going by what you've been saying. Intellectually, I don't stop. Thinking, observing, assessing, etc., from every source in reality. Scientific evidence is arriving continuously and time has to be put aside to study. As I've said, one chooses to read what is most important/interesting to oneself - and, where one has total ignorance. But I am not ignorant on this topic, emotions in a consciousness. The physical, biological components of emotions interest me, fascinating especially in neuroscience which is clearly validating philosophy, but they don't determine the process. They are the physical part of it. The individual is the determining factor and nothing is bigger than that fact.

The "dogma" is actually, fact - proven to oneself, from one's earliest percepts of reality, to the present. You make a dichotomy between inductively-gained, conceptual knowledge - and - empirical, scientific knowledge -- not me. There is no dichotomy. I have never indicated anything of the sort. The former is fundamental, i.e., one's concepts; the second is "learned" knowledge from others minds. Both have to be integrated and grounded.

"Knowledge is a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation". Concepts of Consciousness p.35

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, anthony said:

You make a dichotomy between inductively-gained, conceptual knowledge - and - empirical, scientific knowledge -- not me.

Tony,

This is incorrect.

I do not make a dichotomy. I call them two halves of acquiring knowledge. A half is not a whole. It's an incomplete part.

Coming up with a premise is not the same thing as checking it. You need both for real knowledge.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

Actually you are.

:)

Seriously.

I'm not talking about conclusions, either. I'm talking about basic knowledge.

Michael

I put a suggestion up, for an experiment to be carried out individually. The "basic knowledge", by introspection, experience and observation, is in there, and whoever can, must refute the findings. So far, no replies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, anthony said:

I put a suggestion up, for an experiment to be carried out individually. The "basic knowledge", by introspection, experience and observation, is in there, and whoever can, must refute the findings. So far, no replies.

Tony,

Checking a limitation of introspection with more introspection is a cop-out, not serious thinking. It's evasion. It's a refusal to look outside, in other words, a refusal to think.

It feels good, though.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony,

OK, let's look at your experiment, which is not really an experiment.

14 hours ago, anthony said:

In fact, I would suggest an experiment to anyone who cares, to take note of their emotions for a period, and apply this introspective questioning. Prove the theory wrong. I'd like to hear someone disprove that there is ~not~ a value of their's - material, human, spiritual, intellectual - attached to and relating to any emotion they feel, in some way. Anyone feel up to it? A caution, honestly done it can be uncomfortably self-revealing.

How long is a period?

What is the standard of measurement? 

What can be independently observed?

What is the control to eliminate bias?

What constitutes "proof"?

Is it possible to conduct this so-called experiment without being someone who hates self-revelation?

What you described is not an experiment. It is a prejudice seeking some form of statement that sounds kinda sciency.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

Ones that are easily observable by all. Ones that do not require a large amount of specialized knowledge to observe and recognize what they are.

Michael

Where do you see, observe, an emotion which is "observable by all"? Does one look at other people's emotions? 

Empiricism by scientists can only identify the physical elements of emotions and psychological actions or societal behaviorism. "What" we know, not how we know.

"How" - one is a volitional being who determines his own emotions, is of much more profound value and interest to mankind. How is that arguable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, regi said:

I know your main interest is music, so I don't mean to dissapoint you. I was actually interested in your, "epistemology relating to mathematics." Since I am interested in both epistemology and mathematics, I'm always interested in how someone else understands them.

:( :) OK, I'll send you a copy. The main thrust of it is that, in the course of applying AR's epistemology to understanding imaginary numbers (something that always interested me), I was led to consider the ultimate nature of numbers, its relation to concept-formation, and AR's statements about math themselves (some of which I came to regard as mistaken). But once I understood imaginaries to my satisfaction, I applied that knowledge to the question of dimensions beyond 2 (two being the dimension of the well-known complex or 'imaginary' numbers), and independently devised a class of 'hypercomplex' numbers that can be extended to any number of dimensions. 

At first I was excited that I had discovered something new; but further arduous investigation (difficult for me because my education never even included the calculus) showed me that this class of numbers was already known to some advanced mathematicians. For example, one of my footnotes reads: 

Quote

Olariu, Silviu. Complex Numbers in n Dimensions. Amsterdam, Boston : Elsevier, 2002. Available at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0011/0011044.pdf. “Two distinct systems of hypercomplex numbers in n dimensions are introduced in this book, for which the multiplication is associative and commutative, and which are rich enough in properties such that exponential and trigonometric forms exist and the concepts of analytic n-complex function, contour integration and residue can be defined.” Be it noted that I understood very little in this book, but I was startled to find that my equations for RADN-4 are exactly reproduced in the section “3.3 Planar complex numbers in four dimensions.”

Should I send the essay to comment (at) usabig (dot) com ? This will be my last post in this thread because I don't wish to divert it any further.

PS: I did want to add that there is one little touch in the essay that was triggered by something you once said at Rebirth of Reason. I don't know whether I would have gotten it on my own, but I take this opportunity to mention it here. Maybe you'll notice it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, anthony said:

Where do you see, observe, an emotion which is "observable by all"? Does one look at other people's emotions? 

Tony,

I'm not going to do your basic looking for you, so I'm not going to answer a string of questions like this.

But I will answer this one to show that answers do exist.

One can observe the effects of emotions. How? fMRI scans. SPECT scans. (And a whole bunch of other neural-imaging technologies.) Blood samples. Staining techniques.

In other words, through countless controlled experiments to eliminate extraneous causes, specific effects imply the presence of the corresponding emotions.

And then there are brain implants (like fiber-optic cables) that trigger specific neurons that excite specific emotions on cue. 

Those are a few of the means.

There are others.

The readouts from these things seriously challenge a lot of the assumptions you claim as fact proven by introspection. And you refuse to look at them with such certainty, you have to ask a question like you just did. You're eyes are shut as you ask why there is no light.

At least you did ask a question about this stuff finally. Even though you were shooting for a gotcha. But still, it was a question about this stuff. That's a vast improvement compared to the preaching before. :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

OK, let's look at your experiment, which is not really an experiment.

How long is a period?

What is the standard of measurement? 

What can be independently observed?

What is the control to eliminate bias?

What constitutes "proof"?

Is it possible to conduct this so-called experiment without being someone who hates self-revelation?

What you described is not an experiment. It is a prejudice seeking some form of statement that sounds kinda sciency.

Michael

Which highlights the essence of introspecting emotions, rigorous honesty, otherwise an effort with no purpose. Nobody's checking and scoring points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, anthony said:

Which highlights the essence of introspecting emotions, rigorous honesty, otherwise an effort with no purpose. Nobody's checking and scoring points.

Tony,

In other words, it's not an experiment.

If you can't "score points," you are not measuring anything.

Kinda obvious, no?

btw - What is non-rigorous honesty? Is that something they use in experiments as opposed to your mental Q&A, which seems to require rigorous honesty? Maybe non-rigorous honesty is the kind used by people who are afraid of self-revelation?

Or is rigorous honesty the opposite of rigorous dishonesty?

I'm so confused...

:evil: 

Is it even possible to discuss introspection in O-Land without implying the adjective used is a superlative?

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, anthony said:

Which highlights the essence of introspecting emotions, rigorous honesty, otherwise an effort with no purpose. Nobody's checking and scoring points.

I haven't read this whole thread, but I tend to agree with Tony's point as I understand it here. Science is an effort to discover truth, not an exercise in the persuasion of others. In other words, to engage in science is to primarily enlighten oneself. Persuasion of others is another task--one can skip it and use one's new knowledge as a stepping-stone to knowledge that may eventually be more easily transmittable to others, but this is optional. 

I wrote an essay pertinent to this some years ago: http://solohq.org/Articles/Rawlings/;_or,_How_Objectivists_Are_Not_Materialists.shtml .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...