A Few Kant Quotes


Newberry

Recommended Posts

MSK:

The problem is that our inner mental states exist and they can become independent objects of our observation. Just as we can look at our hand or leg, or even look in a mirror, and see what we see as separate things, we can also look at our mental processes and see all that as a separate thing. That is the true meaning of being aware of yourself—stepping back and taking a look-see, so to speak.

I don't think anyone here has any trouble following this. You describe introspection.

People who promote the objections you present above usually dismiss our internal mental world as if it did not exist except as something arbitrary, and they use words like whim or feelings, etc., to describe it.

!!! (My BS meter is going off.)

I have difficulty in my communications with Michael Newberry precisely on this point and how this inner mental reality can be expressed as a subject of art and not just an attribute inputted to a physical thing from outside it. (Volition-based input on the subject of an artwork is called theme and style.)

Look, you are welcome to disconnect the brain from reality and paint whatever is floating around in your head, anyone else is welcome too, but it is not an integrated view of art or life i.e. putting together our emotions, thoughts, and sensory perception of the outside world. Isolating your focus on one thing (introspection) is cool for study, but has its limitations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, you are welcome to disconnect the brain from reality and paint whatever is floating around in your head, anyone else is welcome too, but it is not an integrated view of art or life i.e. putting together our emotions, thoughts, and sensory perception of the outside world. Isolating your focus on one thing (introspection) is cool for study, but has its limitations.

Not the least of which are the following:

1. No reliable distinction between sane introspection and hallucination.

2. There is no independent verification of an introspection. That is because instrospection and completely private. No second or third party verification is possible.

3. One cannot relibably distinguish a "true" introspection from a post hoc rationalization.

4. There is no way determining what an account of an introspection made to a second party is a true account, a false account or an erroneous account.

As data sources go, introspection is not top quality.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reading Kant, I don't get the impression that his view is that the sublime is experienced by taking something, contemplating ways in which one could see it as infinitely complex, and then trying to comprehend the imagined complexity.

You should work out your idea of the sublime then, because that's almost identical to what you said in post 209

My understanding of his notion of the sublime ... is that it's an issue of magnitude. It is the feeling of not being able to get our heads around something, something so large and complex that it is impossible to fully comprehend ... being overwhelmed by its immensity yet still having an idea or concept of the phenomenon which is beyond comprehension
In other words, the aesthetic feeling of the sublime is not artificially induced -- you don't choose to experience something which is non-sublime as sublime by trying to coax complexity out of it.

My point is simply that Kant is describing the effects of viewing some phenomenon in nature which stimulates a sense of awe, specifically delightful horror and incomprehensible magnitude, which stimulates a sense of absolute greatness. His view seems to be that the presence of the phenomenon instantly excites the sense of awe. His view does not seem to be that a person looks at a thing which does not instantly excite awe, then contemplates ways in which the thing could be seen as being so complex that it might excite awe, thus trying to coax it into to exciting awe.

Now, if someone felt a sense of delightful horror and magnitude in looking at a plastic bag floating around in an alley for 15 minutes, I suppose that it could indeed stimulate in them a sense of the sublime. And if someone could look at, say, a simple potato, ponder ways in which it was complex beyond comprehension, work himself up into an emotional lather of delightful horror and incomprehension similar in intensity to that experienced by 17th and 18th century thinkers when viewing the Alps, then, sure, that would probably qualify as experiencing a sense of the sublime. I just don't think it's likely, and I don't think it's what Kant was getting at.

Kant wrote
The sublime is that, the mere capacity of thinking which evidences a faculty of mind transcending every standard of sense.

If you have other Kant quotes on what he means by "sublime" feel free to share them.

"Everything that provokes this feeling in us, including the might of nature which challenges our strength, is then, though improperly, called sublime, and it is only under presupposition of this idea within us, and in relation to it, that we are capable of attaining to the idea of the sublimity of that Being Which inspires deep respect in us, not by the mere display of its might in nature, but more by the faculty which is planted in us of estimating that might without fear, and of regarding our estate as exalted above it."

In other words, Kant's idea of the sublime is absolute greatness, and that our experiences in observing phenomena which, although not absolutely great themselves, instill fear and are beyond comprehension, and thus stimulate a sense of that absolute greatness. In some ways you could say that his concept of the "absolute" aspect of the greatness of the sublime sounds similar to your concept of "the highest form of beauty that can be recognized," with the difference being that you haven't explained, or even begun to define, what you mean by "beauty" or the "highest form" of it. Is your concept of the "highest form of beauty" embodied in something which exists right now in reality, something which is so beautiful that its beauty could not possibly be surpassed, or is your ideal "highest form of beauty" only an idea in your mind which is "detached" from reality since it is embodied in no actual object?

But there is no 'coaxing' going on, the complexity of the interactions related to a tumbling trash bag in the wind ARE immense and incomprehensible, they are not imaginary. Attempting to contemplate them can certainly drive a mind into a state which 'transcends every standard of sense'

I think the question is whether or not contemplating the physics of objects can induce the aesthetic experience of a feeling which exists at the same level of the delightful horror and incomprehensibility derived from the things in nature which Kant says evoke the sublime. If so, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with such experiences being described as having evoked the sublime. It's just that I don't think that that is what Kant was talking about.

And of course you are wading into mystical territory here, insisting that the sublime is not something you can feel at the 'non-sublime'. There is no absolute 'this is sublime' rule of the universe, and 'this is not sublime' where sentient beings are supposed to appropriately feel the sublime in reaction to those.

I haven't claimed that there is an absolute "'this is sublime' rule of the universe." You've only interpreted me as doing so, much as you erroneously interpreted Janson as misrepresenting Burke.

Who determines what is and is not sublime? The subject himself does...

I agree. When I said that a person doesn't "choose to experience something which is non-sublime as sublime by trying to coax complexity out of it," I meant a thing which was non-sublime to him prior to his trying to coax complexity out of it.

The emotional reaction, sublime or not, comes in reaction to what the subject thinks is sublime, not what Kant thinks is sublime, or what the 'universe' thinks is sublime. Kant is saying what he thinks sublime IS, but in reality is preaching what he thinks it OUGHT to be.

I think that Kant, and the other thinkers we've been discussing, probably didn't really give a shit about which word they were using when pondering the phenomena in question. They were philosophers, and, as such, their job was to explore problems and to try to resolve apparent contradictions. They were interested in the problem of why something which they experienced as horrific and confounding was delightfully satisfying. The names used to describe the problem are irrelevant, so, to me, it seems that you are the one preaching what he thinks the sublime "OUGHT to be." It seems that you want to own and protect the word "sublime" and claim that your definition of it is the one and only proper definition, while having no interest in the substance of the problems that the philosophers were interested in.

If the sublime, to you, is "that which has profound meaning and is the highest form of beauty that can be recognized," which word would you propose that we use for the experience of delightful horror and infinite immensity in which all thought is lost, as described by the thinkers that you linked to?

The opposite of Sublime. In Chemistry, the opposite of Sublimation is Deposition. "ah, that is so depositive" ? Or we could ad the greek prefix 'a' and call it asublime. don't know, don't particularly care to identify such a word at this moment.

That's fine with me. I think that the word selection is irrelevant. I'd prefer that people address substance rather than semantics. If you want to protect the word "sublime," then okay, I won't use it when discussing the substance: When someone is standing at the edge of a black, bottomless pit, and she experiences a massive sense of horror and incomprehension of magnitude, but she also feels that experiencing the horror and incomprehensible magnitude is supremely delightful, how would you go about explaining why she felt pleasure -- an uplifting, inspiring feeling of freedom and satisfaction -- in experiencing the horror and incomprehension?

Read his comments on Genuis (someone who creates something great but has no idea why or how he has and can not reliable reproduce it) and Fine Art (that which incurs the sublime where you have no idea why you feel it and is not according to any rules) and the Sublime, a feeling that 'transcends' all sense perception

I'm still in the process of reading Kant, but I think his concept of Genius, and the idea that great art can't be reliably reproduced according to rules, has to do with the idea of originality being a vital aspect of art. I don't think he's saying that we can't teach and learn artistic techniques, but he's simply observing that originality, by its definition, means that rules are not followed -- a painting is not original if is is made according to an establish formula of how to make that painting. The artist discovers the "rules" as he's creating the painting.

Beyond that, artists often admit that they don't know where their ideas come from. Classical composers and modern song writers have talked about their most successful melodies just popping into their heads. How would one teach that? Which rules would one follow in order to make songs pop into one's head. Artist's talk about their creations being largely subconsciously created. Objectivist artist Linda Mann is a good example. And if I'm remembering correctly, even Rand mentioned something about cases of not knowing where an idea came from.

Michael Newberry thinks that our "cores" make us see things in certain ways and prevent us from learning certain things. If you can't teach "core" issues like "sense of life" and other things which Objectivism claims drive the creation art, then there certainly can't be rules that one person with a specific sense of life can teach to another about creating according to that other's sense of life.

Yes I did read it, you apparently skimmed it looking only for the section that supports your interpretation. That site traced the HISTORY of the word and it's changing usage OVER TIME. If you think that, today, Sublime means something horrible and terrifying, you are disconnected from the modern english language.

Where did you get the idea that I was talking about modern usage of the word "sublime"? We're talking about Kant and other thinkers from long ago, and of their discussions of the sublime. It would be idiotic to expect that they would use a modern layman's definition rather than the definition used by philosophers (and not laymen) of their time.

You are focusing on a particular era, prior to that, the sublime was the awe at great rhetorhic, and then it was nobility, then it was terror and beauty, then it was just the highest recognition of beauty or awe, as it seems to have settled on today.

In reading up a little more on Longinus, it appears that Burke and others were interested in Longinus's ideas because he wrote that the sublime is that which "transcends" experience and "displaces" reason. More on that later if I can verify it when reading Longinus, Burke and others.

The modern usage of the word sublime is fine with me, an exalted or reverent feeling at experiencing or recognizing the highest or most beautiful thing once can concieve. The usage advocated by British explorers and writers of the 17th century, as you point out, one of terror and beauty, but yet still experienced at the recognition or reaction to something profoudnly beautiful and terrible, is fine as well, since it is grounded in reality. We just need a sufficient opposing term. Kant's usage is the worst and only useless one, since it focuses only on the FEELING and not the thing which caused the feeling.

Do you grasp that the 17th and 18th century thinkers were concerned with trying to understand and explain something that they experienced? They witnessed things in reality, felt a sense of terror and of being overwhelmed, yet they also felt immense pleasure in experiencing the terror and incomprehension. They simply wanted to know why something which evokes a sense of horror causes an immense sense of satisfaction and pleasure. Do you have any ideas to explain such an aesthetic effect, other than that they were evil (and trying to despoil your precious word "sublime")? Do you have a better theory than those that they offered?

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, you are welcome to disconnect the brain from reality and paint whatever is floating around in your head, anyone else is welcome too, but it is not an integrated view of art or life i.e. putting together our emotions, thoughts, and sensory perception of the outside world.

Thanks, but I prefer to create music rather than images when I want to "disconnect the brain from reality," and when I want to avoid having an integrated view of life -- when I want to avoid "putting together our emotions, thoughts, and sensory perception of the outside world."

That and architecture -- I like it when my non-utilitarian re-creations of reality are utilitarian and don't re-create reality.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, you are welcome to disconnect the brain from reality and paint whatever is floating around in your head, anyone else is welcome too, but it is not an integrated view of art or life i.e. putting together our emotions, thoughts, and sensory perception of the outside world. Isolating your focus on one thing (introspection) is cool for study, but has its limitations.

Not the least of which are the following:

1. No reliable distinction between sane introspection and hallucination.

2. There is no independent verification of an introspection. That is because instrospection and completely private. No second or third party verification is possible.

3. One cannot relibably distinguish a "true" introspection from a post hoc rationalization.

4. There is no way determining what an account of an introspection made to a second party is a true account, a false account or an erroneous account.

As data sources go, introspection is not top quality.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I am delighted to have the opportunity to agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, you are welcome to disconnect the brain from reality and paint whatever is floating around in your head, anyone else is welcome too, but it is not an integrated view of art or life i.e. putting together our emotions, thoughts, and sensory perception of the outside world. Isolating your focus on one thing (introspection) is cool for study, but has its limitations.

Michael,

Actually, I do not consider the things that "float in my head" to belong to a different reality than the one I live. I exist within one reality only. My mind is part of it and evolved to work within it. My mind can function properly or malfunction, but it does not operate outside of reality.

I find a view that ignores the reality that the mind exists qua existent to not be integrated at all. It is a veiled form of dualism.

Time for my own BS meter to go off. You didn't even look at the video before commenting, did you?

I wonder if you deny the reality of what Wilber did.

Dayaamm!

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. No reliable distinction between sane introspection and hallucination.

2. There is no independent verification of an introspection. That is because instrospection and completely private. No second or third party verification is possible.

3. One cannot relibably distinguish a "true" introspection from a post hoc rationalization.

4. There is no way determining what an account of an introspection made to a second party is a true account, a false account or an erroneous account.

Bob,

You mention some valid limitations for present-day knowledge.

But how do you explain that Ken Wilber did what he did and measured the results on controlling his brain while using it? And his experience is repeatable?

Just ignore this and keep saying the same old negations?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just ignore this and keep saying the same old negations?

Michael

This fellow's small portable EEG does not meet normal neurophysiological experimental standards. Who vetted his instrument? Has he demonsatrated this on someone else's EEG? Has this effect been verified multiple times by independent parties? Has the attachment to his skull been vetted by an independent party or parties preferably several times. Has the experiment been written up and carefully documented in a vetted neurophysiological journal? Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary verification.

I have had my brain examined by some of the world's best scanning equipment and the work done on me by genuine neurophysiologists with professional standing. When I see this kind of standard maintained and done multiple times with multiple parties using a variety of measuring devices, then I might be inclined to consider the matter.

In the mean time, the EEG is a superficial device compared to a MRI scanner, and a PET scanner. These devices get to measure and image stuff going in in the most interior portions of the brain. And EEG cannot do deep imaging of the cerebral cortex. For really high resolution scanning an MRI scanner is required and I assure you there is no such scanner on the planet earth that can fit into some one's private bedroom. The magnetic fields used require some rather heavy and massive electromagnets.

Have you ever seen the motion picture -Wag the Dog-? Why should I believe a ten minute self made home made t.v. presentation as opposed to a series of professional papers written by scientists in a vetted scientific journal describing precision measurements made by top of the line scanning equipment? Do you have independent verification of the nature of this fellow's device? Any documentation on how the pick up leads were applied to his scalp? Any documentation on how sensitive his equipment is and how well calibrated?

The EEG is not longer a front line high resolution mode of measuring brain activity. Really accurate brain studies are currently done with MRI and PET scan machines.

To put a point on the matter I consider this t.v. presentation highly ignorable.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

So you think Ken Wilbur just made it all up to fool people, either he programmed the equipment dishonestly or he can predict when the equipment will malfunction and film it at the exact moment he needs, huh?

I can just imagine you in the Middle Ages arguing against the notion that the earth is round because the evidence presented wasn't vetted or whatever.

:)

Wilbur's evidence is not top quality evidence, but it is evidence. Either the guy did it or he is a charlatan.

I would be interested in any real refutation of that evidence (if such exists) other than pooh-poohing it outright because you disagree with the equipment manufacturer on the reliability of their equipment.

The Integral Institute probably has a lot of stuff on file that would answer your questions.

I will say that the main thing I don't like about Wilber is that he leans towards making a personality cult around himself. Other than that, I like the stuff that I have seen him produce.

Nathaniel Branden has interacted with him a bit.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You almost sound as if you believe there is something we could point to and say "mind".

GS,

That's one way of interpreting the evidence. I like it best because it suits Occam's razor quite well in the lack of anything else for the time being. What Wilber did was an act of pure volition controlling what some call the mind's very essence. And that borders on a contradiction by definition.

There's definitely some kind of there there. (Why do you think Bob got so wound up? He's been denying the mind exists for years.) I happen to believe in the existence of mind, anyway. I know I have mine. :)

I can certainly point to when a mind isn't there. All that's left is a body that doesn't work.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Minds are non-physical entities with disembodied actions. I think assuming the mind is an entity is a category mistake. It is assuming a particular category of phenomena are actions caused by a thing called 'mind.' This is misleading to our investigations into the realm of inner experience. It is also the door to interpreting the world through a lens that includes things without physical extension: a world filled with disembodied minds and gods and ghosts.

Although it may apply in common usage, it is far better to drop the label of mind when thinking metaphysically. There are physiological components of the brain that have specific identities, that act and interact in certain ways. The nature of these physical entities, and their corresponding actions, parallel the nature of the components of the psyche, and its corresponding actions. The mind, as such, does not exist. Physical entities acting and interacting are what exists. We have a unique perspective of these entities in action when we observe them introspectively, but we should not make the mistake of assuming that the net effect of things acting and interacting is a thing like other things. These interactions may create a system through their integrated actions but they do not create a metaphysical entity.

This one category error has led to an enormous amount of mistaken metaphysics. Stay with the idea that to be a metaphysical entity requires physical extension (occupied 3 dimensional space through time) and actions require something physical that acts, and this error is avoided.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

What you call 'category mistake" is what Korzybski would call "confusing orders of abstraction". Man has no problem postulating existence of things that we can't perceive directly, like neutrinos, for example, yet we have models of how they should behave and ways of detecting them etc. The important thing is to realize that some entities are postulational and some are perceivable and these are different levels of abstraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the word "sublime" (like Art) is to have any useful or significant meaning, it should not be something that means an overwhelming sense of grandeur, reverence, terror, or whatever ever at the incomprehensible detached from physical reality, because then it is a purely internalized emotion and is experienced for it's own sake and serves no purpose, and the word and idea become meaningless. Curl up in the fetal position, roll around on your floor and look 'inward' until you experience your sublime moment.

Michael (Matus),

Stepping away from Kant a second, I have trouble with this kind of dismissal and mocking that goes with it. That's a lot of shoulding. (As Barbara once mentioned, despite her differences with Dr. Albert Ellis, she saw a sign in his office she loved. It said, Don't should on me." See here.)

The problem is that our inner mental states exist and they can become independent objects of our observation. Just as we can look at our hand or leg, or even look in a mirror, and see what we see as separate things, we can also look at our mental processes and see all that as a separate thing. That is the true meaning of being aware of yourself—stepping back and taking a look-see, so to speak.

People who promote the objections you present above usually dismiss our internal mental world as if it did not exist except as something arbitrary, and they use words like whim or feelings, etc., to describe it.

I have difficulty in my communications with Michael Newberry precisely on this point and how this inner mental reality can be expressed as a subject of art and not just an attribute inputted to a physical thing from outside it. (Volition-based input on the subject of an artwork is called theme and style.)

I don't disagree on the reality and tangible nature of our mental states, if I am understanding you here properly. I recall a previous post in this thread in which you described an artist trying to capture and represent an inner emotional state, which I found a reasonable thing for an artist to try to capture, but that harkens back to the point and usefulness of art. Any representation of an inner emotional state, unless based on objective grounds (i.e. things that any rational human can connect to) is merely a tool for reflection for the artist and nothing more than a Rosarch ink blot test for the viewer. So I would wonder would an artist who is legitatemely trying to capture an inner emotional state for his own purposes cares if it's called art, or if it's hung on a wall? This kind of art, when reduced to subjective language of the artist, is indistinguishable to everyone but the artist from any random non-objective work presented by every other post modern artist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

So you think Ken Wilbur just made it all up to fool people, either he programmed the equipment dishonestly or he can predict when the equipment will malfunction and film it at the exact moment he needs, huh?

His demonstration does not meet scientific standards, as I pointed out. It would be a lot more convincing if he could demonstrate these effects on devices provided by other people.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

What you call 'category mistake" is what Korzybski would call "confusing orders of abstraction". Man has no problem postulating existence of things that we can't perceive directly, like neutrinos, for example, yet we have models of how they should behave and ways of detecting them etc. The important thing is to realize that some entities are postulational and some are perceivable and these are different levels of abstraction.

Thomas,

I'm still not clear on the meaning of "orders of abstraction." What are orders of abstraction? Does it have to do with the level of abstractness: perceptions being more concretely identified and neutrinos being identified through abstract modeling? Are "confusions" then a matter of assuming one's abstract models have an equal epistemic status to perceptions? Thus, creating a sense of certainty where there is only illusion or delusion.

The mind is a postulated entity with very deep roots in our history. It is so easy to look at our introspective experience through a causal lens and say that some thing must be the cause of these experiences, thoughts and feelings I am aware of. This thing, that is the cause of these effects, that has these properties, is my 'mind.' It is effected by my body. It affects my body. But it does not seem to be confined by the limits of my body. It seems to exist without extension in space. It seems to cause actions in the physical world without being necessitated by antecedent physical causal chains. It seems to be able to resist the impulse to respond to antecedent physical causal chains. It acts without any thing I can point to causing the action. It is different stuff to the stuff of the physical realm. It is mind stuff.

The idea of mind is built from some pretty major assumptions that fill in the spaces of what we cannot observe. These assumptions are guided by our concepts of identity and causation, which act as principles shaping the generation of our intuitive metaphysical models. The category mistake is caused by errors (or missing pieces) in these principles. Errors in the principles cause errors in our intuitive models. Errors in our intuitive models cause errors in our expressed models, in our philosophies, and in our sciences.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree on the reality and tangible nature of our mental states, if I am understanding you here properly. I recall a previous post in this thread in which you described an artist trying to capture and represent an inner emotional state, which I found a reasonable thing for an artist to try to capture, but that harkens back to the point and usefulness of art. Any representation of an inner emotional state, unless based on objective grounds (i.e. things that any rational human can connect to) is merely a tool for reflection for the artist and nothing more than a Rosarch ink blot test for the viewer. So I would wonder would an artist who is legitatemely trying to capture an inner emotional state for his own purposes cares if it's called art, or if it's hung on a wall? This kind of art, when reduced to subjective language of the artist, is indistinguishable to everyone but the artist from any random non-objective work presented by every other post modern artist.

Michael,

Thanks for meeting me halfway here in a civil discussion.

There are a few things that need to be clearer. The first is that the operations of the mind are cannot be reduced solely to reason and emotions. There are operations like daydreaming, high level of creativity, meditation, sharp focus on one sense, etc. The different types of brain waves already point to this richness of activity.

As an aside, if you are curious, I suggest fiddling around with an entrainment program like Brain Wave Generator (it used to be shareware, but I am not sure now) and you will get first hand knowledge. At any rate, there are several free programs and even recordings on the Internet. All you have to do is Google it. (These mostly use sound. There are also programs that use light.)

The whole problem with abstract painting is the same problem of communicating any experience when trying to transpose the experience of one sense organ to another. But before getting to that, I want to make a comment about sense organs. Traditionally there are five, but if you look into it further, you will see that we have several more (such as a sense of gravity, etc). If you Google this, you will find a whole new world opening up that is right there in front of us, but nobody ever talks about. We can even "sense" our inner mental operations, if we understand a sense organ to be a faculty of awareness.

Back to transposing one sense experience to another. What is the color of the taste bitter, or the color of the aroma of a rose? The first answer that comes to mind is that it cannot be done. As Rand said, A is A, and even Gertrude Stein said a rose is a rose is a rose. :)

But a second answer is to use constructions that provide similar responses within the artist. If he can arrive at something that allows another person to sense a similar experience to what he did, he has communicated well.

Now the problem with communicating an inner mental state is that it is not sensed with eyes, yet a painting is. But there are connections between sensing a mental state and sensing light. Some forms and color combinations help trigger certain mental states, so a mix between the two is really what is sought. These triggers are actually part of the abstract artist's palatte (the good ones, that is). To be fair, they are also part of the part of any good artist's palatte, but the abstract artist usually puts more emphasis on them (as opposed to, say, forms of entities) because they help trigger the actual subject of his painting (the mental state).

This is a very long discussion and this is just scratching the surface, but I hope you see that when I discuss this, the issue is not reason versus emotion, or death wish versus heroism, or disconnection from reality versus staying true to it, or any other such oversimplification. To be clear, these Objectivist divisions are valid within confines, but they are oversimplifications when used as THE standard for all questions of art.

As with so many ideas I have been recently finding in traditional Objectivism, I find deep insights side by side with serious problems of scope. In other words, Objectivism often provides a profound part that almost no one has fathomed before, but that part makes an incomplete whole. I find this especially true with the Objectivist theory of aesthetics (sense of life, volition, heroism, etc.).

Just as human beings have many facets of complexity, so does what human beings do. And art is one thing that human beings do.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

I do too. That's why I called the mind an existent and not an entity.

:)

Michael,

Sorry! I should read more carefully. The point remains: continuing to use the word "mind" when thinking metaphysically will cause metaphysical confusion. The label presumes the existent it labels. It can stop the necessary causal deconstruction that can lead to new principles and innovative models of the experienced phenomenon.

Thinking metaphysically is thinking within the parameters set by our principles of identity and causality. Setting these parameters, and staying within them, is as important as setting the axioms in Euclidean geometry and staying within them (if one wants to practice Euclidean geometry). This is what I have called causal reasoning.

I think we have not yet learned to focus very well on our concepts of identity and causality as epistemological principles. We carry with us a number of unconsidered assumptions that shape the very foundations of our intuitive worldviews. To a large extent our expressed worldviews are our intuitive worldviews made explicit (unless we submerge our own intuitive worldview to adopt, and perhaps integrate, the one's we are taught). And when we are not careful about the conclusions we intuitively draw about the nature of identity and causality, and we are not disciplined about the factors that shape our intuitive worldviews, we end up with inconsistent metaphysics (and physics) that requires dualities. All metaphysical (and physical) dualities start by accepting dualities into our intuitive conclusions about identity and causality. The challenge is to start with a monistic view of identity and causality, and interpret the evidence without allowing dualities into our models and explanations. Rand and N. Branden were the closest I've seen to starting this way, and to interpreting the evidence this way. This is where their innovative vision and insight comes from. They are great at building disciplined causal models that maintain principles of identity and causality that are monistic. The rest is details.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consciousness is a complex harmonic relationship between a sentient organism and its environment. Consciousness is an assimilation of form, not substance. The mind is this relationship treated as an entity.

The mind is a complex relationship, not an entity.

Thomas, what is this "Korzybski" of which you speak?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Entities are independent wholes. So are holons, except they are part of a greater whole.

To be clear, a human being is an entity. He is an individual made up of many parts. His kidney is an independent entity, but only within the human being. That is a holon. It must be a part of whole human, but in the form of a whole itself, not as a disparate agglomeration of its parts. Otherwise it doesn't work for humans.

A kidney is such a whole that one can be transposed from one human being to another and still work.

Causality is engendered in holons. To use your terminology, they are monoliths.

(In a sense, an individual human being is a holon when put in the context of the human species.)

This holon format holds true for inanimate existents also.

This is what is called top-down thinking. Quarks bottom up. Holons top down.

See here: Holon.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now