An axiomatic paradox?


Roger Bissell

Recommended Posts

Mindy,

This might be a case of style, not substance. (I admit I might be wrong, but so far I don't think so.)

Paul first came to my attention when he talked about what the different approaches between Rand and Branden, or morality and psychology. Those standards are good versus evil and health versus illness. He called them lenses back then and it rang a bell.

Way too often I have seen sick people condemned as evil and evil people excused as sick, with all the resulting havoc and trouble this implies, because the person judging (and I include myself) was using the wrong "lens." That is oversimplified, though. Troubled people are both, but to different degrees. No one I know of falls totally into one or the other standard. Evil people often are sick and vice-versa. The problem is trying to discern which part is prominent so it can be dealt with appropriately. Ditto for good and healthy.

(As a former alcoholic and drug addict, I know this problem well.)

Here is how Paul came into my life. I actually sought him from something he wrote elsewhere.

Paul Mawdsley on differences between Rand and Branden

This might help in understanding his approach. I don't think he judges people in the manner you are stating. I think he merely steps back and tries to see how and why people think the way they do.

But, if you feel his manner of expression is offensive due to some kind of implicit condescension or misrepresentation, you are certainly correct to say so. I'm just trying to widen awareness of the knowledge base and context.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul is breaching the social contract if he resorts to: you are incapable of realizing the truth of my position; your beliefs prevent you. I'm trying to make that clear. The rash alternative is what I'm not taking.

= Mindy

I understand what you're objecting to. I also object, and I, too, find that method of "it's your biases which prevent you from hearing me" argumentative style a big put-off to any wish on my part to attempt discussion with the person using it. (I have many times encountered that style from various academics I know; it's a popular style in some academic departments.)

I was just hoping to forestall another terminologic snafu from developing, this time over "pancritical rationalism," which isn't of Paul's coinage and near as I can tell from Paul's posts isn't what he's propounding.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's all it is nobody would be here, not even you. But your reply means what I said. You're not any good for even getting mad. I punched you but it was like hitting a ghost.

--Brant

That's because general semantics teaches you to stay calm and use your rationality. It's one of the things I thought it might have in common with objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because general semantics teaches you to stay calm and use your rationality. It's one of the things I thought it might have in common with objectivism.

Boy, were you wrong!

Well, Rand said she was in the passionate quest for passionless truth. I guess GS thinks he's there unless he's in the passionless quest for passionless truth business.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because general semantics teaches you to stay calm and use your rationality. It's one of the things I thought it might have in common with objectivism.

Boy, were you wrong!

That's a really unfair quip, seeming as it does to tar people on this list with O'ist behaviors which go on elsewhere. Who on this list do you think has treated GS irrationally? Who, except for Brant, has even made much of a fuss -- and that only recently from Brant -- over GS's posting here while showing no willingness to read any basic O'ist text? I think that Brant's evaluation of GS as trollish is correct; I think that several others here also share the evaluation. Do you consider it irrational to register a protest if one finds a poster's behavior objectionable? (Have you ever registered protests against other posters whose behavior you found objectionable? If it's ok for you to do it, why isn't it ok for one of the Objectivists here to do it? This is, after all, supposedly an Objectivist list. GS abuses the hospitality of his hosts -- there I mean specifically Kat and Michael, who provide the list. The hosts put up with it. But that doesn't mean that others shouldn't notice it and feel irritated by it and express the irritation. Brant's comments to GS were far from excessive.)

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because general semantics teaches you to stay calm and use your rationality. It's one of the things I thought it might have in common with objectivism.

Boy, were you wrong!

That's a really unfair quip, seeming as it does to tar people on this list with O'ist behaviors which go on elsewhere.

It was a damn funny quip. I didn't interpret it as being directed at people on this list but at the history of the Objectivist movement in general and the now stereotypical way Objectivists deal with perspectives different from their own. How easily we can misinterpret motives and meanings.

Who on this list do you think has treated GS irrationally?

Nobody has. I am still deeply impressed with the quality of information exchange (even if many seem to question the quality of mine) and the level of decency on this list. Michael and Kat have built something good that provides the freedom for each of the members to express their individuality while discouraging disrespect and personal attacks. I understand that OL is different to other Objectivist lists. This difference points to the reason Dragonfly's quip was funny.

GS abuses the hospitality of his hosts -- there I mean specifically Kat and Michael, who provide the list. The hosts put up with it.

Is this true? I have only seen Michael defend GS. I think he finds value in GS's posts, as I do. Michael treats GS according to a principle of basic respect for different intelligent perspectives. This is a principle that has shaped OL and makes it different to other O'lists. Whether you like what GS has (or I have) to contribute or not, this principle is an important part of what makes OL as good as it is.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might be right, Paul, about the spirit in which DF's quip was intended. Coming in the context in which it appears, however, it seemed to me to be indicating censure for GS's treatment here.

DF can clarify how he meant the remark, if he wants to.

Meanwhile, it occurred to me that rather than "trolling," an accurate description for GS's participation here is "intellectual loitering" -- "standing around," as it were, throwing in various remarks and questions but never showing a willingness to crack open some books -- not even ITOE -- and do some study of the basics of the philosophy around which this list is organized. When he continues to ask, after a year and 2 months of posting here, what O'ists mean by various terms, this is past the time for concluding that he isn't serious about participating. He reminds me of those students -- whose number keeps increasing -- who think that they should receive a decent grade simply in return for showing up for class.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might be right, Paul, about the spirit in which DF's quip was intended. Coming in the context in which it appears, however, it seemed to me to be indicating censure for GS's treatment here.

DF can clarify how he meant the remark, if he wants to.

Meanwhile, it occurred to me that rather than "trolling," an accurate description for GS's participation here is "intellectual loitering" -- "standing around," as it were, throwing in various remarks and questions but never showing a willingness to crack open some books -- not even ITOE -- and do some study of the basics of the philosophy around which this list is organized. When he continues to ask, after a year and 2 months of posting here, what O'ists mean by various terms, this is past the time for concluding that he isn't serious about participating. He reminds me of those students -- whose number keeps increasing -- who think that they should receive a decent grade simply in return for showing up for class.

Ellen,

GS is a loiterer. I'll buy that. I have to admit I wouldn't be able to participate here without reading at least Atlas, even if he skips Galt's speech. I think you get the best of Rand and Objectivism from her fiction. It better communicates the benevolent spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially, then, you are a troll. I don't know what value you bring to our table. I don't see how you pay for your discourse or why people here want to give you something for what seems to be nothing in return. For Objectivism, you are a Black Hole.

--Brant

There is more to anyone's perspective than is contained in Objectivism, even Objectivists. GS explores that something more. This makes him more of a star that emits light in a spectrum that Objectivist can't see without the right lenses. This can make him seem like a black hole for he appears to have a gravitational attraction without any visible light.

Paul

In this, I strongly disagree. If you have a complaint as to Objectivism's adequacy, state it. I don't see that GS, or you, are exploring anything except issues you haven't yet satisfactorily understood, yourselves. You are now trying simply to disqualify your opponents. "...a spectrum that Objectivist can't see..." is exactly what "metacontext" seemed to be aiming at all along.

(Where I use "Objectivism" in what follows, I am referring to Rand's closed system.)

1. Objectivism shows little understanding of empathic processes and does not integrate them into its epistemology and ethics. Objectivism throws out empathic perspectives with the social metaphysical bath water.

2. Objectivism is built on an concept of human nature that demonstrates little understanding of intuitive and subconscious processes.

3. Objectivism defines individuals mostly by their philosophies, with little regard for the complexity of psychology.

4. Objectivism assumes its epistemic method is a means to create a point of contact with the truths of reality. It is epistemically absolutist. Any perspective that reaches a different conclusion is wrong without question.

Instead of making a claim, or an argument, and then discussing it frankly, pancritical rationalism reserves the right to answer its opponents simply by saying they "come from a different metacontext." It's just like the old standard, "It may be true for you, but it's not true for me," relativism that attempts to save face when in a failed position.

Ellen is right. I don't speak for pancritical rationalism. I always speak from the position of my own philosophy. I only said I sensed a resonance with pancritical rationalism. I get a sense of resonance with a number of perspectives. I explore them to discover new ways of seeing things, I evaluate them, I try to find a way to make sense of how they arise in someone else, then I move on with an expanded personal perspective. It's part of my learning process. Michael is right about this.

I have seen no shred of usefulness in the term "metacontext,"

Noted. I do. I don't know if anyone else does or not. I put stuff out there because expressing it helps me develop my understanding, I think some others might find it interesting, I think I might get some useful information in return, and I might find cause to question my assumptions (which is a good thing).

I have found much cause to question the assumption that I can communicate my ideas clearly. People not only seem to miss my meaning, they also assume I have motives and intentions I don't. How much of the distortion comes from what I express and how much comes from how others interpret what I say is not something I have a ready answer for. I do find it interesting that Michael seems to get my personality quite clearly and GS seems to be getting some of my ideas, so there is something that is working right on the interpretation side with them that is not with others. Maybe there is something to be said about having the right interpretive lens.

I believe the concept of a context has been abused beyond meaningfulness, especially in talk of creating contexts, in the posts here on pancritical rationalism.

There are different meanings of the word context. I think you are referring to contexts as a set of circumstances in which an event occurs. We also have subjective contexts: the background information, assumptions and principles (subjective lens) we apply when interpreting what we experience. Taking on an empathic perspective, as an epistemic tool, is assuming the lens of someone else's background information, assumptions and principles to gain insight. A metaphysical perspective–e.g.: AR's– is built from background information from experience, assumptions about the relation between consciousness and existence and principles of identity and causation that shape the perspective. This would be a different subjective lens from Hegel's. Viewing the world through different subjective lenses is viewing it from different subjective contexts. When AR created her metaphysical model, her view of human nature and the nature of existence, she created a new subjective context. This is an example of creating contexts.

Does this help to explain my use of context?

That doesn't mean, IMO, you shouldn't continue to "explore" it, etc. But your accusations that people here disagree with you because of a fault in their ability to comprehend, (our need for a "lens," above) or due to a "bias" toward "a traditional western epistemic" represents a pernicious sort of bad faith. If I don't agree with you, point out my error, and we'll argue it out; don't disenfranchise my intellect. I suspect I'll seem too violent in my feelings about this, but that sort of rhetoric is censorial; it cuts at the root of civilization!

Questions: Do you apply the empathic perspective as an epistemic tool to explore different subjective contexts? Also, do you try to generate new subjective contexts by connecting background information with new assumptions and principles? If you don't tend to think this way, maybe you don't understand what I am talking about because you don't think the same way. This is not an accusation, it's an hypothesis intended to explain why you don't see what I see.

(You can safely assume I am not seeking social self-elevation through judgementalism, moralizing or accusations, on this list or anywhere else. I don't do that. I don't work that way and I am oblivious to my writing possibly being interpreted this way, at least as I write it. I generally only catch the social buttons I pressed when someone points it out to me. Thanks for pointing out the fact that I am pressing unintended social buttons. I will try to pay more attention.)

Do you view existence through paradoxical lenses that produce conflicting conclusions as does Rand's metaphysical lens and the lens of modern science? What policies do you have for handling disagreements between subjective contexts such as these? Do you just assume contradictions exist? Is one right and the other wrong? Which one? Or is there some other policy for determining resolution?

If you don't view existence through paradoxical lenses then you must have a central context through which you view things (at least primarily). Implicit in this orientation is the assumption that other lenses are less important. This is one epistemic metacontext. It is the subjective context from which all learning is approached. Rand took this to an extreme in the quest for absolutes.

If you do view existence through paradoxical lenses, you will need policies for handling disagreements between them. The assumptions and principles contained in these policies determine our metacontextual lens: the subjective lens through which the paradoxical lenses–e.g.: metaphysics and science– are viewed. But metacontext makes no sense if you tend to view the world primarily through a central lens and don't hold paradoxical perspectives. Since there is a psychological impulse to expel contradiction, and since paradoxical perspectives produce contradictory conclusions, most people tend to hold a strong central lens. (There is more to the psychology but that's good for now.)

Forever the optimist, I continue to hold out hope of communication.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you get the best of Rand and Objectivism from her fiction.

I'd agree with statement wholeheartedly. That's been my intro to Objectivism through Terry Goodkind's fiction which is loaded with various fundamentals and intricacies. His themes carry the fundamentals, and the way the stories unfold deliver the intricacies through characters and plot. This forum has shed light on more than I could possibly fathom, so I'm sort of a loiterer myself. But my intent is to absorb and act through discussion.

Another work of fiction, Old Nick's Guide to Happiness (plug-in for Nicholas Dykes ;)), cuts to the chase by defining the philosophy outright, with examples, and uses it to compare and contrast among world philosophies. I'm ecstatic as I'm finally able to understand and apply it to my life today and see what I've done right and wrong.

In all, fiction makes Objectivism digestible for me as a great introduction to this most rational of philosophies.

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With GS, I see a little more than a loiterer.

I swear, I see the Wet Nurse...

:)

He's here because he can't help himself. The attraction is too strong. The best in him wins on that score. But there's a long road still left to travel.

If people don't like Wet Nurse, we can call him Non-Absolute...

Michael

Sorry Michael, I couldn't remember anything about the Wet Nurse but some vague sense of him being a character who starts off on the wrong side of Atlas but ends up doing the right thing. Now I remember, he was the government baby sitter at the Rearden plant. He knew nothing about the ideals and principles held by the "men of mind" but just hung around quietly and absorbed them through observation and osmosis (and empathic learning :) ). I hope GS doesn't meet with the same fate when he finally discovers his inner objectivist.

Actually, it doesn't quite fit. Unlike the Wet Nurse, I think GS has a strong set of ideals and principles already. But I agree he can win by absorbing elements of the Objectivist context ;) .

Paul

PS--GS, you need to read Atlas Shrugged so you know what we are talking about and can talk to you about these things rather than about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You people know I can hear you right? :D I do feel as though I've absorbed quite a bit of objectivism in the past year or so. Frankly, I don't know why I have to read the books by Rand when I have all these experts here to tell me what she said. If the tables were turned and this was a general semantics forum I wouldn't ask you people to go read Korzybski and then we can discuss. I almost think that people say that to me when they don't have an adequate answer to my questions.

Edited by general semanticist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the tables were turned and this was a general semantics forum I wouldn't ask you people to go read Korzybski and then we can discuss.

Are you pretending to speak for everybody on a general semantics forum, that they would feel the same as you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on earth would I pretend to speak for everybody on a gs forum??

Okay, do you think everybody on a general semantics forum would feel the same as you?

If not, then I suggest considering that not everyone here feels similarly.

Edited by Merlin Jetton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Don't imagine we don't all feel our meaning isn't getting across, all too often!

Everybody,

I feel I need to repeat a couple of things, since I know I'm viewed as the agitator against Paul's use of the terms related to pancritical rationalism.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody can say anything, as long as they can (1) explain what they mean, and (2) are willing to back it up.

If one resorts to something like: "I don't have to explain this because you are incapacitated, by your hidden-from-yourself assumptions, so you cannot understand the truth of my position," I call a foul.

When Paul puts forth that Objectivists (or anyone, of course) cannot understand certain things because of their "metacontext," he is refusing to respond to the questions or criticism put to him. Essentially, he's saying, "While it looks like you've got me, really, you cheated; you're wearing the wrong socks (or lenses?)"

It is a procedural problem I'm raising. I don't need GS to read any Objectivism. I don't wish Paul not to use any or all terms he's made up himself or from any source, AS LONG AS they are willing and able to define their terms, and respond with reasons to what I then say.

The way to use terms you cannot define, or ideas you are trying out is to make them the topic of discussion.

= Mindy

Edited by Mindy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a procedural problem I'm raising. I don't need GS to read any Objectivism. I don't wish Paul not to use any or all terms he's made up himself or from any source, AS LONG AS they are willing and able to define their terms, and respond with reasons to what I then say.

Glad to hear it! :D A while back you said "One can absolutely prove that an argument is false". Can you give me an example of this , not in mathematics ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reason is the basis of civilization. Even in irrationalist, religious states and sects. Islam survives on the face of the earth by using reason. What makes a man an assassin, Rand noted, was that he kills any single person for money; he needn't kill everyone he meets. As Rand also pointed out, irrational people use reason most of the time. It is the willingness to break with reason at all that defines irrationality. It is the deliberate refusal, at any point, to abide by the restraints of facts and logic that defines evil.

An individual's capacity to reason is built up by careful adherence to facts and logic, and by a continual effort to expand his knowledge. Half-way measures won't work. One has to have a religious fervor for accuracy, and an evangelical passion for truth.

Mistakes won't kill you, as long as your aim stays true--they'll eventually come to light; though, in the meantime, they are a pebble in your shoe. What you can't ever do is drop your standards. Might as well drink from the toilet, i.e., join a mosque.

It is the standards we set ourselves that determine our success. We have to choose them, and then guard them. We have to resist temptations to make exceptions. We have to be excruciatingly careful of obscuring or tattering them. The image comes to mind of Jean Valjean holding the young man overhead while he strained, neck-deep in sewage, to keep going. One either aims for the glory of an intransigent mind, or you slide into the mainstream of today's worst culture. It is black or white. Grey is just how fast you slide.

= Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

If I were on a Korzybski forum devoted to discussing Korzybski's ideas, I personally would read him. That's common sense, but, hey, don't let common sense be an issue.

One defect Objectivists (not all, but way too many) have had over the years, and this is a legacy handed down from Rand herself, is to say all kinds of nonsense about philosophers and thinkers they have not read. In that sense, you are perfect Objectivist material. Do carry on.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a procedural problem I'm raising. I don't need GS to read any Objectivism. I don't wish Paul not to use any or all terms he's made up himself or from any source, AS LONG AS they are willing and able to define their terms, and respond with reasons to what I then say.

Glad to hear it! :D A while back you said "One can absolutely prove that an argument is false". Can you give me an example of this , not in mathematics ?

Sorry, GS, I don't think I'd get anything out of that particular discussion with you. If you are planning to accuse me of not backing up my statement, let's say that mathematics supplies an example. That won't satisfy you, but it does satisfy my statement.

= Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

The Wet Nurse did have convictions: the ones he was taught. He just had something better in him (but almost buried) that recognized they didn't work and this drew him to want to be around Rearden, even though he kept firm to his own party line for the longest time. That's why Rearden called him "Non-Absolute."

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might be right, Paul, about the spirit in which DF's quip was intended. Coming in the context in which it appears, however, it seemed to me to be indicating censure for GS's treatment here.

DF can clarify how he meant the remark, if he wants to.

I was thinking of the stereotypical style of Objectivists in general, but that doesn't mean that no one on OL is guilty of that. For example to characterize him as

He is the evil which we sanction.

sounds exactly like one of those condemnations of a dissenter by an Objectivist Online moderator.

I think GS is one of the more pleasant participants on OL, he doesn't pontificate and he doesn't resort to ad hominems or condescension towards his opponents. His remarks are sometimes perceptive, sometimes they are illogical, but you can at least discuss them with him without having to endure personal attacks. On the other hand he's not always treated fairly, as the following example shows:

We start with empty file folders (whether you consider these to be conceptual entities themselves or contexts that integrate entities and their properties-- all a matter of whether you are applying a part-to-whole or a whole-to-part orientation of consciousness; Rand's vs Popper's epistemic perspectives or everyone vs MSK's perspective; it's the same principle as wave/particle duality) all the time. Starting with an empty file folder is the nature of the academic approach to learning: here is a new word, "epistemology"; now go and figure out what it means-- i.e.: fill the file folder with a concept by using these authors as a guide.

Interesting Paul, as I think I mentioned here before, the work of Northrop is similar to this. He describes 2 basic kinds of concepts, concept by intuition, roughly equivalent to an idea formed from observation, like a pencil, and concept by postulation, which is an idea formed from a symbolic description, like a quark. Then there is a constant interplay between these concepts in our brain which he calls epistemic correlation.

Mindy then asks:

GS,

When you say, "the work of Northrop is similar to this," in reply to Paul's comment about alternative "epistemic perspectives," one of which is Ayn Rand's, aren't you implying that you are familiar with Rand's epistemology? You would have to be familiar with it to claim it is similar to Northrop's view, right?

and GS replies:

Yes, you would.

Wherupon Brant remarks:

Essentially, then, you are a troll.

So GS is accused of being a troll because he would have compared Northrop's view with Rand's ideas, while he isn't familiar with Rand's epistemology. But as you clearly can see, this is not what GS claimed, he merely replied to Paul's description of two different perspectives, Rand's being one of them, namely part-to-whole or a whole-to-part orientation of consciousness, and GS only remarked that Northrop's ideas were similar to that kind of classification. Now you may perhaps dispute the similarity of Paul's two perspectives with those of Northrop, but the reproach that GS is saying something about Rand without being familiar with her ideas is unwarranted, as it is Paul who is making that classification of Rand's view. GS readily admitted that he doesn't know whether that classification really applies to Rand, which was of course not relevant as he never claimed that in the first place.

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