AndrewED

Now that, I would have known was a joke

As probably did Heine, who was quite witty. Wish I'd read him! There oughtta be a "lighten up" smiley for posts like mine. Oh maybe its this one

I have certainly felt this. Thankfully I did not act on it. And I have only been capable of forgiving some people once they died of natural causes. But I would never stand by it as a mature or wise position. This is not how great souls see things. If it is a political position--and hanging often implies that--I find it cynical, hypocritical, and the attitude of not merely the killer, but the mass murdering public official.

I second that, reifnir. To me, Bush is exactly the representative of fascist hegemony in the US that Ayn Rand predicted 40 years ago. Still, if you read Kerry's platform, his proposals and positions were nearly identical to Bush's. Kerry merely wanted to do it multilaterally, with a coalition of developed, rich nations, whereas Bush is proceeding with conquest unilaterally on behalf of the powerful of the US. He does not care about the working or middle class in this or any country. In 9/11, he even bested Hitler's Reichstag Fire. I also agree with you, too, Mr Anderson, about Christian cluelessness. Many on the left have commented on the neo-conservative, blatantly cynical use of the religious right, who polls show are the most credulous toward Bush's lies. Rand said fascism is state control of property under nominal private ownership. Don't we have just that through privatization of a million functions the state has no business with and laws governing nearly every activity? Mussolini said that fascism would be better called corporatism. Well, don't we have rule by corporations, which themselves are legally privileged creatures of the state, which could not exist except for the American failure to separate business and state? Life may be great for those with money. But for those of us on or near the street, this is a police state. I find it hugely fitting that Atlas Shrugged will come to the screen now, for many reasons. One is that it may, possibly unintentionally on the part of the filmmakers, give an unmistakable portrait of Bush in Mr Thompson and one of Cheney in Floyd Ferris.

Hi, Gonzalo, I loved what Peter said. Very simple, to the point. I think there is another side to this that I am hearing in what you have said. Please tell me if it is or not. I think Aristotle's primary mistake was not in saying that elements could not be reduced further, but in talking about it as a philosopher at all. It would have been fine for him to talk about physics or cosmology as a scientist, which he also was. But he actually thought these things mattered to his conclusions as a philosopher. Many philosophers and students of philosophy have made the same mistake ever since. One does not need the results of science to know the general nature of reality. One needs to know the general nature of reality in order to practice science. This mistake arises from his (Realist) idea that universals are entities separate from the mind. If a philosopher keeps universals (ideas, concepts, essences) in the mind where they actually occur, she needn't describe a separate realm or dimension where universals are alleged to be located. She can just explain how they work in the mind. This explanation would be simple (if not easy) and anyone can test it for themselves. This is exactly what Ayn Rand did, and consequently, we don't have the baggage of a cosmology to deal with in her philosophy. Further this epistemological error of the mislocation of universals arises from a metaphysical denial of the reality of the self. It begins with loss of a sense of non-existence, where our sense of connection to the universe lies. (Non-existence, different from nothing, is the part of being that "stands back" from existence. See my essay The Being of Existence) Lacking the sense of connection with everything else, one loses the sense of oneself. Losing the sense of oneself, one eventually denies the self. There being no one in whom universals can occur, one must invent a realm where they reside and explain it's nature, too. One must invent universals as things with a reality and nature that is separate from oneself. So many try; no one can; and we get a philosophiacal Tower of Babel. The answer, of course, is to break into this vicious cyce at any point, overturning all of its falsehoods, including the denial of the reality of non-existence, and to find oneself again. With a little study--not a lot--these problems cannot even arise. (Exactly how to break into this cycle is another matter.) I'm sure getting a kick out responding to the problems posed here. Andrew

Hey, I found a picture for my avatar! This is fun. I was looking through a triangular window opening of an earthen geodesic dome I built (and recently had to demolish because of mold). Someone else was trying to restore it and was putting in an earthen floor. I was checking in on her. Do you know that avatar is a Sanskrit word that means "god incarnated in human or animal form"? Oh, those funny internet marketing mavens.

Stephen, Hello, again. Now you are testing me on things I have not studied. Okay. Definitely not. This idea of an "abstract entity" is moderate realism, which is a form of the West's historical treatment of universals as concretes. See the Foreword of ITOE for Ayn Rand's very clear critique of this. Let me guess: Quine is an Aristotelian. Rand's epistemological revolution consists precisely in her view of universals as abstractions. That is, as conceptual products, as mental entities, formed by the mind in relation to concretes. I happen to think she was right. I find it an excruciatingly demanding idea, but whaddyagonnado? The only thing "abstract entity" could mean to me is universal. Again, the answer would be no. That would be extreme realism, Plato's position. Historical Realism, though I would love to reclaim that word, too, is what we get for denying the reality--the being, the knowability, the reasonability, the sensibility, the consistency with existence--of non-existence. The opposite and equal mistake of reifying the zero is annihilating the one. Non-existence is not silent. It is just very, very quiet. To hear it requires an uncommon but not unreasonable degree of quietude. By the way, you may as well just say "non-existent". Besides being inelegant and ungrammatical, "non-existence being" is redundant, and therefore, implicitly contradictory: there's no such thing as a non-existent nothing. I understand the usage is unfamiliar and awkward, but I will know what you are talking about. Lastly, something about non-existence, since that is what you seem to be trying to understand, in your own way: It cannot be hunted; it can only be received. Therefore, knowing it does not primarily require acuity, but receptivity. Sometimes, people become receptive after many failed hunts. Andrew Ps, Found your other posts and checked out your mag. Awesome, dude. I think nine axioms is way too many (anti-Crow Epistemology and anti-conceptual), but obviously, we both think Objectivist metaphysics could use some work. Kudos.

Rich, I can see how I was unclear. Rather than "--and therefore, what is with the denier", I should have said, "including what is with the denier". No, I am talking about much more than the interior domain. I am talking about the plenum of lifeforce, the sea of energy, that we live in. It is interior and exterior. It is sensible in both places. This why I say it is the bulk of what is. My experience of it is that it is more than 99% of what is. And also why I say denial rather than misunderstanding. It is like a cultural "final solution" for reality itself that has been going on for thousands of years, which Objectivism merely makes very clear, at least, to and for me. I totally agree. In the fever pitch of my involvement in the ideas of Ayn Rand, I became even more repressed than I already was, which says a lot, I'm afraid. ******************** Just came across this quote: If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find, in each man's life, sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility. ---Longfellow

Hi, Stephen, I have been thinking a lot about your third original question: Somehow I have not been satisfied with my response to it nor to your questions that followed. From your reference to what Ayn Rand said about real potentials (from the Seminar on Epistemology in the back of the newer ITOE?) I now see that I was confusing what you were talking about--the philosophical distinction between what a thing is and what it can be--with the particle and wave discussion of quantum physics, which I have heard of and entertain thoughts about, but don't claim to understand. Oh, the pitfalls of the dabbler. Fortunately, I don't think my response was essentially false, just inexact and confusing (Remember that one for the judge.) I said, This meant divisions within a division, and we ended up four uselessly distinct groups of things, or attributes. And as soon as you made the messy consequences of my idea clear to me, my head began to hurt. Paul reported the same thing. I hope you are okay, too. This is not accurate. These concepts, actual and potential, do not divide things or attributes. They qualify attributes from two different aspects. Further, they qualify things as such. So there is no need to talk about these qualities as possessed by different kinds of things, by existence and non-existence. Both errors led to confusion for all concerned, I think.* Thus, to be precise, I would say now that potentiality and actuality are qualities of being. Everything that is, is what it is. And depending on what it is, it may become something else. But this does extend not to the point of absurdity. Being cannot ever become nothing. Existence, however, can become non-existence, and vice versa. This is because they are both merely different kinds of being. This may provide a philosophically valid basis for quantum physics. I don't know. In my dissatisfaction with my response to your question, I came very close to saying that potentiality and actuality are, in this context, exactly what I mean by non-existence and existence, and while that is, in a manner of speaking, true, still, it is not all that is true. For every existent has the potential of fading, as it were, into the actuality of the background that is non-existence, as well as becoming another kind of existent. And any region of non-existence has the potential of becoming an actual existent, as well as morph into or over next to other region of non-existence. Anyway, that's what I think about it. This all may be just because sometimes I wish I didn't exist. And now to discover that it's actualy true! By the way, I found an online Latin-English dictionary where my etymological analysis of the word, existence, can be checked. Type "exist" into the "Search argument" field and enter. It may prove an interesting place to start, though the OED is the only thing that ever made me breathe a sigh of relief. Yours, Andrew *Hmm. The common and Objectivist misequation of thing with entity just occurred to me. What else will come up, I wonder?

Hi, Rich, Nice to meet you. I'm board hopping tonight. Here's some thoughts in response to what you said. Ayn Rand's ideas went a long way with me in reducing the charge or shock value of the concept, evil, simply by showing how common it is. It's too bad she had everyone pronouncing judgment all the time on everything consciously, as if the people of this culture don't already do it continuously. I mean, get over it. Which planet do you think you're on, anyway? Yours is a very simple approach to evil. One can always find hair-splitters for any purpose, but aside from them (I've never, ever been a hair-splitter myself), evil as inspired by hateful-thinking is easy and quick to get. I immediately pictured a skinhead at a table in a damp basement, muttering to himself under his breath, a gun leaning against the wall. For me hatred is always associated with the desire to kill. Whether that desire is proportionate or appropriate it 1) should not be discussed with the police 2) probably should not be acted on immediately and 3) probably needs considerable examination, if not hard labor in an exotic location. And all because it would probably lead to what anybody passing by would call evil. Regarding the standard insanity of the poster: I think I would be happy just to have survived what my ancestors went through, to say nothing of achieving total intellectual activity. Speaking from experience, a lack of understanding of one's ancestors (let alone hatred or contempt) is simply a sign of great pain, to the point of wanting to die to end it all, on the part of the descendent. And that's only when they were in error. Back then, I think it was somewhat harder to avoid the sacredness of all things, the lifeforce expressing itself as the entire universe. It's so vast, if the town fathers want to call it Christ or Vishnu, what do I care? Goodnight, Andrew

I find Nyquist's "analysis" wholly lacking in depth, if not hysteria, and full of straw men. There's so much here claimed as Ayn Rand's doctrine that she spoke against or said nothing about. I can't take this seriously. First must come study. If devotion does not follow, then studying something else is in order. "You can't cheat an honest man."

Michael and Paul, As I read your responses, I feel more and more like a refugee in this place: really welcomed and quickly becoming aware of the state of shock I arrived in. It's like you are wrapping blankets around me and asking if I'm alright and trying to calm me. As you put it, Paul: It really came to the surface when Barbara wrote me. I was shaking and very tense. Not at all mad, but just a massive welling up of something.Just to read other people's stuff for awhile and get to know them probably would have been a better approach here. But as soon as I found this place, I felt like I was going to burst from having had no place to offer this essay--to tell what had happened with me. I am even willing to let this thread go for awhile. But now that we're here, I guess the point is to be real. And here you are coaxing me out of my shell. I really like it. About the essay, I'm beginning to get it. Scrape away the historical, delusional trappings and just tell the idea. Three paragraphs would do it. Maybe three sentences. We'll see. Andrew

Wow, what zing and slurp your story has. Mucho here This forum amazes me. Maybe I just didn't get forums before. But it's easy to see why this one is so cool. I'm actually learning things here. Thanks a lot, you two, and best wishes always.

Yeah, The Whale Rider ruled

Yeah, The Whale Rider ruled

Hi, Barbara, George Dorn here. I do not think you understand my essay yet, but your fiery reply and my quaking tension in reading and responding to it make me think we are getting somewhere. In my essay I challenge precisely the corruption of language that is the equating of existence with being, which Ayn Rand did not originate. I do so on the premise of what Ayn Rand said about formal language's possessing no words that mean exactly the same thing. Is this premise true, or not? Though it may seem otherwise, I am not trying to reify the zero. If I were, you would be correct to object in the strongest terms. Yes, nothing is the absence of something (as I explain, actually, in the paragraph right after I say that "Non-existence is"). However, it does not follow that non-existence is the absence of existence. Non-existence is merely the opposite of existence, again, for reasons I found in the OED. Thank you for your comment about the lack of a description of non-existence. I have added a full paragraph about it. I stand by my belief that I have detected a subtle yet earthshaking difference between existence and being, and I ask you to look again at my argument. Yours, Andrew

Hi, Paul, I'm glad to meet you and I appreciate your funny message. No slight taken; my head began to hurt, too. Okay, I might go crazy with the smilies because I've never used them before. I mean, I never found a forum I actually liked before. And now to find out it's all about writing things to go along with smilies. As a dabbler in design and a brown belt in introspection B), I often think in images, also. Except at the beginning and end of some thinking processes, when words become necessary, I don't think using words matters much because these images are themselves actually concepts. A reporter on developmental psychology I read years ago said that concepts are actually abstract geometrical images in the mind, which your comment totally reminded me of. I don't think Ayn Rand ever published anything that meant or implied otherwise. And in exactly the way in which she spoke of concepts, these images represent things. The images in turn are represented by words. So whether one points at and rearranges objects on a table; shuffles and manipulates images in the brain and then draws them; or use words to think and talk; or any combination therof, one is still apprehending and communicating about reality. Thank the universe we have all these options. Oh, but now with the physics metaphors! I'm immediately lost. ;) Actually, one of my many Ph.D's is in physics No, I can't even program a VCR. Hey, seriously, you were just the person for Stephen's question. I really like your vivid vortex metaphor, with particles passing between existence and non-existence, morphing through overlapping permutations of actuality and potentiality. That's it, man. The universe is a zany place. Who knows what's brewing for us in the background? Catch you on the flipside, Paul. Andrew

Stephen, My newly included formal definition of reality may shed some light on your questions. For most of three days, I have been vigorously revising the essay in light of the attention that you and others have been giving it. I am very grateful, and for the intensity of your interest, in particular, and I hope you will revisit it. But then, it may also be insufficient. I think you will now have to see for yourself whether my basic idea is true. Please consider that if it is, then it may take time to hear, to absorb, to apprehend. In the ways that the mind is slow, I have had no success in rushing it. Please tell me what you find. Best wishes. Yours, Andrew

Dear Ms Branden, I felt very excited a few mornings ago to find this site precisely because of its strong immunity to the Objectivist plague. So I appreciate your question very much. Ayn Rand's works entered my life directly and deeply 16 years ago and never left. Your book came shortly thereafter, and, like Mr Branden's memoir, it served me in many ways, including: to protect me against the plague; to deepen my understanding of the philosophy; and to solidify my gratitude and reverence toward, and thus my spiritual connection with, Ayn Rand and you who were with her. With great and ongoing difficulty, you all birthed this liberating set of ideas into the world. I have tried to understand it, and you have helped me. Honestly, most of my excitement the other morning arose from finding a place to give something back. I mean, specifically, to post an essay I wrote a year ago on a radical development in Objectivism I believe I have made. At least, it has profoundly helped me. And now here you are with your question. I believe this development applies quite directly to the issue of the plague and, because it treats of the primary axiomatic concept of Objectivism, it could provide the deepest possible explanation of the phenomenon you have so eloquently described and tragically experienced. Were you to read it, I believe you would see the connection immediately. Please find it here: The Being of Existence: expanding an Objectivist axiom Without giving too much away now, it forms the basis of my response to this question of yours in particular (whose box I would have checked had you made a poll of it): In short, the constant schisms among Objectivists arise from a schism at the root of the system. The schism lies in its conception of reality itself, between two kinds of being: one acknowledged and other denied. As the denied kind actually makes up the bulk of what is--and therefore, what is with the denier--the denial severely destabilizes the personality of the denier. This in turn, causes the enormous fear which, as you related in your talk, Objectivism and Rage, leads to the aggressive expressions of anger--blame and condemnation--so prevalent among Objectivists. Yours, Andrew Durham

Hi. I am glad to meet you, Mr Boydstun. Please call me Andrew. Muchas gracias for your post, which stuck in my head. I look forward to more. I am practicing succintness today. It is hard for me, but very enjoyable. No. There is non-existence as well. Yes. Existence and non-existence. They are divisions of both existence and non-existence. Yours, Andrew

Thumbs Up Bonanza Recent Films Best Trouble in Paradise 1932, by Ernst Lubitsch, the father of modern Hollywood. This is a perfectly stylized, erotically charged (pre-code) romantic comedy with a two equally worthy leading women who challenge and love the totally capable man. This is why I watch movies. A complete work of art. Permanent Top Ten movie for me. Most compelling V Saw it 7 times in the theater. Best action movie of the year Mission Impossible 3 Somehow the dolt Cruise gets out of the way and the action pours through him and his movie in a continuous, bracing, visceral stream. Surprise catharsis Miami Vice By Michael Mann (director of Heat, btw, Bruce) Super stylized, fist full of dollars, to-the-wall romance and action. Somehow, completely shattering. Required heartbreak/inspiration An Inconvenient Truth As interesting for the sight it gives of a totally renewed man who survived an inferno of loss to reclaim his destiny as it is for its undeniable and crucial message. All Time Favorite Rob Roy 1995, with Liam Neeson, Jessica Lang and as bad guy, Tim Roth. About the demands and rewards of honor in the life of an ordinary man. Runner up Don Juan de Marco 1995, with Johnny Depp, Marlon Brando and Faye Dunaway. Signalled, to me, the rebirth of romanticism in cinema.

Hi, Michael, I appreciate very much your close reading of my essay and your candid comments. Whatever bubbles I have, I want burst! I have revised it with as many of your comments and suggestions as I could tonight. You were totally right about the opening--too nervy. And then there were several things which, I could tell from your comments, I had not made clear. So rather than dragging out this reply, I've revised the essay throughout its length. I hope that entices you back. I look forward to everything you and others have to say about it that may help me hone in and clarify the presentation of its thesis. Since it has been extremely valuable to me, I can't help but think it of value to others. I love doing this, so I am eager to give it the work it needs to make it more readable. I hear your concern about essences and axioms. I don't know if I can address it in the essay, so I'll say something here. I see nothing wrong in treating axiomatic referents as essences, so long as one knows that essences themselves are conceptual abstractions of data or, as you say, cognitive interfaces to reality. Just to make sure I'm understood on one point right off: please consider me the last person on these forums to argue for extrasensory means of knowledge, nor, likewise, for doctors and teachers to define the limits of our sensory abilities. All my best

Hi, Everyone, My name is Andrew Durham. I'm a independent student of philosophy. Mostly, I've spent 20 years tracking down the cause of something that happened when I was 15, which in turn reminded me of how I was when I was very young. The work and spirit of Ayn Rand have helped me immensely in this quest. I studied her work intensely between the ages of 19 and 25. Then I found a secret key to it, which I've just posted in Articles, called The Being of Existence. I hope you will read it and tell me what you think. It is the 2-3 page product of half a lifetime of contemplation and struggle (though it got a big overhaul today in my excitement about finding this site). If you like the essay, there's a link there to my site where there's another essay about something... quite different. I found this site early this morning. I was so excited to find it because I found the conversation infused with something more than calmness and respect, but actually... love. I've wanted to share my essay for a year since I wrote it but could find only a snooty or rabid or sectarian vibe wherever I went. So today it just popped. Much gratitude for your space. Andrew

Note from MSK: This article is close to my heart for two reasons. The first is that a member of the "silent contingency" in Objectivism saw fit to make an appearance and interact with others. He overcame fears of moral condemnation and this took a lot of courage. This is so very important in light of the hostile obnoxiousness that Objectivism has gained as a reputation. Yes, there are places where people can discuss important ideas without being called harsh or foul names and OL is one of them. The second reason is that I idealized the "Chewing on Ideas" forum for people to do precisely what was done with this article, i.e., present an idea that has been worked on, "chew" on it with others, then present it in a better form. Thank you for that, Andrew. For this reason I have moved your article from the "Articles" forum to here (but keeping a link over there) and I am keeping it pinned on top as a wonderful example of how this can to be done in practice. Note: Thanks to everyone for your absolutely on-point criticisms and comments; please keep them coming. Here is a much simplified and shortened presentation of the idea. The original version, which posts 1-17 are in reply to, is below. ~~ I moved this essay here from my site, secret design for much needed Objectivist attention. Existence Isn't Everything rethinking Objectivism's first axiom by Andrew Durham 15 Sep 06 "Do you want to assess the rationality of a person, a theory or a philosophical system? Do not inquire about his or its stand on the validity of reason. Look for the stand on axiomatic concepts. It will tell the whole story." --Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Words have always meant a great deal to me. And so when I, as a student of the writings of Ayn Rand, took existence into the deepest reaches of my mind as the sole content of reality, two things happened. First, it quickly began to restore the natural but damaged connection between myself and the obvious facts around me. Second, in a strange and menacing way, it began to short-circuit my person until I could barely move or breathe. For everything is more important than anything, and I had taken existence to be everything. As I would discover, it simply is not. There is what exists. And there is what is. Existence and being. Just about everyone, including Ayn Rand, has used the words, existence and being, interchangeably. And yet Ayn Rand herself taught that only in slang do different words mean exactly the same thing. In formal language, different words always mean different things, however slight or confounded by usage be the difference. The words, existence and being, belong to formal language. Therefore they mean different things. Let us look at these words closely. Being is pretty easy, being an inflection, in this case, a gerund form, of the verb, to be. Being refers to what is. This is airtight, a tautology. But what of this multi-syllabic, Latin-rooted word, existence? Reading these words' definitions, even in the Oxford English Dictionary, one can tell little if any difference between them. Lexicographers generally do not define axiomatic concepts ostensively with tautologies. I hope that Ayn Rand's approach will reach them faster than Aristotle reached Aquinas. In the meantime, where usage or definitions distort or collapse together the meanings of different words, I find etymologies highly useful for pulling them back apart. This is because etymologies often provide the only distinguishing characteristic in the entire entry of a word. In the etymology of existence, the difference between it and being literally stands out. Existence comes from the Latin, existere, which means, to stand out. To exist is to stand out. Existence is that which stands out. In contrast, there's nothing in being that says anything about standing out--or up, or in, or anything else. It just is. So existence is not the same as being after all. Further, it is not as much as being. Existence is merely what stands out. I wonder how much of the work of intellectuals consists of reclaiming words and reasserting their essential meanings. Anyway, a few implications of the Latin enable further elaboration of the point. First, having discovered that existence is what stands out, the question arises: Stands out... from what? Well, from whatever stands back, apparently. A thing cannot stand out from nothing. It can only stand out from something else. So even without knowing what is back there, we know that something is back there. It does not exist, yet it is. Again we find that existence is not the same as being. Existence is not all that is, so it cannot make up all of reality. Existence fails as a word meant to refer to everything and therefore, as an axiomatic concept. To continue to use the word, existence, to refer to everything--besides violating logic itself as well as a principle of formal language--is to engage, quite contrary to Ayn Rand's claims and intentions, in the non-scientific discussion of cosmology. After all, if we are going to start talking about the precise physical nature of reality beyond the facts that: it is; it is what it is; and one is conscious of it; then we, as philosophers, have crossed over the proper bounds of philosophy and fallen into this ancient mystical trap. Ergo, both the relapsed mysticism and the resorting to physics in philosophical dialogue among Objectivists (and the public at large, for that matter), as if philosophy can't find its way without the latest findings of quantum physicists. Second, in the belief in reality as consisting only of existence, what happens to whatever it is that stands back? That's easy: it gets ignored. It is and therefore, is real, but it is off limits. Of course, no philosophy can keep a part of reality off limits forever, because it keeps crashing into people's lives. As the Bard had warned my father, who, in turn, warned me: "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Third, and perhaps more apropos in the context of a discussion of objectivity--which this, as a discussion among Objectivists, implicitly is--we could ask the question: Stands out... to whom? For surely everything that stands out to me is not exactly the same as everything that stands out to you. Reality is what it is, not a matter of consensus based on the lowest common denominator of sensitivity. Personally, it kills me: the irony of basing Objectivism on just the sort of usually delightful variety which, when used for this serious a purpose, can only result in the arch-doctrinaire subjectivism that riddles this school. But this, unfortunately, has become a big part its "whole story". For all these reasons and more, I propose a correction to Objectivism at its root, generated by its own methods to meet its own standards. Let us replace the word, existence, with the word, being: as the primary axiomatic concept of Objectivism; wherever the philosophy refers to what is; and wherever the philosophy refers to the content of reality. Two corollary changes follow from this replacement that must be mentioned here, if not developed fully. One, Objectivism's first axiom becomes being is. Two, this axiom enables a formal definition of reality which establishes in one stroke the objectivity of reality, the primacy of being, and the indissoluable relationship between being and consciousness: reality is being as object. Being is the object of its subject, consciousness. In addition to being, we have in the Anglo-Saxon two unequivocal words to use in normal discourse about it: everything and, for its absence, nothing. (I see no reason to conceive of "non-being", and no way to do so without "reifying the zero".) Then we have plenty of phrases for being (eg, what is) and ways to describe it--as many as there are poets, probably. What happens to existence and its silent partner, non-existence? I think scientists, both material and spiritual, would appreciate this distinction. It could serve criticism, of course, as it has here. But I think it is not for Philosophy, which precedes these issues. Some may say, "What's the big deal? It's just how we use language." I would reply, Yes, and look at the culture we live in as a result. Look at what rigorously equating existence and being has done to Objectivism and Objectivists. As John Galt told Dagny, "...you're free to change your course. But as long as you follow it, you're not free to escape its logic." Look, as well, at the harmony a change such as I propose would restore to thought and culture alike. A great relaxation in communication becomes possible when people cease to exclude from their idea of reality some things in favor of others, probably without even knowing it. We have this sacred word, being, that serves the purpose of denoting that which is with tautological perfection. This idea, existence, is unneeded by the essentially unifying philosophy of Objectivism, and certainly not at its deepest root, fracturing our consciousness of reality and our connection to each other. It is. I am. At the base of philosophy, at the beginning of metaphysics, I need know nothing else. revised 6 Oct 06 _________________________________________________________________________ Original version This is the version I first posted 10 Sep 06. I'm reposting it so you can make sense of people's excellent comments in posts 1-17. These also proved very helpful to me in revising the essay. I did this daily for two weeks before scrapping half or more of the essay for the version above. Thus, you may not see here everything you remember having seen. ~~ I not only omitted a lot of this, but I no longer believe it. Also, some good may remain, but I now find the essay somewhat hysterical, as well as mystical, for reasons I give above. Ayn Rand's Magnificent Error a quiet demolition of the Objectivist maze by Andrew Durham 6 May 05 "Do you want to assess the rationality of a person, a theory or a philosophical system? Do not inquire about his or its stand on the validity of reason. Look for the stand on axiomatic concepts. It will tell the whole story." -Ayn Rand in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Can one make a mistake well? Could an unparalleled philosophical genius stop short of metaphysical all-inclusivity just to make a point, and be right to do so? My answer is yes. Basically, Ayn Rand was wrong when she said that reality consists of existence. But she was right to say it. Allow me to explain. Reality consists of being, not merely the part that exists. Maybe you assume these words mean the same thing. We find her interchanging them a lot, too. But she also taught that only in slang do different words mean exactly the same thing. The words, being and existence, belong to formal language. In formal language, different words always mean different things, however slight or subtle the difference is. Ayn Rand taught me that upon such differences the fate of lives and worlds hinge. When usage or definitions distort or collapse together the meanings of different words, I have often found etymologies useful in making distinctions between words. Let's look these up. Being is pretty easy, being an inflection (in this case, a gerund) of the word, to be. Being refers to what is. That is airtight, a tautology. It was this multi-syllabic Latin word, existence, that began to raise questions in my mind. Actually, I had read the etymology elsewhere several years earlier. In a moment of philosophical crisis precipitated by a five-year immersion in Ayn Rand's works, wherein I felt I could no longer breathe or move, my vague memory of the etymology of the word, existence, surfaced. I ran to the Oxford English Dictionary, as Leonard Piekoff had taught me. As usual, from the definitions, one could hardly tell the difference between being and existence. But existence, it turns out, comes from the Latin, existere, which means, to stand out. To stand out. To exist means to stand out. To stand out... from what? Presumably, from whatever it is that stands back. A thing can't stand out from nothing. It can only stand out from something. But even without knowing exactly what that is, we've established that there is something back there. Whatever it is, it is, so it is real. But because it does not stand out, it does not exist. Which is to say that reality is not made up entirely of existence. Like a painting, which consists of a subject and its background; or a sight, which consists of a focus and a periphery; reality consists of both the part of being that stands out and the part of being that stands back. Which is to say that reality consists of both existence and non-existence. This immediately exposes those who oppose being with existence, or existence with non-existence. You know, all those pale existential cuckoos--the deformed orphans of Kant--who made up the dismal philosophical mileau Ayn Rand blazed in upon. Which is exactly why she said it was existence, instead of being, that made up reality. All those people had so confused the issue, and left our culture in such epistemological disarray, that to use the word, being, might have gotten her confused with them.(2) And worse, it would have made too slippery a surface for those of us trying to climb our way out of the pit they had made with their words of life in the 20th century. Existence--"all of this," she would say, sweeping her arm around--was perfectly clear for anyone decent enough (not to say honest--that could wait) to hear her out. Who could mistake it? Further, it was so different from fantasies (the result of thinking about nothing as if it is something). You can't bang your head on a fantasy. But a brick or a shoe, you can. I mean, here we were, her audience, the drooling dolts of this culture, probably only the first or second generation of secular thinkers to exist in our families, though the Age of Reason had passed 300 years before. Probably our parents were still churchgoers. Speaking for myself, the thickness--the sheer density--of superstition in my head--and the confusion, guilt, obsessive-compulsiveness and malaise that has accompanied it--simply corrupted my thinking, almost to the core. I had a little chunk of logic left with which to work. What cruelty it would have been for her to overtax me with a word like being, most of whose referents can't observed except through a firm grasp of existence. How gracious of her to have me start with the obvious part of reality in my effort to understand what she says about it. And how skillful her means, to leave me alone in a box canyon, yet with a fresh map--a new way of thinking--with which to find my own way out. When I finally saw non-existence to be, and thus to be real, and when I ceased equating it with nothing), the walls of the canyon literally began to dissolve and lush vistas of understanding began to open up.(3) My parents think. They did it all time I was growing up. They seem to me unusual in this regard. They were only partially educated, yet a passion for truth has motivated their lives. Many of our culture's sacred cows came up for examination in my house. I learned to think and a little bit of how to think from them. I learned to take thinking seriously. And yet, considering what we thought, all of us may as well have been bound and gagged in the very back of Plato's cave. What was going to get through to people like us? Delicate discussions of the subtle differences between existence and non-existence? I doubt it very much. I doubt that it even occurred to Ayn Rand. She made no mention of this. It wasn't in her disposition or training. She was a hidebound defender of secular, industrial civilization. Further, her grasp of the ruinous state of our culture was so painfully clear to her, she would not have wanted our trying to consider anything but the neglected concretes right in front of us. Not only would they suffice, we would have to start with them anyway. I believe that Ayn Rand had a spiritual mission here, and that she executed it brilliantly. She left us all the tools necessary to uncover the secrets in her system (the non-existents, those things which stand back), things that seem to have been secrets to her, too, or perhaps things she could not permit herself to see. I don't know. I find the handful of hints in her novels a bit maddening.(4) I know only that there is no reason to remain strung out in deprivation on the idea of a reality that consists only of existence. It's just the small part of reality she threw us as a life ring until such time as we could deduce that people live on vast expanses of land just beyond the fogbound pond we were drowning in. (1) This has profound implications for her epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics--enough to warrant a new philosophy, which I will call Realism--but I will explore them later. (2) They (academicians) still try to make her out as Nietzschian popularizer or worse, a libertarian. And as they did with Neitzsche and Nazism, they will attempt to blame her for George W Bush and the American Fascism she predicted 40 years before. But I predict they will, by their attempt, only succeed in vindicating her. (3) Though a watershed event for me intellectually, it has taken several years for this breakthrough to "filter down" and begin to have any significant effect on my life, on how I feel. (see Observation). Psychology is stubborn. (4) Henry Cameron's saying, "I'm learning," in reference to how Earth is said to look from the next world (The Fountainhead, p. 133); or Dagny's feeling the brakeman's looking at her from behind her it chapter one of Atlas Shrugged; or Dagny's "causeless certainty" of imminent danger to Cheryl Taggart before Cheryl commits suicide. revised 13 Aug 06