Mindy Newton

I never said the visualization process was perfect - far from it, yet it is all we have. Even the most abstract entities we can conceive of we attempt to visualize somehow, however imperfectly. This does not detract from the value of visualization just because it is extremely difficult in some cases. I can visualize the universe as 4-dimensional space-time continuum which has no boundaries yet is finite in size by imagining something similar, like a blanket with a bunch of folds in it. We can travel forever on the "surface" of the manifold and not ever find a "boundary", because if we postulate a boundary then the question immediately arises "what is on the other side of this boundary?" . Visualizing is an art, as is putting one's visualizations into words, and I would not say quantum physics is impossible to visualize, just difficult. Einstein was quite good at visualizing things that other scientists didn't which was the basis of his famous "thought experiments", I think. When you say that visualization is all we have, I start to wonder if you have one of these brains in which imagery is predominant. And, I wonder if you know that most people do not usually think in imaginal terms?? Here's an example: Someone asks the average person how many cubes with two painted sides do you get if you cut a 3 x 3 x 3 cube into one-inch cubes, after painting the top, bottom, and both sides (but not the front and back?) Most people cannot answer this without picturing the big cube in their head, painting it, then cutting it, and counting the two-sides-painted little cubes. They are using imagery to solve the problem. However, that is an unusual situation for them (most people.) There is a group of people, I don't know the frequency data, for whom such imagery is the natural, automatic way to think, whether a visually-oriented problem is before them or not. Words are translated into images for them, with the images taking on relations appropriate to the facts, etc. stated. I, for one, am not a visual person in this sense. I can imagine the cube just fine, but that isn't my normal mode of processing information. For me, and for most people, meaning is immediate. It is "pure idea" you might say. It is no trouble to relate any word or statement to concretes, but "we" don't normally do that. I'm wondering if you have this unusual--but not deficient, mind you--kind of brain. What do you think? = Mindy

I'm always up to fight the forces of evil. You must not think I've got it in for you personally. I thought we got off to a nice start. But I'll defend man's mind wherever and whenever the bat-light shines in the sky! = Mindy

Here are some song lyrics I wrote. I'd put the auditory up if I knew how. It's in a minor key, with rolling, 5-step arpeggios as a bass line. This is a floridly romantic song, and lyrics are different from poetry, so it seems even more melodramatic to read the lyrics alone: Bonar's Song My heart belongs to you, Though other hearts do, too, To you... ... ... To you. My heart still cries your name, Though nothing else remains, Your name... ... ... Your name. --break-- I dream of bathing you in the tears of my desire, I think of going boldly to your door, I wonder if the sight of me inflames the fire, That must have more, that must have more, All love is at an end, Until we love again, And then... ... ... Again!

Mindy, Call visual aids a placeholder. Say we use the good ol' concept folder/label visual here as an example. As a supervisor I was responsible for training the Airmen under me. One that I taught knew absolutely nothing about networks...nada...zip...zilch. So, in place of factual information which was above her mental faculties to grasp, I drew her a visual aid...something akin in basic workings to explain and piece togther the facts. The subjects were Local Area Networks and Wide Area Networks. Even by giving her the definition in the book, she could not even open her conceptual folders. So I gave her two new ones, borrowed from what she already knew (this took a few tries). The ones that worked were towns (LANs) and highways (WANs) which connected people to other towns (LANs). I used these visuals to simulate network size (population), addresses (IP subnetting), and bandwidth (street size). By giving her folders labeled LANs, c/o Towns, and WANs, c/o Highways, it worked. I'm hoping that example is accurate :sweat: I see where you're coming from. But there's a difficulty in getting others to see from your perspective. If there's no common denominator between those who are speaking, it will never work. Again, it falls to the communicator to find the common denominator. Agreed. ~ Shane Your example is nice, and, as an aside, shows you to be an excellent teacher, IMO. Let me say a little more about the emphasis on interpretations, perspectives, contexts, etc., in the Paul/GS approach to discourse. I am not denying that two people may misunderstand one another because of different perspectives, or because one is missing the context the other knows, etc. Far from it. These are perfectly legitimate concepts, and they can play a significant role in communication. The dispute is about something else. Like the abuse of the term, "rights" that liberals make when they say every child has the right to health care, the use of these terms--perspective and context, and a few others, in the recent postings of Paul and GS, is a distortion of their legitimate meaning. Paul's "perspective on perspectives" and "context of contexts," etc., just might have some meaning for him, but if so, he ought to be willing to say what that meaning is. As he explains, he prefers to "paint" his meanings with words he "interprets" to mean something within an "imagined reality." Frank and pointed opinions are slipped in amidst the flighty verbiage, permitting claims and insults to be levelled. No owning up to or backing up these claims can be required, as Paul, for one, is free to re-interpret his actual statement as, "in his context," reflecting a different "perspective" than that of his "opponent." Whether these tactics are in fact used can be seen in the series of posts from the past weeks. Independently of what terms or phrases he likes, or even of how he uses them, he ought to be forthcoming as to just what he means in his posts. The refusal to do so should enough to set off alarms in any thinking person. = Mindy

Following your terms, I think Peikoff's rejection is also asymmetrical. He says that a concept's meaning is exhaustive, or determinate, it includes everything about all possible referents, including the unknown. Thus, the predicate, if true, is, in fact, contained in the subject, and all statements are equally "analytic." All dilemmas are canceled by removing any one "horn," so that tactic destroys the A/S dichotomy, for him. = Mindy

Luke, Morality isn't chiefly about social interactions. Think of it as an issue of health, only between yourself and the external world. Much of those relations (yourself to the external world) are social, yes, but far from all are. Besides, the moral rules within a social context are not exclusively about how you must treat other people. They are also directly about how to deal with other people to ensure your own best interests, to be happy and successful. Don't sacrifice is a good example. Because our actions have long-term consequences, and also a variety of consequences--financial and social and personal, etc. choosing a course of action now means we need to predict the long-term effects. To make such predictions, we need principles, generalities about what leads to what. For financial decisions, you subscribe to one or another theory of the economy. When it comes to happiness and well-being, those principles are called morality. On a different point: pleasure and pain are thought to be the initial way in which animals first encounter the "moral option." Hunger vs. satiation, etc. are experienced alternative states of affairs. Good and bad first mean the fire started or it didn't, the berries were ripe or not, etc. So yes, morality is inescapable. Just as Rand noted, man's essential condition, his being a living thing, life or death dictates a moral awareness. = Mindy

Yes, you do fight evil by going on strike. You starve it, you leave it to its own devices, which are zilch, you isolate it so it loses camoflauge, you refuse to trade with it or negotiate with it, etc. You demoralize it and purify it, in effect. You don't have to leave home to go on strike against evil. It does take sticking one's neck out, socially, at the very least. = Mindy This hasn't worked with Cuba, unless having Cuba as a permanent basket case is a proper outcome. AR thought Cuba would simply collapse with this approach. It only made Castro impervious to displacement. How do you demoralize evil? How do avoid buying goods made in China? What's wrong with negotiation if it gains you an advantage? Its devices are zilch? Do you know you can destroy evil by embracing it the way an Anaconda embraces its prey? Or by not acknowledging the evil, only the good even in one person or one system even if that means positing a good that does not exist and insisting that it be manifested? The way to deal with real evil is with power, brains and knowledge, not with unreal and impractical Randian philosophical suppositions which vitiate psychological realities. --Brant When you say ignoring "hasn't worked with Cuba" you are saying, I believe, that it hasn't brought Cuba down. That doesn't mean that it hasn't hurt Cuba, diminished it. The internal good, resources, people, etc. of Cuba are what keep it floating. I challenge you on that "impractical Randian phil. suppositions..." statement. Shall we argue specifically, whether philosophy is practical? Though that's been done. Or, whether Rand's philosophy is merely suppositions? = Mindy

You got me on the math part, Ba'al ;) I was able to teach binary and hex conversions visually for the purposes of network protocol analysis. Quantum physics and such...might make my head explode. I never was any good at math. But then again, I didn't go beyond geometry and algebra. ~ Shane P.S. Let's just say that visualization is extremely important where it can be applied. You do realize that this "visualization" is being recommended in the place of being able to define one's terms? Would you substitute visual aids for factual statements to your students? I think it may be that what you are talking about is that teaching is subject to floating abstractions, and demonstrations or visuals, etc., help the student tie the concepts to concrete examples. But that's not what GS and Paul are urging, not what they mean when they promote visualization, interpretation, changing perspectives, and varying contexts. What they mean is that precise, literal meaning isn't possible, and thus, they needn't define or explain what they mean, and that when they seem to have contradicted themselves, they really haven't, because if you shift your perspective or if you explore their personal context, you'll discover it means something different, and something legitimate. Now this alternative epistemology and logic is disastrous. It is a prescription for the "fog" Rand writes about, obscuring, blinding, confusing, and clothing the good and the bad, the correct and the erroneous equally. Nothing means anything if it doesn't mean this and not that. Like existence implies identity, meaning implies specificity. In fact, OL is currently playing host to the epistemological version of the battle between good and evil. If there are no specific, definite and definable meanings, there are no meaningful statements, no true statements, no logical arguments, and there is no reason. Man is unarmed, and pleasing rhetoric that can rouse the mob rules the day. With no personal judgment intended (but not to ignore the fact that some judgment is implied) I repudiate your approach, Paul, and GS. I urge you to step up and define your terms when asked. That is not much to ask, under normal circumstances. I am happy to discuss non-Objectivist theories, but not in a non-Aristotelian way. Since you feel free to attack Objectivism, and other posters, (whether you admit it or not), I will feel free to "attack" in the same spirit that you do, your statements, such as, "Objectivists have a tool kit for faulty arguing (paraphrased) which you recently posted, gratuitously. Such "attacks" will not be an invitation to discuss, since discussion requires meaning. = Mindy

Mindy, Does this mean I don't know what I am talking about or you don't know what I am talking about or both? Paul It means you're full of sound and fury... =Mindy

Concerning that second "impediment to communication," Barbara, don't you think "the art of miscommunication is part of the Objectivist tool kit," is just one such impediment? Paul, I guess that's a really big, "No." = Mindy

Yes, you do fight evil by going on strike. You starve it, you leave it to its own devices, which are zilch, you isolate it so it loses camoflauge, you refuse to trade with it or negotiate with it, etc. You demoralize it and purify it, in effect. You don't have to leave home to go on strike against evil. It does take sticking one's neck out, socially, at the very least. = Mindy

Does this mean you are now willing to define your terms? You could start with "perspective on perspective(s)." = Mindy

Your formulation of what ethics is, and your claim that there are only these two bases for ethics are based on what? I don't agree with them, myself.

Welcome, Luke! Yes, but "pleasant chemicals" flush the brain when you solve a problem, come up with a new idea, serve up an ace, etc., When those chemicals get set loose depends largely on what your ideas are about goodness, success, etc. I don't think you should conclude that we are all "wired that way." = Mindy

Well, no, of course not. The question is how are those trangressions of good will to be met? Some ways are better than others. The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay arrested Quakers and eventually hanged one. On the other hand, in Maryland, the Catholics and Dissenters shared a church, though not at the same time, until a second could be built. Different cultures have different norms. Some are better than others. I agree with Chris that migration into space will bring a quantum leap in our understanding, as did the settlement of America following the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. It was not perfect then, and will not be perfect in the future, either. New challenges bring new solutions and some are better than others. Minarchists are to politics as agnostics are to religion. Whether someone is "good" or "bad" often -- and perhaps strangely enough -- has little to do with their espoused beliefs, though everything to do with the ideas they have accepted. I don't get your point. What position are you arguing? What the devil does going into space have to do with it? = Mindy

I don't think your response is valid. It is certainly an argument I have heard before. I think that both of us want to live in a free society--one in which people are free to do what they want so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. My hope is that such beliefs will eventually become universally accepted, just as 2+2=4 is universally accepted. When people can all agree on rights, the formality of a "government" will not be necessary. I also realize that this type of society has also never existed. So, how do we get there from here? My guess is that it will happen when people get into space. I don't think it will happen anywhere here on Earth. There are too many corrupt systems in place. People find it easier to drop out of them than to reform them. I think that most human beings are incapable of establishing and maintaining a free society. There are basically three groups of people in the world--people who want to be told what to do, people who want to tell others what to do, and people who think. The third group is the only one that can establish and maintain a free society. If the thinkers separated themselves from the other two, the other two groups would annihilate themselves with nuclear weapons. Do you really believe a culture, however enlightened, can ensure constant good will in all individuals? = Mindy

This is exactly the condition that we have with governments. Every government in history has been lawless. You ask for a government that solely protects the rights of individuals, a government that only uses force in retaliation. You are asking for something that has never existed. You asked a specific question, I answered it. But you don't admit the validity of the response, or else say why it isn't a satisfactory answer...what's the deal? = Mindy

Well, all I know of Alfred Korzybski's work is what I got from A. E. von Vogt's The World of Null-A, in which Gilbert Goseyn ("go sane" -- get it?) discovers mutliple layers of reality in his non-Aristotlean utopia. But, ignorance of the substantive subject matter is never a barrier to discussion here on Objectivist Living. So, allow me to ask, GS, just how are you reacting to the symbol of "true market value"? I mean that sounds like an Aristotlean fallacy, the idea that there is some true price and we can know it. Would general semantics not lead to you the higher truth that price (so-called) is merely an abstraction devoid of specificity. Prices fluctuate instantaneously in every market with every transaction. This so-called "mortgage crisis" was known to mortgage bankers from the Summer of 2006. By October 2006, the failures and defaults and debts and lack of earnings and write-downs were the stuff of column inches in banking periodicals. So, a general semantic perception of the symbol called "the economy" would open the door to an expectation of changed reaction to that symbol, i.e., a symbolic "downturn"in the symbolic "economy." I mean, that's what I would predict from what little I know... Well said, Michael. Impressive shift of metacontext. You transliterated your perspective on the perspectives imbedded in GS's subcontext like a pro! :cheer: = Mindy

Might doesn't make right. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. Whoever can pay more mercenaries can rape and pillage anyone else, mercenary "police" will believe whoever pays them to. CIVILIZATION will not survive. The lawlessness of the wild west seems romantic to you? Mindy

Can you make out a case against unregulated speculation? = Mindy

How exactly does it fail? Uhhh, there is no law, no law-enforcement, no rules against the initiation of force...that do? = Mindy

I'm wondering why this question comes up at all, Paul. Why does Objectivism seem to ignore kindness? = Mindy

A bit heavy handed, but not all that bad. It needs some subtlety to be good satire. Ba'al Chatzaf Is anarchy or totalitarianism further from a proper government? Anarchy fails to restrain the initiation of violence at all, and so seems worse, to me. = Mindy