Mindy Newton

Ellen, Your point about integration is undeniable. There is still epistemological integration in aspect-dualism. Doesn't property-dualism imply an overlying aspect-dualism? Anything that isn't eliminativist does, it seems to me. I don't see how pan-psychism is implied, but I will do a little research on that. = Mindy

Oops, I didn't make myself clear. I do realize you were discussing Rand's implicit views. I was wondering about how you chose to describe Rand, implicitly, as dual-property versus dual-aspect. I subscribe to the dual-aspect view, myself. I think what that theory needs is an explanation as to why, and how the aspects come to be had. I'm not sure a dual-property view gets you anywhere. Metaphysically, you still have to explain the duo, including interaction, don't you? = Mindy

It's far from just you. I've had debates with staunch O'ists who think she held no form of mind/brain dualism, but I think her theory of volition at minimum has to imply property dualism. Plus she railed against both materialism and idealism. Possibly a case could be made for dual-aspect monism. But how does one limit dual-aspect monism only to humans? And how does one get her theory of volition from dual-aspect monism? Also, she more than a few times spoke of "man" as being "an integration of mind and body," but how can one have an "integration" of only one something? I haven't time for digging up cites now, but I think quite a bit can be found which casts doubt on her having been a monist. Thus my evaluation is that she was at minimum an undeclared property dualist. And despite her negative remarks about Descartes' views, I've long thought that her "model" is a close look-alike to his: He described other animals as being automata and believed that the soul activated the human body through the pineal gland as the point of contact. She likewise drew a sharp contrast between humans and other animals (ascribing to humans alone a "level" of consciousness which needs to be volitionally activated), and she made "the choice to think or not to think" the prime determinant of human behavior. She didn't anywhere I know of say how she thought the prime choice results in action, but somehow it has to be doing this according to her theory. Ellen Edit: I originally wrote, being tired and muggy-headed at the time, "process dualist." I meant the term "property dualist." For a quick synopsis of the meaning of "property dualism," see. ___ This is an interesting topic. I'm wondering why you find a need to limit dual-aspect theory to humans. Dual-aspect admits of degrees of IQ and related capacities. It is adequate IQ that doesn't pertain to lesser animals. No? = Mindy

So, Baal, what's your take on it? = Mindy

That sounds like an excellent teaching method. As for understanding Paul's perspective, I think we all do. = Mindy

Test, or morals? Take Rich's test, above. = Mindy

Why not? = Mindy

That much? So why did you dump the girl? = Mindy

Do you have any ideas as to modifications of the story to bring it down to movie-length? My husband and I talk about this once in a while. One is to collapse Francisco and Galt. They are the same person. When Francisco turns playboy, he is doing the shrugging, and he is recruiting others, etc. Since he knows Eddie, he can be an unidentified friend Eddie meets for coffee, and those expositions can remain in. Otherwise, the story is chiefly the story of Reardon Metal. What do you thing? = Mindy

Mindy, It's hard to understand how wrong you could be about what I am saying, about my motives, and about my intentions. It's like looking at myself in a fun house mirror. The question I am left asking myself is: how can you be so wrong? How can you misinterpret what I am trying to communicate so wildly? And yet, I get the feeling you are not the only one who seems to be interpreting my meaning, motives and intentions in such a distorted way. How do I understand this? And how do I communicate my hypothesis about how this has occured when every attempt to communicate it seems to deepen the distortion? If I took it personally, I would be offended. But I don't. I am just confused and frustrated. For some reason very intelligent people here on OL don't understand what I have to say. I am certain it is not because I lack intelligence, or because I don't know what I'm talking about, or because I don't know how to use the English language. So why is everything I am saying being reflected back sounding like I'm a judgmental prick applying slime ball tactics to maintain my position adverse to those I am conversing with, when I'm not even trying to maintain an adversarial position at all? I am trying to engage in open dialogue in a manner that is more akin to brainstorming than arguing, but everyone keeps interpreting me as holding an adversarial position. The assumption of adversaries is part of the metacontext problem I am referring to. I generally enter discussions assuming the game is about working as a research team to find the truth, not working as adversaries, each trying to win the title of being right. I am not trying to be right, dammit! I am trying to explore the facts, generate hypotheses, and form a model of the dynamics we are discussing, in order to discover a view of things we can agree on. It is your assumption that I am acting as an adversary that is causing you to paint me as an adversary. This is why you are reflecting an image of me that is so distorted. Let me try to illustrate. Earlier Ellen took offense to DF's quip about O'ists because of how she interpreted it. I interpreted his quip in a different way. I hypothesized DF to be holding a different subjective context from what Ellen hypothesized. If she responded from an assumed general context of us having adversarial positions, and I responded by maintaining my own assumptions and position as adversarial, we would not have found easy resolution. Each would have been certain the other was wrong. But this is not what happened. Ellen allowed herself to try on the perspective I offered. She assumed the position of lab partner considering an hypothesis rather than a debater maintaining a polemic. She shifted perspectives, judged what she saw, and realized it made more sense-- integrated more known facts and existing contexts (e.g.: it fit better with her understanding of DF's character) than her original perspective. This was contexts and metacontexts at work. Ellen's metacontext in this situation, that of assuming alternate perspectives can work together to discover the truth, determined how she framed the interaction, how she understood my actions, and what actions she chose. We briefly worked as a team to discover the truth. This is the framework I have entered into discussions with you only to find you misinterpreting my intentions and motives as being adversarial. I respect your insight and intelligence and am interested in working together to seek the truth but I have no interest in dialogue that assumes an adversarial relationship. I don't enjoy operating this way. If I did, I could find it on other O'ist sites. If you can only assume an adversarial position relative to my explorations, then I am not interested in pursuing this further. If you can bare to consider my position as just that of a fellow explorer, then we may be able to generate some productive dialogue. Far from my trying to say you can't understand me because "you're wearing the wrong socks," I believe the latter is possible and hope that it is true. I see adversarial positions as being similar to behaviour in emergencies: they often don't make sense in normal conditions. In normal conditions we are not under attack. Why should we act like we assume we are? Paul Paul, I'm not psychologizing you. I'm not thinking about what your intentions might be. I'm not thinking, this is Paul, we've talked before, we've had some back-and-forth, and worked out what started out as a misunderstanding... I actually, honestly am not taking that view of things at all. Not at all. I'm not guessing at your motives. I'm not worrying about them. I'm not worrying about you. I am responding to the DISCUSSION. The DISCUSSION gets bogged down if meaningless verbiage is added. Words/phrases you can't define are just that. The DISCUSSION is de-railed if someone claims, "I'm right, but you just can't see it." And that's what you actually did. I've tried to get you to define your terms. You didn't. I've tried to explain the logic of your "metacontext" trump card. I've done these things to be able to keep discussing with you. I tried to show that these problems are fundamental to thought, and therefore fundamental to discussion. Did none of that come through? It appears that you don't want to limit yourself to words you can define or explain. It appears that you want to be able to resort to disqualifying your opponent. Your choice, of course. No hard feelings. I have to point out that nobody has been as adversarial as you have been. When you call, "metacontext!" you are turning the chess board right over. = Mindy

You are entirely wrong, Michael. That explanation MADE the joke! = Mindy

Astounding! = Mindy

If things were that bad, you should have pawned the guitar and the Chivas. = Mindy

Now now, you aren't being honest! Tsk, tsk, tsk and all that. C. Really ends: head off to happier pastures with the bud and the Chevas and the cash! (Isn't that why you were with a girl you'd dump?) = Mindy

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 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: 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: and GS replies: Wherupon Brant remarks: 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. If only he'd had you to write his post for him! "...Northrop is similar to this," would have read quite differently. = Mindy

I know, they didn't open for me. They were in Sherk's post, blame him. :frantics:

Glad to hear it! 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

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

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

Stephen, is there any topic on which you aren't read-up? You're amazing. = Mindy

Dialectical materialism can explain their beliefs: They live in a hot land, where there are no cold showers. Hot-cold, see? = Mindy

Wouldn't it be great to have it on the menu at some diplomatic affair? (Of course, it would be spelled differently.) = Mindy

I took the first one. Scores: 1.5, 3.8 1.7 2.8, and 1.0. Looks like I don't have much moral character at all! = Mindy

I'll again point out: "pancritical rationalism" is not Paul's term. He claims to see similarity between his views and Rafe Champion's. The similarity is eluding me. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that what Champion is saying is what Paul is saying just because Paul expressed resonance to a term from a Popperian approach (an approach Paul has only barely begun to explore). Re "relativism vs. absolutism": "pancritical rationalism" is neither. Also, a question for Paul: Exactly who here do you think is an absolutist? Ellen PS: What Paul is most sounding like to me isn't Popperian but Hegelian -- the ultimate One in which all paradoxes of different perspectives are resolved in synthesis, that sort of idea. I'm all in favor of trying empathetically to understand where another person is coming from, and I'm all in favor of not leaping to conclusions about what the other person means because of that person's using terminology in ways to which one isn't accustomed. But I keep detecting from Paul the view that in case of actually contradictory viewpoints, there's necessarily some truth in both of them. (It is possible for contradictory viewpoints each to contain some truth and some error, or for both to be entirely in error. But that's not the same statement as that there's necessarily some truth in every perspective.) ___ Thanks Ellen, Let me be clear that I don't object to anybody's believing or expressing anything, as long as they step up and discuss, explain, and, if necessary, defend what they actually say. I don't mind talking to Popperians or Hegelians or Kantians or Libertarians under those circumstances. A discussion presupposes certain things. Responsiveness and reason. 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