Paul Mawdsley

Peter, You asked: I was being optimistic. The hardware is getting a little older and I don't think I can get parts. Paul

Dragonfly, Would you mind if I addressed you by your first name. I am having trouble reprogramming the name of the category in my head that represents you. I think it might be a software glitch. Paul Mawdsley

Dragonfly, I have some questions: I'm curious. Aside from the opportunity to torment Objectivists, what do you get out of Ayn Rand's and Nathaniel Branden's work, and these forums? It can be easy to find oneself pointing out the negative. And I will agree there is negative to be pointed out. But what is the positive you find here? Do you think it is possible to accomplish anything of value, such as a the development of new integrations, through the mutual exchange of ideas and perspectives on a forum such as this? I think your answer would be yes, but I would like to know if my assessment of you is correct. On a personal level, would you say you are striving to put together your own personal theory of everything? Paul Mawdsley Always trying to understand.

Dragonfly, I think some of my best thoughts have come from side-tracking. I've always given myself permission to stray on tangents. It did cause some problems when I was studying for exams. Quite frankly, I'd read your side-tracks any day. I may disagree with some of the details of what you write (and I'll write about that soon), but I love the spirit. Our side-tracks exercise our creative selves in the generation of our unique personal perspectives. One more note: I'm really impressed with how little response you received from your Rand comments. While I am sympathetic to much of what you said, I think Rand was a deep thinker. I just think her deepest thoughts were more right-brained than left-brained. Her deepest thoughts came from her fiction writing. Philosophical formalism is very left-brained. I know it put me to sleep. If my brain can't connect the symbols to something more experiential, I have a hard time following. As I've said before, I tend to apply a mode of thinking that is a right-brained causal reasoning. Despite the fact that she didn't identify this approach in her epistemology, I think this is what Rand did also through her fiction. She created characters with specific identities in her imagination; she connected those identities to their actions; she set the context in which they would interact; and she set the characters in motion. I think this is where her greatest insights came from. It's certainly where her enhanced concept of causality was "smuggled" in from. P...Dragonfly, I value your perspective greatly. It's good to have a physicist in the house. Paul Mawdsley

Ellen, Thanks. You may be right. It might be hydrocephalus NB is referring to. I am still questioning whether or not it is because what I have found when I do searches on hydrocephalus does not quite fit my impression of what I thought NB was referring to. It was probably in a Biological Psych. course that I learned about a condition that caused water on the brain. I thought it was hydro-encephalitis– which seems to be a less common name for the same thing. I remember seeing MRI of brains of adults who had perhaps 30% of their cerebral cortex remaining. The point being made at the time was that they were able to live normal lives and would be outwardly assessed as normal functioning adults. If such is the case, it throws an interesting curve at any understanding of the relation of mind and body. BTW- Ellen, it’s good to see you are still posting here. I value the perspective you bring. Any time I come across a person who is authentic and intelligent, who has spent a lifetime crafting her own unique personal perspective, I want to understand what that person sees and why. I commend Michael and Kat, this forum seems to be attracting just these types of people. Your presence here played a significant role in my initial evaluation of this forum. In our previous, brief interaction we were discussing physics. I had no idea you had such a long history with Objectivism. Your accounts are very enlightening. I hope to read your posts for a long time to come. I wish you the best of health, Paul

Dragonfly, Is your first name Peter? Paul

Roger, At some point I would like to sit down and post a worthy reply. My attention was also caught by NB's statements about an underlying substance common to consciousness and matter. The only thing is, I found what he said quite resonant with my own perspective. I don't know exactly what NB had in mind but I think I can put together a point of view consistent with his that does not fall into the traps you discuss. In the meantime, I think the brain condition NB was referring to might be hydro-encephalitis. This results in massive amounts of fluid in the cranial cavity which retards the neural development of the fetus and young child. The amazing thing is that, despite the massive loss of neural matter, these children can grow to lead normal lives. So just where is that soul located? TTFN Paul M.

Michael, I agree with your description of the internal processes in reaction to the starving child scenario: When we witness the event, it is processed automatically through a causal lens. When we experience the event, we experience it with causal meaning. Part of what generates that causal meaning is the empathic perspectives that are generated within us. What is important to notice is the fact that causation is built into our perception. This is why it should be considered a causal lens. Information has already been causally filtered before it reaches our awareness and we have an emotional reaction to it. I’ve noted you have an interest in the physiological functions of the brain that are related to the processes you witness introspectively. That makes sense if what a thing does is determined by the actions and interactions of its physical components. Looking at the actions and interactions of the physiological components of the brain should give us a parallel perspective to the causal model we are able to develop of the underlying nature of our mental processes (provided our guiding concept of causality is relevant to reality). It’s been a while since I spent a lot of time focussed in this area but, as I recall, it would make sense to look to the anterior portion of the temporal lobe and its connections to the limbic system to locate automatic causal processing in perception and the connected emotional response system. That you have a reaction of moral indignation before the process gets to your morality makes sense in the context of what we know about psychology. The behaviourists didn’t get everything wrong. There is conditioning and learning. Our moral conditioning can come from our parents or teachers. We can be operant in the learning process, interacting with our environment. We can absorb our values observationally. Or we can self-program (or reprogram) it rationally. However it is programmed, it becomes automatic. We do not sit and think rationally in the heat of the moment, “Oh, this is what I should do.” Our emotions give us an impulse to action and our programmed value system gives form and direction for the action. It is a non-verbal process that has the appearance of action-reaction. As I said before, I would have an impulse to hit the Passerby but my value system would probably tone it down to a good shaking and a scream to “wake up and see what’s in front of you!” That is, I think, the proper response of the Observer relative to the Passerby. Why is the Child a value to the Observer? Why should the Child be a value to the Passerby? All the rational explanations in the world are fine but they are not why I experience the child as a value. They are not why I experience an impulse to act. I experience an impulse to act because I am open to an awareness of MY EMPATHIC PERSPECTIVE of the child’s reality in the context of my values. I am moved by MY PERSPECTIVE and MY RESPONSE to it. It is a matter of self-respect to act on what I experience. It is action in the here and now based on the experience of my values in the here and now. Abstract, disconnected principles do not move me. I am more than rational principles. Who and what I am determines what I do. And so should it. I think this is “The Virtue of Selfishness.” Paul M.

Michael, I too do not want to skim when it come to your post. Everyone here has a story as to why their time is a limited resource. Mine has a lot to do with my wife, my three year old girl, and my six year old boy being the highest values in my life. I'm already paying for my desire to read and write here with a certain amount of sleep deprivation. I have to seek balance. Not a strong point for me. On the other hand, reading and writing on this and Branden's forum is having a fringe benefit. I become so engrossed in the ideas that I loose track of my physical being. If I was sitting in front of the TV, I would have cravings for snack foods. Doing this, I have lost 5 lbs in the last 2 weeks. It's The Mawdsley diet. I'm at a point now where I'm going to have to build in a reminder to eat some cookies and chips. I'm not sure exactly how this fits into Ethics but I'm a rebel. Paul

Rich asks: The field of Cosmology badly needs philosophy to straighten out its causality. Paul

Roger, Thank-you for your considered response to my thoughts and for moving my comments to the appropriate category. It sometimes feels like I am the ghost in the machine with no point of contact between the extended and the unextended. I send messages out into the void and then ask, “Is there anybody out there?” I will admit I have a tendency toward solipsism and require feedback to break the spell. There is no doubt Branden’s concept of Psychological Visibility even applies in the ethereal reality of the internet. I was in error. Rand’s concept of causality is “entity-to-action.” When I broke free from Rand’s psychological grip almost twenty years ago, I set the goal of building my own perspective from the ground-up. I sorted out what I considered to be her basic principles and began to develop my own understanding of existence. Along the way, I found much of her view incomplete, not accounting for important elements of my experience. In some cases I had to make modifications to her(and Branden’s) ideas. In some cases I had to develop them further. In some cases I found I had to identify entirely new categories to account for the elements I had isolated in my experience. Changing “entity-to-action” to “identity-to-action” causation resulted from a need to develop the concept of causation further. I had forgotten I changed the name of it. The funny thing is, I think your desire to call it “entity-to-action” causation is based on similar reasoning that lead me to start calling it “identity-to-action” causation. It seems the word “entity” contains, for you, a sense of physicality. When I started thinking about causality I would walk around with the mantra in my head: What a thing is determines what it does. (You can tell I was truly a fun guy.) I was struck by what still seems to me to be a very important question: What determines what a thing is? Put another way, in principle, what are things? I answered this question with my own bias combined with an idea I found in NB’s books. He (and I believe Rand) says that there can be no disembodied actions. But this speaks more to the relation between an entity and its action, not what things are. What can we say about things? What is the nature of Identity? I had decided at ten years old that I was an atheist. As an adult, I did not believe in ghosts or magic. I had a bias against the idea of any dimensions beyond the three spacial and one time dimensions. I had a suspicion (and still do) about the reality of the concept of singularities– the point at which all physical laws break down. I decided that whatever things are, they must, at some scale, be extended in three dimensional space and have duration in time. Ultimately, things must be physical and they must interact via physical contact. (Note: this is not intended as an argument for this point of view. It is merely an account of how I originally arrived at this perspective.) I use the term “Identity” because it is a name that more properly represents what I mean. As I have said before, I play with causality in my imagination. I build models of existence. It is a hobby. It is a passion. It is the foundation of much of what I write. Having well defined concepts of identity and causality makes for a very powerful tool in shaping one’s model of existence. Lacking well defined concepts of identity and causality results in the mixed bag of personal metaphysics, epistemological principles, ethical principles, and political principles we see in individuals today. If my statement of Identity is: What a thing is is determined by the actions and interactions of its physical components, and we grant that: What a thing is determines what it does, then my statement of Causality becomes: What a thing does is determined by the actions and interactions of its physical components. I found this made for a much better guide in the development of my causal models of existence. I must point out that this is not the statement of Identity and Causality I work with today because I found it did not account for and integrate certain existents. However, I think you can understand why I call it “Identity-to-Action” causation. Paul Mawdsley Just a fun guy having fun with ideas.

I said previously: I received a number of responses: Clearly, people do not agree with my assessment of the importance of the identity-to-action view of causation. But I am not going to go away that easily because I do think it is important. I think it is of vital importance to understanding where Objectivism comes from and to understanding where Objectivism needs to go. So, either I am wrong– in which case I have something to learn– or I am right– in which case I have some explaining to do. As I said previously, I think identity-to-action view of causation is possibly the least understood concept to come out of Objectivism. Dragonfly says, “You can’t derive anything about the real world from [identity-to-Action causation].” I think this comment really points the way to why this concept is so trivialized. Its value cannot be found in association to deductive reasoning. If one tries to derive any understanding about the nature of reality from this statement of causality, one will arrive at nothing but empty space. The value of any statement of causality is found first in its use as an epistemological principle that can be applied two ways. Firstly, it processes the information from our experience by fitting it into a causal template. How a person interprets his experience is determined by his underlying view of causality applied as an epistemological principle. The same event can be interpreted as being caused by: an act of ghosts or Gods; an act of human will; an reaction to an antecedent action; the action of an interconnected field; the action of random fluctuations; etc. The important thing to note is that the notion of causation precedes and determines the interpretation. So our causality statement is important because it shapes how we understand the world we experience. The second, and equally important way our statement of causality can be applied as an epistemological principle is for building causal models of the world. We not only process our experience through a causal lens but we actively create causal models of the world. Every religion is based on a causal model of the world. Science builds causal models of the world. Every philosophy, even the philosophy of Objectivism, is based on a causal model of the world. And the notion of causality one applies, combined with the information that is identified and integrated, determines the causal model of the world that is constructed. Again note that the notion of causation one accepts precedes the model one constructs of the world. Our causality statement is again important because it shapes the constructs that guide our thinking about the world and our actions in it. Off the top of my head, I can think of five different notions of causality that I have witnessed being applied: Identity-to-action; action-to-action; agent-to-action; inter-nodal dynamics (field theory); and random event. For now, I just want to name the above causal concepts with a little explanation on the one’s readers might not recognize. Agent-to-action causation assumes mind, or spirit, is supernatural (unextended) stuff that initiates action and can bring a causal chain to an end. When combined with action-to-action causation, agent-to-action causation can account for the scientist who believes in God. Inter-nodal dynamics is based on the idea that the action of an entity can be determined by its relation to the field of which it is a part. Quantum physics and Post-Modernist/Feminist philosophy apply this type of causation to understand how there can be an interrelationship between the action of an entity and the action of the field. I welcome feedback. If you disagree, let me know. If you agree, let me know. If you find any of this remotely interesting, let me know. If you have anything to add, let me know. If you don’t find any of this interesting, well, maybe you should ignore my posts in the future. I have found causality too important not to think about it and I find I can’t help but talk about it. I see causality at the foundation of just about every discussion. As long as anyone is interested, I will come back to say much more. Thanks, Paul Mawdsley (Michael, I know I've stepped outside of Ethics here but it will eventually come back. If you think it should be moved elsewhere, that's fine.)

Mike R., Thanks for the correction. I like to get people’s names right. I don't want to sound like I'm being disagreeable, but my ideas were not about “the making of personality.” They were about one particular causal path to moral development; the one that is predominant in me. My main point was that we can affect our moral responses to situations either by changing our understanding of the causation that underlies the things we experience or by changing our value system. What we have far less, or at least less direct, control over is the content of our experience and our emotional responses. We can attempt to control which experiences we encounter and we can use behavioural techniques to modify our reactions but we can’t will these things to be other than they are. Existence exists regardless of what we wish or will it to be. We can, however, assert our will in exploring and developing our causal understanding of the world and our rational value system. Our causal inferences and our value system are based on mental constructs that are malleable and definitely play a large role in moral behaviour. Even the nature of causality itself is open to exploration and development. Change a person’s view of causality and you change everything about his understanding of how the world works and about his rational value system. It is the view of causality at the foundation of Objectivism that has captured my imagination and my thoughts for the last two decades: What a thing is determines what it does. I think this notion of causality, presented by Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden (with roots in Aristotle’s writings), is the single most important, and possibly least understood, concept to come out of Objectivism. It is the concept at the base of the Objectivist understanding of the nature of existence, of human nature, of moral behaviour, and of politics. Objectivism can be considered a system of thought based on and shaped by the identity-to-action view of causation. This is why I now consider myself an Objectivist again even if I might disagree with some aspects of what Ayn Rand called Objectivism. Once Ayn Rand defined Objectivism as being based on objective reality, independent of anyone’s beliefs or wishes, and rooted it in identity-to-action causation, she made Objectivism an open system within the limits of these principles. Everything else follows. Even Ayn Rand’s beliefs or wishes cannot hold domain over the Objectivist interpretation of reality without self-contradiction. Her view of Objectivism and of the world must be held accountable to the basic principles she defined. If new information comes to light, if valid new integrations are made, if contradictions are found, then Rand’s original view of Objectivism may need to be adjusted. The identity-to-action view of causation is at the root of my understanding of how the world works. It is also at the root of my rational value system. This view makes me interpret the causation of an event differently than I would if I had an action-to-action view of causation. Identity-to-action causation also has affected the development of my value system differently than an action-to-action view would have. Action-to-action causation cannot be the foundation of an ethic of self-interest because identity– e.g. self– is excluded from the formulation. When I experience an event, it is interpreted through the lens of identity-to-action causation. This gives the event meaning. I then have an emotional response to my causal interpretation of the event. This gives the event meaning to me and creates an impulse to action. Then the event, with its meaning to me, is set into the context of my value system derived from identity-to-action causation (the ethic of rational self-interest). My rational value system gives form and direction to my impulse to action. This is how I understand extreme moral indignation to arise and find expression through me. Mike, I hope this makes my meaning a little clearer. Paul M. What a thing is determines what it does. And so should it.

Mike J., I did try your thought experiment. I don't think I got out of it what you might have hoped but it did trigger a line of thought. I'm quite sure it can be a factor but it is not necessarily so. Your question, as does my Dad's question, make's me think of the Freudian Superego. The idea that one's parents values can become embedded in one's psyche definitely has validity. I know that's not exactly what you are suggesting. Instead, I think you are suggesting our value responses, in the context of our parent's behaviour, is embedded in our psyche. While I think this can be a factor, I think one's values, by adulthood, can evolve well beyond a causal connection to one's responses to one's parents. I think our values can evolve independent of our parents, even our deepest values. When I disagreed with my Dad on this subject, I pointed out there is another force at work in determining our actions. I thought of it as an independent will that generates my own genuine perspective. Today I would say it comes from my own experience, my independent understanding of the causation operating in the world, my genuine organismic response to that experience and understanding, and my personal, rational value system. My independent understanding of the causation operating in the world and my personal, rational value system have continued to grow considerably since my parents had much influence. Extreme indignation comes from an extreme emotional response to my understanding of the causation that lies beneath my perception of the world. It is raised to extreme moral indignation when this emotional response is in alignment with my personal, rational value system. Paul M.

My Dad once said to me when I was a teenager, "Everything a kid does is because of or inspite of his parents." I disagreed then. I disagree now. Your final thought I am more in agreement with: Paul Mawdsley

Michael, Sorry I jumped into the politics. My enthusiasm often overwhelms my discipline. I would like to step back and refocus. I don't want to jump on any further tangents. Can you say any more about the particular element of experience you are trying to isolate and identify? Is there any resonance with what I said in an earlier part of this thread about integrating empathic experience with Objectivism or am I barking up the wrong tree? This is a wonderful spirit to approach such a hot issue. I am pleased to be a part of what you are building. Thank-you, Paul Mawdsley

Michael, You do not have to create a thought experiment to confront this issue. There are children in 3rd world countries as well as in our own backyard for whom survival is a very real issue. What should be done? Should legislation be enacted to "encourage" people to act morally? I don't think you would say so. The foundation of Objectivist Ethics is the right of the individual to act on his own sight, knowledge, judgement, and values. Disagreeing with any part of an individual's processing of information is never grounds for negating his basic right to act from his own processes. Consider a reformulation of your transposed case. "I do not agree with watching a stray child starve to death when you are near him and have enough food, but I'll defend to the death your right to act on your own sight, knowledge, judgement, and values." (...even if I consider you blind and immoral.) You are right. I share your sentiment that I would not want to belong to a society that sanctions a disregard for human life. My blood would boil at the sight of such moral depravity. But what means would you enact to meet your ends? Objectivist Ethics has its roots in identity-to-action causation. What an individual is determines how he should behave. To enact legislation intended to bypass the individual's identity to cause what someone else considers moral behaviour, is to reject the foundation of Objectivist thought and replace it with action-to-action causation. Do we really want to say: the threat of coercive action determines how a person should behave? If we don't want to resort to action-to-action causation as a principle of ethical behaviour, then we must seek morality within the individual. We can argue, we can educate, we can encourage therapy for poor sight, knowledge, judgement, and values. We can denounce immoral actions. But we should not try to bypass the individuals right to make his own choices. This is not a society I would want to sanction. Paul Mawdsley What a thing is determines what it does. And so should it.

There are some thoughts I have had in this area. I wanted to respond to the related discussion elsewhere but did not feel well enough informed as to the flow of the arguments. Now we have a new beginning I will offer some of my thoughts to see if anyone considers them of value. The principles of Objectivism require that we identify the facts of reality, integrate them with our understanding, and act according to our rational self-interest. I have noticed that there is a whole class of facts that are typically ignored by Objectivism: the class of facts we can call one’s empathic experience. I think this missing element of reality from the Objectivist perspective, is at the root of the above discussion and of any consideration of a new moral principle. For an Objectivist, Social Metaphysics has traditionally been one of the great evils and is punishable by excommunication. Social Metaphysics has its roots in an individual’s ability to take on an empathic perspective. I think Objectivists have tended to throw out the starving baby with the bathwater. The capacity to experience another’s perspective as one's own has tended to be disowned in the same package as Social Metaphysics because this class of experience has not been well explored, identified, and understood by Objectivists. As NB (quite sternly) pointed out to me at one time, Social Metaphysics is a concept with a very precise meaning. In Taking Responsibility p. 68, Branden says, "Remember that in philosophy 'metaphysics' is one's view of the ultimate nature of reality. To the [social metaphysician], reality is other people. In his or her mind, in the automatic connections of his or her consciousness, people occupy the place which, in the mind of an autonomous, self-responsible individual, is occupied by reality." Social Metaphysics, then, identifies a particularly extreme psychology where objective reality is replaced by an inter-subjective reality. What is real is not what can be objectively observed but what people, especially other people, say is real. In such a consciousness, one controls reality by manipulating other people’s perspectives of reality. One affects (pseudo) self-esteem by manipulating relative social status. In practical terms, the social metaphysician gets caught inside a myriad of empathic perspectives with no independent perspective strong enough to maintain a grasp of objective reality. The point is that, while Social Metaphysics is extremely unhealthy and antithetical to Objectivist living, taking an empathic perspective is neither healthy nor unhealthy. It is neutral. Taking an empathic perspective is just an epistemological tool. It is a means of perceiving reality. It is a means of acquiring information about a certain class of objects; conscious objects. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that it is part of the Objectivist culture, a rite of passage, to disown the empathic perspective. A “good” Objectivist should always be looking outward experiencing the world first hand, not looking inward at his empathic(“second hand”) experience. Holding onto one's empathic experience tends to push a person to the outside of the Objectivist movement. Empathic experience is a game for mystics and collectivists. Wrong! Disowning one’s empathic experience is against one’s self-interest. One’s empathic perspective is part of the self. An integrated self is definitely in one’s self-interest. The information from one’s empathic perspective should be evaluated from and integrated into one’s independent, personal (ideally Objectivist) perspective. As NB has pointed out, if we cannot see clearly the world within us, we cannot see clearly the world in front of us. Again, sight works in both directions or it works in neither. If we disown our empathic experience, we cannot experience another’s intrinsic value. We can only see the value of others as an abstraction or in terms of their value to our ends. Is the empathic perspective infallible? No, but nor is visual perception. Is it valuable? Damn, yes! It can offer us great insight into the world around us. Is it an individual’s to own? Absolutely! As part of our own independent perspective, information attained via empathic experience does and should affect our choices and actions. This bring me back to the above discussion. By what moral standard would the observer experience indignation at the passerby? Yes, we have Ayn Rand’s very objective statement, "a man who values human life...should help men in an emergency." (p. 55, The Virtue of Selfishness) (Thanks Roger) But this is not what stirs the blood. Actually, I don’t think the moral standard changes. The standard is still acting in one’s self-interest. It is the information the individual acts upon that has changed. The observer empathically experiences both the child’s perspective and the passerby’s. The result of our emotional and ethical evaluation of this empathic experience is compassion for the child and moral revulsion for the passerby. We understand that the passerby must disconnect from both the value of his own inner world and the value of another human being to act as he/she does. This is unhealthy. This is anti-life. This is unethical. On the one hand, we can feel compassion for a being who’s experience has lead him/her to the state of the passerby. On the other hand, we can despise the being who acts with such callousness. Not being responsible for how he/she got here, and seeing only who he/she is now, I would like to slap him/her in the face (with fingers clenched) and say, “Look at what is right in front of you and value your sight.” Do I think what he did should be illegal? No. As far as government involvement is concerned, I think Objectivist principles should hold. Every individual should have the right, the freedom, and the responsibility to choose his/her own actions. Objectively, the child’s life is not this individual’s responsibility to save. The child’s need is not a claim on this person’s property or effort. If he/she chooses not to adopt the responsibility to help the child, that is the action for which he/she can be morally condemned. Not for killing the child. The government’s role should not be to compel the action of an individual. It should only be to protect the rights of the individual. The only argument I can see for making the passerby’s actions illegal is to coerce ethically right action. This would be antithetical to the idea that an individual’s life is his own. Just as charity should never be coerced, neither should acting for another’s survival. It seems to me to be a contradiction to coerce a person to act on his empathic perspective. Such coercion requires a disregard for the perspective of the person being coerced. The person doing the coercing would have to ignore her empathic perspective to force another person to act on his. Maybe that would be ethical justice but it can hardly be the basis of law. Paul Mawdsley

Michael, You are right. The statement should read, "Ayn Rand tried to remove some of Branden’s contributions from history and his existence from her awareness." I don't claim to be a scholar of the Objectivist movement. The point remains the same. Thank-you for pointing out my error. Truth is, I'm not really all that interested in Ayn Rand's relationship with Nathaniel Branden. And I am not really interested in why they broke-up. I am interested in what they each said about the nature of existence and how they were able to create their perspectives. It just so happens that my introduction to this forum came via a response I had to reading other people's views and judgements on this subject. The views I have expressed are based largely on my interpretation of the two characters as I have come to understand them through their work. People's opinions of what happened are much too biased, in and of themselves, to be much value in discerning the truth. To sort out the reality behind individual interpretations I go back to my Objectivist roots: what a thing is determines what it does. Rand and Branden’s work is an expression of who they are. One can interpret the nature of the existents (Rand and Branden) that created the ideas and tone of their works in the same way a physicist can interpret the nature of the electromagnetic field based on how the field is expressed in its environment. My interpretation of who they are is then used to create characters in my imagination who could be set in motion to see how they would act in the circumstances people are talking about. I can watch events unfold, in my mind’s eye, just as a fiction writer would see scenes unfold before them– just as Rand would create a character who acts according to the nature she has given him. Since the characters of my fiction are generated from elements isolated and identified in reality, the characters actions are a matter of record, and causality connects the characters with their actions, a claim can be made (and tested) about the representativeness of the fiction. Since the characters are my own creation, I can see which characteristics are causally connected to what behaviours. This is how I generated the perspective that has been presented above. If what I had done operated at a subconscious level, it would have been called intuition. When it is identified at a conscious level, it is an epistemological tool we might call causal reasoning. I find it ironic that Rand did not identify this particular tool in her epistemology. Objectivism was born in Rand’s ability to create fictional characters with specific identities and set them in motion according to identity-to-action causation. I would say her great insights about existence and human nature came from her ability to create causal models of her world in her imagination. Now this is something I find interesting. Talking about Rand and Branden as a means to understanding their work, or as a means to understanding how they were able to create their work, is valuable. Talking about them as a means to establish one’s social positioning, for or against either one, is a waste of time, or worse. Insofar as one is arguing from the point of social positioning and loyalties, one is arguing from the orientation of “Social Metaphysics.” Reality is opinions and opinions must be altered through manipulation and bullying. What an unhealthy waste of time and energy. There are so many more interesting things to talk about than who did what. I would much rather try to create something new from the foundations of Objectivism such as the idea of causal reasoning I have hinted about above. I would rather explore the mind/body relationship or the concept of free-will. I would rather explore the value of one’s empathic perspective from Objectivist principles. I would rather explore the influence of epistemology on the sciences. I would like to explore the idea that the identity-to-action view of causation is not yet complete and that developing it further is of fundamental importance to building our causal models of the world. Michael, until a week ago I would have said that I am not an Objectivist. I would have said that my ideas share the same roots as Objectivism but they have evolved along their own path away from the restrictions of Objectivist’ dogma. Since you asked me for permission to reprint my views on the interpretations of the Rand/Branden break-up, I have reevaluated my relationship to Objectivism. I have come to understand that there is a movement that considers Objectivism an open system. Meaning there is still room for new existents to be identified. There is still room for Objectivism to evolve. When a new existent is identified in an open system, it can affect the relationships between ideas throughout the whole system. This is exactly how Nathaniel Branden’s work is related to Objectivism. His views represent a change in an understanding of the elements of human nature which has lead to changes in some of the principles of how we ought to behave. Objectivism as an open system seems to be the orientation of your site. Interpreting Objectivism this way has allowed me to consider myself an Objectivist again. I’m hoping that having your site available will give this particular rogue Objectivist a forum to reality test his strange ideas and continue to learn. I now see that an independent Objectivism is something to fight for. It’s time I joined the fight. Paul Mawdsley

Michael, You paint a flattering picture of me. It’s fun to see myself as a romanticized character in someone else’s fiction. You made me laugh. I wanted to make one point particularly clear. I do not assume Branden’s perspective is necessarily the authority on reality– reality at large or the reality of events between he and Rand. Psychology is complex and one’s perspective can be distorted by many factors. When a person describes events he has witnessed, his biases colour his interpretation of events. When we talk about some past event we are actually creating and presenting a fiction that is taken from our experience, crafted in our imagination, and intended to be representative of the facts. Some people are better at identifying the facts because they bring a higher level of awareness to the events they witness. Some people are better at creating a more objective fiction because they better know their own biases. And some people do a better job of testing the representativeness of their story. Any story has a purpose. Reality has no purpose. It just is. Any fiction in which we are the main character, the hero, we will tend to recall and present facts with our purposes, conscious and/or subconscious, through a biased lens. Certainly, Nathaniel Branden is no different. If I am not mistaken, Branden’s book, Judgement Day, was changed in later editions to reflect the fact that he had recognized that certain subconscious motives were behind his writing that no longer were operative. He said things which could cause a harm and he no longer viewed as necessary to the story. This illustrates how subconscious motives can influence what is included and how characters are presented. It also illustrates how making such motives conscious can make the story more objective. Awareness is the key to objectivity. When we see clearly both inwardly and outwardly, we not only see the world more clearly; we create more representative fictions. It is this commitment to awareness that I see in Branden’s work and leads me to put high stock in what he has to say about past events even though I know his story is not without bias. Ayn Rand was great at identifying the facts before her. She brought an incredibly high level of awareness to what she witnessed, whether she were witnessing events or ideas. She was gifted at creating and presenting her fiction. The products of her imagination allowed her to create great insight into human nature and existence in general. However, reality testing the representativeness of her personal fictions was never her strong point. Ayn Rand tried to remove Branden’s contributions from history and his existence from her awareness. This is not objectivity. This is trying to mold reality to fit one’s personal fictions. Rand’s personal fictions were distorted by an inability to bring a high level of awareness to her own motives, by an inability to reliably identify the motives of others, and by a bias against the need to test the reality of her views. The net result of these characteristics was for her to reverse one of the basic tenets of her philosophy. The “primacy of existence” was replaced by the primacy of her personal fictions of existence. It is these personal fictions that would have shaped what she wrote in her journals. I can understand why some have said they have no desire to read her journals. Ayn Rand was a great innovative thinker. Her journals do not represent what was great. They represent her weakness. Paul Mawdsley