Paul Mawdsley

Mindy, surely you have something better to do than keep bashing me. Why don't you just move on? Paul

I am learning slowly...very slowly. Recently I've been discovering a lot about what I don't know and how I'm not so smart, not just here on OL but in the world beyond the LCD screen. I've been discovering the ways other people are a lot wiser than me. Quite frankly, I have a lot to learn. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction Brant. Paul

Sorry Brant. When I said this I was thinking specifically about wasting my time and effort trying to get through to Mindy. (I was writing while doing some woodworking in my shop and, perhaps, didn't take enough care in what I said.) I've been trying to get through to Mindy over the last few weeks but I don't have any try left. It will take much more than a little frustration to leave OL. This is my version of Cheers. I like the people here. They're good people who often have trouble communicating, get frustrated with one another, and struggle to maintain their basic sense of goodwill when they experience a sense of invisibility. Kind of sounds like just about every human relationship I have ever encountered. Despite the fact that Mindy frustrates the hell out of me, as I'm sure I can frustrate her, I like her, I admire her intelligence and insight, and I like reading most things that are not a response to my posts. I find her to be stronger in areas where I am weaker. I can learn from her. I won't be blocking her any time soon. I'm just going to stop trying to get through to her the things I see very clearly but she seems to have no way of connecting with. Paul

I am wasting my time and effort here. It's time to accept the things I cannot change and move on. Paul

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

Does this mean you are now willing to define your terms? You could start with "perspective on perspective(s)." = Mindy Nothing but smiles on my end. We are right back where we started with metacontexts. Defining subjective processes has its difficulties if you want definitions that are grounded in objective experience. We can't step inside someone's introspective world and point to something and say, "This is called a subjective metacontext and it does this." It's the nature of the beast. This doesn't mean there is no introspective landscape, or that we cannot know or communicate anything about it. It just means we have to approach things a little differently if we want to talk about the introspective landscape. The only way to discuss the introspective landscape is for each participant to do their own exploring and identifying, have each paint a (word) picture of what they observed, and have each compare pictures with one another with the intention of trying to interpret and find meaning in the others pictures that match their own observations. This process has to work more like the sharing of art rather than a process of science because there is no actual shared context. In science there is a built in shared context: the objectively observable world. Existentially, there is no shared introspective world. It has to be expressed and objectified artistically first so it can become shared. Only when it is objectified artistically can we begin to identify its elements and seek definitions. Does it make sense to ask an artist to define the meaning of his choice of colour, or the perspective of his work? Will this help you to better understand the meaning of his art? The communication of artistic meaning requires more from the interpreter than the communication of science. It requires everyone to do their own work exploring their own psyche, its contents and its processes. It requires that we each attempt to generate a subjective context equal to the art we are trying to understand. And the meaning we find will equal the meaning we can create. Mindy, I will ask you a simple question: can you make any sense of what I might mean by "perspective of perspectives?" Can you create a context in your head where this makes sense? Can you take the onus of creative interpretation? If you can't, don't just assume that I don't know the meaning of my own words. Consider the possibility that there may be meaning you just don't see yet. It's just like art you don't get. You don't assume the artist doesn't know the meaning of his own work just because you don't understand it. Or do you? Stepping back from a given perspective to generate a more general perspective that includes the original, and other perspectives, is something I do all the time. I know you do as well. As you step back from a given observation your field of view broadens and includes more elements with less detail retained for each element. But if you can recall the detail obtained from closer observation of the various elements while generating a broader view, you can retain a perspective of perspectives, a context that contains other contexts. This is the general idea of perspective of perspectives and can be applied to the extrospective world or the introspective world. DF's comments and Brant's replies above are a great example. They seemed to contradict one another up close. My antenna was alerted because I agreed with elements of both perspectives. I considered that the two views might be paradoxical rather than contradictory: they may be two views of the same reality from different contexts. If so, it's the contexts that are causing the communication problem, not a contradiction in views. I stepped inside each of the views, one at a time. Then I stepped back to see if I could create a context that would find integration between the two views while retaining the knowledge of the details I had uncovered of the two views. I realized that both DF and Brant would actually agree if a more general context were presented, so I presented it. Guess what? I tested my theory and I was right. What could have degenerated into an adversarial flame war (if they each cared enough to fight) quickly came to agreement. This is the power of using perspectives of perspectives. I think this is important. As DF said, he's considered leaving the forum over such misinterpretations. I did leave once partly because of the same thing. I see everyone being frustrated by the same pattern of problems. Michael shows signs of being tired of it. So does Roger. Ellen left over continued misinterpretations and the dynamics that such misinterpretations create. These are all good people with good intentions who's goodwill is being worn thin by intellectual invisibility. Barbara talked some time ago about Objectivist rage. This is one of the elements that contributes to this rage. The art of misinterpretation is part of the Objectivist tool kit. Maintain the intellectual invisibility of your opponent and you win the battle through attrition. There is no need to put any effort into understanding anyone. All you have to do is pay attention long enough to build the straw man that you can easily tear down. All this to maintain the invisibility of someone one treats like an adversary when invisibility can even tear friends apart. Is it any wonder there is so much rage in Objectivism? What is needed as well as an effort at defining terms is an effort at creative interpretation. It requires the exercise of our more empathic skills. Communication should not require that we all think the same way. It just requires that we are trying to describe the same reality. Ultimately, reality is the common context. We need to think like art interpreters rather than like mathematicians when understanding the complexities of someone's subjective context is our goal. This begs the question: s this our goal? Paul

I too have been frustrated by this problem. I think we all are. We try to present an idea that is clear in our own minds only to have it radically misinterpreted because others are applying a different subjective framework in their interpretations. The ideas become invisible and everything becomes a matter of arguing over definitions, meanings and which position is right. I don't think the disagreeableness is intentional, at least not in most cases. I actually believe that all the people I choose to interact with here have good intentions and a desire to understand. It's just that paradoxical lenses produce contradictory conclusions. If we can't step back from the particular lens we are using to process the information, all we see is an adversarial position. We don't come to see that each person's larger perspective is usually in agreement at a deeper level of understanding. I tend to look through a lens of what is possible or potential within the context of what is actual. Since I have a basic sense that existence is good, I tend toward optimistic realism. I think we are starting to close in on a fundamental human problem here. No matter how frustrating this is, it is not a waste of time. Clarity and precision of communication is fundamental to so much in life. When you don't have it, it stops the flow of information and causes the breakdown of relationships that otherwise are based in goodwill. Personally, I think the ability to be able to shift perspectives is of vital importance. The ability to stand back and generate a perspective of perspective, that separates one's ego from any particular position so all sides can be evaluated without bias, is key to solving these issues. Hopefully, the good people here on OL can work through these issues. It would be a major breakthrough. Correction noted. Thanks. You didn't get them all...

This is the root of so many evils. Hitler's power was based on this root of cheap words expressing fantasy in the guise of facts. His cheap words were not taken to task clearly enough to expose their cheapness and evil. If the underlying meaning of his words were exposed for all to see, people would have stopped him. People were seduced by their ego inflating, self-glorifying misinterpretations of reality which were captured in words. Paul

No, that's not what I'm saying. There are heroes in reality and they deserve our praise. And that's the point: they were a small minority. Do we belong to that minority? I think that's hard to say as long as we aren't put to the test. Therefore I think we should be a bit careful when we condemn people for their behavior in such difficult circumstances. It's easy to say that we'd do better, but words are cheap. What tests do you think we haven't been put to, DF? I'm 64 years old. If words are cheap, what value should we give to yours? Generally, in reality, the younger you are the cheaper your words because the young have to substitute imagination for experience. But then, should we really call their words "cheap"? That's their only coin paying their fare and paving their way to possible heroism. They imagine what they'd do, then (some of them) do end up doing it. Walter Mitty is completely under-rated and denigrated. "Words are cheap" are cheap words used to keep Walter bottled up inside his head with his you-know-what cut off. "Words are cheap" is a logical fallacy. It's a way of saying everything is refuted both because of and by words. It's splitting the mind from reality. "Words are cheap" is like saying "human life is futile." Give up. We don't tell Chimps "words are cheap." Or our dogs. So why tell people? Words are precious. Words are diamonds. --Brant Brant, great post! Words are precious! The only thing is, I think you are talking at crossed meanings to DF. When we don't find a common context for our words their value becomes that of Monopoly money. Or more precisely, the value of words is lost because there are two different currencies with no way to establish an exchange rate. There are many ways in which words are cheap. When words are used for lies, deception and fraud, they are cheap. When words are used for rationalization of our wishes, they are cheap. When words are used as absolute pronouncements about realities we cannot fully imagine, they are cheap. Given the context of everything I know, I would not behave as Speers did in any reality I can imagine. At least I wouldn't have been able to maintain it and grow into it. This is a fact. To say I would never have behaved as Speers did is pure speculation. It is fantasy posing as fact. Words used to express fantasy in the guise of fact are cheap. I think this is what DF was meaning and I don't think you would disagree. Words are currency and rotten words drive out good ones, just as rotten money drives out good. A reputation of integrity is necessary for any currency to have value. When words don't express our meaning with some standard of good precision, they lose value. When words do not have the same meaning, when they are not used from a common subjective context, they lose meaning. Your exchange with DF is based on misinterpretation. Intended meanings were not exchanged. In this context your words were cheap. In a more general context your post was excellent. And people keep telling me I don't know the meaning of my words! B) Paul PS-- There are other posts from earlier in this thread that I want to respond to (especially from Barbara and Mindy) but what I want to say requires a little creativity and I don't have the time to be creative on OL right now. I'm involved in a project that's taking all of my resources: time, attention, creativity, etc. It will be temporary. (Edit for typos)

I'm not worried about that because her parents are her primary educators. We will help her to see the nature of the choices she has to make. Altruism is only one of the choices. She has to see it for what it is along side other options and make her own judgements. Our job is to help her to see her options for what they are. There will be no indoctrination from the school or from us. We are teaching her and her brother how to see, think about and judge things for themselves. Independent critical thinking and a healthy self-esteem are the immune system of consciousness. We should not let altruism have a monopoly on kindness and empathy. This is why these values must be integrated into a more complete system. If Objectivism is an open system, then maybe it can evolve into that complete system. If it is not, then Objectivism will eventually be left behind. Paul

I should break down how my thoughts are coming together a little more. I can see the following as part of Objectivism, even without going beyond Rand's work (whether or not it was truly actualized in her spirit): However, I have a hard time placing "I am sensitive to people's feelings" within the theory and practice of Objectivism. That is unless we are to say that it is enough to be sensitive about other people's feelings about ourselves. I have definitely seen this manifest itself in Objectivists, with its corresponding tendency to trigger Objectivist rage. Sensitivity to other people's feelings, and empathy in its larger context, is not part of the O'ist head-space. It is not part of O'ist epistemology and so ends up not being any part of its metaphysics, ethics, politics or aesthetics. In fact, empathy, and the capacity to generate an empathic perspective, is not integrated into O'ism. If it is integrated into an Objectivist's life, it is by the individual embracing more than O'ism. I have said before that empathy, as a means of generating a perspective and a part of one's epistemology, has been thrown out with the social metaphysical bathwater. Paul

This morning I watched proudly as my 6 year old daughter received an award at school. Truth is, my pride had little to do with the award. It had everything to do with seeing how she conducted herself in the world where she is separate from her parents. She interacted with the teachers and other children with independence, confidence, and a truly sparkling spirit. One of the greatest experiences in life is when your child spots you across a crowded auditorium and beams with the most infectious smile and eyes filled with happiness. It tells you in an instant that you are doing something right. Her award was for kindness. On the program it describes award recipients as embodying the following spirit: "I am sensitive to people's feelings. I help others in need. I am never mean or hurtful with my actions or words. I am charitable." Personally, I think these are great qualities to develop. I believe it would be a mistake for someone to hold these qualities at the exclusion of other qualities such as self-assertiveness, self-confidence, independence, productiveness, etc. These qualities of kindness should not define a person or a moral code but they should be included. My question is: Are these qualities of kindness included in Objectivism? Or does Objectivism tend to polarize itself from such qualities or ignore their value? Paul

I have a rule or a standard of sorts. If you can't explain something to your grandmother, than either you don't understand it yourself, or you are not using language properly. Call this the Grandma Rule, if you will. Ba'al Chatzaf Grandma might be deaf! Sure, Paul, blame it on Gramdma. = Mindy I love Grandma but, between her deafness and her advancing dementia, I don't expect her to understand me. Now, explaining things to a child is different. My children don't have deafness or dementia, but I still have trouble explaining certain concepts. Just because I have difficulty explaining the nature and difference of the concepts of epistemology and metaphysics to an 8 year old, this doesn't mean I don't understand them. It can mean he is not yet ready to create the context necessary to build his own picture of what I am talking about. Sometimes the problems with communication are on the side of the receiver, even if the experienced challenge and frustration are on both ends. Paul

This is simply wrong, GS. We can, for instance, begin with ostensive definitions. By the way, here is an "absolute" you might like to try to challenge: Whatever moves occupies space. = Mindy I can imagine a Caddy moving and hitting a deer or a dear. I don't think this visualization occupies space even if I believe the physiological entities and processes that I imagine to underly it do occupy space. It is important to consider the fact that we must judge the difference between dreams, imaginings, delusions and perceptions. What is real is not epistemically given. Consider the primitive views of reality that our culture has evolved from. Consider where we have come from since Plato postulated his Forms. Definitions and meanings must start with a subjective context and are relative to this context. Absolutes in our views of reality are a matter of judgement and can only exist in a specified subjective context. Any subjective context is of course relative to the accepted paradigm: "A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them." (Dictionary.com) Change the context and you change the meaning and definition of words. What is absolute in one epistemic context is not in another. We just assume some contexts are paradigms. We assume they are, or should be, dominant and common to all observers. Believing this is so doesn't make it so. Paul (edited for typos)

I have a rule or a standard of sorts. If you can't explain something to your grandmother, than either you don't understand it yourself, or you are not using language properly. Call this the Grandma Rule, if you will. Ba'al Chatzaf Grandma might be deaf!

My dispute would be that such a thing does not exist I think the question is: Is this common standard absolute or relative to some given frame of reference? If the standard of objective communication is relative to a given frame of reference, then communication is interrupted if people are using different frames of reference or different paradigms of thought. This scenario would predict that some people would interpret meanings as intended and some would not. In my opinion, this is what is happening here. Generally speaking "a common standard for objective communication" can be found within a dominant paradigm of thought (paradigm: A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline. Dictionary.com). If someone finds the existing paradigm unsatisfactory for integrating the observed facts into a cohesive view of reality, then stepping outside this paradigm requires finding new ways of thinking and talking about things; images are connected in new ways, new contexts are created, and words must take on new meanings to fit the new contexts. These new meanings cannot be understood from within the conceptual framework of existing paradigms. The meaning of words from one subjective context, or frame of reference, cannot be understood from the position of another context. If attempted, the words make no sense. Imagine trying to understand the meaning modern physics holds for the words "particle" and "wave" from the perspective of a classical physics paradigm. The classical physicist might say, "the words used to describe quantum events are 'nearly incomprehensible, confusing, verbose, and literally a waste of time to consider.'" Lessons on communication would be inappropriate. They miss the mark. The solution is not to teach/preach someone the "right" meanings of words. The solution is to adjust one's context to fit the meaning. When I write, because I am simply trying to paint a picture with words, I am using words more as an artist's medium than a scientist's language. If you don't like my art, if my words have no meaning to you, so be it. I painted my picture. The words capture my meaning in the idiosyncratic language of this particular artist. If you don't like it, if you don't get it, fine. I didn't paint it for you. But don't try to tell me I don't know what my words mean just because you don't know what my words mean. The images and the words have meaning. As time moves forward and I can turn back to my own art, I will start to differentiate the elements of it and put it into language that is more consistent with, but defines the distinctions from, existing paradigms. I will start to put it into language that explains the transition between existing paradigms and what has shaped my art. Metaphysics starts as models of existence visualized in the imagination. Different forms of art are different ways of expressing this metaphysical vision. Rand expressed her metaphysical vision through fiction writing. I'm expressing mine through my own idiosyncratic word paintings. It is only after first expressing one's metaphysical vision through some form of art that one can begin to isolate, identify, and categorize its element in systematic philosophical (academic) form. Metaphysics has an evolution: first, you have to express your vision; second, you go through a cyclical process of expansion, refinement and further artistic expression to make it evolve; finally, you systematically identify its elements for academic discourse by differentiating the existents contained in the vision. (Mindy, sorry you don't understand. I'm at stage 2 and just starting to see the path to stage 3.) At the end of the day if you like my art, that's great. If you don't, I accept that. Insightful feedback from people who do get it helps it evolve. Feedback from people who don't get it has no meaning. But the primary reason to produce art is to express and objectify one's metaphysical vision so one can expand and refine this vision. This is all I am doing for now. My desire to read more and approach my ideas more academically is an expression of my desire to start stage three. btw--Mindy, your précis (post #391) of what I wrote is missing details I included. Unless I am mistaken, the following is not part of coherence theory: This goes further than coherence theory to suggest that mathematics is founded in a specific type of metaphysical vision, created in the imagination, which evolves and is expressed according to the 3 stages of metaphysical development I described above. Generally, academic learning only focuses on acquiring stage 3 information: the transfer of systematically identified elements which differentiate the existents contained in a metaphysical vision. Academic teaching does not communicate the contextual roots of conceptual systems of thought. This might be why you cannot understand me. You weren't taught to. I would suggest you missed my meaning again because you are trying to evaluate my words from the dominant paradigms you have been taught. I don't care to confine my understanding and expression to these paradigms. I would find it boring. It would be paint by numbers. I like to invent; there would be no invention. I like to seek the possible and the potential; it would only be what already exists. I like the freedom to create; it would put me in a straight jacket. No, I'll stick to my creative and idiosyncratic use of language until I am ready to move on to more systematic descriptions of my art. Paul

I really don't think you do know where I am coming from. Your responses don't align at all with my intended meanings. I know. I intended them. I have no desire for further effort. It really isn't worth it. Paul

Thanks Stephen. Your guidance is always welcome. I tend to read to help push the envelope of my own evolving philosophy. I'm sensing a hunger that is going to have me reading in a lot of new directions over the next few years. Popper and Kuhn are high on the list. The insights I have gained on OL are helping to guide what I will be reading. Paul

Funny, I posted this morning without reading all this. Now I'm catching up I find myself thinking, "What a waste of energy, time and intelligence." But maybe I'm wrong. I'm not so deluded to think my opinion carries much weight here but here's a couple of thoughts: 2. Michael is not a dummy. Ellen, you are wrong about Michael for the same reason you were wrong about what I was saying previously. There is more than one epistemic method at work here. You seem to be blind to Michael's, just like you seemed to blind to what I was trying to communicate. Michael is not a dummy and I was not being accusatory. It was an epistemic approach that goes from experience, to intuitive model building, to expressing it for the purpose of reality testing. It is not being dumb. It is a means to increasing knowledge through creative model building and error elimination. It is not the academic method of studying the wisdom of those who shaped a given field, and grounding it in one's personal rational framework. However, it is the essence of the creative method that generates such models as those that become wisdom and is studied academically. I am not saying that Michael or I are the bearers of great wisdom everyone should study. I am just saying we operate by the same epistemic method that generates new, often strange and even naive, ways of looking at things. A lot of wrong starts are required before you get it right. It is reinventing the wheel for the sake of learning how to invent wheels. Kuhn talks about revolutionary science being when anomalous results build up and new ways of integrating the evidence are generated that create perspectives that step outside of existing paradigms. This requires a different empistemic method than the standard academic method of learning the wisdom of those who know better. It is a method that asks: how can we create something that fits the existing and new anomalous facts? Michael and I seem to be very skewed toward this creative, think outside of the box approach. It is fundamentally resistant to learning the received wisdom in conventional academic fashion. Look throughout history, many who were radicals in science had some difficulty with authority, the establishment and the existing paradigm as taught. Problems with authority, the establishment, and existing paradigms, that's me. 2. I don't think Ellen is trying to run me or GS off this forum. This doesn't fit my sense of her character any more than "dummy" fits my sense of Michael's character. I wouldn't be surprised if Ellen thinks we are misspending what intelligence we have. And there is no doubt that she finds us frustrating to try to understand. But this speaks to me of her attempts to understand, not of her attempts to run us out. Ellen is one of the reasons I first came to OL. She was a sign this was a good place. I am attracted to her writing partly because it is not like mine. She is very well read, very structured, and presents a very strong account that reflects extensions of existing paradigms. On the other hand I have also picked up sparks here and there of where she can step outside of existing paradigms and think on the edge of visualization. Here is a post Ellen made over 2 years ago that has stuck in my mind as being an anomaly in her online character ever since: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...post&p=4356 While I enjoy reading Ellen's posts in general, its this side that I find most interesting. It's a step out on the wild side, outside of the regular structured thinking and existing paradigms, that sparks my interest most. It seems to be this side that occasionally gets what I am talking about in my "jargon." I pay attention to characters. It's like reading a novel. I take the information at hand and try to piece together a picture of who people are. This becomes part of my judgement when I assess what someone is talking about. It becomes part of my understanding of their context. Ellen is no bully. Nor is Michael a dummy. You both just need new lenses. Paul PS-- Ellen, I notice when you express your visual images in words, you use a lot more words than otherwise. So do I.

Ba'al's modification is a more precise statement of the condition of knowledge about anything that is judged to exist separate to our consciousness of it. We can have mathematical knowledge without empirical corroboration. Although there is a type of corroboration involved in mathematics, it is not empirical. It is corroboration with a reality created in the imagination that is formed from very specific principles. I would suggest that metaphysics is ideally a combination of both types of thinking, and both types of corroboration, if it is to be about anything real. Paul

Ellen, I saw it. My post #302, was not addressed to you, but this one is. It was a response to the perspectives, positions, and ideas that are emerging from this thread in general. I get that you are not interested any more. So be it. The subject is still interesting in its own right, with or without your continued participation. I tend to look at the ideas as being something separate to the individuals who hold them. The ideas have their own existence once they are expressed. In this way ideas about the world are no different than mathematical concepts. The separation of the ideas from the individual who expresses them is why there is no accusation in my posts. This is why I can talk about your ideas without addressing my response to you. This is why I am not offended by your misinterpretation of my position. I am just frustrated because I can't get my ideas across without distortion. I am not offended by the view of my position that is implicit in your posts because it is just that, a view of my position. I, and Michael it seems, understand how mistaken it is. Paul

Something I found interesting given my difficulties on this thread (from Wiki): I see parallels here. Paul

I was reading a little on Thomas Kuhn's structure of scientific revolutions. What is a paradigm shift? Is it a shift in the metaphysical context from which we do science? And could we call a scientific paradigm an objective metaphysics? Early reading, early questions. Paul

Misinterpretation is an art form. Paul

Here is Michael's post with GS references removed. It is an interesting subject in its own right. It's unfortunate that discussing it seems to be out of bounds. From where I stand the flow of this discussion is evidence of my point: judging someone's perspective, only on its external features judged from a contrary perspective without understanding how that someone's perspective was formed, necessarily leads to misinterpretation. Understanding a person is no different, in principle, from understanding any entity. We can't understand what it does until we fully understand the processes that determine its identity and behaviour. Whether we are trying to understand the nature of an atom, a star, an amoeba, or a human brain, we cannot claim to understand why a thing behaves as it does until we understand the processes/principles that shape its nature and actions. Why should understanding someone's verbal expressions be different? We would not say categorizing an atom's properties from an external perspective only (i.e.: not considering its internal processes as was done by speculative philosophical means prior to the emergence of the scientific method) is enough to identify it and meet the requirements of understanding. Why would we use less of a standard for understanding each other? The first step to understanding anything is admitting we don't understand it. Assuming that speculative categorization of a thing or person's properties qualifies as understanding is a mistake. A method of observation, generating hypotheses about the processes that give rise to those observations, and reality testing those hypotheses is necessary for generating understanding. When talking about understanding another person, if that person says you have misinterpreted, your hypothesis is falsified so, if you trust their intelligence, judgement and honesty, reevaluate. Continuing to blast them with accusations does nothing to improve understanding and communication. Incidentally, if the same principle was applied to metaphysical modeling, there would be far less frustration on the part of scientists with those who like to think metaphysically. It would be the epistemic foundation of an objective metaphysics. Paul