An "Egg" Asks: The place of compacts in Objectivism

[IamBalSimon]

In the few other posts I have made so far, I have called myself an "egg." This is an homage to Robert Heinlein's Valentine Michael Smith in his Stranger in a Strange Land. The basic idea is that I acknowledge knowing little or nothing about the formalisms of Objectivist Living and so approach this forum as one seeking information.

As a clarification: I am very adept in "balsimonism." I am undoubtedly the leading expert on this subject (except for my wife, who sometimes gets me to acknowledge that I may not even know much about that!)

One of the things I have seen so far in the OL forums are discussions about the trading of values. (I think I got the terminology right.) This being where people, through mutual respect, trade not merely the material but also what would be called the spiritual, emotional, etc. with coins of the realm which are not necessarily money. Since, outside of money, I know of no "unit" analogous to, say the dollar or a penny, I have no idea how we create an "exchange rate" for such things as love, respect, fear, anger, appropriateness, sacrament, etc. The word "enough" also would seem to figure in with the notion of a "trade." With money, I know how much is enough because the price is stated. With love? How much is enough to garner love in return? If the person you love and to whom you show respect doesn't love you back, I guess that's like going to a store and the shop keeper telling you that all the current supplies are dedicated to someone else, even if that someone else is not yet known.

Try as I may, I don't see an easy way to figure in the notion of a "trade" when it comes to these, mmm, intangibles. I'd appreciate some clarification in this.

Outside of Objectivist language, I would say that the notion of a "trade" is an approximation at best. A possible narration that I would use is that we create societal "compacts" with one another. Some (many?) compacts are quite loose and somewhat vague. They include things like "most people not cutting in a line." If one person cuts in front, we (OK - I) consider it an aberration; annoying but no big deal. If a few people do it in different venues, I start detecting a pattern, and the strength of the compact begins to weaken. If enough people start cutting up the line, then the compact agreement of "a line" dissolves and chaos begins, waiting for a the compact to either be re-instated if enough people dislike the negative consequences or for a new pattern (compact) to arise.

I have recently read a few news articles about one such possible dissolving: with the rising price of gas, some people are breaking gas tanks and siphoning gasoline. This breaks the compact of being able to trust each other to respect private property. So far, these seem to be rarely occurring events, and thus not a big deal. But they could become a big deal if enough people start doing it and/or retaliating, etc.

It seems to me that any civilized society which does not operate through the power of brute force must have these mostly unconscious, social level agreements. Being unconscious of the patterns, I just learn "what was proper." When I think about them, only then do I have a "choice" to assent or say no. Yet on the relatively few occasions where I have become conscious of one of these agreements, by and large, I have agreed to continue with them. This gives me some faith in the overall largely unconscious processes by which human beings create their agreements that underlie civilizations and cultures.

How does Objectivist literature deal with this?

- Bal

[syrakusos]

... about the trading of values. ... with coins of the realm which are not necessarily money. ... how we create an "exchange rate" for such things as love, respect, fear, anger, appropriateness, sacrament, etc.

It is qualitative and exists in context. The correlatives and superlatives - more, less, most, least - can apply. Of all the regulars, I "like" Selene the "most." For as little as we have had to do with each other over the years, I generally find myself in agreement emotionally with his posts, even if I disagree with his claims or conclusions. Alternately, I "like" Baal Chaztoff (Bob Kolker) "less" even though I might agree with something specific. But I do like him. And I am cognizant of the fact that it is not "Robert Kolker" in the flesh with whom I am interacting, but with his online persona. I perceive Jeff Riggenbach as a bully. I just came today from representing a law enforcement group at a "cyber-bullying" presentation to teenagers and everything we warned them about applies to Jeff Riggenbach. There were many times when I wanted to stop the show and say, "I know this professor..." But what he is like in real life, I have no idea.

... If the person you love and to whom you show respect doesn't love you back, I guess that's like ...

Unrequited love is hard, but it important to be specific. You can be totally wrong about someone or wrong for them. Usually, though, that does not happen in the real world with adults. (Pride and Prejudice is a story all about that, of course.) Knowing who you are, and being able to understand others is an aspect of maturity. It comes with time if nothing else. Given that you are on a one-way street, the egocentric view is that you like this person for whatever reasons and that cannot change regardless of their reflection or lack of it because that liking originates within you. You like them because you like yourself. What they do is not largely relevant, though clearly, their liking you back is the better outcome.

...we create societal "compacts" with one another. ... "most people not cutting in a line." ... people are breaking gas tanks and siphoning gasoline. This breaks the compact ...

Over a hundred years ago William Graham Sumner wrote about folkways, mores, and laws. Not cutting in line is a folkway here - elsewhere on Earth, it is not. Siphoning gasoline is way beyond folkways and into laws. (Mores are more stringent than folkways, but not codified as laws. Even though some states have laws against men dressing like women, even there, a police officer facing a woman in a pantsuit standing next to a man in a dress would have to think this through. Like a pizza pie, that's a more.)

... any civilized society ... must have these mostly unconscious, social level agreements.

All societies have them, barbarian and civilized alike. They are what makes society. There may be more freedom in Hong Kong than in the USA, but people still want to come here, not there, because it has little to do with the laws and a lot to do with the implicit culture.

How does Objectivist literature deal with this?

Hardly at all, if at all... Objectivism is an egocentric philosophy. Beyond you, what counts is political rights, which are very formal. There is some of this, though, in how Ayn Rand portrayed some of the minor engagements in her novels. The friendship between construction worker Mike Donnigan and architect Howard Roark is based on an implicitly shared value for good workmanship.

In real life, I, too, respect competence, regardless of the nominally espoused credo of the other person. And it cuts both ways. I don't care who is a libertarian or communist if they seem aware and interested and interesting. In fact, I have goteen along best with classmates who can argue against me at my level, though I have gotten along famously (or infamously from the professor's point of view) with another who shared my worldview.

The easy answer: it depends.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[Rich Engle]

"Intangibles" are often of much greater worth than tangibles (cash).

Just read your Papa Heinlein and he will explain it better than I can.

Best,

rde

[IamBalSimon]

"Intangibles" are often of much greater worth than tangibles (cash).

Just read your Papa Heinlein and he will explain it better than I can.

Best,

rde

Rich - I fully agree. What I'm looking for isn't affirmation of something I already believe. What I am looking for is the Objectivist treatment of intangibles given the preeminent treatment of the rubric of "trade." It seems to me that in arenas of friendship, love, family, etc., the use of the word "trade" would create a somewhat clumsy narration. My wife smiles in my direction. I like that so I smile back? If she smiles more intensely, Obviously, this is a silly rendering of the concept. Yet it seems that the formulations of Objectivism, insofar as I imperfectly understand them, could lead to just such a result. Either there is more to the notion of "trade" than I currently understand or that word is pretty much useless in such arenas.

I think Heinlein's treatment of love does seem somewhat reasonable, but he didn't codify his views into a formal philosophy like Objectivism.

Thoughts?

- Bal

[IamBalSimon]

Michael,

I wasn't really trying to deal with unrequited love. I was rather dealing with the notion of "trade" in the arena of currently unmeasurable intangibles, like love. But it could just as easily be anger that is explored. If someone sneers in my general direction, what is that sneer's "value?" and what should be my quid pro quo? Sneer back? Turn the other cheek? How does Objectivism deal with these things?

It seems to me that they are dealt with informally in Atlas, but I haven't seen a good formal treatment of how respect *should* manifest. I'm thinking that such intangibles are not suceptible to the machinations of a "trade" except in a metaphorical sense.

- Bal

[anthony]

Hi Bal,

There is an area here that defies codification and prescription, and is up to each person's approach.

However, Objectivism, I'd say, does provide a good part of relating to people, if not all: broadly, - individualism, justice, hierarchy, and consciousness.

The first is acknowledgement of each person, as they come, as a single entity and context. Not making assumptions by groups -race, gender, etc - and assessing his personality, character, and morality. (Morality, being his most consistent explicitly held premises.) It will often happen, as with MEM's example, that one will appreciate a person's character while being opposed to his philosophy, and vice versa.

Justice, gives credit where it is due - and admits that a person is far more than meets the eye. It should prevent any easy and speedy judgment (prejudice) which would be an injustice to the person, and probably untrue. It indicates benefit of the doubt, and benevolence. Only when this has been exhausted, would one withdraw the credit.

Hierarchy, the eventual 'placing' of another person in your esteem-structure, based on long experience, thoughts and emotions about him - his objective value, and the value you find in him.

Consciousness, and not denying what we know to be true, is the commonality through all this.

Laid out like that, it does look like hard work.

It isn't, self-evidently: it's enjoyable as much as it is essential. Other people are rewarding, in the true, and ultimately selfish meaning of the word.

Myself, all the above is precisely how I would want to be treated - not a jot more or less. But the corollary of the Golden Rule ie., "insist on being done by, as you would do", just ain't realistic.

Which means it has been rare that I have experienced complete 'Trade' with another person

(And, I think that conforming to social mores is fine up to a point, until they become irrational and silly.)

Tony

Edited April 27, 2011 by whYNOT

[IamBalSimon]

... individualism, justice, hierarchy, and consciousness.

The first is acknowledgement of each person, as they come, as a single entity and context. Not making assumptions by groups -race, gender, etc - and assessing his personality, character, and morality. (Morality, being his most consistent explicitly held premises.) It will often happen, as with MEM's example, that one will appreciate a person's character while being opposed to his philosophy, and vice versa.

I agree with you for the most part in this. However, in real-life contexts, you may not have access to that person's real morality. You may not have sufficient contact and/or time may be pushing at you with some urgency. There is a reason that "rough neighborhoods" have a reputation for "being" rough. And someone like me takes such reputations quite seriously, fairly or not. And while I might be willing to put myself in harm's way by going into such a neighborhood, you can darn well bet that I will be exceptionally vigilant if I have my wife with me. Additionally, voluntary affiliation with a group does give me a first swack at understanding a person. For instance, if someone is a member of the KKK, I believe that, for the most part, s/he did not join under duress or as a part of an undercover sting. Thus such a person will likely have affinity for the group, and that tells me something - perhaps much. Similarly, if someone is part of a religion and extremists in that religion act heinously (abortion clinic bombs, beheading, stonings, etc.), I would expect the non-extremists in that religion to deny affiliation with the extremists. If they don't, again, that tells me something. In such a case it may be because the non-extremist sympathizes with the extremist or perhaps s/he is afraid that the wrath of the extremist will be directed toward him/her (hir). Either way, I feel quite comfortable in saying that non-extremists who are silent are probably NOT people I would want to deal with.

Justice, gives credit where it is due - and admits that a person is far more than meets the eye. It should prevent any easy and speedy judgment (prejudice) which would be an injustice to the person, and probably untrue. It indicates benefit of the doubt, and benevolence. Only when this has been exhausted, would one withdraw the credit.

I'm not sure of your meaning here, Tony. If someone beats up another person at a McDonald's (as happened this week), and it is caught on video tape so that we have the perp dead to rights, other than exploring for mitigating factors, what else is needed than what meets the eye? If I compose a piece of music, then I guess justice means that I acknowledge the people who influenced me and even more, those who taught be enough so that I can make a go of it.

But I'm thinking I don't have your meaning right. So please elaborate.

Hierarchy, the eventual 'placing' of another person in your esteem-structure, based on long experience, thoughts and emotions about him - his objective value, and the value you find in him.

I have to say that there are times I make a snap judgment about people, and the repeated exposures to that person tend to confirm. Once in awhile, I see that my initial impression (hierarchic positioning?) of that person was mistaken, and adjust accordingly. For example, when I first learned of Bernie Madoff, my initial impression was a swear word that I won't repeat here. It was tentatively held because I do believe in "innocent till proven guilty," and I also believe that the press often enough gets things wrong. So my initial impression could be expressed as, "what a ********* - if it's all true." But the placement was almost immediate, and sad-to-say, I was not mistaken. I often wish that I was mistaken when my assessments about a person are negative, mainly because such assessments do not bring me any pleasure. But the do tend to shield me from future pain. And that provides an understanding of their value.

Consciousness, and not denying what we know to be true, is the commonality through all this.

Quite simply: agreed.

Laid out like that, it does look like hard work.

It isn't, self-evidently: it's enjoyable as much as it is essential. Other people are rewarding, in the true, and ultimately selfish meaning of the word.

Myself, all the above is precisely how I would want to be treated - not a jot more or less. But the corollary of the Golden Rule ie., "insist on being done by, as you would do", just ain't realistic.

Which means it has been rare that I have experienced complete 'Trade' with another person

Your answers to the prior points will help me understand this one. I'll wait for your responses/clarifications.

(And, I think that conforming to social mores is fine up to a point, until they become irrational and silly.)

What's wrong with silly social mores?

- Bal

[Xray]

Michael,

I wasn't really trying to deal with unrequited love. I was rather dealing with the notion of "trade" in the arena of currently unmeasurable intangibles, like love. But it could just as easily be anger that is explored. If someone sneers in my general direction, what is that sneer's "value?" and what should be my quid pro quo? Sneer back? Turn the other cheek? How does Objectivism deal with these things?

It seems to me that they are dealt with informally in Atlas, but I haven't seen a good formal treatment of how respect *should* manifest. I'm thinking that such intangibles are not suceptible to the machinations of a "trade" except in a metaphorical sense.

- Bal

In ITOE, Rand points out that love can be measured too, but imo the "teleological measurement" she presents there is far from convincing.

In addition, in her elaborations on the subject, she lets her personal moral values guide her epistemological argumentation.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

What I am looking for is the Objectivist treatment of intangibles given the preeminent treatment of the rubric of "trade." It seems to me that in arenas of friendship, love, family, etc., the use of the word "trade" would create a somewhat clumsy narration. My wife smiles in my direction. I like that so I smile back? If she smiles more intensely, Obviously, this is a silly rendering of the concept. Yet it seems that the formulations of Objectivism, insofar as I imperfectly understand them, could lead to just such a result. Either there is more to the notion of "trade" than I currently understand or that word is pretty much useless in such arenas.

I think Heinlein's treatment of love does seem somewhat reasonable, but he didn't codify his views into a formal philosophy like Objectivism.

Thoughts?

- Bal

Frankly, I don't know of any philosophy which would work if one tried to apply everything which is postulated in it. While extracting certain elements can work just fine, trying to live it in its totality won't work. That's the reason why I'm an advocate of patchwork philosophy.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Xray

[IamBalSimon]

... that's the reason why I'm an advocate of patchwork philosophy.

I've called it "eclecticism", but I like patchwork philosophy much better. Sounds a lot less pretentious. Well done.

Of course any patchwork philosophy calls into question the area of epistemology because one has to somehow know just which patch to use in a given situation. This seems more of an art (as in the phrase "medical arts") than a philosophical understanding. One feels it in the bones as it were. Sort of imagining a conversation:

Bertie: I think this is the right way to go.

Rutter: But how do you know?

Bertie: I don't know - I just - well - know it, you know?

At some point the conversation stops and you simply have to act.

- Bal

[Selene]

... that's the reason why I'm an advocate of patchwork philosophy.

I've called it "eclecticism", but I like patchwork philosophy much better. Sounds a lot less pretentious. Well done.

Of course any patchwork philosophy calls into question the area of epistemology because one has to somehow know just which patch to use in a given situation. This seems more of an art (as in the phrase "medical arts") than a philosophical understanding. One feels it in the bones as it were. Sort of imagining a conversation:

Bertie: I think this is the right way to go.

Rutter: But how do you know?

Bertie: I don't know - I just - well - know it, you know?

At some point the conversation stops and you simply have to act.

- Bal

Makes sense to me. As SCOTUS pointed out:

The phrase was famously used by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for pornography in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and can therefore be censored. “ I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.] ” — Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers. This expression became "one of the most famous phrases in the entire history" of the Supreme Court.^[1]

Stewart's "I know it when I see it" standard was praised as an example of "candor"^[2] and "realistic and gallant",^[3] though it has been criticized for its lack of concreteness.^[who?]

[Xray]

Of course any patchwork philosophy calls into question the area of epistemology because one has to somehow know just which patch to use in a given situation.

I don't think patchwork philosophy as such calls epistemology into question. But every patchwork philosophy, if it is to work, must of course be subjected to epistemological scrutiny. The proceedings of discovering, in an eclectic, 'patchwork' philosophy, possible inconsistencies, contradictions, unsubstantiated claims having no basis in fact is virtually the same as in examining a non-patchwork philosophy.

This seems more of an art (as in the phrase "medical arts") than a philosophical understanding. One feels it in the bones as it were. Sort of imagining a conversation:

Bertie: I think this is the right way to go.

Rutter: But how do you know?

Bertie: I don't know - I just - well - know it, you know?

At some point the conversation stops and you simply have to act.

This is a dialogue showing that epistemological argumentation is not Bertie's strong suit.

Whereas Rutter gets right down to epistemological business.

What could Bertie have replied instead of the vague "I just - well - know it, you know?"

Let's imagine Bertie is an advocate of the Golden Rule as the basis for an ethics which he thinks is going to work.

For example, he could have replied to Rutter's question "How do you know?":

"I have tried it out", and would thus have established the empirical basis so crucial for discussing epistemological issues.

When someone presents his/her philosophy but is reluctant to have it examined on an epistemological basis, this evasion often indicates that the philosophy does not stand the test.

Scientists present their theories to the scientific community, inviting the theory to be tested; it would be a good idea if philosophers did the same.

The counter-argument that philosophy is not science is not really strong here. Suppose a philosopher makes assertions about e. g the "nature of man", he/she signalizes knowledge of that nature, and as soon as knowledge is claimed, the epistemological question "How do you know?" is warranted.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

... that's the reason why I'm an advocate of patchwork philosophy.

I've called it "eclecticism", but I like patchwork philosophy much better. Sounds a lot less pretentious. Well done.

I don’t like the term “patchwork”, it implies being aware and accepting of your own lack of integration. What I think you’re rejecting is what I’ll call guru-ism, that is, swallowing another thinker’s system whole.

Who's Rutter? If you're going to name a character Bertie, you may as well name the sidekick Jeeves.

[IamBalSimon]

Doctor!

I've waited so long for the Blue Box to come into my life! How good to at least be able to write to you. How's Rose?

I don’t like the term “patchwork”, it implies being aware and accepting of your own lack of integration. What I think you’re rejecting is what I’ll call guru-ism, that is, swallowing another thinker’s system whole.

Yes and no. I am aware of my own lack of integration. And I do accept it as current status; not as the ideal situation. I am just an egg, and I'm OK with that. I'd love to be a bit more hatched (my wife tells me that I'm very hatched - but she means it differently; at least I think she does). There exist data that I can't process very well into my overall viewpoint. For example: One of my tenets is that Nature follows the past of least resistance. In nature, water flows down a hill, not up it. Fire oxidizes and you can't unburn a tree. But the question emerges: wouldn't it have been simpler - less resistance - for there to be no universe at all? I have trouble understanding a situation where the universe always existed. I have equal difficulty understanding a situation where it did not. So I find myself going toward what I call "questionism" - which is a willingness to acknowledge that I don't know; that I don't currently have the means to find out; and that I should stop and "be OK" with the question remaining open - with my philosophy being less than fully integrated.

And yes, of course, I don't like guru-ism. Something stands or falls on the merits; ideally, it shouldn't matter who the personality is behind it. This isn't always true, of course, but in terms of guru-ism, I think it nearly always is. Additionally, in any philosophy more than a couple pages long, my pitiful brain can't fully integrate another person's whole philosophy wholesale. I have to do a lot of "retail processing" in the course of just living my life to understand it in the first place (if I want to) and then to adopt-modify-adapt or decline-reject the viewpoint.

Who's Rutter? If you're going to name a character Bertie, you may as well name the sidekick Jeeves.

Nah - just names I pulled out of a hat. Mabye my mind had some kind of subconscious throwback to a reference, but that was not my intent. Just wanted to create characters for the post.

Also - the dialogue was very short because I am well aware of how long my posts can be as I try to articulate my understandings.

- Bal

Edited April 30, 2011 by IamBalSimon

[Xray]

I don’t like the term “patchwork”, it implies being aware and accepting of your own lack of integration. What I think you’re rejecting is what I’ll call guru-ism, that is, swallowing another thinker’s system whole.

Yes and no. I am aware of my own lack of integration. And I do accept it as current status; not as the ideal situation.

<....>

And yes, of course, I don't like guru-ism. Something stands or falls on the merits; ideally, it shouldn't matter who the personality is behind it. This isn't always true, of course, but in terms of guru-ism, I think it nearly always is.

As for me, I don't connote 'lack of integration' with patchwork, for when you think of a patchwork quilt, it is an integrated whole composed of different elements:

Example:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blog.craftzine.com/RIckRackBlock.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://blog.craftzine.com/archive/2008/08/how_to_rickrack_patchwork_quil.html&usg=__3C5deKVAWia62VlR8ntkN1p8GNs=&h=375&w=500&sz=218&hl=de&start=25&zoom=1&tbnid=JC12JTlYycijmM:&tbnh=151&tbnw=198&ei=ASi9Tc2tNMvtsgbC9ZWHBg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpatchwork%2Bquilt%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DH2m%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:de:official%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D832%26tbm%3Disch0%2C876&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=835&page=2&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:25&tx=75&ty=68&biw=1280&bih=832

But patchworking also connotes 'work in progress', so the philosophical quilt is continually being worked on.

So while it may never be finished, the effort to integrate the elements is defitinely there.

As for the 'rejecting guru-ism' issue, practicing patchwork philosophy can indeed be pretty resistent to guru-ism because the focus is on working out one's own philosophy.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

There exist data that I can't process very well into my overall viewpoint. For example: One of my tenets is that Nature follows the past of least resistance. In nature, water flows down a hill, not up it. Fire oxidizes and you can't unburn a tree.

Bal,

Your first example is connected to the law of gravity, the second to the irreversibility of certain natural porceses. I'm not sure whether characterizing nature as following the path of least resistance applies to all natural processes though. Just think for example under what adverse conditions certain plants will still grow, and how extremely resistant viruses can be toward our endeavours to exterminate them.

What one can observe in nature is permanent transformation and change. There is no such thng as standstill; one could call it the "Nature in Motion and Transformation" principle. There exists the Latin saying 'vita in motu', but the motion and transformation principle extends far beyond manifestations of life. It comprises everything there is in the cosmos, and we as part of the cosmos undergo the same process.

For me, the philosophical implication of the NMT principle is that closed philosophical systems cannot survive because they go against this principle. On an empirical basis, there exists ample evidence to support my statement on that with concrete examples.

(I'm no Objectivist but have always thought that the term "Objectivism" is an excellent name for a philosophy because it stresses the importance to base one's theory on established knowledge, thus firmly planting it on an epistemological basis).

Sure there have been attempts to enforce closed thought systems on the human mind, but without pressure, all these systems would have undergone natural change. Even with pressure exerted, those systems have begun to crumble and ultimately perished, Marxism being a classic example.

If closed philosophical systems are based on false premises and are enforced by individuals in positions of power others, the effects are especially devastating. They are devastating for those who are indoctrinated by it, but in the long run, also devastating for the grailkeepers of alleged "eternal truths". For they will ulitmately, without realizing it, contribute to that which they wanted to avoid at all costs: the demise of the system they so fiercely wanted to protect against those who they think have e. g. the "false consciousness" (a popular Marxist verdict against non-Marxists).

For in closed systems based on false premises, there is no place to productively build in criticism of those premises. Therefore it cannot happen that e. g. a Marxist would suddenly inform the public that he has come to the conclusion that Communism's premises are false because the one-sided placing of the collective over the individual goes against human nature.

Since the whole system is based on this false premise, the only rational solution is to abolish it. In short, the Marxist can abolish his own political identity together with the ideology.

This is why the advocates of closed systems are so hostile to criticism, whether it comes from the outside or from their own inner circle. Critics from the inner circle are often ostracized and expelled, sometimes they abandon the philosophy/ideology altogether and only then, afterward, do they often go public and bitterly complain about what really went on behind the scenes. But this is after they are no longer Marixsts, Catholics, etc.

Sometimes schisms happen. I don't know enough yet about the details of the Peikoff-Kelley split; it looks like David Kelley wanted to open up Objectivism more, but Peikoff (a classic 'closed-system-advocate') was vehemently against it.

I have often asked myself what would have happened to Objectivism without a 'chief ideologue' like Peikoff at the top. Going by my own NMT-premise, Objectivism would necessarily have evolved due to a natural transformation process.

But the question emerges: wouldn't it have been simpler - less resistance - for there to be no universe at all?

The 'less resistance' premise might be wrong; maybe if Ba'al Chatzaf (a mathematician) or Ellen Stuttle (whose husband is a physicist, I think) read this, they could help us here.

I have trouble understanding a situation where the universe always existed. I have equal difficulty understanding a situation where it did not.

I don't think the human mind can grasp the idea of 'infinity'. As finite beings equipped for survival in finite surroundings, this seems to be beyond our mental capability.

So I find myself going toward what I call "questionism" - which is a willingness to acknowledge that I don't know; that I don't currently have the means to find out; and that I should stop and "be OK" with the question remaining open - with my philosophy being less than fully integrated.

Well put, Bal. We don't have answers to so many questions, and your attitude is a philosophical position as well. It shields you from hybris, which can often be observed in those who think they already have all the answers.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Xray

[IamBalSimon]

I don’t like the term “patchwork”, it implies being aware and accepting of your own lack of integration. What I think you’re rejecting is what I’ll call guru-ism, that is, swallowing another thinker’s system whole.

Yes and no. I am aware of my own lack of integration. And I do accept it as current status; not as the ideal situation.

<....>

And yes, of course, I don't like guru-ism. Something stands or falls on the merits; ideally, it shouldn't matter who the personality is behind it. This isn't always true, of course, but in terms of guru-ism, I think it nearly always is.

As for me, I don't connote 'lack of integration' with patchwork, for when you think of a patchwork quilt, it is an integrated whole composed of different elements:

Example:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blog.craftzine.com/RIckRackBlock.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://blog.craftzine.com/archive/2008/08/how_to_rickrack_patchwork_quil.html&usg=__3C5deKVAWia62VlR8ntkN1p8GNs=&h=375&w=500&sz=218&hl=de&start=25&zoom=1&tbnid=JC12JTlYycijmM:&tbnh=151&tbnw=198&ei=ASi9Tc2tNMvtsgbC9ZWHBg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpatchwork%2Bquilt%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DH2m%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:de:official%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D832%26tbm%3Disch0%2C876&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=835&page=2&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:25&tx=75&ty=68&biw=1280&bih=832

But patchworking also connotes 'work in progress', so the philosophical quilt is continually being worked on.

So while it may never be finished, the effort to integrate the elements is defitinely there.

As for the 'rejecting guru-ism' issue, practicing patchwork philosophy can indeed be pretty resistent to guru-ism because the focus is on working out one's own philosophy.

That was very good - you get very close to my meanings here! Your articulation of this is much appreciated.

- Bal

[9thdoctor]

How's Rose?

She’s off in a parallel universe popping out babies, portraying a call girl, and managing to not turn into a Flemish Madonna.

There exist data that I can't process very well into my overall viewpoint. For example: One of my tenets is that Nature follows the past of least resistance.

A contrasting image is Richard Dawkins’ “climbing mount improbable” to describe evolution by natural selection. Isn’t the path of least resistance for life to remain microbial, or, for that matter, to not arise at all? This called to mind something he said about “why” questions, this clip isn’t exactly the one I’m thinking of, but it’s pretty close:

There are issues like abiogenesis and how (never mind why) did the universe “begin” that may never be answered, likely not in our lifetimes in any event. Does this rule out developing an integrated philosophy? Usually this kind of thing comes up in the context of a god discussion, as in: since you don't have all the answers you must believe in god. Oh brother.

As for me, I don't connote 'lack of integration' with patchwork, for when you think of a patchwork quilt, it is an integrated whole composed of different elements:

Very well, your interpretation of the image is different, there’s little point belaboring it. When I pictured a patchwork, my thinking was of the possiblility that one patch will clash with the others.

[IamBalSimon]

There exist data that I can't process very well into my overall viewpoint. For example: One of my tenets is that Nature follows the past of least resistance.

I watched the video, and I have to say that Dawkins comes off kind of Prichettesque, as in Dr. Prichett at the party in Chapter 4 of Atlas. I'm not saying that Dawkins is or isn't correct. I'm saying he has the same smarmy attitude of Dr. Pritchett, an attitude that makes me want to push him into the shallow end of a pool and maybe soak his money. What a pompous windbag Dawkins seemed to me!

Mount Improbable - well there are lots of things that are improbable. And I dare say that "why" questions (even if Dawkins thinks them meaningless) have led to scientific inquiries that might otherwise not have been made.

But since the man is not here to defend himself, and since I'm probably not even "worthy of a flea's fart" to someone in his vaunted position, let's leave him at the side of our road and just continue the discussion directly.

There are issues like abiogenesis and how (never mind why) did the universe “begin” that may never be answered, likely not in our lifetimes in any event. Does this rule out developing an integrated philosophy?

I would differentiate the questions about abiogenesis from that of "why is there anything at all?".

I would say that "how" questions - and abiogenesis is almost certainly of that type - are almost always within the purview of science. If a process happens in Nature, it ought to be describable and perhaps even capable of simulation with some degree of accuracy and justified confidence. We describe hurricanes, but not yet with sufficient precision to see where they start "at the butterfly level" so that we can rather easily stop them before they start.

The why is there a universe at all question seems to me a different kind of animal. When I ask it, I am suggesting a source of wonder that is currently incapable of being rendered mundane by our scientific knowledge. When I ask this question, I am not suggesting that there is a God. That would simply push things back to the question, why is there a God? Wouldn't it have been simpler if there was nothing at all?

Maybe this is indicative of a mental disease on my part. But I just can't drop that question and call it meaningless. There is something about the very presence of a universe in the first place that just amazes me, that I find truly astonishing. If there is magic, it is in the very existence of something rather than nothing.

Usually this kind of thing comes up in the context of a god discussion, as in: since you don't have all the answers you must believe in god. Oh brother.

I hope I've put this to rest. I neither believe nor don't believe in God. I have no data upon which to form a belief. The astonishment caused by my "why a universe" question forces upon me the possibility of this: "the answer could be - could be - simply fantastic!" In that possibility I find room for the possibility of the existence of God. And since that's at least as inaccessible to me as what preceded the Big Bang, I have no idea what such a God would be like. Call me an extreme agnostic.

As for me, I don't connote 'lack of integration' with patchwork, for when you think of a patchwork quilt, it is an integrated whole composed of different elements:

Very well, your interpretation of the image is different, there’s little point belaboring it. When I pictured a patchwork, my thinking was of the possiblility that one patch will clash with the others.

But yes - the patches in my patchwork philosophy/understanding CAN conceivably conflict with one another. When that happens, I have to make a choice about which way to proceed. This need not be as "bad" a situation as you seem to be making it out to be. Physicists have dealt with incomplete models of light. In some situations light behaves like a particle. In other experiments it behaves like a wave. To my knowledge, no one has developed an "integrated theory of light" that explains how this can be. Why should a person's understanding of life, which is likely at least as complex as an understanding of light, be given an unfavorable status just because it is "patchy."

I think that the goal of integration is a fine one. I think for me to declare my philosophy integrated before it is would be a big mistake. So, since I don't know everything; since my philosophies (plural) haven't been acid tested in ways that demand testing (not that I want them tested as the tests would likely be extremely unpleasant), I cannot declare victory on the integration front.

I do the best I can and make do with a less than ideal situation. Think of it as a kind of philosophical/epistemological MacGyverism. Using what tools one has at his or her disposal to reach a goal.

- Bal

[Xray]

As for me, I don't connote 'lack of integration' with patchwork, for when you think of a patchwork quilt, it is an integrated whole composed of different elements:

Very well, your interpretation of the image is different, there’s little point belaboring it. When I pictured a patchwork, my thinking was of the possiblility that one patch will clash with the others.

You have mixed up the quotes, Bal. What is quoted as from ND is what I wrote, and vice versa.

Corrected here:

As for me, I don't connote 'lack of integration' with patchwork, for when you think of a patchwork quilt, it is an integrated whole composed of different elements:

Very well, your interpretation of the image is different, there’s little point belaboring it. When I pictured a patchwork, my thinking was of the possiblility that one patch will clash with the others.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Xray

[IamBalSimon]

Oops! Thanks for the correction.

- Bal