An Empathic Lens and a Connected Universe

[Paul Mawdsley]

I don't think everything being connected is a useful idea, as far as living your life goes, and certainly not compatible with Objectivist ethics.

[...]

This spiritual analysis of experiencing is not beneficial in terms of enjoying life, our imaginations are much better for that.

The core of who we are is defined by choices we make before the ego really begins to develop, while existing in and trying to survive a context of dependent connectedness. The very typical outcome is to either damage our empathic development or to damage our separation and individuation process in order to resolve a conflict in our experience of the two sides of the self. Objectivism is a system of thought built around strong separation and individuation development but damaged empathic development, as is seen in the character of its founder, so I would expect what I am saying about seeing through an empathic lens to sound somewhat alien here.

Thank you for making my point. If Objectivist ethics is built from an epistemic lens and a metaphysical vision that only sees the universe as disconnected, separated entities, it is no wonder that a view of wholeness and connectedness is not compatible with Objectivist ethics. Imagine where we would be if physicists had the same attitude. "I don't think everything being connected is a useful idea" so let's ignore all our observations, measurements and experiments that point to wholeness, entanglement and connectedness on the quantum level. Please tell me where the primacy of consciousness resides.

"This spiritual analysis of experiencing is not beneficial in terms of enjoying life, our imaginations are much better for that." Hmmmmmm...let's split ourselves into two conflicting and competing parts, choose to own one and disown the other and then see how good we are at creating an enjoyable life. To each their own. Sorry but I think you are missing a huge piece to the life puzzle...and your statements point to exactly the pieces you are missing if you are willing to raise your awareness to "spiritual analysis of experiencing." There is wisdom to be found in meta-cognition.

Imagination not grounded in a balance with our own exploration of experience, and in the patterns we discover in experience, leads our vision to be limited by the information others provide us at best or to delusion at worst. Not the path I would recommend for an independent existence or an enjoyable life.

[Dglgmut]

Sorry Paul, I may have come off more argumentative than I intended.

I'm not denying the level of connection that there may be between everything in existence... however, there is also clear distinctions to be made--primarily the one between me and otherness.

To say that I am connected with everything that is not me is arbitrary. As long as I've made the distinction between myself and otherness, any "connection" between the two is irrelevant. Am I to start giving the rest of the universe the same level of consideration I do myself?

If I feed my dog is that just as good as feeding myself?

I mean, it is interesting to think of ourselves as connected to the universe, but the "self" is such a nebulous concept, as everything that makes us up has been and will be around for eternity.

I wouldn't argue for primacy of consciousness, or primacy of existence, because I believe they are connected. The "good" for consciousness is existence, and consciousness, as we know it, has come from a state of unconsciousness...

[Paul Mawdsley]

Sorry Paul, I may have come off more argumentative than I intended.

Actually, you came across as dismissive of the content of the thread, disrespectful to the quality of ideas that people are putting forth and verging on narcissistically focused on your own agenda. Argument would require actual engagement of the ideas. Truth is, there is probably some evidence on OL of me doing the same thing so I say this with understanding rather than judgement. I would just suggest you might want to take some time to take in the perspectives of some of the people here a little deeper before dismissing, disrespecting or carrying on with your own agenda. It's a form of connecting that has great social and personal value.

I'm not denying the level of connection that there may be between everything in existence... however, there is also clear distinctions to be made--primarily the one between me and otherness.

No one here is denying this so the need to fight this battle must be coming from inside you.

To say that I am connected with everything that is not me is arbitrary. As long as I've made the distinction between myself and otherness, any "connection" between the two is irrelevant. Am I to start giving the rest of the universe the same level of consideration I do myself?

Again, I don't know who you are arguing with here but it is no one on this thread. This is not a discussion about mysticism. It's a discussion about how our vision of the universe opens up through tuning in with our capacity for empathy. This is specifically not about loosing ourselves in a flight of empathy and spiritual connectedness but about the independence and strength that comes with having healthy boundaries in connected space. If we don't fear loosing ourselves when we allow others deep inside us, we have access to an incredible wealth of information and power to positively shape our lives.

I mean, it is interesting to think of ourselves as connected to the universe, but the "self" is such a nebulous concept, as everything that makes us up has been and will be around for eternity.

I'm curious to know what you mean by this. I find the "self' less nebulous as time and my explorations of life go on.

That the basic stuff of the universe is eternal, I agree. There are many people, many of my friends, who believe the self or the spirit is eternal. My sense of things says this is not the case but I do believe it is up to each of us to shape our own vision of existence, so I learn to see things through this lens, because it helps me to connect with people and helps me expand my understanding of my world, while knowing it's not my view. No argument and no conflict is necessary because I know inside where the boundary is between my perspective and my empathic experience of other people's perspectives. If we don't know where this boundary is inside ourselves, we become terrified of letting others deep inside for fear of being overwhelmed by their feelings, visions and thoughts. Instead, we become dismissive and disrespectful to other people's ideas as a defense mechanism to keep them out and we focus narcissistically on the value of our ideas and getting others to consider our agenda.

I wouldn't argue for primacy of consciousness, or primacy of existence, because I believe they are connected. The "good" for consciousness is existence, and consciousness, as we know it, has come from a state of unconsciousness...

Interesting content. Metaphysically, I stand by Rand on this one. Existence is more primary than consciousness. I see consciousness as being emergent from the integrating forces found in the basic stuff of existence, rather than existence emerging from the basic stuff of consciousness...and I don't accept dualism. Epistemologically, I see consciousness as our starting point and our understanding of the nature of existence is emergent from the integrating forces of consciousness.

[Xray]

I've been thinking a lot about planning, as I think it as an interesting and important part of human existence. There are only two ways to live, as if you own your life or you are owned by something else.

Imo things are a good deal more complex because we humans depend on each other in multiple ways. Just think e. g. of the many individuals who have contributed to you being able to bite into a breakfast roll or to putting on a t-shirt.

So what does the idea of "owning one's life" boil down to? If for example you buy a t-shirt for a few dollars which has been produced in a Third World child labor sweatshop, one could call it profiting from others' not owning their life.

We live an overall quite pampered life here in our Western civilization.

This make it easy to think of us as owning our life. But we simply lucked out to have been born into a system where we don't have to walk for miles to get some dirty water from a hole. Instead we can simply turn on the faucet. We have not earned this by our hard work or anything. It is a service that our civilizated society provides for us.

So what does one really 'own'?

To think of yourself as a part of an interconnected universe is just as useful as thinking that you belong to God.

You mean being connected is equal to the idea of "belonging to" in the sense of "being owned by"?

The popular belief is that purpose, as far as human beings are concerned, must come from external sources (God, society, or, now, the universe) while the pragmatic answer is that we must create our own purpose in order for us to really enjoy the struggle and the achievement.

The idea of purpose is so strongly ingrained in human thinking because we are volitional, goal-seeking entities. Everything we do we have a motive for doing; there is always a specific purpose implied, no matter how small and insignificant the act may appear.

The same goes for "cause and effect" thinking. In order to survive, it is necessary for us to develop the ability to make causal connections between natural events. Cause-effect reactions can also be biologically hardwired in us, like for example our instant alertness on hearing a strange noise we cannot attach to a source.

Imo it is this human psychobiological condition which makes it so hard for us to think of the cosmos as having ('deep down', so to speak), "no cause" and "no purpose".

This explains the religious longing for a "deeper sense", and "higher purpose" transcending our short-lived existence.

[Brant Gaede]

Imo it is this human psychobiological condition which makes it so hard for us to think of the cosmos as having ('deep down', so to speak), "no cause" and "no purpose".

This explains the religious longing for a "deeper sense", and "higher purpose" transcending our short-lived existence.

Love does this too.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry Paul, I may have come off more argumentative than I intended.

Actually, you came across as dismissive of the content of the thread, disrespectful to the quality of ideas that people are putting forth and verging on narcissistically focused on your own agenda. Argument would require actual engagement of the ideas. Truth is, there is probably some evidence on OL of me doing the same thing so I say this with understanding rather than judgement. I would just suggest you might want to take some time to take in the perspectives of some of the people here a little deeper before dismissing, disrespecting or carrying on with your own agenda. It's a form of connecting that has great social and personal value.

I'm not denying the level of connection that there may be between everything in existence... however, there is also clear distinctions to be made--primarily the one between me and otherness.

No one here is denying this so the need to fight this battle must be coming from inside you.

To say that I am connected with everything that is not me is arbitrary. As long as I've made the distinction between myself and otherness, any "connection" between the two is irrelevant. Am I to start giving the rest of the universe the same level of consideration I do myself?

Again, I don't know who you are arguing with here but it is no one on this thread. This is not a discussion about mysticism. It's a discussion about how our vision of the universe opens up through tuning in with our capacity for empathy. This is specifically not about loosing ourselves in a flight of empathy and spiritual connectedness but about the independence and strength that comes with having healthy boundaries in connected space. If we don't fear loosing ourselves when we allow others deep inside us, we have access to an incredible wealth of information and power to positively shape our lives.

I mean, it is interesting to think of ourselves as connected to the universe, but the "self" is such a nebulous concept, as everything that makes us up has been and will be around for eternity.

I'm curious to know what you mean by this. I find the "self' less nebulous as time and my explorations of life go on.

That the basic stuff of the universe is eternal, I agree. There are many people, many of my friends, who believe the self or the spirit is eternal. My sense of things says this is not the case but I do believe it is up to each of us to shape our own vision of existence, so I learn to see things through this lens, because it helps me to connect with people and helps me expand my understanding of my world, while knowing it's not my view. No argument and no conflict is necessary because I know inside where the boundary is between my perspective and my empathic experience of other people's perspectives. If we don't know where this boundary is inside ourselves, we become terrified of letting others deep inside for fear of being overwhelmed by their feelings, visions and thoughts. Instead, we become dismissive and disrespectful to other people's ideas as a defense mechanism to keep them out and we focus narcissistically on the value of our ideas and getting others to consider our agenda.

I wouldn't argue for primacy of consciousness, or primacy of existence, because I believe they are connected. The "good" for consciousness is existence, and consciousness, as we know it, has come from a state of unconsciousness...

Interesting content. Metaphysically, I stand by Rand on this one. Existence is more primary than consciousness. I see consciousness as being emergent from the integrating forces found in the basic stuff of existence, rather than existence emerging from the basic stuff of consciousness...and I don't accept dualism. Epistemologically, I see consciousness as our starting point and our understanding of the nature of existence is emergent from the integrating forces of consciousness.

I must say, Paul, I greatly enjoy reading your level-headed and knowledgeable analytical comments. I'm learning all kinds of unexpected things from you.

--Brant

thanks

[Dglgmut]

I apologize. I probably misinterpreted a lot...

Maybe I don't fully understand you, but it seems you're focus is on healthy relationships with people? I get the "where to draw the line" stuff, but I don't know if I agree with it.

Maybe I simplify things to a fault, I don't know, but I have to do it. I don't think, ideally, that there are any compromises one should make in a relationship (as far as letting people in). To be more clear, I don't think one should ever compromise the ownership they have over their life.

Letting someone in is actually an attempt to bridge both of your perspectives. Letting someone in is like going to another country, learning the language, and giving the person directions to your country... although it doesn't always work because it's hard to learn a language. Then of course what Rand seemed to advocate was more along the lines of, find people who already speak your language and already live in your country.

What I mean about the self being nebulous is simply that it has no form. If awareness is awareness of something, then awareness without anything to be aware of is nothing. We cannot conceptualize awareness as a thing on its own.

Though, and this connects to something I've been thinking about recently, we can witness consciousness in other living things, as an unpredictable process. I believe our fear of death/non-existence is more or less a fear of boredom. Loneliness is really just boredom, and the prize that religion always offers is eternal life (more time to do, experience and learn). We like the company of animals, their level of consciousness is much more interesting than inanimate objects, though we'd prefer to be around other people...

The problem with people is, most of them don't readily reveal a lot of consciousness... In fact, that's where I think laughter comes from... it's a reaction to witnessing naked consciousness (notice how humor almost always relies on logic). The ultimate, though, is witnessing the effects of our own consciousness--the closest we can get to directly experiencing it.

[Dglgmut]

So what does the idea of "owning one's life" boil down to? If for example you buy a t-shirt for a few dollars which has been produced in a Third World child labor sweatshop, one could call it profiting from others' not owning their life.

We live an overall quite pampered life here in our Western civilization.

This make it easy to think of us as owning our life. But we simply lucked out to have been born into a system where we don't have to walk for miles to get some dirty water from a hole. Instead we can simply turn on the faucet. We have not earned this by our hard work or anything. It is a service that our civilization provides for us.

So what does one really 'own'?

We are relatively fortunate because we are not as unfortunate. Because other people are being oppressed does not mean we are better off than we should be. "Civilization" does not provide anything to us, it's what we provide for ourselves, albeit through specialization and trade.

What do we own? Our persons and minds. We are not connected in that we do not share ownership of these things to any degree.

[caroljane]

So what does the idea of "owning one's life" boil down to? If for example you buy a t-shirt for a few dollars which has been produced in a Third World child labor sweatshop, one could call it profiting from others' not owning their life.

We live an overall quite pampered life here in our Western civilization.

This make it easy to think of us as owning our life. But we simply lucked out to have been born into a system where we don't have to walk for miles to get some dirty water from a hole. Instead we can simply turn on the faucet. We have not earned this by our hard work or anything. It is a service that our civilization provides for us.

So what does one really 'own'?

We are relatively fortunate because we are not as unfortunate. Because other people are being oppressed does not mean we are better off than we should be. "Civilization" does not provide anything to us, it's what we provide for ourselves, albeit through specialization and trade.

What do we own? Our persons and minds. We are not connected in that we do not share ownership of these things to any degree.

If civilization does not provide anything to you, I must conclude that you live in a cave and exist on roots, berries and the odd rabbit that you catch and strangle.

[Dglgmut]

You are familiar with the concept of trade, yes? Neither party can be said to have "provided" for the other...

Anyway, I don't know where you'd find a cave and roots and berries and rabbits that weren't already claimed by a government.

[caroljane]

lol. Yes, I am familiar with the concept of trade as a powerful progenitor of civilization. Trade today is a shopping mall. Without civilization (and government) it would be a basic exchange of your rabbit for a new axe point if you were lucky, or your rabbit and your body for your life, if you weren't,

[Guyau]

Carol, wouldn’t you concede, however, that it was not only in tribal and smaller groups preceding chiefdoms and states that production and trade were major factors making those organizations of society possible? Any government today has to be continually supported by its own productive enterprises, worked by individuals, or by tax or plunder of private production and trade among individuals. I don’t mean to deny that in support of military capabilities throughout the history of states, they have advanced technology, which then often finds use in peaceful productive society. I don’t mean to deny that government engages in productive enterprises such as roads, dams, and disease control. I don't mean to deny that alternatives in property law, such as whether government shall institute a system of patents or a system of incorporation have big implications for general economic welfare. But there is no way to make any of those governmental things—leaving aside forced labor—without tax revenues (or inflation revenues) from wealth created by private production and exchange. (a, A)

[caroljane]

Carol, wouldn’t you concede, however, that it was not only in tribal and smaller groups preceding chiefdoms and states that production and trade were major factors making those organizations of society possible? Any government today has to be continually supported by its own productive enterprises, worked by individuals, or by tax or plunder of private production and trade among individuals. I don’t mean to deny that in support of military capabilities throughout the history of states, they have advanced technology, which then often finds use in peaceful productive society. I don’t mean to deny that government engages in productive enterprises such as roads, dams, and disease control. I don't mean to deny that alternatives in property law, such as whether government shall institute a system of patents or a system of incorporation have big implications for general economic welfare. But there is no way to make any of those governmental things—leaving aside forced labor—without tax revenues (or inflation revenues) from wealth created by private production and exchange. (a, A)

Carol, wouldn’t you concede, however, that it was not only in tribal and smaller groups preceding chiefdoms and states that production and trade were major factors making those organizations of society possible? Any government today has to be continually supported by its own productive enterprises, worked by individuals, or by tax or plunder of private production and trade among individuals. I don’t mean to deny that in support of military capabilities throughout the history of states, they have advanced technology, which then often finds use in peaceful productive society. I don’t mean to deny that government engages in productive enterprises such as roads, dams, and disease control. I don't mean to deny that alternatives in property law, such as whether government shall institute a system of patents or a system of incorporation have big implications for general economic welfare. But there is no way to make any of those governmental things—leaving aside forced labor—without tax revenues (or inflation revenues) from wealth created by private production and exchange. (a, A)

Stephen, I do concede that, gladly. It is true. But where I diverge is from the notion that the individual trade exchange is primary in human interaction; I can only see it as a small vital cog in the great wheel of life and society, not a prime mover which should govern them in a hierarchy.

[Paul Mawdsley]

]

Carol, wouldn’t you concede, however, that it was not only in tribal and smaller groups preceding chiefdoms and states that production and trade were major factors making those organizations of society possible? Any government today has to be continually supported by its own productive enterprises, worked by individuals, or by tax or plunder of private production and trade among individuals. I don’t mean to deny that in support of military capabilities throughout the history of states, they have advanced technology, which then often finds use in peaceful productive society. I don’t mean to deny that government engages in productive enterprises such as roads, dams, and disease control. I don't mean to deny that alternatives in property law, such as whether government shall institute a system of patents or a system of incorporation have big implications for general economic welfare. But there is no way to make any of those governmental things—leaving aside forced labor—without tax revenues (or inflation revenues) from wealth created by private production and exchange. (a, A)

Stephen, I do concede that, gladly. It is true. But where I diverge is from the notion that the individual trade exchange is primary in human interaction; I can only see it as a small vital cog in the great wheel of life and society, not a prime mover which should govern them in a hierarchy.

Two enlightening perspectives.

Stephen and Carol, your exchange raises in me a sense of reciprocal causation in the development of our culture of trade and wealth between the whole (civilization molded overtly by governing forces and more subtly by cultural forces) and the parts (the motives, perspectives, choices and actions of individuals). Carol, I especially find your view that individual trade exchange is not primary in human exchange a very interesting thought to consider.

We live in the aftermath of a depersonalization of business, exchange and trade that has taken place over the last century. We have all heard the phrase, “It’s not personal, it’s just business.” I run a small business and have always had the approach that all business is personal. There is a layer of personal meaning that is exchanged and accompanies all business exchanges. People in marketing and sales know this. People in customer service know this. People dealing with sourcing and suppliers know this. People engaged in personnel management know this. Working with people by acknowledging and respecting their perspectives naturally creates a more highly motivated exchange, encourages a personal sense of loyalty to the relationship and instills a passion to share their positive experience with others.

Ironically, technology is facilitating a change back to personalizing business. The internet is a giant business experiment, among other things. In a depersonalizing medium, entrepreneurs are seeking ways to take advantage of the medium and create highly motivated exchanges, loyalty to them and their products and passion to share what they offer because it gives them competitive advantage, drives sales and, ultimately, feeds their lifestyles. The focus for internet marketing is on personalizing business exchanges because personal human exchanges really are more primary than the trade in driving behaviour. It feels better to live a lifestyle of personal exchanges and it is better for business.

I see the structure of trade exchange as a vital concept that acts as an overlay that benefits personal exchanges. It creates limits and boundaries that decrease blocks and resistance to the flow of exchange while increasing individual flow and freedom and opening the door to new levels of exchange. If we think of barter as being a dynamic system, grounded in basic human needs and drives, from which a natural order and flow can emerge like the development of thermal cells in boiling water, our modern structures of trade exchange are a supporting framework that helps perpetuate the natural flow by reducing the resistance of counter flow (such as inherent difficulties in exchanging goods without the medium of money or criminal activities or government interference). Individual motives, perspectives, choices and actions in the context of personal relationships are primary.

[Paul Mawdsley]

I must say, Paul, I greatly enjoy reading your level-headed and knowledgeable analytical comments. I'm learning all kinds of unexpected things from you.

--Brant

thanks

Thanks Brant. I truly appreciate your kind words.

[Dglgmut]

lol. Yes, I am familiar with the concept of trade as a powerful progenitor of civilization. Trade today is a shopping mall. Without civilization (and government) it would be a basic exchange of your rabbit for a new axe point if you were lucky, or your rabbit and your body for your life, if you weren't,

So you think government, by robbing and controlling society, is helping us? Voluntary exchange is no good? Why, then, did the most productive period in human existence come from the time and place where people were most free from coercion (not because of government--force--but a lack of it)?

[Xray]

You are familiar with the concept of trade, yes? Neither party can be said to have "provided" for the other.

But trade does not always mean that it is a 'fair' trade between equals. Many who are exploited engage in a trade too, but only get a fraction of the wages they would deserve, like e. g. people who have to drudge for a pittance in wages on tea plantations, in diamond mines, etc.

[Xray]

Its not Objectivist ethics that's in question, it is Objectivist metaphysics and

epistemology: beyond natural laws, is the Universe, and all life, connected?

To affirm this would be primacy of consciousness, to a mystical extreme.

But being connected does not mean that it is a connectedness which is beyond natural laws.

Take the phenomenon of quantum entanglement for example: there obviously exists a connectedness, but ths does not mean that it is 'supernatural' mererely because scientifice research has not yet been able to solve the puzzle.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Maybe I don't fully understand you, but it seems you're focus is on healthy relationships with people? I get the "where to draw the line" stuff, but I don't know if I agree with it.

Calvin, I don't get the sense that you do "get the 'where to draw the line' stuff." My focus is on healthy relationships between parts of the self, how these affect our relationships with others and, reciprocally, how our relationships with others affect the relationships between the parts of our self. Typically, when we draw the line between ourselves and others, we not only keep them out, we disown the part of ourselves that gives us a lens into others. This disowned self gets carried forward into future interactions, very much blinding us to information about their insides. The line is within us, between the centred/separate self and the empathic/connected self. To find this we need to go beyond seeing the self as nebulous and we need to be able to explore the structure and dynamics of our psyche and spirit.

Maybe I simplify things to a fault, I don't know, but I have to do it. I don't think, ideally, that there are any compromises one should make in a relationship (as far as letting people in). To be more clear, I don't think one should ever compromise the ownership they have over their life.

Letting someone else's perspective inside you so you can empathically experience their orientation to the universe does not equal compromising the ownership of your life. I remember having a metaphorical discussion some time ago with Gary Williams here on OL where we got talking about the ways we deal with people who attack us. He said he is like Superman. The bullets just bounce off him. I thought about it for a moment and responded by saying I thought of myself more like Neo in The Matrix. I see inside the code and know the bullets are only as real as I make them..."there is no spoon" and no bullets.

To continue the metaphor, we do live in The Matrix. We plug-in through our empathic self and by stepping inside a world of interacting perceptions. This is the core of social dynamics. If we don't see the code and see how we are plugged in, we are slaves to the machine and to the players who know how to manipulate the system and us. Or we unplug and lead an existence on the periphery of the richness of society. This is the line I have walked for most of my life until I finally came to see deep inside the code that is embedded in our biology and our conditioning. The alternative is to learn to see inside the self and inside the code so we can take control of our lives in empathic/connected social space.

Again, this is not mysticism, smoke and mirrors. This is reality. It's there whether or not we choose to look at it. It shapes our lives whether or not we choose to believe it. We feel it all around us everyday. Our choice is whether or not to raise our awareness to it, understand it and take control of it.

Letting someone in is actually an attempt to bridge both of your perspectives. Letting someone in is like going to another country, learning the language, and giving the person directions to your country... although it doesn't always work because it's hard to learn a language. Then of course what Rand seemed to advocate was more along the lines of, find people who already speak your language and already live in your country.

At the deepest levels we all live in the same country and have the same language. We all have the same underlying human nature. We are all built of the same stuff to operate by the same operating system. Our differences in language come from the different software that is installed as an overlay to our basic hardware and operating system. Our basic language is experience, feelings, intuition, facial expressions and body language. On this level, the level that is communicated through mutual empathy, we all share a common language. Ignore the power this level has in life and you will be left wondering what secret the rest of the world seems to have while you are left sitting on the sidelines.

What I mean about the self being nebulous is simply that it has no form. If awareness is awareness of something, then awareness without anything to be aware of is nothing. We cannot conceptualize awareness as a thing on its own.

The self does have form. Its form is embedded in everything we are discussing on this thread. It is up to us the craft a scope that can decipher the form so we can see the parts and make sense of the inner dynamics. We can and do conceptualize awareness as a thing on its own even if we can't perceive it as a thing on its own.

The problem with people is, most of them don't readily reveal a lot of consciousness...

That's the thing about people and what they reveal, they live with the same fears we do. People do not readily reveal a lot of consciousness when they don't feel seen and don't feel it is safe to do so. What do you do to make people feel seen and safe so they can reveal themselves to you?

I have a very different experience. I find people reveal some of the most intimate things to me very easily because I have an ability to make people feel seen and safe. When we connect with someone in a shared space of mutual empathy a sense is created for the rules of this space. I use this in my personal life and in business. My rules are openness and honesty about self, a commitment to reality, acceptance of one's part in maintaining healthy shared space, a mutual respect for the boundaries of autonomy, and a commitment to not use tools of subversive emotional manipulation. This is a safe place for people to engage in openly and honestly, so this is what tends to happen. I find this creates a space that tends to draw out the best in people and makes for healthy relationships. However, fuck with these rules and I'm not so safe. ;)

[Dglgmut]

Thank you for the thoughtful replies, Paul.

The language and country stuff was an analogy for something else, because I thought "letting people in" was more about sharing your perspective with them, but I see now you meant empathetically considering the other person's perspective... The "language" was a metaphor for our different ways of interpreting perceptions--the range in different perspectives people can have in the same situation is like having totally different languages, brains wired in completely different ways. Learning another language, in regards to the metaphor, would be "letting someone else's perspective inside you", or making an effort to understand someone else's circumstances according to their interpretation.

That we all have the same underlying human nature does not entail any sort of interdependency... but you could argue that. Are you?

When people say humans are social creatures, are they not saying that we have a need to connect with people? As far as I understand, Rand rejected this idea, and saw human relationships as a bonus, rather than a primary objective... but what is the truth?

Rand said in order for reason to guide our actions we must have an ultimate goal--an end in itself. This, she said, was life. However, is that specific enough? Should it not be experience that is the end in itself?

Pleasure is the most primary end in itself, but with more cognitive capacity comes more meaning attached to sensation. Pleasure in the moment can mean pain in the future, and therefore be bad, and vice versa. Emotion comes from interpretation of perceptions and is included in an experience. Our most desired experience may not have any momentary pleasure what-so-ever, yet have incredibly positive meaning.

The meaning we desire from our perceptual experience is that we will have more opportunity for pleasure in the future. Now, it makes sense that we can derive emotional pleasure by proving our independence to ourselves... this means to us that we will have more control over our future.

It also makes sense that we would take emotional satisfaction from forming relationships with others; with good relationships comes future opportunity.

Rand advocated productive achievement as man's proper pursuit, though it is not necessarily connected to our survival in this day and age. And so the same argument could be made for interpersonal relationships.

The experience of love from others, therefore, would be just as rational a pursuit as productive achievement.

The experience for human beings, which is the end in itself, is an emotional experience. I must conclude that the most opportunity associated with a perception would come from evidence of self-efficacy. Proving yourself to be able and competent is what I believe to be the ultimate experience, however, social competence (without dishonesty--which would mean a future of lying) is the most useful virtue for a human being. Proving yourself to be able to deal with people, and earning love, would be the true end in itself.

That was just my thought process in trying to understand where you're coming from. Is this compatible with your premises?

Oh, and to answer your last question I prefer to reveal my own consciousness, as proper practice in self-honesty, but it still usually takes people a discouragingly long time to become comfortable. And then there's people who I am just too uncomfortable around to reveal much... I'm working on that, though.

[Dglgmut]

Sorry just wanted to try to put my last point a little nicer:

The end in itself is an experience associated with a state of being. Particularly, what we want is to be of value to others, and happiness would come from the experience of that.

For example, a quadriplegic who is extremely well liked can provide for himself better than even the smartest, most physically capable man who cannot connect with another human being to save his life.

[anthony]

Its not Objectivist ethics that's in question, it is Objectivist metaphysics and

epistemology: beyond natural laws, is the Universe, and all life, connected?

To affirm this would be primacy of consciousness, to a mystical extreme.

But being connected does not mean that it is a connectedness which is beyond natural laws.

Take the phenomenon of quantum entanglement for example: there obviously exists a connectedness, but ths does not mean that it is 'supernatural' mererely because scientifice research has not yet been able to solve the puzzle.

"Has not yet been able to solve the puzzle". In other words, nobody knows: another hypothesis.

In this context, QE - I know nearly nothing about the theory - appears same-ole, same-ole particle physics determinism. What have particles to do with us? Quantum Entanglement is as much a validation of 'entangled' (or connected) human consciousness, as the "God Particle" proves the existence of God. Simple mystical nominalism.

"Merely because scientific research..." indicates you believe it's a matter of time before science can support your views. Most unempirical - where's your Occam's Razor when you need it?

[caroljane]

The experience of love from others, therefore, would be just as rational a pursuit as productive achievement....Proving yourself to be able to deal with people......., and earning love, would be the true end in itself.

Love must be pursued, but it can't be earned, it is only found. When it is mutual and lasting, of course the lovers try to deserve the great gift, but they are always paying it backward.

"The heart has its reasons that reason knows not of,"

I think Ayn Rnd knew this deep down, but so deep down she would never admit it.

[BaalChatzaf]

But can't one call, for example, reproduction a program in biological Evolution? We are programmed to reproduce, therefore calling Evolution "dumb as bag of rocks" doesn't quite fit it imo.

Our ability to reproduce is chemistry in action. The world is physical entirely. It consists of matter and energy in time and space. There is nothing else.

No purpose. No design. It just is as it is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Our ability to reproduce is chemistry in action. The world is physical entirely. It consists of matter and energy in time and space. There is nothing else.

No purpose. No design. It just is as it is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But the world being physical doesn't meant there can't be any systems observed which operate by what imo one could well call 'intelligent' action. Just think of take such fascinating phenomena as 'swarm intelligence'.

Or if e. g. if you feel thirst, it is an 'message' transmitted via the system running your biological entity ('body') to fill up on fluids. The purpose is to keep your bodily functions working.

Why not try to drop the premise that intelligent actions (or 'intelligent solutions' observed in nature) always require a highly developed consciousness? That way one would avoid a too simplistic reductionism, but also the necessity to mentally construct an intelligent designer-god behind it all.