Integrationists, Contextual Distortionists and a New Objectivist Paradigm

[Paul Mawdsley]

Integrationists, Contextual Distortionists and a New Objectivist Paradigm

By Paul Mawdsley

My definition of a contextual distortionist: A person who perceives a wide range of properties of an existent, intuitively separates those properties into categories of negative or positive attributes according to some standard (usually "for me" or "against me," good or bad, life or anti-life, etc. in Objectivist circles ), focusses on either the positive or negative attributes in defining the existent, and generates a distorted context from which to view other existents based on this skewed definition. This can account for those who are very pro-Rand as well as those who are very anti-Rand.

However, there are those who are very pro-integration-of-attributes-in-defining-existents. I find this latter category to be well represented at OL. The pro-integration group seeks a balanced perspective. Unfortunately, the pro-Rand group and the Anti-Rand group frame everything in terms of "for" or "against." For this reason the pro-Rand group will see aspects of the pro-integration group as being negative and will conclude they are anti-Rand. Those in the anti-Rand group will see aspects of the pro-integration group as being positive and will conclude they are pro-Rand. This conceptual framework is wrong. The pro- and anti-Rand individuals are seeing a false dichotomy.

Leonard Peikoff and ARI, Valliant and Hseih are definitely part of the pro-Rand group. I separate Peikoff and ARI from Valliant and Hseih because the former carries with it the value of the positives of Ayn Rand. The latter does not.

As did Rand herself, and as she required those closest to her to reinforce, any pro-Rand collective skews the definition of a certain existent—i.e.: Ayn Rand—and define her according to her positive attributes. This creates a skewed context from which to view other existents such as Nathaniel Branden, others who have been excommunicated, and anyone who does not see Rand, and the philosophy that defines her character, as they do. Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, Cris Sciabarra, David Kelley, etc., TAS, and many of the vocal members of OL are conceived as being anti-Rand by the pro-Rand group but are, in reality, pro-integration. They are attempting to define Rand by integrating her positive qualities and her negative qualities into their definitions of her. (They are also attempting to integrate Objectivist definitions of many other existents with definitions from other philosophical perspectives. They are trying to break down false dichotomies and integrate all the evidence.) This does not make them anti-Rand. It makes them more balanced. It makes them more objective. It greatly reduces contextual distortion.

Rand made the point that an existent is defined by ALL of its attributes, not just the ones we happen to focus on to create our categories. When we separate an existent's attributes into two categories and create two distinct definitions of that existent, we create a paradigm based on a false dichotomy. The answer is not to fight about who is right and who is wrong. Both will be able to produce facts that can support their claims. The answer is to break down the paradigm by identifying the false dichotomy and integrating all the attributes of a given existent into its definition, thus producing a new paradigm.

Notice that the new paradigm cannot be seen from within the conceptual framework of the existing paradigm. This is always the case. If we are to create a new paradigm that can dissolve a false dichotomy, we have to let go of our existing categories and definitions so we can create new definitions and categories that integrate more information. Rand was a master at this. Now we need to master it so we can take steps toward integrating Objectivism.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Paul,

I fully agree with your views here. You have described the tribal mentality to a tee and provided some illumination into his mind.

Michael

[sjw]

Sounds like Peikoff's DIM hypthesis somewhat, except you've rather ironically left out the "D" group. My thought is that it's hard to take your thoughts on epistemology seriously when you convey them in the context of such a controversial issue (and there are not just two sides by the way--looks like you did a little "distortionism" yourself there), it makes it look like you have an agenda about something other than epistemology, the actual subject contradicts your choice in title.

Rand made the point that an existent is defined by ALL of its attributes, not just the ones we happen to focus on to create our categories.

I don't think so, I think she said that a concept included all the attributes and not just those in the definition.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Paul,

I would probably count in a distinctly pro-Rand category, but I've laughed at how ARI tries to do it. Pictures of teddy bears and tiddlywink music don't capture the essence of who Ayn Rand was. Her affair and occasional outbursts of anger don't either. Ayn Rand was not a public person and did not seek the limelight. She trusted those who were associated with her to respect that.

Unfortunately, we live in a tabloid society that measures celebrities on their last cellulite shot in National Enquirer. When we grant the premise that people's private lives are open to public viewing, the tabloid society is what we enable. There are plenty of authors I enjoy without knowing anything about their private lives.

Incidentally, these same criticisms could be levelled at Valliant's book, but he didn't start the Rand private life sweepstakes. Unfortunately, Rand's attempt to enjoin people to judgment without evidence opened the door to this and people on both "sides" have engaged in a shameful tit-for-tat ever since.

Jim

[Paul Mawdsley]

Sounds like Peikoff's DIM hypthesis somewhat, except you've rather ironically left out the "D" group. My thought is that it's hard to take your thoughts on epistemology seriously when you convey them in the context of such a controversial issue (and there are not just two sides by the way--looks like you did a little "distortionism" yourself there), it makes it look like you have an agenda about something other than epistemology, the actual subject contradicts your choice in title.

I'm sorry, I don't know anything about Peikoff's DIM hypothesis. I'm not trying to be controversial. I'm trying to explore the underlying causation of a controversial issue. If you think this makes my thoughts on epistemology less serious, that's your call. I don't.

I am interested. Given how I have framed my view, what are the other sides? There is a pro-Rand conceptual framework, an anti-Rand conceptual framework, and a pro-integration conceptual framework. In general, each of these can operate in one individual at any given time. We can differentiate people into groups according to their tendency to act more saliently in accordance with one of these conceptual frameworks. Relative to the defining and categorizing of the existent called Ayn Rand, which conceptual framework did I miss out? What did I distort?

Rand made the point that an existent is defined by ALL of its attributes, not just the ones we happen to focus on to create our categories.

I don't think so, I think she said that a concept included all the attributes and not just those in the definition.

I have to stop thinking I know exactly what Rand said until after I have had a chance to go back and study her work fully again. Thanks for pointing out the weaknesses in my argument. Let me rephrase: I think an existent should be conceived by ALL its attributes and defined by those essential attributes, with their measurements omitted, that are judged both "for" and "against" the individual's desired view of themselves and the world (emotional element), not just those attributes that are judged to support our desired view and cause us to create polemic categories. This reduces the occurrence and the development of false dichotomies.

As an aside, this approach also conceptually frames the distinction between our images of a perceived self, ideal self and a real self as proposed by Carl Rogers. Just another tangent.

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

I would probably count in a distinctly pro-Rand category

Jim,

I don't know you well. What I do know suggests you do not fit into the pro-Rand category as I have defined it. I don't think you choose to maintain a view of Rand only through a positive lens to the point of distorting your view of other parts of reality to fit your positive view of Rand. I tend to think you would fit more into the pro-integrationist framework. On balance, you have a pro-Rand perspective though. So do I.

Paul

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Paul,

Thanks for that. People who are susceptible to putting Rand outside the category of mortal human beings should look into the lives and accomplishments of other geniuses: Newton, Gauss, Einstein, Von Neumann, Feynman, Maxwell, Mozart, Gibbs, Schrodinger, Bardeen, Mullis and others.

People who major in the hard sciences, mathematics and music have many role models and heroes to choose from. The best approach is to look at what many of these incomparable people did well and repay the gratitude they've earned by expecting the very best from ourselves.

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Paul,

Just as a note of self-disclosure, I have nominally associated myself with IOS/TAS/TOC since 1994 when I attended my first conference with them. I am a huge David Kelley supporter, but have little stake in the 1968 split. It happened 3 years before I was born. I am also a huge fan of George Reisman and knew principals on both sides of that split in college. On the Reisman side I knew Linda Reardan and very briefly Jerry Kirkpatrick and on the Peikoff/Binswanger/Schwartz side, I knew Darryl Wright and Gary Hull. Linda Reardan and Gary Hull attended our Objectivist meetings in college and I took a philosophy class from Darryl Wright in college. I have many Objectivist friends from college who simply remain unaffiliated.

I also attended the Front Range Objectivist Group that Diana Hsieh now attends while it was a mixed (ARI and IOS) club from 1994-1996 while I was a graduate student in chemical engineering at Colorado School of Mines.

Jim

[Paul Mawdsley]

Jim,

As I suggested, you are connected with the different sides of what is wrongly framed as a polemic. I'm guessing that you see the positives and negatives of the different perspectives and, like so many of us who refuse to simply take sides, are trying to find a way to integrate what is of value from each of the views.

I want to reciprocate your note of self-disclosure. Almost 21 years ago I turned 21 years old while reading Atlas Shrugged for a university course taught by John Ridpath. That means I was born 3 years on the other side of the split from you. I dove into Rands work for a short period of about 9 months, consuming everything I could get my hands on. I fell in love with the power her conceptual frameworks gave me but I began to feel a sense of not liking who I was becoming by living according to the principles and moral imperatives I adopted from her. After 9 months I pushed her perspective out of my being to hold onto and develop my own authentic worldview. It was at this time that I began to read Nathaniel Branden's work. Between reading Rand and Branden I discovered and became obsessed with the concepts of identity and causality.

A conclusion I reached, that I believe Rand did also, is that there exists only entities in action: there are no such things as unextended entities nor disembodied actions. What I extrapolated from this was the idea that I should use my very vivid and active imagination to build visual models of existence based on physical entities, their actions and interactions. Using my own expanded version of the entity-to-action concept of causation as a guiding principle, I constructed artificial percepts, in my imagination, of entities (underlying variables) who's natures are designed to account for the cause of phenomena who's underlying causes cannot be observed directly. I then attempted to reconstruct existence, at least in principle, by setting these entities in motion and connecting the causal dots from these underlying entities to all the structures and dynamics that can be observed. This is what I call causal reasoning. I have applied this approach to building models of the underlying structures and dynamics of the psyche and of corresponding physiological functions of the brain, models of the structures and dynamics of physical universe, and models of the structures and dynamics of molecular biology. My view today and what I write is grounded in these models. I consider creating these fictional models of existence somewhat similar in function to Rand creating her fictional models of existence in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. (Note: I am only comparing the function of my inner fictions to hers, not the quality or efficacy.)

Until Michael requested to present on OL something I posted on NB's Yahoo forum, I'd had nothing more to do with Objectivism than what I gained from Rand and Branden's books. The only Objectivists I know, I know online through OL. I have read nothing of David Kelly's. Only a couple of weeks ago did I first read an essay of Chris Sciabarra's. Many of the people you mention have no meaning to me. I have not participated in any Objectivist clubs. I have just been quietly exploring, reading and thinking about my existence. Now I am learning to put words to the visual concepts I have developed, and I am finding that Objectivism still works as the best available philosophical overlay for my consciously developed intuitive worldview, but, as Shayne is very good at pointing out, it's not a perfect fit. I am now starting to explore my points of agreement and disagreement with Rand's worldview and am again beginning to tap into the power of her conceptual frameworks.

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul,

Thanks for that. People who are susceptible to putting Rand outside the category of mortal human beings should look into the lives and accomplishments of other geniuses: Newton, Gauss, Einstein, Von Neumann, Feynman, Maxwell, Mozart, Gibbs, Schrodinger, Bardeen, Mullis and others.

People who major in the hard sciences, mathematics and music have many role models and heroes to choose from. The best approach is to look at what many of these incomparable people did well and repay the gratitude they've earned by expecting the very best from ourselves.

Jim

The experience of having multiple perspectives in my life has been a very important one for me. When I was born, my brother was 14 and my sister was 15. When my sister was 19 she got married to someone who was very different from anyone in my family; he was very extroverted. I look back at my youth and see 5 competing perspectives that I was able to hold inside me and try to integrate, each one viewed themselves and the world, and acted very different to the others. This has had a profound effect on what might be called my developmental epistemology.

I now have a 7 year old son and a 4 year old daughter. My wife, Shauna, and I considered home schooling. My wife's lifelong passion and goal until reaching the end of her BA was to be a teacher. She got a taste of the politics along the way and chose to pursue other aptitudes. (When both of our kids are in full time school she is planning to complete the one year for her teaching certificate.) She is a very passionate, talented and intuitive teacher who knows how to use her own mind. One of the reasons we chose not to home school our kids is because we wanted to encourage them to explore multiple adult perspectives. We didn't want them to be trapped in, or feel the need to rebel against, our views. We want them to be free to build their own authentic perspectives and to explore other people's perspectives without the need to take a stand, see perspectives in terms of polemics, take sides and start building walls to stop unwanted information and alternate views from penetrating their fragile, evolving, intuitive worldviews.

It seems to me that Objectivism has been constructed, partly, from the perspective of psychological walls and defences. In the words of Pink Floyd, we need to "tear down the walls."

Paul

Edited February 1, 2007 by Paul Mawdsley