The Rise of the Global South

[Dragonfly]

Her point isn't clear from the quote given, but she isn't talking about error, instead about willful denial of what a person knows to be true -- and such willful denial is the ultimate evil according to Objectivism.

But such "willful denial" is just nonsense when you are alone on a desert island, there is no one you can try to convince of such ideas. If you know that something is true, you just know it. If you try to deny it for yourself while you know it's true you're mentally ill or you're completely brainwashed, so how are you to blame then? But if you don't want to act on what you know to be true in order to survive, it is your own free choice. Who is to tell you that you may not decide to survive? Perhaps you may have good reasons for that decision. To call that an evil decision is absurd.

I was amused in catching up to this thread to see both Bob K. and DF stating categorically what ethics means (e.g., post #25), although their meaning is not what Rand meant; i.e., doing onto Rand what they elsewhere have objected to her doing onto others by decreeing the "true" meaning of a term. ;-)

She may define what she wants, but I don't accept a definition that implies that my actions that harm no one else can be evil. Whatever she says about the evils of "duty", she claims in fact that it is my duty to ensure my survival (otherwise I would be evil). In that she's of course following a long religious tradition. If that is "ethics", to hell with it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Whatever she says about the evils of "duty", she claims in fact that it is my duty to ensure my survival (otherwise I would be evil).

Dragonfly,

Where?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Her point isn't clear from the quote given, but she isn't talking about error, instead about willful denial of what a person knows to be true -- and such willful denial is the ultimate evil according to Objectivism.

But such "willful denial" is just nonsense when you are alone on a desert island, there is no one you can try to convince of such ideas. If you know that something is true, you just know it. If you try to deny it for yourself while you know it's true you're mentally ill or you're completely brainwashed, so how are you to blame then? But if you don't want to act on what you know to be true in order to survive, it is your own free choice. Who is to tell you that you may not decide to survive? Perhaps you may have good reasons for that decision. To call that an evil decision is absurd.

There you're raising a different issue, which is whether or not her ethics makes sense on its own terms. The point I was addressing is your former assertion that "ethics" pertains to a social context and thus isn't relevant on a desert island. Although the assertion is correct using your definition of "ethics" as the basis, my point was that it isn't correct in regard to Rand's ethics, since she didn't define "ethics" the way you do; instead, she considered "ethics" to pertain to the person's choices in the actions of the person's own consciousness.

I agree with you that there's a disjunct with her then harranguing about "evil," also about her slipping "duty" in (see your comment below) with the way she presented issues in Galt's Speech, and the way she often talked in later works. The whole tone of Galt's Speech reminds me of a "hell and damnation, fire and brimstone" preacher. Specifically, among other works I've read, the one of which I'm most reminded is "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards.

On the other hand, I agree with a eudaemonic approach to ethics, though I dislike much in the way Rand went about it, and think that there are errors in her arguments. I think in practice her approach leads to the condemnatory attitude so prevalent among Objectivists. Years back I described Rand as "the culmination of the Judeo-Christian ethics -- and the beginning of its end." I think that for her beginning to bear truly beneficent fruit would need serious re-working to rid her approach of its moralism.

I was amused in catching up to this thread to see both Bob K. and DF stating categorically what ethics means (e.g., post #25), although their meaning is not what Rand meant; i.e., doing onto Rand what they elsewhere have objected to her doing onto others by decreeing the "true" meaning of a term. ;-)

She may define what she wants, but I don't accept a definition that implies that my actions that harm no one else can be evil. Whatever she says about the evils of "duty", she claims in fact that it is my duty to ensure my survival (otherwise I would be evil). In that she's of course following a long religious tradition. If that is "ethics", to hell with it.

___

Edited November 2, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Although the assertion is correct using your definition of "ethics" as the basis, my point was that it isn't correct in regard to Rand's ethics, since she didn't define "ethics" the way you do; instead, she considered "ethics" to pertain to the person's choices in the actions of the person's own consciousness.

I agree with you that there's a disjunct with her then harranguing about "evil," also about her slipping "duty" in (see your comment below) with the way she presented issues in Galt's Speech, and the way she often talked in later works.

Ellen,

I agree with everything here (and most of the rest of your post) except the part about agreeing with Dragonfly about Rand slipping in duty, i.e., that "it is my duty to ensure my survival" (to quote DF).

More than once she defended choosing suicide as ethically correct (or "the moral" or "the good" or whatever such term you wish), so do you have a quote in mind where Rand presents such a duty as a requirement to not be evil?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

More than once she defended choosing suicide as ethically correct (or "the moral" or "the good" or whatever such term you wish), so do you have a quote in mind where Rand presents such a duty as a requirement to not be evil?

Michael

Michael, sure she said that in some contexts suicide was the rational course of a person who loves and seeks life, but not ever with the "it's my choice; to hell with whether it's 'moral' or not" quality which I think DF was talking about. E.g., what did she say about using drugs, hm?

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

I am on record about not agreeing with Rand about using drugs. My view is that addiction is much more complex than she presented it and I feel strong empathy for a person attracted to Objectivism but who is addicted to drugs or alcohol. He has no guidance within the Objectivist culture.

I am very clear on what Rand called addiction (trying to achieve the "consciousness of an animal," "impotence to deal with existence," "attempt to escape from an unbearable mental state," " the attempt to obliterate one's consciousness, the quest for a deliberately induced insanity," and "so obscene an evil that any doubt about the moral character of its practitioners is itself an obscenity," and so on, often peppered with remarks about screaming and rage—all these quotes come from her articles and there are many more). I simply disagree with this.

I am not clear at all about what you and Dragonfly are attributing to Rand's ideas about some so-called duty to survive she was supposed to have preached. I have not come across anything in her writing to that effect.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Interesting, Rand and Korzybski allude to to similar things often. If she used the expression "consciousness of an animal", as Micheal explains, Korzybski often said we copy animals in our nervous reactions, which is to say we are not conscious of our abstractions. As I have said before, within the theory of GS, animals cannot know, or be conscious, that they are abstracting - only humans can with training. I'm not sure what is wrong with the notion of 'duty', is this not synonymous with 'responsibility' ? I have 3 daughters who never asked to be born and brought up in this world and I have a responsibility to take care of them until such time as they can take care of themselves. If I use drugs to the extent that it interferes with my ability to fulfill that responsibility then there is a problem. But the question is how do we approach this problem? Is it a question of ethics or sanity? I don't think most people with drug dependencies are particularly happy with their situations so telling them it is not ethical behaviour and they shouldn't do it is somewhat beside the point. The point is they don't know how to change their behaviour and Korzybski's answer was training in consciousness of abstracting, which is really a kind of psychotherapy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

Have you ever been to an NA meeting or anything at all like that? (You are talking to an expert here.)

Are there any statistics on Korzybski's recovery of addicts rate so that these other organizations can consider his method of abstracting as the true path toward abstinence?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have not read much philosophy and I don't ever plan on doing so.

GS,

Now I understand why you keep making certain mistakes. You are a man who only knows horse transportation among automobile factory workers in a bar telling then that the idea of the internal combustion engine is hooey (as they scratch their heads), when the real problem is that you have never seen one before.

I consider most formal philosophy a waste of time...

If you refuse to read philosophy, how do you know it is a "waste of time"? How do you even know what is formal and what is informal?

Michael

[tjohnson]

Have you ever been to an NA meeting or anything at all like that? (You are talking to an expert here.)

Are there any statistics on Korzybski's recovery of addicts rate so that these other organizations can consider his method of abstracting as the true path toward abstinence?

Michael

No I haven't been to an AA meeting (NA?) and I don't know of any statistics about the effectiveness of GS as a tool for stopping drinking, however, I use it myself in this regard. There has been some anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness in psychotherapy and there have been a number of "off shoots" of GS like NLP and REBT. GS can be used either as therapeutic tool or a preventative tool, if possible, and to this end it has been taught in several high schools and universities.

[tjohnson]

GS,

Now I understand why you keep making certain mistakes. You are a man who only knows horse transportation among automobile factory workers in a bar telling then that the idea of the internal combustion engine is hooey (as they scratch their heads), when the real problem is that you have never seen one before.

If you refuse to read philosophy, how do you know it is a "waste of time"? How do you even know what is formal and what is informal?

Michael

From what I have read I consider it mostly meaningless and besides I have been using GS for 32 years and am perfectly happy with it so I have no motivation to read philosophy. With my mindset asking me to read philosophy would be like me asking you to go read the writings of mental patients. Would you be interested in doing that? Philosophy has been around for thousands of years, what has been accomplished in it? Not one blessed thing that I know of. Compare to science and engineering which progressed exponentially. What we need to do is scrap "philosophy" and develop a science of man, which is exactly what Korzybski started.

[merjet]

Philosophy has been around for thousands of years, what has been accomplished in it? Not one blessed thing that I know of.

Your opinion of philosophy is as superficial as your knowledge of philosophy.

Here are only a few examples.

- Aristotle explained logic.

- In their times Galileo and Newton were called "natural philosophers".

- Cognitive science still deals in concepts used centuries ago by philosophers.

- Analytic geometry was invented by Descartes, calculus by Newton and Leibniz.

- Principles of civil government were formed by John Locke.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

From what I have read I consider it mostly meaningless and besides I have been using GS for 32 years and am perfectly happy with it so I have no motivation to read philosophy. With my mindset asking me to read philosophy would be like me asking you to go read the writings of mental patients. Would you be interested in doing that? Philosophy has been around for thousands of years, what has been accomplished in it? Not one blessed thing that I know of. Compare to science and engineering which progressed exponentially. What we need to do is scrap "philosophy" and develop a science of man, which is exactly what Korzybski started.

GS,

You certainly sound indoctrinated. I don't mean that to sound insulting. Just reporting what I see judging by your closed mind to great thinkers.

I am curious (honestly curious, and please do not take the following question to mean anything but curious interest). Since you find philosophy a waste of time and apparently lunacy (if I understood the insinuation correctly), and lack familiarity to the point of not even knowing that ethics is a formal branch of it, what value do you find in discussing matters with people who gather to discuss philosophy?

Michael

[tjohnson]

GS,

You certainly sound indoctrinated. I don't mean that to sound insulting. Just reporting what I see judging by your closed mind to great thinkers.

I am curious (honestly curious, and please do not take the following question to mean anything but curious interest). Since you find philosophy a waste of time and apparently lunacy (if I understood the insinuation correctly), and lack familiarity to the point of not even knowing that ethics is a formal branch of it, what value do you find in discussing matters with people who gather to discuss philosophy?

Michael

Good question. I guess I find it challenging and interesting to compare GS to Objectivism. I was turned off of philosophy before I ever heard of GS. I used to pick up random books in the library and read them for awhile but if I couldn't make sense of them I would give up. I never had that happen with math and physics, at least I felt in the back of my mind that I could understand them if I worked at it.

[Brant Gaede]

From what I have read I consider it mostly meaningless and besides I have been using GS for 32 years and am perfectly happy with it so I have no motivation to read philosophy. With my mindset asking me to read philosophy would be like me asking you to go read the writings of mental patients. Would you be interested in doing that? Philosophy has been around for thousands of years, what has been accomplished in it? Not one blessed thing that I know of. Compare to science and engineering which progressed exponentially. What we need to do is scrap "philosophy" and develop a science of man, which is exactly what Korzybski started.

GS,

You certainly sound indoctrinated. I don't mean that to sound insulting. Just reporting what I see judging by your closed mind to great thinkers.

I am curious (honestly curious, and please do not take the following question to mean anything but curious interest). Since you find philosophy a waste of time and apparently lunacy (if I understood the insinuation correctly), and lack familiarity to the point of not even knowing that ethics is a formal branch of it, what value do you find in discussing matters with people who gather to discuss philosophy?

Michael

Philosophy has been around for as long as the conceptual, volitional, human mind. Every physiologically brain-normal human being has a philosophy. Philosophy is the operating software of the human mind. The legitimate purpose of formal, created, studied philosophy is to get rid of the inefficiencies of contradictions and to control what's going on in one's head. Whose control and whose head, individualism, collectivism, self-interest, altruism, etc. are some open questions for the inquisitive and acquisitive.

"I don't have a philosophy" is either ignorance or a lie.

--Brant

Edited November 2, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

From what I have read I consider it mostly meaningless and besides I have been using GS for 32 years and am perfectly happy with it so I have no motivation to read philosophy. With my mindset asking me to read philosophy would be like me asking you to go read the writings of mental patients. Would you be interested in doing that? Philosophy has been around for thousands of years, what has been accomplished in it? Not one blessed thing that I know of. Compare to science and engineering which progressed exponentially. What we need to do is scrap "philosophy" and develop a science of man, which is exactly what Korzybski started.

GS,

You certainly sound indoctrinated. I don't mean that to sound insulting. Just reporting what I see judging by your closed mind to great thinkers.

I am curious (honestly curious, and please do not take the following question to mean anything but curious interest). Since you find philosophy a waste of time and apparently lunacy (if I understood the insinuation correctly), and lack familiarity to the point of not even knowing that ethics is a formal branch of it, what value do you find in discussing matters with people who gather to discuss philosophy?

Michael

Philosophy has been around for as long as the conceptual, volitional, human mind. Every physiologically brain-normal human being has a philosophy. Philosophy is the operating software of the human mind. The legitimate purpose of formal, created, studied philosophy is to get rid of the inefficiencies of contradictions and to control what's going on in one's head. Whose control and whose head, individualism, collectivism, self-interest, altruism, etc. are some open questions for the inquisitive and acquisitive.

"I don't have a philosophy" is either ignorance or a lie.

--Brant

"Philosophy is the operating software of the human mind."

Now that is well phrased! Cudos, taking hat off respectfully.

[tjohnson]

Your opinion of philosophy is as superficial as your knowledge of philosophy.

Here are only a few examples.

- Aristotle explained logic.

- In their times Galileo and Newton were called "natural philosophers".

- Cognitive science still deals in concepts used centuries ago by philosophers.

- Analytic geometry was invented by Descartes, calculus by Newton and Leibniz.

- Principles of civil government were formed by John Locke.

The problem is not that it's "philosophy" per se, it's that most philosophy is full of 2-valued, subject-predicate language unfit for anything in "real" life. Even the greatest minds in history can have "brain farts" and start spewing garbage.

[studiodekadent]

The problem is not that it's "philosophy" per se, it's that most philosophy is full of 2-valued, subject-predicate language unfit for anything in "real" life. Even the greatest minds in history can have "brain farts" and start spewing garbage.

Certainly, lots of philosophy is crap. I agree. That does not mean all philosophy is crap, or that something being philosophy ipso facto makes it crap.

Indeed, the "most philosophy is full of..... unfit for anything in real life," when translated into Objectivese, means "most philosophy is full of floating abstractions." I dont see a problem with that statement. Certainly lots of philosophers have developed a lot of floating abstractions. See Plato for instance.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I am not clear at all about what you and Dragonfly are attributing to Rand's ideas about some so-called duty to survive she was supposed to have preached. I have not come across anything in her writing to that effect.

Michael,

It isn't that she proposed any literal "duty" idea, but there's the message of the moral imperative of "being rational." Plus that of one's moral stature having utmost importance and requiring morally ambitious vigilant maintaining and guarding. Plus the disaster scenarios conveyed as to the devastating internal and existential results of allowing any dross of impurity to contaminate one's premises, any breach of morality to sully one's actions.

Man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness: destruction. Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer--and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. (VOS, 1964 hardcover, p. 15)

Such images and prophecies of the penalties for less than constant vigilance scared people -- I think in a way rather like what I've heard happens in fundamentalist groups. I was surprised, after I'd moved to NYC and began meeting Objectivists, at discovering how "timid" and conformist most of them seemed to me, as if they were always on guard, watching over their own behavior -- and other people's behavior -- always attempting to ferret out "irrationality." There wasn't a joyful, open exuberance. Instead a quality of guilt-riddenness. The feeling was like that of unrelenting duty, despite the supposedly non-duty script.

After Allan Blumenthal split with AR, in one of the first conversations I then had with him, he said that he'd found that Objectivism inculcated and/or encouraged/reinforced in those in whom this attitude was already present, a way of -- his description -- "living for the sake of self-esteem." In other words, the supposed means was substituted for the supposed goal. The putative goal was a life of happiness and fulfillment. What instead resulted was a life of obsessive concern with the status of one's moral worth.

Robert Bidinotto, at about the time of the Kelley/Peikoff split, wrote something about this same pattern. I suppose his piece is still accessible on-line -- I don't remember its title; he described how Objectivists substituted the attainment of virtue for the attainment of value.

Specifically in regard to suicide, again, yes, she did say that there could be circumstances in which suicide was a rational choice of loyalty to one's values. An example is where she has John Galt tell Dagny that he'd kill himself rather than have Dagny put on a torture rack (which he said would happen as a means of coercing him if those in power learned the nature of his and her relationship). But what Rand would have said about anyone who would throw his or her life away carelessly, recklessly, someone who didn't place enormous value on his/her life, is another story.

I think what Dragonfly was talking about is its not being anyone's business to pry into anyone else's personal way of living, as long as harm isn't being done to anyone else. Dragonfly has the behavior-toward-others view of the nature of ethics, so I think he's missing the "flavor" of Rand's approach. But I understand picking up on the "duty"-quality subtext in her thunderously stern Old Testament Prophet tone and style.

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

You won't burn in hell; you'll burn in reality!

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

I agree with you if we separate the cognitive from the emotional (I won't even say "normative" here because it hits below the belt). One of the problems I had to ween myself from was accepting an unconscious emotional message in Objectivist literature to belong to the group of the elite ones—the rational producers—on pain of not being fit to live. Fear and intimidation is a big part of that message. This time around (after returning to the USA and resuming Objectivist literature), I started reading the cognitive message and often had to make an effort to push away the pamphletizing-like emotional appeals that are easily found in Rand's writing. This emotional appeal as she presented it tickles the tribalism bone and warning bells go off in my head the moment it does. I suppose this emotional message is precisely what inspires Objectivist guru-wannabees. (I am sure you can think of an example or two of those twisted souls.)

I know that in my Randroid phase, the pamphletizing part was foremost in my mind, not the rational part—although that had a strong appeal, too. I used to love to preach the virtues of being rational or else be doomed. (sinister music with thunder in the background) Back then, I must have read ITOE at least 10 times and I still didn't understand it, and worse, I didn't understand where the inspiring pamphletizing calls to action went to in that book (although there were some glimmers). It was a mystery to me that I thought would be revealed over time. But I loved the images of what happened to the bad guys for being irrational, altruistic and second-handers in Rand's fiction and I would pepper my dinner-table or workplace preachings with examples of this.

As an interesting aside, I came up with some really original thinking back then and, now that I am of a different bent, I see the true value of those thoughts. I had something really good going and didn't even know it. These thoughts will make their way into my fiction and I have a poignantly warm spot in my heart when I think about them. They are reflections of the best of my youth that come down to me from the past in my mind. As time went on back then, though, I started leaving the original thinking behind and bitterness started becoming more important until I finally descended into the addictions I have written about.

Here is an example of one of the thoughts I had (although it is not yet present in my currently projected works). I started looking at Brazil critically, both as an economy and as behavior of individuals I had met. I wondered why there was such a blatant excess of political corruption when in the USA, that level would result in prison. Everybody seemed to find it OK. They bitched when the level got really, really obvious, but it rarely went beyond that. I had never had much experience with the Catholic church up to then, but suddenly I found myself discussing matters with many Catholics. They seemed sincere, but I wondered how they could be so intolerant in word about corruption and extremely tolerant in deed.

I finally came to the conclusion that if you propose a morality that is geared toward prompting guilt and impossible to practice correctly on earth, i.e., designed to be breached (like many Christian teaching are), you keep the person coming back to the church to find out what is wrong. Then if you give him some relief from the guilt that he can only get at the church, meaning the confessional, this will be a positive reinforcement. Relief from guilt is one product the church sells (although it systematically fosters the guilt in the first place).

What happens is that the believer breaches what should be his most precious values—his evaluation of the good (his morality). He feels guilty about it, so he goes to church to help figure out why. There he is instructed to go into a darkened chamber and tell a qualified person on the other side of a wall what he did to get it off his chest. Then he has to do some small acts a few times—like light candles or say memorized prayers or some other things that don't cost very much. Voila! He now has a clean bill of moral health. So it seems. However, he actually was taught a horrible lesson—a deep-seated moral lesson. He was taught that morality is not practical. He also was taught that it's OK to be corrupt because he can fix it for little cost and effort. He was corrupted without even being aware of it.

This is why Brazilians were so overly tolerant of corrupt politicians. Whenever someone complained about the excesses of this politician or that, it was common for me to hear a Brazilian say, "Ah, all politicians are corrupt." Then he dismissed this as something unimportant, like waving a fly away. And I often detected a tinge (a very slight one) of admiration when Brazilians said this. I believe this is because they have learned that it is OK to be corrupt and that they can be so also if times get hard or if they strongly want something hard to get.

Then I looked at Latin countries in general. I noticed that wherever there was a Latin country and the Catholic church was predominant, the economy was a mess (or was so back then) and political corruption was rampant. And people sighed and said, "Ah, all politicians are corrupt." Citizens have been taught by this method to accept corruption in others and become corrupt themselves when convenient.

Back to the original point (and the other end of the pendulum's swing) about the emotional appeal in Objectivism to a kind of Puritanical spirit. When I talked with Nathaniel Branden and Leigh during a coffee break at TAS's recent 50th anniversary of Atlas shindig, there was an awkward moment. I told him that when I went to Brazil in 1973, I was so out of the loop (as a relatively poor person struggling through college, I didn't have the resources to become involved in the movement), that I was unaware that a break between him and Rand had even occurred. I had to order Objectivist books from down there by mail and one of the first I got was Breaking Free. I mentioned how I opened that book salivating. Then I mentioned the bucket-of-cold-water impact I felt due to the sudden shift in gears and now I find that moment comical. I thought, "Wow. This is a really different kind of Objectivism. Apparently there is a lot I still need to learn."

Nathaniel was perplexed, genuinely so. He asked me what I meant. And right on the tip of my tongue, although I did not say it since I was worried that it might come off as offensive, was the thought that the hellfire and brimstone were missing. What happened to blaming the rotten people and condemning them?

I also found it curious that Rand did not sing praises about him in that book, but this was secondary. Little did I know back then. Little did I know. Now, after all the PARC crap, my innocence causes me to chuckle.

So, yes, we agree on the emotional message of duty in some of Rand's writing on ethics. However, I sense that the subliminal call to duty is tribal—"Do not betray this group (the rational ones, i.e., Objectivists) or what this group stands for or else"—not a duty to be rational per se. The need to be rational in this context (the emotional message) is just a means to a higher duty, not an end.

Now about Rand's cognitive message. This is the exact opposite. It is always for one to think for himself, right or wrong, and to use reason to the best of his ability as the correct guide to knowledge and correcting mistakes. That is what shines through to me now with Rand and overshadows all other issues. This is a spirit I admire more than anything, not the "think my way or else be doomed" approach that I despise. I try to encourage the independence spirit on OL and even provide an emotional message for it. I discourage tribal behavior. Nothing is more important than for a person to think for himself. That's not a duty. That's a choice.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Indeed, the "most philosophy is full of..... unfit for anything in real life," when translated into Objectivese, means "most philosophy is full of floating abstractions." I dont see a problem with that statement. Certainly lots of philosophers have developed a lot of floating abstractions. See Plato for instance.

Could you elaborate Studio? I'm not sure what you mean by 'floating abstractions', but I suspect it is not the same as what I meant.

[studiodekadent]

Could you elaborate Studio? I'm not sure what you mean by 'floating abstractions', but I suspect it is not the same as what I meant.

A floating abstraction is a concept with no connection to empirical reality. i.e. concepts are made up of concretes that are mentally integrated, then we develop concepts from concepts etc. A floating abstraction is a concept that cannot be traced back to concretes (the longer the path back to the concretes is, the more abstract a concept is, but when there is no path back to reality, your abstraction is floating).

Is that the same thing as what you meant?

[tjohnson]

Could you elaborate Studio? I'm not sure what you mean by 'floating abstractions', but I suspect it is not the same as what I meant.

A floating abstraction is a concept with no connection to empirical reality. i.e. concepts are made up of concretes that are mentally integrated, then we develop concepts from concepts etc. A floating abstraction is a concept that cannot be traced back to concretes (the longer the path back to the concretes is, the more abstract a concept is, but when there is no path back to reality, your abstraction is floating).

Is that the same thing as what you meant?

So would you say if it can't be 'traced' (interesting choice of words there ) back to "reality" then it is perhaps meaningless?

[Selene]

Could you elaborate Studio? I'm not sure what you mean by 'floating abstractions', but I suspect it is not the same as what I meant.

A floating abstraction is a concept with no connection to empirical reality. i.e. concepts are made up of concretes that are mentally integrated, then we develop concepts from concepts etc. A floating abstraction is a concept that cannot be traced back to concretes (the longer the path back to the concretes is, the more abstract a concept is, but when there is no path back to reality, your abstraction is floating).

Is that the same thing as what you meant?

So would you say if it can't be 'traced' (interesting choice of words there ) back to "reality" then it is perhaps meaningless?

Now that, is a thoughtful question. Why did you ask it?