Self-centered perception

[Christopher]

I'll never forget one of my favorite quotes from The Fountainhead, one that really struck home the philosophy of Objectivism. Paraphrasing the quote from memory so many years ago:

Roark looked up into the night sky. He experienced the vastness, the magnitude, the sheer grandness of the universe. Did he feel these things because there really was a god looking down from the sky, or because the universe was great? ... or did he feel it because of the way he arched his head upward, the way he bent his neck back and looked up?

This represents the full self-orientation that Rand brought to all human experience - that man's pleasure was derived from inside man, not from what was represented or pesent on the outside. Well, an article from Psychological Science in 2004 has this to say:

Why the Sunny Side Is Up:

Associations Between Affect and Vertical Position

Brian P. Meier and Michael D. Robinson

ABSTRACT—Metaphors linking spatial location and affect (e.g.,

feeling up or down) may have subtle, but pervasive, effects on

evaluation. In three studies, participants evaluated words presented

on a computer. In Study 1, evaluations of positive words

were faster when words were in the up rather than the down

position, whereas evaluations of negative words were faster

when words were in the down rather than the up position. In

Study 2, positive evaluations activated higher areas of visual

space, whereas negative evaluations activated lower areas of

visual space. Study 3 revealed that, although evaluations activate

areas of visual space, spatial positions do not activate

evaluations. The studies suggest that affect has a surprisingly

physical basis.

[Guyau]

This represents the full self-orientation that Rand brought to all human experience - that man's pleasure was derived from inside man, not from what was represented or present on the outside.

Christopher,

No, that is too one-sided for Rand’s mature philosophy. There is some leaning to that one-sidedness in her early writing. In Anthem (1937) her protagonist says: “It is my eyes which see, and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth. It is my ears which hear, and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world.”

In Atlas Shrugged (1957) she writes of her protagonist: “The first thing she grasped about him was the intense perceptiveness of his eyes⎯he looked as if his faculty of sight were his best-loved tool and its exercise were a limitless, joyous adventure, as if his eyes imparted a superlative value to himself and to the world⎯to himself for his ability to see, to the world for being a place so eagerly worth seeing.” This places value not only in the subject, but also waiting in the world.

Concerning The Fountainhead and the scene you were recalling, the closest I find are these:

Roark walked up the path to the top of the cliff where the steel hulk of the Heller house rose into a blue sky. The skeleton was up and the concrete was being poured . . . . .

He looked at the squares of sky delimited by the slender lines of girders and columns, the empty cubes of space he had torn out of the sky. His hands moved involuntarily, filling in the planes of walls to come, enfolding the future rooms. A stone clattered from under his feet and went bouncing down the hill, resonant drops of sound rolling in the sunny clarity of the summer air.

He stood on the summit, his legs planted wide apart, leaning back against space. He looked at the materials before him, the knobs of rivet in steel, the sparks in blocks of stone, the weaving spirals in fresh, yellow planks. (137−38)

After dinner Gail and Dominique stood at the rail of his yacht

and looked at a black void. Space was not to be seen, only felt by the quality of the air against their faces. A few stars gave reality to the empty sky. A few sparks of white fire in the water gave life to the ocean.

. . .

She said . . . . “You’ve never felt how small you were when looking at the ocean.”

He laughed. “Never. Nor looking at the planets. Nor at mountain peaks. Nor at the Grand Canyon. Why should I? When I look at the ocean, I feel the greatness of man. I think of man’s magnificent capacity that created this ship to conquer all that senseless space.” (479)

Thank you for sharing this research.

When I was a boy, we children would visit our natural mother for three weeks each summer deep in the country. There was a stone well with a bucket. We took a bath in the kitchen in a galvanized tub, the water having been heated on a butane stove. At night it was sometimes too hot to sleep in the house, which was not air conditioned. We children would sleep outdoors on a blanket. In those days, the sky was filled with stars, and shooting stars happened all the time.

We felt it was beautiful and thrilling. I think we were too young to have superimposed the bromide “It makes you feel small.” We could get “How great God is.” But that is very different.

~~~~~~~~

(#3 below)

Hey, in Bob we trust. How about a response to the following one?

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=64735

Edited February 25, 2009 by Stephen Boydstun

[BaalChatzaf]

We see the world because (1) we have eyes and a brain which operates them and (2) because the world is their to be seen. Our being is not more primary than the being of that which is Out There. We are made of the same stuff as the world and operate according to the same laws. In the natural scheme of things we are a contingent outcome of biological and evolutionary processes. The world will be what it is with us or without us. Some day in that not terribly distant future our kind will be extinct (mammalian species have not lasted for more than thirty million years) and the sun will keep on shining and the trees will keep on growing and the bugs and birds will keep on flying. We are not that special in the overall scheme of things.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Guyau]

This represents the full self-orientation that Rand brought to all human experience - that man's pleasure was derived from inside man, not from what was represented or present on the outside.

Christopher,

In 1984 I wrote an essay titled "The Moral Value of Liberty" which was published in Nomos. From that composition:

Just as the self cannot be the subject it is without having been subject to external objects, so the self cannot be the value it is without external objects of value to it. And just as the self cannot be the subject it is without also being the self-reflective object it is, so the self cannot be the value it is without being of that value to itself. (V2N1 20)

That is an expression of what I think of as conveyance of the primacy of existence into human values in a radical way. This is primacy of existence running more deeply in human values than in the subjective egoistic ethics of Nietzsche or Stirner.

The idea that external things need to be valuable to oneself in order for oneself to be valuable to oneself is not entirely foreign to Rand's writings on ethics. She has an essay called "Selfishness without a Self" that touches on this. She drafts her Howard Roark as oriented to external things and constructions he values; he is only secondarily oriented to himself as valuer of those things.

See further: http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Objectivi...A/0203.shtml#13

In Atlas Shrugged, Rand says to help another “if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle. . . . Man’s fight against suffering” is a value (1059–60). In this passage, Rand is commending acting on one’s pleasure in a value-operation not one’s own. It seems to me that this is an occasion of egoistic action that is not directly for one’s own sake, only indirectly so. One has the pleasure directly, but the object of one’s intelligence yielding the pleasure is a value-operation not one’s own and a value-operation whose aim is success (e.g., relief from suffering) for one not oneself.

See further: http://www.solopassion.com/node/4240

[Roger Bissell]

I believe that Rand somewhere, I think during the early 1970s, wrote that the proper orientation in life is not egocentric, but reality-centric. I think that applies across the board: to perception and knowledge seeking to choosing and pursuing values.

Over the years, I've seen so many professed Objectivists apparently frozen on the teen-age level of ego-centric self-absorption. Rand's ethics of enlightened, rational selfishness has been perverted by too many into the notion that there is nothing they should ever do except to please themselves. "Help an injured person on the side of the road? Nah, I'm on my way to Borders for a latte; Rand says it's OK to be 'selfish,' so I can't be bothered with helping others." You see, this guy did not take to heart "The Ethics of Emergencies," particularly the part where Rand said that if you can help someone non-sacrificially, you "should" do so -- her word, not mine!

REB

[Christopher]

I think there's a basic misunderstanding of what it means to be self-generating here. I believe Rand was for the self because through the self the world can be valued. Bringing this approach to a clip about perception (not evaluation), what we observe is that certain behaviors are pleasurable because it is in man's nature to make them pleasurable, as opposed to God's nature, nature's nature, or some other external source granting man the experience of pleasure.

Christopher

[Roger Bissell]

I think there's a basic misunderstanding of what it means to be self-generating here. I believe Rand was for the self because through the self the world can be valued. Bringing this approach to a clip about perception (not evaluation), what we observe is that certain behaviors are pleasurable because it is in man's nature to make them pleasurable, as opposed to God's nature, nature's nature, or some other external source granting man the experience of pleasure.

Christopher

Misunderstandings? Yes.

1. Perception is not self-generated or self-generating. It is an interaction between a conscious being and the physical world. It arose for the purpose of helping that being survive, but that survival is achieved not by being self-focused, but by being reality-focused.

2. Pleasure is not a perception. It is an evaluative response to that which is experienced (correctly or not) as being life-enhancing.

3. Rand was not "for the self because through the self the world can be valued." Valuing does not require a self -- only a living being that seeks certain things in order to survive. Valuing is a much, much broader than the human self. Rand was for the self, because she was for life, and it is only by acting in one's own self-interest that one can live the life proper to human beings.

REB

[tjohnson]

Valuing does not require a self -- only a living being that seeks certain things in order to survive. Valuing is a much, much broader than the human self.

I don't understand, how can you have valuing without a self? Doesn't it require a valuer to do the valuing?

[Roger Bissell]

Valuing does not require a self -- only a living being that seeks certain things in order to survive. Valuing is a much, much broader than the human self.

I don't understand, how can you have valuing without a self? Doesn't it require a valuer to do the valuing?

In the broader sense of "self," that is true. The actions of a plant or animal are aimed at the survival of itself. That is using "self" reflexively. But not in the sense of a conscious, self-aware self. So, I would say you can't have valuing without a valuer.

Christopher was talking about why Rand was "for the self." This is an ethical context. The "virtue of selfishness." The "ethics of self-interest." Why should one promote one's ~self~ interest, rather than the interests of others. None of these concepts or terms apply to animals and plants. They do not have rational-conceptual selves that have to ponder which way to orient themselves in living their lives. They just automatically do what promotes their own survival. Their "selves" are not involved in valuing in the same way that humans' are.

REB

[Christopher]

3. Rand was not "for the self because through the self the world can be valued." Valuing does not require a self -- only a living being that seeks certain things in order to survive. Valuing is a much, much broader than the human self. Rand was for the self, because she was for life, and it is only by acting in one's own self-interest that one can live the life proper to human beings.

Actually, through the self the world is valued regardless of whether this is reflexive or conscious. You assumed that I intended the definition of self to be the "self-conscious" self, but that's not what I stated. Then you followed up with a comment saying pretty much what I said.

On further reflection, I can see that my comment on perception vs. evaluation was unclear and somewhat misspoken. What I meant by my comment on perception was the meaning of reflexive that you gave (i.e. intrinsic to our nature). Hence, this article finds a connection between perception (reflexive) and pleasure (value-judgment) conditioned on man's physical nature.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Christopher

[tjohnson]

It seems to me that humans are intrinsically social creatures and their survival depends on cooperation with each other. We are many orders of magnitude more social than any animal and so I think any definition of man needs to include this characteristic.

[BaalChatzaf]

On further reflection, I can see that my comment on perception vs. evaluation was unclear and somewhat misspoken. What I meant by my comment on perception was the meaning of reflexive that you gave (i.e. intrinsic to our nature).

Actually it was mistyped or miswritten.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Guyau]

Christopher,

I came to another passage in The Fountainhead like the one in your root post. This is a scene at the end of one of those nights when Roark has had dinner with Gail Wynand and Gail’s wife Dominique in their penthouse. Gail and Roark have become profound friends, and Gail admires Roark greatly. Roark has gone home, and Dominique has headed for bed.

Gail “walked to a window and stood looking up at the sky. His head thrown back, he felt the pull of his throat muscles and he wondered whether the peculiar solemnity of looking at the sky comes, not from what one contemplates, but from that uplift of one’s head” (end of §V of the Part “Howard Roark”).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of Related Interest:

In his book The Neurological Side of Neuropsychology (MIT 1996), Richard Cytowic considers the question of why we enjoy fireworks so much.

What are they, these colored lights, moving flashes, and bangs? They are not real things in nature or representations of anything else, nor do they remind us of anything at an intellectual level. They are abstract . . . and yet they provoke a strong emotional reaction, inducing millions to watch and walk away satisfied. Onlookers exclaim,”That was wonderful!” without being able to say exactly what “that” was. (447)

Cytowic argues that spatial and kinetic form constants of elementary perception may be part of the explanation of “the satisfying appeal of something as unnatural as fireworks.” Concluding his argument:

Form constants are abstract, independent of personal experience, and free of context. They are just configuration, pulsation, flicker, drift, rotation, perspective . . . . Do fireworks remind you of anything? When we watch them do we not get a feeling of salience, as if we recognize something? I suggest that the “that” of “That was great!” is an ineffable experience of recognition. I do not consider it out of line to suggest that the appeal of a fireworks display lies in its astonishing similarity to an externalized catalogue of form constants. (457)

Cytowic suggests that form constants rely on brain areas outside sensory and motor cortex, some as yet (1996) unknown distributed system with strong contributions from attentional and limbic systems.

I should note that form constants are rigged into our visual system for adaptive reasons, for reasons of survival in the world outside us.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Stephen Boydstun

[Leonid]

Roger Bissell: "1. Perception is not self-generated or self-generating. It is an interaction between a conscious being and the physical world. It arose for the purpose of helping that being survive, but that survival is achieved not by being self-focused, but by being reality-focused."

As any biological process, perception is self-generated phenomenon of interaction between mind and external stimuli. As you observed " That is, sense data, which are objective, intentional, interaction-dependent phenomena, are just as real as the physical objects and conscious living organisms that interact to produce them." (Mind and Will, 1974). Such an interaction is not a passive process but actively generated by mind. The interaction is between input data and the formal model of existence which mind creates on the basis of the previous data. Fischler and Firschein (1987, 233) concur with this view:

"the senses can only provide a subset of the needed information; the organism must correct the measured values and guess at the needed missing ones."..."Indeed, even the best guesses can only be an approximation to reality - perception is a creative process."

In other words, mind is running powerful simulation software which is constantly updated by the input of data. This is also ontological basis of anticipation which is inherent feature of every living organism and which enables self-causation based on generation of goals projected into the future.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Leonid

[Christopher]

Christopher,

I came to another passage in The Fountainhead like the one in your root post. This is a scene at the end of one of those nights when Roark has had dinner with Gail Wynand and Gail’s wife Dominique in their penthouse. Gail and Roark have become profound friends, and Gail admires Roark greatly. Roark has gone home, and Dominique has headed for bed.

Gail “walked to a window and stood looking up at the sky. His head thrown back, he felt the pull of his throat muscles and he wondered whether the peculiar solemnity of looking at the sky comes, not from what one contemplates, but from that uplift of one’s head” (end of §V of the Part “Howard Roark”).

Yes, this was the quote I was referring to. Beautiful, isn't it.

[sseraph]

Christopher,

I came to another passage in The Fountainhead like the one in your root post. This is a scene at the end of one of those nights when Roark has had dinner with Gail Wynand and Gail’s wife Dominique in their penthouse. Gail and Roark have become profound friends, and Gail admires Roark greatly. Roark has gone home, and Dominique has headed for bed.

Gail “walked to a window and stood looking up at the sky. His head thrown back, he felt the pull of his throat muscles and he wondered whether the peculiar solemnity of looking at the sky comes, not from what one contemplates, but from that uplift of one’s head” (end of §V of the Part “Howard Roark”).

Yes, this was the quote I was referring to. Beautiful, isn't it.

I don't find this all that significant. Rand was accenting something important that many miss or do not think of or see, the importance of the self. However, I don't think she was saying that the self is everything and that all else is relatively irrelevant. It is not an either-or but a both and. It is appreciating the self in the very act of appreciation. But this does not mean the self is the only or main thing to be appreciated.

Perspective. I am one being on a middling planet of an ordinary star among billions in the galaxy which is an ordinary galaxy among billions like it. However, I have a mind that can grasp that.

[anonrobt]

Christopher,

I came to another passage in The Fountainhead like the one in your root post. This is a scene at the end of one of those nights when Roark has had dinner with Gail Wynand and Gail’s wife Dominique in their penthouse. Gail and Roark have become profound friends, and Gail admires Roark greatly. Roark has gone home, and Dominique has headed for bed.

Gail “walked to a window and stood looking up at the sky. His head thrown back, he felt the pull of his throat muscles and he wondered whether the peculiar solemnity of looking at the sky comes, not from what one contemplates, but from that uplift of one’s head” (end of §V of the Part “Howard Roark”).

Yes, this was the quote I was referring to. Beautiful, isn't it.

I don't find this all that significant. Rand was accenting something important that many miss or do not think of or see, the importance of the self. However, I don't think she was saying that the self is everything and that all else is relatively irrelevant. It is not an either-or but a both and. It is appreciating the self in the very act of appreciation. But this does not mean the self is the only or main thing to be appreciated.

Perspective. I am one being on a middling planet of an ordinary star among billions in the galaxy which is an ordinary galaxy among billions like it. However, I have a mind that can grasp that.

Well said - and welcome to OL...