Existence exists?

[Ian]

According to gemeral semantics, objects can be considered first order abstractions and words are 2nd order abstractions and words about words are 3rd order etc. Animals are restricted to first order abstractions. When we "see an object" this is a misnomer because it is lightwaves bouncing off atoms and then hitting our retina that eventually produces the object (concept, abstraction etc.) in our visual cortex. So the existence of the object depends on the observer but not the existence of the lightwaves. This was not known before science was advanced enough to figure it out but many of us still believe and act as if this wasn't so.

A concept, in Objectivist epistemology (as I understand it) is part of one's map. The object is that part of the territory to which one refers when using the concept.

What word do you use to refer to part of the territory?

[Selene]

A cliff. A lake. A rock.

[tjohnson]

A concept, in Objectivist epistemology (as I understand it) is part of one's map. The object is that part of the territory to which one refers when using the concept.

What word do you use to refer to part of the territory?

'Concept' is used quite ambiguously usually. It's used either as a term or a mental image and this causes a great deal of confusion. When you describe an object, say an apple, what are actually describing? Is it not an image in your cortex? What other data do you have? Is the apple green or do you merely see green (if it's a granny smith)?

[Brant Gaede]

When I used "GS" in my previous posts I did not mean "General Semanticist" but "General Semantics."

--Brant

Well, I'm glad I'm not getting jettisoned.

No. You can sleep in the guest room.

--Brant

can't be topped

[Brant Gaede]

Dilbert (4-17-09):

Company Economist: "The economy will either recover or not."/ "Unless time itself is an illusion. In which case all matter is either stationary or imagined."/"I'd take your questions, but I'm not entirely sure you're real."

Heh.

--Brant

I know it's not fair

[Ian]

A cliff. A lake. A rock.

I have liked the map-territory metaphor for reality and what we understand of it ever since I first read the quote "The map is not the territory," in the work of Robert Anson Heinlein. He attributed the saying to Alfred Korzybski, and a system called "general semantics." In writing to "General Semanticist," I thought it best to start with a point of agreement.

Ian.

[Rich Engle]

Ah, Heinlein!

I always light up when someone mentions his work.

I sometimes think if I could only have two "desert island" novels, it would be Atlas, and his "Time Enough For Love" (which, in the end, I have always considered slightly better, by photo-finish).

Clearly, his writing was more wizened, and humorous.

He's the only other author outside of Rand where I tracked down every last particle of their work and read it.

I mean, I did that with other people but those times were more glorious and difficult and, in the end, fufilling.

r

[Ian]

A concept, in Objectivist epistemology (as I understand it) is part of one's map. The object is that part of the territory to which one refers when using the concept.

What word do you use to refer to part of the territory?

'Concept' is used quite ambiguously usually. It's used either as a term or a mental image and this causes a great deal of confusion. When you describe an object, say an apple, what are actually describing? Is it not an image in your cortex? What other data do you have? Is the apple green or do you merely see green (if it's a granny smith)?

An ambiguous word is one susceptible of more than one meaning. Since we (you and I) mean different things by "object," that word is subject to the same objection (ambiguity) you are making for "concept." I must confess to not understanding what import your dichotomy between "term" and "mental image," would have. In Objectivist epistemology, as I understand it, a "percept" is a first order abstraction. A "concept" is a second (and higher) order abstraction, a grouping of percepts in order to handle the lot as if it were a single percept, by giving it (the concept) a lable, a word. Percepts and concepts are the map. Objects are reserved for the territory, this in order to keep map and territory separate in one's thinking, as they are in reality.

To say a given apple is green identifies the same fact of reality as to say I see green when I look at that apple. The second formulation expands on the first.

I have no objection, in writing to you, to using the word "object" to refer to the mental construct which I'd call a "percept" in writing to an Objectivist. What I'm wondering is whether you have a word to refer to what in reality, in the territory, gives rise to percepts/objects, and to which we refer by using concepts/words. If you've answered, I haven't understood.

Ian.

[Ian]

Ah, Heinlein!

I always light up when someone mentions his work...

I just finished this one:

Couldn't resist that cover. ;)

Edited April 23, 2009 by Ian

[Xray]

I sometimes get the feeling that objectivism was created to justify some political/economic belief systems.

I am quite convinced that this is indeed the case. I came to this conclusion quite early on during my reading of her stuff. To me, it is the simplest explanation behind some of the glaring problems I see in Objectivism. She had to hold on to some rather foolish arguments in order to hold her political views together. I really do think Objectivism is nothing more than an attempt to justify the polar opposite of the political 'hell' she escaped. It was so bad, that only the exact opposite has to be the 'right' way. So she worked backwards from her political views - jamming all sorts of square pegs into round holes.

I'm thinking in the same direction. Imo a lot of Rand's weird thinking is rooted in the experience of a political hell (and also of personal trauma, since she was an unloved child rejected by her mother who only "appreciated" her for her intelligence) she had to endure and finally fled from.

All that "sacrificil animal stuff" she stresses over and over again in her writings - it was probably SHE who had felt that way back then in the USSR.

Singing the praise of unbridled capitalism was later to become the credo of her belief system, and and the USA her Sangri La land guaranteeing it.

Imo AR's soul had been deeply wounded in her childhood years. In the wishful thinking of her fantasy, she later created fearless characters who were to triumph over pain.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ah, Heinlein!

I always light up when someone mentions his work...

I just finished this one:

Couldn't resist that cover. ;)

Beautiful eyes, I can tell she is an objectivist by the cool rational way she carries her uh hmmmm

Adam

[sbeaulieu]

I sometimes get the feeling that objectivism was created to justify some political/economic belief systems.

I am quite convinced that this is indeed the case. I came to this conclusion quite early on during my reading of her stuff. To me, it is the simplest explanation behind some of the glaring problems I see in Objectivism. She had to hold on to some rather foolish arguments in order to hold her political views together. I really do think Objectivism is nothing more than an attempt to justify the polar opposite of the political 'hell' she escaped. It was so bad, that only the exact opposite has to be the 'right' way. So she worked backwards from her political views - jamming all sorts of square pegs into round holes.

I'm thinking in the same direction. Imo a lot of Rand's weird thinking is rooted in the experience of a political hell (and also of personal trauma, since she was an unloved child rejected by her mother who only "appreciated" her for her intelligence) she had to endure and finally fled from.

All that "sacrificil animal stuff" she stresses over and over again in her writings - it was probably SHE who had felt that way back then in the USSR.

Singing the praise of unbridled capitalism was later to become the credo of her belief system, and and the USA her Sangri La land guaranteeing it.

Ayn Rand's book heroes feel no pain, they deny pain fervently. In the wishful thinking of her fantasy, she created invulnerable heroes because she herself had been so deeply psychologically wounded in her childhood, youth and early adult years.

I'll say it again, Ayn was one person. A philosophical system has to be built upon. It will never be a perfect product. We could all sit here and bash a person that has passed away over 20 years ago, but I find that counterproductive to progressing Objectivism. Cite your criticisms, back them up and and proceed. Butchering her character while doing so only stands in the way of progress.

~ Shane

[Selene]

BRAVO

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand's book heroes feel no pain, they deny pain fervently. In the wishful thinking of her fantasy, she created invulnerable heroes because she herself had been so deeply psychologically wounded in her childhood, youth and early adult years.

Oh, yes, invulnerable Kira.

Ignorance needs a little more modesty to be un-unbecoming.

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Ayn Rand's book heroes feel no pain, they deny pain fervently. In the wishful thinking of her fantasy, she created invulnerable heroes because she herself had been so deeply psychologically wounded in her childhood, youth and early adult years.

Let's see, which of the following feel no pain:

Kira

Dominique Francon

Howard Roark

Francisco D'Anconia

Hank Rearden

Please advise. Are you making these statements as guesses in the absence of having read, say, any of We the Living, The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? Or did you read these and not see where these five undergo very serious pain?

Bill P

[Selene]

Now Bill, you know better than to use evidence in an argument structure and logically come

to a conclusion while skillfully asking a question that refutes xray argument.

This is not fair. In fact, under a couple of new laws it could be considered a hate crime.

Maybe the Germanic heritage has a different definition of pain. It is rumored that Nietzsche would smash his head

into the stone wall to become unconscious from the pain of the migraines?

Adam

[Xray]

Ayn Rand's book heroes feel no pain, they deny pain fervently. In the wishful thinking of her fantasy, she created invulnerable heroes because she herself had been so deeply psychologically wounded in her childhood, youth and early adult years.

Let's see, which of the following feel no pain:

Kira

Dominique Francon

Howard Roark

Francisco D'Anconia

Hank Rearden

Please advise. Are you making these statements as guesses in the absence of having read, say, any of We the Living, The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? Or did you read these and not see where these five undergo very serious pain?

Bill P

Sorry if I confused you, Bill. The Randian heros (at least those who I have encountered so far) do of course have the ability to feel both physical and emotional pain, but its eems to me the lack of empathy they show is like an psychological armor Rand gave them. Dagny Taggart for example says verbatim she has never felt anything at all.

Rand disciple N. Branden wrote: TVOSE, p. 71:

"Implicitly contained in the the experience of pleasure is the feeling "I am in control of my existence" - just as implicitly contained pain is the feeling: "I am helpless". As pleasure emotionally ential a sense of efficacy, so pain emotionally entails a sense of impotence." Imo Branden's statement does not stand up to scrutiny, for pain does not automatically entail the feeling of impotence. When you feel e. g. the pain of a headache, it can lead you to get a pill from the medicine cabinet. Where's the impotence here?

Also, there exist quite a few pleasures in life which are connected to the feeling of not being in control of one's existence, and are often sought specifically for that purpose. The "pleasure" people seek in a roller coaster ride or a Bungee jump is also derived from the potential element of danger adding a thrill.

Imo what NB wrote does reflect Rand's wish for her heros to triumph over pain.

Rand herself said she modeled all her male fictional heros after Cyrus, the fearless hero of an of adventure story in a boys' magazine she read as a kid: "The Mysterious Valley".

Her first love for a comic-strip like figure (today such Cyrus types woud probably be comic strip heroes) shaped Rand' relationship with men all her life. In a way, she never stopped thinking like a child, seeking Cyrus in them, no matter how little they fit the bill.

Source: Barbara Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand p. 12- 13.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Xray

[Alfonso Jones]

Maybe you call it "I confused you" when you say "Ayn Rand's book heroes feel no pain" and yet many of them so clearly do - my enumeration is of course only partial. I don't think that for you to say that you "confused you" is the most straightforward way to describe it. Perhaps "grossly misrepresented?" That would be much more accurate and reflective.

Do you believe that when Dagny said she had never felt anything at all, that was a sincere reflection of her experience (we are both now of course speaking of the fictional character as if she were real now)? Or was she being sarcastic with her brother? I think the latter is far more credible.

Of course Rand wants her heroes to TRIUMPH over pain. That does NOT mean they never feel the pain. It means that they TRIUMPH over it and in spite of it.

Bill P

[Xray]

I sometimes get the feeling that objectivism was created to justify some political/economic belief systems.

I am quite convinced that this is indeed the case. I came to this conclusion quite early on during my reading of her stuff. To me, it is the simplest explanation behind some of the glaring problems I see in Objectivism. She had to hold on to some rather foolish arguments in order to hold her political views together. I really do think Objectivism is nothing more than an attempt to justify the polar opposite of the political 'hell' she escaped. It was so bad, that only the exact opposite has to be the 'right' way. So she worked backwards from her political views - jamming all sorts of square pegs into round holes.

I'm thinking in the same direction. Imo a lot of Rand's weird thinking is rooted in the experience of a political hell (and also of personal trauma, since she was an unloved child rejected by her mother who only "appreciated" her for her intelligence) she had to endure and finally fled from.

All that "sacrificil animal stuff" she stresses over and over again in her writings - it was probably SHE who had felt that way back then in the USSR.

Singing the praise of unbridled capitalism was later to become the credo of her belief system, and and the USA her Sangri La land guaranteeing it.

Ayn Rand's book heroes feel no pain, they deny pain fervently. In the wishful thinking of her fantasy, she created invulnerable heroes because she herself had been so deeply psychologically wounded in her childhood, youth and early adult years.

I'll say it again, Ayn was one person. A philosophical system has to be built upon. It will never be a perfect product. We could all sit here and bash a person that has passed away over 20 years ago, but I find that counterproductive to progressing Objectivism. Cite your criticisms, back them up and and proceed. Butchering her character while doing so only stands in the way of progress.

~ Shane

Explaining is not "butchering". I often feel sorry for what AR had to go through in her life. I work with children, and when a child is being as rejected and unloved as A. Rand had been, this is an incredible emotional burden for the child.

[Xray]

Maybe you call it "I confused you" when you say "Ayn Rand's book heroes feel no pain" and yet many of them so clearly do - my enumeration is of course only partial. I don't think that for you to say that you "confused you" is the most straightforward way to describe it. Perhaps "grossly misrepresented?" That would be much more accurate and reflective.

Point taken. I had not been precise enough - you are correct. I'll edit my post on that, to avoid any further misunderstanings.

[Selene]

xray:

"Explaining is not 'butchering'. "

Really. So, you are asserting that as long as you state that "explaining" is not "butchering" when you butcher your explanations, makes the blood on the floor go away....hmmm and here I stupidly thought that reality is objective from whim like assertions.

Boy I must be butchering things improperly.

"I often feel sorry for what AR had to go through in her life. I work with children, and when a child is being as rejected and unloved as A. Rand had been, this is an incredible emotional burden for the child."

Yes, we must make the "emotions" and feelings as the most important part of the child's education. "It is an incredible emotional burden for the child."!

This is patently absurd. The assumption is not valid. Life is a challenge, deal with. As you cripple these kids and they get into real life as in with a job that demands performance, and they do not achieve, the sales manager and the CEO have to make sure their poor performance does not make them feel unloved and rejected - look in the mirror - remember the last time all the "good Germans" would say:

I did not know. All I did was throw the switch on the track that took the train to Buchenwald, I did not know what was on the train!

And the wandering critics of Rand's personal life frankly nauseate me. So you often "feel sorry" for what ole Ayn had to "go through in her life", rather than be uplifted by the triumph of her life.

This is one of the major problems the bastardization of the educational system has produced. Do not teach - help them with their feelings and their self-esteem.

Absurd. Teach them to use their mind rationally and you will not have to hold their hands for the rest of their lives.

Finally, stop trying to look under Ayn's skirt and see if she wore undies. Stick to her ideas as she stated them.

Adam

[Xray]

xray:

Yes, we must make the "emotions" and feelings as the most important part of the child's education. "It is an incredible emotional burden for the child."

This is patently absurd. The assumption is not valid. Life is a challenge, deal with. As you cripple these kids and they get into real life as in with a job that demands performance, and they do not achieve, the sales manager and the CEO have to make sure their poor performance does not make them - look in the mirror - remember the last time all the "good Germans" would say:

C'mon Selene - I work with kids and you accusing me of "crippling" them just makes me laugh.

This is one of the major problems the bastardization of the educational system has produced. Do not teach - help them with their feelings and their self-esteem.

Good teachers will always try to build up their pupils' self-esteem. What are you talking about? Why those rants? I know, I know, you said you "have no [emotional] thermostat", but still ... is it necessary to always get carried away like that?

Absurd. Teach them to use their mind rationally and you will not have to hold their hands for the rest of their lives.

You really think empathy and rationality are mutually exclusive? I have not made the experience that they are.

Finally, stop trying to look under Ayn's skirt and see if she wore undies. Stick to her ideas as she stated them.

And her personal history offers insight into why she got them. Edited May 2, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ok I give up.

Adam

[Xray]

Do you believe that when Dagny said she had never felt anything at all, that was a sincere reflection of her experience (we are both now of course speaking of the fictional character as if she were real now)? Or was she being sarcastic with her brother? I think the latter is far more credible.

I don't think Dagny was being sarcastic when she said that.

[Alfonso Jones]

Do you believe that when Dagny said she had never felt anything at all, that was a sincere reflection of her experience (we are both now of course speaking of the fictional character as if she were real now)? Or was she being sarcastic with her brother? I think the latter is far more credible.

I don't think Dagny was being sarcastic when she said that.

Here is the passage under discussion:

She had turned to go, when he spoke again—and what he said seemed bewilderingly irrelevant. "That's all right for you, because you're lucky. Others can't do it."

"Do what?"

"Other people are human. They're sensitive. They can't devote their whole life to metals and engines. You're lucky—you've never had any feelings. You've never felt anything at all."

As she looked at him, her dark gray eyes went slowly from astonishment to stillness, then to a strange expression that resembled a look of weariness, except that it seemed to reflect much more than the endurance of this one moment.

"No, Jim," she said quietly, "I guess I've never felt anything at all."

What do you think explains Dagny's change from astonishment to stillness to reflection of long-standing endurance?

If Dagny never felt anything, then why astonishment at Jim's comment? Why her emotional state at the end of this passage as quoted above?

Bill P