About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 2:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

                         A Review of David Stewart's "John Galt Recants"

 

By Paul Hibbert

 

 

David Stewart, author of "John Galt Recants", seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth after the publication of his booklet, "John Galt Recants", in the late '70s or early '80s. In his 50 page speech, where he takes the place of the fictional hero of John Galt of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, he details his disagreements with the mainstream Objectivist dogma of the time. Apparently his views were then too radical to gain acceptance within the existing community. Perhaps the time has now come, when there is recognition that Objectivism need not be regarded as a closed, never-to-be-questioned philosophy, to reconsider and re-evaluate Stewart's views. As far as I can determine, there is no recollection of him by prominent members of that time. The booklet was published by LAGNAF but that publisher also seems to have vanished. Stewart tells us in the speech that he left the Objectivist movement but he continued his work as a philosopher, in private and for his own benefit. He set out to discover what the anti-rational principle was that had infected Objectivism. He became a doctor. "A doctor diagnoses disease." He did not wish to be found.

 

Stewart identifies the 'infection' of main-stream Objectivism as its "rational morality." According to him, the absence of a theory of experience leads to a theory of morality that is the cancer of Objectivist philosophy. It follows that the mind is not man's sole contact with reality.

 

"Because, you are told, you are you by choice—because your life is your life by choice—because its sustenance is its sustenance by choice—you need values. A code of values, you are told, is a code of morality.

 

"The truth is: You are you—your life is your life—its sustenance is its sustenance—life is an ~unconditional~ phenomenon—values depend upon real alternatives—and a "code" of values denies the individuality of the valuer. A code of values, a morality—in practice—diminishes experience, thwarts happiness, stifles expression, hampers action and cripples the very "values" it is designed to protect."

 

And:

 

"I told you in a previous report that man's mind is his basic tool of survival. I am now here to tell you the truth: Man's mind is man's mind. Man's stomach is man's stomach. A thing is itself. Your mind is no more basic to your survival than is your stomach. In reality, you need to exercise both.(emphasis mine) You are what you are, which is an integrated organism, a wholeness."

 

 

While mainstream Objectivism also emphatically rejects the Mind/Body dichotomy, according to Stewart, it neglects the phenomenon of 'experience.'

 

Stewart claims to have had a basic insight into an alternative, deeper interpretation of Aristotle's "A is A" dictum:

 

"A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of Aristotle's statement, nor, until recently, have I. I shall now complete it for you, this time with no slip-ups: Existence is Identity; Consciousness is Process; Logic is Identification".

 

            According to the Law of Identity it follows that one cannot reason and not reason at the same time, therefore one cannot reason and be conscious at the same time — and one must unfocus the faculty of reason in order to be conscious. Consciousness is a means of knowledge other than logical identification; it is a means — the only means — of ostensive knowledge, and Objectivism has ignored consciousness.

 

            Stewart goes further:

 

"Eastern philosophy, particularly Zen, has understood only consciousness — with predictable results. Objectivism has understood only rationality — with predictable results. Other philosophies have understood little of either — with tragically predictable results. Zen, which is a-rational, together with Objectivism, which is un-conscious, makes a good philosophical beginning. Neither philosophy has chosen to see the other side of the coin, the integrated wholeness which is man."

 

According to Stewart, if you were to try, for example, to compute the sum of the first 10 odd, positive integers, and simultaneously count the number of inhalations of breath that occurred during the exercise, you would probably fail. If you were, perchance,  successful you would be constantly alternating between 'reason' mode and 'experience' mode. Thus, you cannot think and be fully aware at the same time and in the same respect.

 

Other statements of Stewart in this vein are: "You cannot value and experience at the same time, but you can value experience; you can value the state of being non-valuing", "Experience can be thought of as first-stage knowledge, concepts as second-stage knowledge and abstract concepts as third-stage knowledge" and "The choice you face ~at any given time~ is either to reason or to be aware."

 

He has other opinions on such subjects as:

·        Subjective truth —There is no such thing as subjective truth — immediate knowledge is unverifiable; experience is process.

·        Dualities — Good and evil do not exist; only existence exists.

·        Individual responsibility — it is without limit.

·        Capitalism — he sees the standard of big business increasingly becoming Utilitarianism, but this is in the context of our mixed economy.

·        Meditation — Whoever experiences the reality of "now", "practices" the only reality that exists. And the reality that exists necessarily is perfect.

 

Stewart's final appeal is to his fellow outcasts —  the victims who have "been driven underground, living in silence, unnamed, unhonored, the movement's unknown soldiers." "Do you hear me, Barbara Branden, in whose name and honor I speak?", "Do you hear me, Edith Efron, my fellow outcast?" Ms. Branden has no recollection of Stewart. Edith Efron died in 2001 at the age of 79.

 

I, personally, relate to much of what Stewart has to say and I recommend that others take a serious look at his 'radical' views. I would be pleased to e-mail the full article in MS Word format (323K) or in plain text to anyone who requests it at phibbert@comcast.net.

 

 

 




Post 1

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 9:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"According to the Law of Identity it follows that one cannot reason and not reason at the same time, therefore one cannot reason and be conscious at the same time..."
The excerpt says it all really. If the above is reasoning, then I'm an Eskimo. Pass the blubber.


Post 2

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 7:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter: This is a complete and direct quote from the speech. If there was an error in paraphrasing the quote, mea culpa.


               Whatever you choose to consider, be it a plant, an animal or a reasoning

                animal, the Law of Identity remains the same. An animal cannot live and

                not live at the same time, it cannot reason and not reason at the same

                time, it cannot reason and be conscious at the same time. A is A. Or, if

                you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your philosophy

                and your morality too.


Sam




Post 3

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 7:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is still nonsense.

Post 4

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 7:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam,

Maybe I don't understand this fully, but I disagree, especially with this part

While mainstream Objectivism also emphatically rejects the Mind/Body dichotomy, according to Stewart, it neglects the phenomenon of 'experience.'

 

Stewart claims to have had a basic insight into an alternative, deeper interpretation of Aristotle's "A is A" dictum:

 

"A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of Aristotle's statement, nor, until recently, have I. I shall now complete it for you, this time with no slip-ups: Existence is Identity; Consciousness is Process; Logic is Identification".

 

            According to the Law of Identity it follows that one cannot reason and not reason at the same time, therefore one cannot reason and be conscious at the same time — and one must unfocus the faculty of reason in order to be conscious. Consciousness is a means of knowledge other than logical identification; it is a means — the only means — of ostensive knowledge, and Objectivism has ignored consciousness.

 

            Stewart goes further:

 

"Eastern philosophy, particularly Zen, has understood only consciousness — with predictable results. Objectivism has understood only rationality — with predictable results. Other philosophies have understood little of either — with tragically predictable results. Zen, which is a-rational, together with Objectivism, which is un-conscious, makes a good philosophical beginning. Neither philosophy has chosen to see the other side of the coin, the integrated wholeness which is man."

 

According to Stewart, if you were to try, for example, to compute the sum of the first 10 odd, positive integers, and simultaneously count the number of inhalations of breath that occurred during the exercise, you would probably fail. If you were, perchance,  successful you would be constantly alternating between 'reason' mode and 'experience' mode. Thus, you cannot think and be fully aware at the same time and in the same respect.

I think anyone who is doing something that requires experience and reasoning, say driving a car in traffic, is acting with both reasoning and experience. His simplification almost implies that you can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Seriously, we use both fculties continuusly all the time in just moving about and working on our daily tasks.


Post 5

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 7:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Sam: "This is a complete and direct quote from the speech."

Which speech are you referring to? It isn't a quote from Galt's speech.

Barbara



Post 6

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 7:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan: When you're driving your car under ordinary circumstances and simultaneously doing reasoning activities you're on automatic pilot — as you are when you're walking and cogitating. But these physical acts aren't what one would call 'experiencing'. Being deeply conscious of your breathing is one example of 'experiencing'. Tell me that you can perform the exercise of computing and breathing and you will have made a point.

Sam


Post 7

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 7:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara: No, it's from Stewart's Speech, "John Galt Recants."

Sam


Post 8

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 9:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Did it occur to him that being conscious and reasoning as a human being are the same thing?. I nurse people on "auto-pilot" with nothing else going on one could call "mind". And they aint conscious, nor fully human beings.
I think he's tried to split the unsplitable. To be conscious and to reason - for a human being - are one and the same thing.
Cass


Post 9

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 1:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Sam, the alternative to being conscious is being unconscious. How can one be unconscious and reason?

When you speak of "being deeply conscious of your breathing," you are referring to the object of a conscious focus. No, you can't focus on two different things at the same time, but that has nothing to do with whether you can be conscious and reason at the same time.

Barbara





Post 10

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 4:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara: I interpret Stewart to mean that consciousness is a prerequisite for both reasoning and experiencing. If one is not conscious one can do neither. However, I think that reasoning and experiencing are fundamentally two different processes. I don't think that anyone would argue that animals cannot experience, but they cannot reason. Therefore, it's more than just a shift of focus. There are many studies of how the brain functions when the subject is in deep meditation (experiencing) and it is much different than when reasoning.

Paul


Post 11

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 1:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mme. Branden-

You touch on an ontological point which is very important to me, and which is one of my more fundamental issues of difference with Objectivism.

If ideas and one's physical breathing are both equally objects of focus, it follows neither is identical with awareness; i.e., consciousness.  If existence includes the sum of all things of wich one might be conscious, it follows that both mental and physical objects are equally creatures of existence, and neither more than the other is "in" consciousness.  Thus, consciousness is an intentionality which can focus equally on mental and physical events both of existence, neither the property of consciousness, and existing on the same ontological level.  The difference is merely the manner of existence, in that entities of physical existence are publically available while entities of mental consciousness (ideas, memory, etc.) are not.  But this distinction is ultimately contingent.  Objectivists usually speak of the consciousness in Cartesian terms, as if it were a bubble containing ideas.  But it is more accurate to say that consciousness is a free directional arrow (to borrow from Sartre), which may have unique access to a particular set of objects which are mental, but does not contain them, is not identical with them, and should not be blurred into the same ontological category.

Objectivists talk of existence to mean physical space, and consciousness to mean awareness plus mental space.  What we should speak of is existence as both mental and physical space, and consciousness as awareness only.

Forgive me if I speak with what in now my hopefully antiquated manner of voice, but I believe this is ultimately a most important issue.

my regards,

Jeanine Ring
(titles... reserved)

(Edited by Jeanine Ring on 11/16, 2:50pm)


Post 12

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 4:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeanine,

Out of curiousity, why do you refer to people with French titles?  The only good things that came out of France is Victor Hugo, Voltaire, and the Statue of Liberty (and maybe Sophie Marceau as she looked in "Braveheart").


Post 13

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 4:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Out of curiousity, why do you refer to people with French titles?  The only good things that came out of France is Victor Hugo, Voltaire, and the Statue of Liberty"

I dunno.... I always liked france. well, paris anyway. The rest of france can go to hell. A lot of french writers are very interesting and stimulating, even if they aren't quite objectivist friendly. Then again, I am the one person on the face of the earth who actually enjoys reading Louis Ferdinand Celine.

Post 14

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 5:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The only good things that came out of France is Victor Hugo, Voltaire, and the Statue of Liberty (and maybe Sophie Marceau as she looked in "Braveheart").


What about the European-style beaches on the Riviera?

Post 15

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 5:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Bisno, this is the third time in one day I have found myself in agreement with you.  The planets are clearly misaligned.  ;)

I, too, am fond of Paris.  The architecture is magnificent, the purple night sky is magical, and the baguettes are a marvel of baking craftsmanship.  When I lived and/or worked there, I would revel at the first hint of morning, where I could open my tall French windows and watch the shopkeepers hosing down the sidewalk, preparing for the day. 

Sadly, I would later become aggravated by the Metro strikes, the waiters who would let me sit for 30 minutes before coming over to take my order, and the utter bureaucratic gridlock I faced in every part of my schooling or job.  But I still feel more positive than negative about Paris as a whole. 

And don't forget, the French gave us Frederic Bastiat...   


Post 16

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 8:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Sadly, I would later become aggravated by the Metro strikes, the waiters who would let me sit for 30 minutes before coming over to take my order, and the utter bureaucratic gridlock I faced in every part of my schooling or job.  But I still feel more positive than negative about Paris as a whole. "

I never got involved with anything governmental there, so I bypassed the gridlock, nor have I ever experienced a metro strike. My own pet peeves about the cityh are more eccentric. For example, for some reason, which I cannot figure out to this day, just about every single waiter in paris thought I was a girl. And I don't look physically effeminate AT ALL. I can't tell you how many times I was told "excusé moi madame, that is the men's room." Or what's even worse is being hit on by them.

Post 17

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 11:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeanine,

Out of curiousity, why do you refer to people with French titles?  The only good things that came out of France is Victor Hugo, Voltaire, and the Statue of Liberty (and maybe Sophie Marceau as she looked in "Braveheart").

Msr. Garcia,

     Why,
               for the same reason I try to use British spellings, or echo various authors in my syntactical structure, or speak in person with a distinctively polyvalent accent.  I am an 'escort', and one of the first marks of an escort is her voice.  Erotic presentation requires more than simple sensuousness; it requires one apply the principles of art to common speech and movement.  Courtesans were once taught singing and dancing, music and literature, poetry and its criticism, as well as the skill of pleasuring the human body and a spiritual regimen that adapts the soul to what we could now call sex work.  Serious escorts still follow essentially the same path, self-taught or otherwise; 'tis simply the excellence implicit in the practise of this profession and continually reinvented.  As such I eclecticize aristic turns of speech wherever possible, borrowing from culture and fiction as I find there my own passions; I use stylized titles for the reasons I practice with Pagan references, alchemical world-pictures, or contemporary lyrics- all channel a style which to my ear is implicit in the logic of words.

I hasten to say I am still very much learning as a courtesan, but such aestheticizing of life is that which I am learning.   It begins with a theory of sexuality that is also part of Ayn Rand's: desire begins in the mind.

Courtesanship is the profession of the ars personae; it is the practice of the excellence which Nietzsche called "giving style to one's character."  To exist as an erotic object is a self-recreation according to an abstract type of personality.   I use the tiles you note because such rituals echo a cultural memory of the manners of patriarchal yet not unerotic aristocracy.  Titles of address sublimate the instrumental necessities of social intercourse into a textured structure of speech; they create an aura of meaning to even ordinary exchanges.  In my case the use of such titles to all when I myself retain no parallel marks me as an exception marginal to a socio-sexual structure; this too is appropriate to my profession and a practise I must make second nature given my political situation.  It is also appropriate to my situation in this forum, where I am a guest but by my own divided loyalties no intellectual citizen.

Of course, I use my own conspicuous titles, whose purpose in to focus my identity as an abstraction, distancing subjectivity, which allows for valuation as an erotic object.  But it's ultimately the same thing any actor does on stage, and if my phrasing sounds a bit dehumanizing... well, perhaps.  But I assure you the original textbooks make the aestheticizing title sound hubristic beyond belief or any words appropriate to philosophy, and for once I'd rather be humility than vanity.

Eventually, I'll learn different styles of address for my various personae, and I do use alternative styles of address in my kajira persona (whom I can't truly express online); for now, I would prefer to use something with more touch than mere utility. 

my regards,

Pyrophora Cypriana   ))(*)((   - "not all those who wander are lost"

P. S. Of course, one strong charge of the erotic tradition is a secrecy or esotericism about its method, but this ex-philosopher has never been very good at keeping her mouth shut.  Oops.


Post 18

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 1:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jennifer wrote: "Sadly, I would later become aggravated by the Metro strikes, the waiters who would let me sit for 30 minutes before coming over to take my order, and the utter bureaucratic gridlock I faced in every part of my schooling or job."

Bah!  Paris can be a beautiful city, but so are Beijing and Moscow.  Hell, Baghdad was a beautiful city too.  Yes, there is a mysterious charm sitting at a sidewalk cafe sipping on carbonated water (that cost me around $2.00) because it is too hot inside the cafe (environmentalist policies there make air conditioning unaffordable), waiting 30 minutes for a meal that would not make a 5-year old American girl full (that set me back $15.00) . . . but I'll take a backyard 4th of July barbeque in the good 'ol USA any day.


Post 19

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 1:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeanine wrote: "Msr. Garcia,"

Pigs can fly and Hell just froze over.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.