Marginalisations of meaning

I have always felt that many people have their heads in the clouds, and not in the real world. The people I have often had the most difficulty understanding are the staunchly goal-driven ones. You know the ones, who believe in 'tradition', and 'its how you play the game that counts'. Often I see the things they are pursuing, and in an objective way they don't make much sense to me.

People seem to have preconceived ideas to which they ascribe, and they pig-headedly adhere to such sentiment beyond all measure of sense. I have always been interested in knowing the reasons why things happen. While many prescribe to an 'if not, why not?' philosophy, in that we have one life and should try everything during it, I have generally preferred an 'if, why?' philosophy.

In any proposed action, I have questioned the motivation behind such actions. The result of this is usually a more decisive decision-making process. It is amazing how many people don't know how to make a decision, or can't see the scope of consequences their past decisions have had. I agree with what people like Henry Emrich have said; it seems they simply refuse to think it through. People are scared to think, to question. We far too readily accept marginalisations of meaning in lieu of analysing the causes and effects.

I recall an episode regarding the understanding of infinity, which some people seem to have a problem with. A friend of mine told me once that the biggest number ever is (infinity + 1). I asked him to explain why he thought that. His answer was that infinity is very big, so big that adding any amount to infinity is equal to infinity. So (infinity + 1) is the same as (infinity + 10), etc. Therefore this number (infinity + 1) (in other words, infinity) is the biggest number ever. His thinking ended here. He didn't notice that (infinity = infinity + x; x != 0) is a contradiction, since it translates into (x = 0; x != 0). Here, '!=' means 'is not equal to'.

He didn't show the initiative to think more about it at all; he was satisfied with his 'understanding' of it. Part of the problem was his not realising that infinity is not a number, it is a concept. (infinity + 1) is not a valid sum; no calculation between a finite quantity and an infinite quantity can be performed. An infinite quantity is immeasurable, it has no discrete value.

The point here is he accepted a marginalisation of meaning, without thinking it through very far. The marginalisation was that infinity is a really big number. Many people seem to do this, thinking 'it must have been because of X', but without thinking any further, which might show contradiction. A similar marginalisation is that a 'black hole' is something with super-high gravity. A black hole has completely normal gravity, just an extremely high density, so much so that the gravity near the surface is very high, enough to stop light escaping. It is sometimes interesting to ask people 'what do you think would happen if the sun was replaced by a black hole of equal mass, would the planet's orbits change?'. Try this sometime; you might be surprised with the answers you get. In their defence, many people answering this question will start with 'they would be sucked into the black hole', but then shortly say 'oh wait, they wouldn't', once they realise the contradiction.

So it seems upon asking the right questions, people will see the contradiction and revise their thoughts accordingly. We need to illuminate the contradiction by asking the right questions, thus giving their thought processes a kick-start.

Any comments are welcome...

Post 1

Sunday, January 4, 2004 - 12:35pm

Accepting generosity... (I didn't feel like making a new thread for this, so I will stick it here)

I quote from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. This excerpt is from chapter 8, 'The John Galt Line'. It is condensed, see the source for the full context.

Quote: 'When Rearden handed to him the deed to his new property, Danagger said impassively, "I don't believe I've mentioned that any coal you buy from me, you'll get it at cost.
...
Rearden smiled; it was a happy smile, but he closed his eyes as under a blow. Then he shook his head. "Thanks," he said. "But I'm not one of them. I don't expect anybody to work for me at cost."
...
"You (Danagger) didn't volunteer to bid to buy my property. I asked you to buy it."
...
"If you want to do me a favor, don't offer me rebates. ... I'll manage my end of it. Only let me have the coal."'

There are different schools of thought as to the merit of taking. Some prescribe giving as the moral cause, and taking as the selfish wrong. Others prescribe taking what you can where you can get it, and view giving as unpalatable and unnecessary. Both of these views are extreme.

I have often seen people who are quite generous, in that they will share what they have, and help others where they can, and generally regard themselves as a 'good' person. Suprisingly, they absolutely shun accepting generosity in any form. I thought this way too, once. They haven't realised yet that accepting generosity is a form of giving, and, by categorically refusing to do so, they are acting selfishly. This might seem to be a paradox; I will explain it shortly.

This shows the inevitable contradiction of the altruistic mindset. I have always thought that part of becoming an adult is learning when to give and when to take. Adhering to either side is wrong. When people are being generous, it is often due to a selfish desire to prove themselves generous, or giving. It is a chosen behaviour designed to prove that they are 'good' people, because, according to the old maxim, giving is good, and therefore if they are good people they will give. This boils down to what I term the human inferiority complex. Because society teaches people to not trust their instincts, they then fervently try to prove to others that they actually don't. Our instinct is not to give things away if we need them. Because most people hold the mindset that our instincts are not to be trusted, they get a thrill out of giving, because it proves they are good.

The strangest thing is that such people don't realise that they are chasing a selfish desire, to prove themselves worthy. This is entirely selfish, and shows that we can't eternally be unselfish. This is one of the biggest myths put forward by society, that any selfishness is bad.

Getting back to accepting generosity, those being generous usually are chasing that cheap thrill of being needed; of helping others via their actions. By refusing their help, we are denying them that pleasure; that modicum of happiness that is the only type attainable by them. While we might gain pleasure from denying them this out of principle, this too is proving our prowess, getting a cheap thrill.

The predominant attitude of those who refuse generosity out-of-hand is that they don't want to be debtors, but when you analyse the situation, you realise that debt is not necessarily implied. Trade is a two-way transaction, but if their generosity is powered by their desire to be needed, the benefit to them is immediate, rather than some relegated obligation. This is typically when they offer help based on some perceived obligation to help others. They get a kick out of helping you, and you have the power to grant them that.

Note this doesn't imply any obligation on your part to accept generosity, it merely nullifies any obligation not to on principle. Note here I am specifically talking about free generosity, without any explicit debt applied. The situation then becomes as a trade, they are trading help for being a helper. The trade is desirable to them, otherwise they wouldn't offer it. This is a fundamental truth, without a benefit to them, no trade would be offered.

The onus is on you to accept or reject the offer, and the decision on this is based on the benefit to you, not any other criteria. If free help is offered with no explicit debt, I see no reason not to take it if it is suitable. Many people try to trick you though, and you must denounce immediately their doing this, if they attempt to. Many times after the deal has been struck, they tell you "you owe me one". Kindly remind them that that obligation was not in the terms of the deal struck between you, and is an attempt by them to change the parameters of the deal. As a result, you are not obliged at all, or in any way whatsoever, to perform any future action in that regard. This sounds harsh, but the post-effect of implied debt is the biggest scam going. If a person expected a favour in return, they should have specified it when describing the deal. If they offer free help, it is free, period.

Many people are honest, and will do that when offering help, saying "I'll help you out, but I expect a favour in return". A deal such as this will have obviously have to be weighed against the future obligation. Another common trick they pull is to come later with some favour, saying "you owe it to me". Very often you don't. Especially if the favour is some deplorable action you wouldn't indulge in, like some criminal activity, or keeping a secret which is better told, you aren't obligated to do it. Anybody who would coerce you into doing something unreasonable is not to be trusted, and such obligations don't apply. Kindly point that out to them.

(*) Note here I use morals to mean what helps you determine what actions are acceptable.

The same applies to a future obligation as a result of help you requested from somebody. People view asking for help as a sign of weakness, and as something bad. Realise a motorcar couldn't have been designed by one person; many contributed their talents. However, and this is fundamentally important, the individual's work in such an enterprise must be recognised, and the credit must go to them. As a result of this, it is better to delegate the work at the start of the project than to cover each other's lapses later. Typically in any group exercise, some will do more work than others, and their efforts should be recognised as such.

When asking for help, invariably there will be a debt to be repaid later. That debt doesn't allow the creditor to coerce you into some deplorable activity, as described above. When they then require such a deplorable action, tell them you don't feel obliged to perform that, as it isn't reasonable; that is, when using reason to evaluate it, it doesn't seem a good thing to do.

In such a case they often say 'trust me'. Don't. If they can't convince you of the validity of it, using reason, it is likely to not be legitimate. Your final decision will be based on your trust in them, which is something earned, not innately deserved. You don't owe them the benefit of the doubt. That saying is a misnomer. Giving them the benefit means doing it in spite of doubts, which is a decision based on trust, not some ideal.

-- continued --

Post 2

Sunday, January 4, 2004 - 12:36pm

-- continued --

Regarding the quote above (in my previous post), in the context Hank Rearden was basically coerced into selling his coal mines against his will. The buyer knows without a doubt that he would have recieved no orders whatsoever from Hank Rearden, now or in the future, if it had not been for the bill that forced Rearden to sell his mines. Danagger himself is opposed to that same bill. As a result, he doesn't see it as fair to charge extra on the coal he produces for Rearden, even if it costs him less than it cost Rearden to mine it himself.

As a result, he offers the coal to Rearden at cost. It is part a protest by Danagger against the bill he dislikes, and part to aid somebody he obviously respects, or perhaps feels they have something in common, being two businessmen. His offer is free help with no implied debt.

Hank Rearden will have nothing of it. He categorically denounces the offer on principle, almost as though he would feel less worthy if he accepted it. It seems he is on a crusade to prove himself worthy, as too many humans are. Were he to realise that proving ourselves is not necessary, he could objectively view the offer and realise that it was beneficial for him to take it. Any negative connotations placed on such help given are purely non-material, and definitely subjective.

The only valid negative connotation is that perhaps after much time Danegger begins to regret selling the ore to Rearden at cost. If this happens, he (Danegger) might begin to delay Rearden's orders, or give him other grief. Rearden can stop this happening by saying something like "I'll accept purchasing the coal at cost price on the condition that as soon as you regret in any way giving me the coal at low price you promptly charge what you deem to be fair. I don't want any negative feelings to come between us as a result of this deal."

There is one valid concern, whether it is legal to sell the coal at cost price. Certainly it is allowed to sell at a discount, and if selling at cost price is not legally allowed, a deal could be struck whereby some large discount applies in the same manner. Rearden's principled denial of any such deal shows his need to prove himself; his need to be able to say at the end of the day he did it on his own steam. Anyone needing this confirmation is slave to their inferiority complex. People talk much about freedom; you can only be free if you are free from self-doubt. Rearden's need for that confirmation shows that he would second-guess his worth without it. We are taught to not trust our instincts, and to doubt that which we know. Rearden has achieved much in his life, and I think he knows it. Even with all that evidence, he is scared to accept help as it might reflect negatively on him, somehow showing his achievements to be a cover-up for the worthless man underneath. This is no way to live. I know.

People sometimes say it takes more courage to accept help than give it. Illiterate adults are often scared to let people know they can't read. They follow that since a child can learn to read, they must somehow be inferior. The fear of this drives them to dislike reading, since it shows their flaw, their lacking. The same is true of people who typically are 'sore losers'. I was one of them, although lately I have realised that to think you are inferior for some slight failure is to ignore the wealth of evidence to the contrary. Failure is part of the learning process, and, as they say, you should get back on the horse, because whatever made you try it in the first place hasn't changed. You have only begun to doubt, which probably isn't reasonable.

Any comments are welcome. Much of the opinions expressed here are under review.

Post 3

Monday, January 5, 2004 - 12:03pm

Quote from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand, chapter 9: The sacred and the profane:

Quote: "What I feel for you is contempt. But it's nothing compared to the contempt I feel for myself. I don't love you. I've never loved anyone. I wanted you from the first moment I saw you. I wanted you as one wants a whore, for the same reason and purpose. I spent two years damning myself, because I thought you were above a desire of this kind. You're not. You're as vile an animal as I am."

Hank Rearden says this. Ayn Rand seems to be styling him as the ideal, but his attitude here is anything but ideal.

Why should he feel contempt for her? He seems to think that she somehow made him lose control. It was his choice. We might not control the feelings we have, but we control the resulting actions. Perhaps he is annoyed that he gave in to it, the desire, especially since he is married. The fact that he did shows that he didn't regard his marriage as being so fulfilling. Perhaps it's a good sign that it's time to end it.

It says earlier in the book (in not so many words) that he feels contempt when he is forced to seek sexual gratification from his wife. The implication is that he isn't angry that it's his wife, but rather that he feels those feelings. He despises his feelings greatly, and represses them. When they are brought to the fore he feels contempt for the person that supposedly caused it, and even more contempt for himself. This is not a healthy way to view the situation.

Anybody with these views is chasing an unattainable goal, and needs to realise the truth. The truth is we all have feelings, and they are an integral part of our makeup. Whether or not it suits us, we have them, and should accept them. What we do about them is our own concern. The human body is a reproductive organism, and without sexual desire our race would become extinct. Anybody who believes humans have a right to live must believe in the necessity of sexual desire. There can be no compromise on this point.

This merely puts stock in the need to have sexual desire, but does not imply sexual desire should be acted upon regardless. Some people experience sexual desire from little boys, others have fetishes with grasshoppers or whatever. Reason should dictate when seeking sexual gratification is appropriate. This judgement is based on a number of things, not just our immediate 'need' for gratification.

That we can make these judgements based on reason is what makes humans so special. We aren't ruled by such forces, we control our destiny. Hank Rearden needs to learn this. Satisfying a sexual urge is not something hideous or ugly, however it does have consequences, and these must be weighed against the short-lived benefits.

Quote: "I should loathe my discovering it. I don't. ... All the greatness that I saw in you, I would not take it in exchange for the obscenity of your talent at an animal's sensation of pleasure. We were two great beings, you and I, proud of our strength, weren't we? Well, this is all that's left of us, and I want no self-deception about it."

This shows the inferiority complex at work. I discussed this in a previous post, but we can see it here again. He (Hank) was living up to an ideal, and thought of his sexual desire as a flaw, something which made him inferior. He held much respect for Dagny Taggart. As much as he dislikes the fact that according to him he was forced into an animal's act by his desires, he is okay with it because Dagny suffered the same fate. The idea here is "If someone as great as Dagny Taggart can succoumb to the same animal's desire, then how could I expect to escape it?". Because someone he regarded as better than him (he says this, that he regarded her as being above such desires) suffered the same fate, he now has evidence that that flaw in him is shared, and hence doesn't make him inferior.

It is a pity he has such a need to prove he isn't inferior. Many people suffer this same inferiority complex. We must learn to trust that we are worthwhile.

Quote: "Now my only desire is one I loathe to name even to myself. But it is my only desire. I'm going to have you, I'd give up everything I own for it, the mills, the Metal, the achievement of my whole life. I'm going to have you at the price of more than myself: at the price of my self esteem."

What rubbish is this? This is truly pathetic. I can understand if he sees futility in what he has been doing thus far, but to say that fulfilling desires regardless of consequences is ultimate is absolutely pathetic. The most dire consequence of this is he no longer believes he controls how to find happiness, but rather it is dictated to him. He is no longer the man in charge, he is the worker relentlessly pursuing a goal which he didn't set. He believes as long as his desire is unsatisfied he won't be happy, but this conclusion is flawed.

The truth is, many times seeking temporary gratification only makes us feel worse afterwards. He can't handle the truth that he experiences these desires as a part of him and it is his job to choose what actions to pursue in their regard. Rather, he wants to shun any responsibility, and remove any blame from himself. All he needs to do is realise that humans are not automatons, we have choices and it is our sole responsibility to make them ourselves. The amount he despises himself is disturbing, and very unfair to Dagny. It's not her fault he feels desire for her, no matter what the situation.

To give a speech now about how he despises the two of them is pathetic. Why make such a case out of it? The truth is he felt desire for her, he made a value judgement as to acting on that desire, he acted, and now he doesn't want to accept responsibility for that decision. As the saying goes, he did the crime, but he doesn't want to do the time. Whether he likes it or not, he knew the consequences of doing it before hand. There was no way he couldn't. He chose to do it, and the best step he can make now is to accept that, and realise he had reason to do it. It was not by coercion, no matter how much he wishes it was.

-- continued --

Post 4

Monday, January 5, 2004 - 12:05pm

-- continued --

Quote: "I want no pretense about love, value, loyalty or respect. I want no shred of honor left to us, to hide behind. I've never begged for mercy. I've chosen to do this, and I'll take all the consequences, including the full recognition of my choice. It's depravity, and I accept it as such, and there is no height of virtue that I wouldn't give up for it."

What a drama queen. Get over it, dude. Hank seems to need to prove himself at every turn. Instead of just accepting that he desires Dagny, he must make a big spiel out of it to show his courage in the face of such a dire consequence, the dire human affliction which is sexual desire. It seems he would prefer to be a robot, but since he can't, he'll proceed as any respectable human would. What a joke. He is blinded by his own exuberance. It he shut up and thought about it, he would see he is blowing it way out of proportion. It really isn't such a major issue.

Quote: "I want you in my bed - and you are free of me for all the rest of your time. There's nothing you'll have to pretend; don't think of me, don't feel, don't care. I do not want your mind, your will, your being or your soul, so long as it's to me that you will come for that lowest one of your desires."

This is Dagny Taggart speaking now. If these two truly held such an objective view of sex, in that its only purpose is to make you feel good, or to satisfy a desire, they would have no compunction to only seek it from each other. This constraint of only having sex with each other doesn't make sense in the context. To my mind, such a simply view of sex necessarily means there is no reason to restrict it to one person. Only when more value is placed in it does this condition apply.

The way these two conduct themselves at the start of this chapter doesn't seem very likely. I can't think anybody would think the way these two do. These two are not the ideal, they cannot be. The try to be like these two would be greatly futile. They are slightly out of touch with reality.

Quote: "If I'm asked to name my proudest attainment, I will say: I have slept with Hank Rearden. I had earned it."

Please. He screwed his wife too. What did she ever achieve? This is a joke. He is a conquest to her, she got such a great person to sleep with her, what an achievement. The inferiority complex rears its ugly head yet again. Why do people lust for power so? Can't they stop needing to prove? The only men worthy of power are those who don't want it, for only they won't abuse it. I wonder if Ayn Rand understood this.

Post 5

Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - 6:22am

"He didn't notice that (infinity = infinity + x; x != 0) is a contradiction, since it translates into (x = 0; x != 0). Here, '!=' means 'is not equal to'."

You don't understand infinity in mathematics. Infinity is not a number you can add or substract to, like you treat it : it is an abstract concept of a point to which NOTHING can be added. That is how it's defined (or more exactly, not defined, since positively speaking it means absolutely nothing).

As such, his error is in adding something to infinity, not in equating two things that are not the same ! Although there are many kinds of infinity (the set of all natural numbers, the set of all rational numbers, etc), any given "infinity" is always equal to itself !

This is very important because Christians misuse the notion of infinity for their own ends (they routinely say things like : God is "infinite", the universe cannot be "infinite", which make no sense).

Post 6

Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - 6:25am

Wednesday, January 7, 2004 - 12:39pm

Francois, you misunderstand me. I was following his logic, the logic of the guy who told me that, not my logic. In his logic Infinity is a big number. In his logic 'Infinity + 1 = Infinity'. I showed that using that false premise, that marginalisation that Infinity is a big number, shows a contradiction. I didn't lend credibility to this sum. I was pointing out that based on his premise that Infinity is a big number, etc, a contradiction results.

I then said the problem with his understanding was his regarding Infinity as a big number. That was the marginalisation I was talking about.

Maybe you missed this piece:

Quote: "Part of the problem was his not realising that infinity is not a number, it is a concept. (infinity + 1) is not a valid sum; no calculation between a finite quantity and an infinite quantity can be performed. An infinite quantity is immeasurable, it has no discrete value."

From that, I don't see how you can then say this to me: "You don't understand infinity in mathematics. Infinity is not a number you can add or substract to, like you treat it". That's exactly what I was saying. Read it again.

By the way, I wonder how you can say that an infinite quantity can be equal to itself. If 'X = Y' it necessarily means both 'X = Y'. Let's now say Z denotes the amount of integers on the number line, and Q denotes the amount of rational numbers on the number line. Some people say that because between any two integers there are an infinite amount of rational numbers, this means there are more rational numbers than integers. This is like saying Z = Z'? You can't count Z. You can't in any way estimate the size of Z. You can only tell it is positive. Even saying there exist many integers on the number line is wrong, you can't estimate the size of the amount, it is infinite. It don't think it is valid to assign any infinite value. Saying 'Z = infinity' is wrong, all you can say is 'Z is infinite'.

According to you it is okay to say Z = Z in this case. I disagree. Do you also say then that '1/0 = 1/0'? Or 'sqrt(-1) = sqrt(-1)'? Incidentally, 'sqrt(-1) = sqrt(-1)' only becomes valid if we fabricate a new type of number, a non-real number, 'j = sqrt(-1)'. This has the unfortunate consequence that we are equating non-real numbers now, not real numbers anymore. Henceforth from this fabrication the only equation between a real number and a non-real number is the very fabrication we created, 'j = sqrt(-1)'. The truth of 'sqrt(-1) = sqrt(-1)' is based on our fabrication, we fabricated it to be true, and then we say it is true. How is it true? It's true because we changed the rules to make it true. In the old rules it isn't true. Should we fabricate being able to count to infinity in order to ascertain the truth of 'Z = Z'? In doing so, we evade the reality that we can't count to infinity.

Think about this. What is the largest integer? The concept of the largest integer is invalid. It is impossible to have a largest member of any set that extends in the positive direction infinitely. Simlarly, any concept of the number of elements of such a set is invalid. Therefore, how can a number which is invalid form part of an equation such as 'Z = Z'?

Please explain how you can say 'Z = Z', where Z is infinite.

Post 8

Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 3:58am

I'm sorry about misreading what you said.

About the Z=Z : all I'm saying is that infinity = infinity +1. There are different kinds of infinity (called "alephs") which can be greater or smaller, but not because you add something to them.

Post 9

Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 5:47pm

To clear up the "infinity" issue:

Two sets (like the set of integers or rationals already referred to) are said to have the same "number" of members if there exists a way to pair the members of the sets in a one-to-one fashion. For finite sets, this just means that the sets have the same "number" of members as everyone understands it from kindergarten.

However, some sets have proper subsets with the same "number" of members as the set itself (like the integers and the rationals, for example)! While this is impossible for finite sets, for infinite sets it *must* happen, and in fact this is how mathematicians *define* a set to be infinite.

About "infinity = infinity + 1". This statement is meaningless. The concept "infinity" is not a number of any kind of self-consistent system for which the laws of arithmetic are valid. Therefore, it makes no sense to add, subtract, multiply, or divide by "infinity" in this context.

Post 10

Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 5:52pm

Oh, and Francois:

There are more real numbers than natural numbers, in the sense that no matter how you try to pair them up, you always get a real numbers left over.

Post 11

Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 6:01pm

My apoligies right now, Francois.

I misread your statement about "different kinds of infinity (naturals and rationals)." It may interest you to know that those particular infinities are the same, though.

Post 12

Friday, January 9, 2004 - 4:37am