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


Sanction: 36, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 36, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 36, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 36, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 1:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm bringing this over from OL. This is important in light of, er, recent events. If you don't think I know what I'm talking about, please just ignore this. If you think it makes sense, please use it as it is applicable to your own life. All I'm doing with this list is that it serves as a reality check; not as rules or restrictions.

Okay so here goes, and add to it--- I'm open to learning more, as always.

My message for the newbie (and for myself):
1. Do not make Objectivism YOUR PERSONALITY. [added 04/28/06: it is also NOT your LIFE. Oism does NOT stand in for YOUR LIFE.] That is not its role. Rand mentioned philosophy as a guideline.

2. Be very, very careful of what you mean to yourself when you say "hero worship". There is a healthy way to do this. There is an unhealthy way-- that way is when you think that your hero can do *no* wrong. The unhealthy way is when you cannot cope with others criticizing your hero. One of my "heroes" is Stephen Jay Gould. He got criticized. I don't care, I still like him. His critics do have valid points. I can still deal.

3. Read/write/think whatever the hell you want. It's your life. F*** everybody else.

4. A personally taken reaction against a critique of Rand's philosophy is not a good sign. Her philosophy is not your identity. Someone else attacking her philosophy should not take anything away from you. If you're basing your grasp of sanity on her philosophical structure, you need a psychiatrist.

5. Don't become what you hate. It's unsightly and not in good taste.

6. Don't moralize like you're a preacher. You'll gain a crowd of followers and the people who DO have minds will (eventually) think you're ridiculous. [i.e. there is a healthy way to moralize; you need to figure it out on your own]

7. Don't air out personal laundry in pubic. If you hate the person, call them up privately and scream at them. Get it over with. Dragging other people into it and making a philosophical punk rock show out of it is in bad taste.

8. Ayn Rand and whoever else that published on Oism does not stand in for your brains. My exercise is that I try very hard to minimally quote a single person, and to try to have my very own ideas. Be proud of your brain. Don't be a parrot--- quote and extrapolate. Use evidence or alternative sources. If someone hates you for thinking, f*** them.

9. Don't let people tell you that it's either 0% or 100%. This is an argumentative method. Don't fall for that. I don't know what it's called, but reality is not like that, and neither are people.

10. There is such a thing as a philosophical epithet. Yes, I had no idea. It's when someone calls you an -ism as if they were calling you Satan/bitch/a**hole. Or it's when someone calls you an -ism that is NOT who you are so they can critique you. In any case, f*** them, and move on. YOU are the person who defines YOU. No one has any right to tell you who you are. Some people are more direct and will call you nasty names. Like my mother told me when I was THIRTEEN, "Ignore them. They're just jealous of you."

11. You don't have to be a romantic realist. You don't have to hate Beethoven. You don't have to glom onto Aristotle. You don't have to squirm at theoretical physics. You don't have to abhor modern art. If you *happen* to beforehand, fine. Learn about it. If you don't, you *don't*. Just know what you want out of life, know your own values, look at what's out there (reality) and for goodness' sake, just LIVE.

12, from Aaron (let me know if you want me to take this off the list here on RoR, and I will): Relax. Life's just too short to take too seriously.

13, from Ciro (same as Aaron, let me know): Remember! It doesn't matter how much you know, your strength and courage is always based on how you deal with the unexpected.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 4:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jenna,

"Dragging other people into it and making a philosophical punk rock show out of it is in bad taste."

Beautiful choice of words. "Philosophical punk rock show" sums up recent pseudo-events better than anything I could possibly come up with.

-Bill
(Edited by William A. Nevin III
on 4/28, 7:02pm)

P.S. [Added in edit 4/29.] Something I should clarify: I didn't mean to imply that the actual ending of Chris Sciabarra's and Diana Hsieh's friendship was a "pseudo-event." Sadly, that was an actual personal loss for both of them. But I wouldn't classify it as recent, since it seems to have happened over the past couple of years.

Diana's overwrought denunciation of Dr. Sciabarra was the recent pseudo-event that I primarily had in mind. And, of course, this is in no way "pseudo-" in the effect it apparently is having on Dr. Scibarra's reputation, since a large number of otherwise reasonable people seem to be taken in by it. -B.
(Edited by William A. Nevin III
on 4/29, 4:15pm)


Post 2

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 5:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glad to see this over on RoR too just so there's an ability to sanction it!

Post 3

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 6:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
9. Don't let people tell you that it's either 0% or 100%. This is an argumentative method. Don't fall for that. I don't know what it's called, but reality is not like that, and neither are people.
Joeseph Rowlands calls it All or Nothing:
All or Nothing: Philosophy with Degrees (Part 1) - A Survey of Errors
All or Nothing: Philosophy with Degrees (Part 2) - General Reasons
All or Nothing: Philosophy with Degrees (Part 3) - Objectivism's Solution

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 7:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
0% or 100% --- that's not how you deal with this.

It's either 0% or NOT-0%. NOT-0% can be (i.e.) 0.0000001% to 100%.

That's how I view it, at least. Also: context. :)

[added later] Hey, wow! I wrote the above *first* before I read his stuff! Neat! :)
(Edited by Jenna W
on 4/28, 8:02pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 7:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've one I'd like to add as well:

14.) Beware of the propensity Objectivism has on those with an indeveloped maturity; the seductive power to use a resolute, fearless philosophy that is absolute and devastatingly applicable in real-life, as a weapon rather than a tool - even in philosophical disputes. The difference may be subtle, but the ultimate repercussions may not be.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 10:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm having a little difficulty in following this one:
9. Don't let people tell you that it's either 0% or 100%. This is an argumentative method. Don't fall for that. I don't know what it's called, but reality is not like that, and neither are people.
Is this the same thing as viewing reality as "Black and White" or not? Is it pertinent to the Law of the Excluded Middle?

I think I recall at least two points where Ayn Rand mentioned she was a very Black n' White thinker, and I've been more or less, the same kind of thinker - at heart, I'm an absolutist - which is founded in the metaphysical absolutism of Nature.

Although there are many people who see things as "grey", it should be noted that in reality, "grey" is actually made up of black and white particles combined together. When someone sees something as "grey", they have either abandoned reason and refuse to think things through, or they are truly looking at an issue or matter that is utterly so complex that they cannot figure out what is black and what is white by their own rational faculty.

But there is one important detail about the world of "Black and White" that many do not grasp: context.

For instance, I can love my dog and not love her at the same time. On the face of this statement, it may seem contradictory to One who has not grasped the importance of contextualization.

I love my dog for the beauty she brings in my life, the loyal companionship she offers and the playful nature of her personality, whereas I don't love her for the occasional surprises she leaves on the floor.

In reality, I cannot love my dog and not love her in the same time and in the same respect, i.e., context. This exemplifies the reality of the Black-n-Whiteness of Mother Nature; the absolutism of reality.

 Misha, my Tibetan Warrior Princess:

7Misha.jpg


(Edited by Warren Chase Anspaugh on 4/28, 10:50pm)

(Edited by Warren Chase Anspaugh on 4/28, 10:51pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 11:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Actually one of my possible dissertations is to study the origin (neurobiological/evolutionary) of false dichotomies. I'm going to use this piece of a photographic analogy (I did major in photography & graduate w/ it) I have in my head as an Introduction to this particular dissertation idea. Also, I am going to expand off others' work, as well as any research into dualisms, to bolster this thesis. I have plenty of evidence, and no one-- other than me-- has yet delved into the neuroscientific part of this phenomena (I'm staking my territory here). I also have this book called "The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer yet he doesn't talk about neurobiological foundations of the false dichotomy. So this is one (of the 6-7) of my theses.

Black and white thinking, by itself, all the time--- my personal opinion is that this gets you into trouble.

Black and white thinking (absolutes, comparison, contrasts) + shades of gray (context, dynamic, complex) + color (dimension, perspective, proportion) is the best way I can think of to handle real life. I might be wrong, but it'll be my mistake. So far, this has worked wonders for me.

I'm open to other suggestions, though.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 4:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jenna wrote,
Black and white thinking, by itself, all the time--- my personal opinion is that this gets you into trouble.

Black and white thinking (absolutes, comparison, contrasts) + shades of gray (context, dynamic, complex) + color (dimension, perspective, proportion) is the best way I can think of to handle real life. I might be wrong, but it'll be my mistake. So far, this has worked wonders for me.
Are you talking about a method for making choices? If so, I don't understand gray in this context. How can grayness be a guide to action? A guide to action, by definition, is a prescription for choosing between alternatives. It, therefore, requires a standard, and the standard cannot be gray. If it were, it wouldn't serve as any kind of guide. To be sure, there are many circumstances in which the choice is optional, meaning that you go with your feelings, but even here the guiding principle isn't gray, for it says that you go with your feelings rather than (say) sacrificing them.

Or am I missing the point?

- Bill


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 4:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I must admit something. Perhaps I am not alone in this either. But, it is taking everything I have, all my strength and will power not to become a full blown, incurable, raging Jenna-holic. ;-)


You go girl!



gw
 
 
 
p.s. -Surgeon Generals Warning - Anyone suffering from the following ailments: Thin skin, low brain cell count or Ostrich-itis (Head in Sand Syndrome) should limit their exposer to any Jenna related posts. Such exposer will hurt your feelings and expose your inherent bullshit and pretentiousness.




Post 10

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 5:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

I was thinking the same thing, but I couldn't have posed the question as well as you have.

After reading Jeanna's post, I tried to come up with a viable "gray" area in my mind, just running through my everyday activities, and then thinking about things I wanted to do, and the people in my life, etc.  It was difficult. I didn't come up with any.

I'm off to read the "All or Nothing" articles. I missed them the first time.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 8:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Although there are many people who see things as "grey", it should be noted that in reality, "grey" is actually made up of black and white particles combined together.
Warren, would you care to point out to me a single instance of a "black" or a "white" "particle"? Instead, I think we will find objects that emit frequencies of light across the visual spectrum at varying intensities, and then some objects that reflect, diffuse, or absorb the light to different degrees. Pitch black would indicate the complete lack of electromagnetic energy in the visual spectrum at a given location. Would it make sense to say "pitch white" or absolutely bright?

Bill, lets say that you have many potential engineering designs, each that come with their own costs, efficiencies, and usefulness. Which design will you choose from? Each has their own different degree of each good and bad aspect. Somehow, you will have to weigh all of the different aspects of the different designs, and choose between one of them.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 9:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Black and white makes sense to me. The rest is all zip dots and crosshatching.

---Landon


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 8:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean Michael Gores said:
Which design will you choose from? Each has their own different degree of each good and bad aspect. Somehow, you will have to weigh all of the different aspects of the different designs, and choose between one of them.
And of course by 'choosing' between them you are evaluating them based on some criteria, a standard, you are holding them to.  Perhaps when evaluating a situation where not enough information is available to make a rational assessment is a valid place for fuzzy thinking, of course 'evaluating' anything implies comparing it to a standard of some sort.  Likewise saying "one should never judge something as black or white and should think it terms of shades of gray is of course a very black  + white statement.

Everything I do and judge is held up against very black and white standards, is it good or bad (for me), right or wrong, productive or wastefull, thinking or non-thinking, progression or regression, etc.  For most of my younger life I was a very 'gray' thinker, avoiding making any kind of moral declarations or definitive assessments but now I see the tremendous value in holding things to standards.  Like Theresa, I too am having trouble coming up with a place where black and white standards are not valuable and during the time I was a much more 'gray' thinker I hardly got anything done or moved in any direction. 

In the "The Virture of Selfishness" is Rand's excellent essay "The Cult of Moral Grayness"

"If there is no black and white, there can be no Gray"

"There can be no justification for choosing nay part of that which one knows to be evil."

"In a complex moral issue, a man struggles to determine what is right, and fails or makes an honest error, he cannot be regarded as "Gray"; morally, he is "white" Errors of knowledge are not breaches of morality; no proper moral code can demand infallibility or omniscience"

"There are, of course, complex issues in which both sides are right in some respects and wrong in others-and it is here that the "package deal" of pronoucing both sides "gray" is at least permissible.  It is in such issues that the most rigorous precision of moral judgement is required to identify and evaluate the various aspects involved- which can be done only by unscrambling the mixed elements of "black" and "white"


(Edited by Michael F Dickey on 4/30, 12:49pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 9:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean stated "Bill, lets say that you have many potential engineering designs, each that come with their own costs, efficiencies, and usefulness. Which design will you choose from? Each has their own different degree of each good and bad aspect. Somehow, you will have to weigh all of the different aspects of the different designs, and choose between one of them."

But you have to choose a design that best suits your needs. You had to have conducted a cost-benefit analysis to even understand exactly each design's good and bad aspects, and then you can understand what the purpose of the design is for, in order to make a final descision of which design to choose given your end goal. There is nothing "gray" about that. If each design has it's own merit, then you can make multiple products to suit differing goals.

For example, smaller designed cars are safer in roll-over or off road accidents, but not safe at all when hit by an SUV. But smaller cars offer better gas mileage, but SUVs offer more room for cargo and offer more horsepower.

So which design do you choose? You choose the one that best suits your individual needs, and that descision shouldn't rely on any kind of "grayness" at all. For (x) situation, (u) car is the best choice. For (y) situation, (i) car is the best choice. You've made a "black and white" descision given the context.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 4:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I really have no idea how to explain the "gray area" thing to others. I don't just see "gray area" as separate from the other two ways of thinking. I feedback, in my mind, all three of those 'ways of thinking' I wrote about in Post 7.

Yeah, this is where my nonlinear, systems-type thinking gets in the way of explaining things... 1) it centers me and 2) I've thought this way for a while--- probably my whole life. It works for me. :)

Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 5:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jenna,

I think I understand your living in "grey" space, so to speak. I live there too. When I was in martial arts, I learned [the hard way] there's always somebody better, smarter, stronger, or something you haven't seen yet. In engineering, there's always a better way. What you do today is obsolete tomorrow. In nature, there are secrets not uncovered yet, and I think this will always be true. We have our "specialties" within which we may know more than the average person but never "enough". In most everything else there are an infinity of things we will be forever ignorant of. I thought that dealing with this is "reality" and what objectivity was all about. Constant discernment, new input, changing directions. Always dynamic, never static, and variables you're not even aware of. I've never understood objectivist "true believers" or cultists. Or anyone who talks in terms of "absolutes". I can't say I'm absolutely certain of anything. The only thing you can be absolutely certain of is a game you've made up and predetermined all of the rules. But then, that's not reality. I think that's why certain persons want to set AR's philosophy in stone. They crave absolute certainty. It's just silly.

Post 17

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 6:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jenna, if I may take a poke-in-the-dark.. Analogously, I think what you are referring to as the "gray" area in your life, is the emotional area. Emotions are estimates of the facts at hand; they tell us what we feel about the black and whites at hand. Hence, in "feeling" the hue of the "gray", they can be useful in telling us whether a factor is more black or more white, and set the stage for final analysis which will determine what is actually black or white.

Some may refer to this as intuition, which [IMO], is a subconscious process of logic, emotion and reason in an overall-lightning like speed that spits out instant-answers - which may be accurate or innaccurate, but are nevertheless contingent upon One's own parameters of cognition, memories and experiences.

However, it is imporant to note that emotions are not tools of cognition. They may tell us what we feel about a situation, they may us what we feel is the hue of the grayness, whether it is more white or black. But they do not tell us anything about the facts of the situation or give us knowledge - that is left up to our rational faculty.

Is this an accurate assessment? Or am I way off?



Post 18

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 7:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Warren, I made a similiar statement in a different thread
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0859.shtml#0

To assert that all actions must be done with full cognizant assement (like the over analyzers in the study) is to negate the idea that the mind integrates our deepest values into our emotional reactions of situations.  It would mean that our mind is never anything beyond the consciouss level of perception.  But our percepts are integrated into concepts, and our concepts get integrated even further into reflexive reactions and responses.  I think this is what people generally mean by a 'gut' reaction, even though they dont know it.  

Getting in the 'groove' while working on things is, I would think, the intellectual equivalent of reflexively performing a complex chain of physical motions, like pitching a baseball, tying a complex knot or riding a bicycle
Mike,

Just because there are an infinite number of facts available (we could, after all, actually measure the mass of every single electron in the universe) doesnt mean it is wrong or irrationally absolutist to draw conceptual connections between facts.  How many electrons must I measure before I can say 'absolutely' every electron has X mass?  I think it would be very wrong to demand absolute certainty about anything before making a comment on it, because absolute certainty is something only an omniscient being is capable of, so I doubt very many objectivists or admirers of Rand 'crave absolute certainty' That is actually the extreme of philosophical skepticism isnt it? That one could never be absolutely sure of anything so one could never make any proclamations about the nature of things.  I spent a few years entrenched in the scientific skepticism movement and I am fully aware that every comment and statement in science comes with a little asterick that indicates that the statement is true only to the best of our knowledge.  Even the mass of an electron changes as our machines get ever more accurate, but the increase in the usefullness of the new data tends to undergo a diminishing margin of utility as we asymptotically approach it's 'true' value.  The same goes for witholding statements and judgements on processes and facts of nature and moral judgements. 

I can say with absolute certainty that reality exists and that I exist, but pretty much every other statement I make has a probabilistic assessment to it (just as every statement in science does) In practice I usually feel uncomfortable stating as a fact anything I feel less than about 95% sure of and I will usually qualify the statement in some way. (honestly even that statement I felt uncomfortable making since I felt like 95% was too high and yet 90% was too low, I wanted to say something like 93%, but of course it's absurd to have that accurate of an assement of your probabilistic confidence in a statement, but I digress)  It is always worthwhile to remain cognizant of that probabilistic assessment but it is not always worthwhile to withold any proclimations or judgements until absolute certainty is reached, since we can not ever get absolute certainty nor would we have any means of realizing it when we did reach it.

Jenna,

I wonder if what us 'black and white' thinker advocates are saying and doing is really all that much different from what you are saying and doing, I suspect it is not.  Could you perhaps give us some examples?  As a possible example, and related to what Mike was saying, I always try to remain aware of the fact that people with identical values can have completely different and yet entirely logical conclusions about a subject.  Since our information sets might differ, we can both draw entirely logical conslusions about something yet be in complete opposition.  Perhaps the 'black and white' thinking you dislike would be if someone in this situation absolutely proclaimed the other one completely wrong.  And I think that is wrong as well, but I don't think it is 'black and white' thinking in that case, it is just wrong thinking.  But this seems like something that could easily be considered fuzzy or gray or non linear thinking.  I am all for integrating things of value into the way I interpret and assess data in the world, so if there is something that I am not doing that would be productive and beneficial, I want to know all about it.

Regards,

Michael F Dickey


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 11:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nope, my post about black/white/gray/color is cerebral. I also don't separate emotional from mental such that each exists in a vacuum (they are intertwined--- neurotransmitters help us in mental life AND emotional life); I just know which "arena" (for the most part, & for lack of a better word, too) I'm treading into, the connections, and try to know what is happening day-by-day so I can influence it.

But I know this topic is cerebral for me; the "gray area" isn't some blob, but a range. Hm, maybe I can describe it this way: I can look at this range, zoom in, and plunk myself down somewhere, then use black/white/color to figure out how things work at that focus. I can zoom out and plunk myself somewhere else along that line too.

For example, like looking at a rollercoaster from far away, yet also being able to remember and go through each moment that you actually rode the thing. At each moment you can compare what came before that moment, the moment itself, and what [may] come after. Each moment is connected to the next, and has its own context and dynamics. To me, this is plunking oneself in the "shades of gray" and holding context, being dynamic, and seeing complexity--- because you can still see the entire thing from a distance and hold that as well.

It's like zooming in and out of these visuals, at will; seeing the whole and the parts and controlling what you visualize.

I know this sounds like I drank the Kool Aid. My current 'project' with myself is to figure out a way to explain this to others. Usually most math geeks get it, some biologists, some physicists/chemists, as well as artists/creatives, and people who work with particulars that are involved in more complex organization. To do this, one needs to be able to hold onto a lot of things at once.

Ultimately, though, people will have to find out a way that works best for them--- what they can and are willing to do within their own potential. This is what I can do with my brain, I think of it as "systems thinking", and sometimes I meet people who just know because they naturally do it too-- either plain hardcore learning via their own life experience and/or that it's natural for them to do so. It comes to me naturally but I did not realize it until 3 years ago, and sometimes battled against it with awful results. Ignorance of one's own thinking patterns really hurts sometimes. I'm working with my nature now; hell if I'm ever going to work against it! :)

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.