Consuming their own cheap product and calling it the best. Still cheap and tasteless.

You gave no statistics, you gave a website with various metrics, like GDP and poverty. I could give the same link after talking about government policies. So this demonstrates the effectiveness of government policy? No -- accordion to you these "statistics" demonstrates the "effectiveness of markets." I'm asking: how? How do we know the results are an outcome of "market efficiency" and not governmental policy?

The world is just not as simple as you want to make it. — Xtrix

Unbelievable.

since the markets are largely influenced by government intervention, the "effectiveness" you talk about can be equally interpreted as a result of policy. Simply pointing to graphs like "GDP since the 1940s" and then saying: "See, market effectiveness!" is nonsense. — Xtrix

No, it can't. Because governments have existed for thousands of years without those results. It is specifically laws that protect freedom to produce and sell property on an individual basis, that have produced the results that you are ignoring, the ones in the links I sent. Particularly Our World In Data, that to this day, have not been overridden by any research yet.

No. It's not an example of markets. Soldiers returning home had many effects, one of them being on markets. — Xtrix

Yes, more people in the markets means more production. Sorry, basic shit.

It is you in fact, who, through your zealous devotion to Ayn Rand, has largely prevented yourself from seeing recalcitrant data, historical and economic. — Xtrix

I never said I had a devotion to Ayn Rand. All of you assumed this because you all have a devotion to your plagiarist god emperor Marx. I simply defend her ethics because they're correct.

They have. Plato and Aristotle had things to say about them, in fact. Were they the global markets of today? No, of course not. But no one is claiming that. — Xtrix

Fair enough. To clear it up a bit: Markets, in the capacity you or I know them, have NOT been around. Remember, slavery is only something that has been abolished for a little while historically speaking, that is a market/economic net loss across all metrics. That went for thousands of years.

I'm talking about the real world. — Xtrix

No, you're not. In what fantasy of yours would people not trade goods? It's moronic. States are not required for markets, states use markets to maintain power.

No, that's not close to what he's referring to; nor am I.

The second sentence is laughable and meaningless.

Also, you use the word "dirigisme" way too much. Friendly criticism. — Xtrix

No, it's how I am describing how what he is describing is bullshit. There is only Dirigisme, and no I will not stop saying it.

So the neoliberal era is primarily due to the effects of the Federal Reserve? I have no idea what this means, and I'm fairly sure you don't either. But feel free to elaborate. — Xtrix

No, that's just an element, among all the other elements I highlighted.

A report on what? The "effects of the Fed"? Because that was the topic. This paragraph is completely out of left field and has nothing to do with the above. The link you provide, which I did indeed look at, deals with regulations. — Xtrix

Unbelievable. I'm beginning to see the trend with you and data. Don't worry about it, just know that you have no evidence to back up the opinions of some neoliberal age of non-regulation and what that entails. Regulations have not stopped building since FDR's tyrant ass.

What does this have to do with your statement that the "neoliberal phase" is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed?" The "Fed" is the Federal Reserve, which is the central banking system of the United States. Did you mean the government? — Xtrix

That isn't what I said.

Not a surprise, given that these are concrete, and well documented, policies that have taken place over the last 40 years, starting in the late 70s. — Xtrix

That are directly refuted by the stats I posted, but okay.

The absolute number of regulations on the books is not what is meant by deregulation. So your source doesn't address even this. — Xtrix

It covers more than that across numerous decades, and if you looked through it, you would know that. In short, neoliberal is a fake term.

The link you provide is a series of graphs, with no commentary that I can see. Many of those graphs look suspect to me -- but that's a moot point, since there's no argument presented. Besides the fact that a number of graphs are seemingly suggesting something happened in 1971 that changed various trajectories. Fine. — Xtrix

Okay, that's fine. It does actually take some looking into, I over looked that. My apologies. Kind of comes second nature to me on that specific source. Unfortunately, I don't really know a better single source. To make this argument I'd have to grab numerous articles, but you can start by looking at this pew one. In 71 Nixon solidified the economy as a fiat one. In conjunction with the fed, the tax structure and the growing regulatory and SS system, the corporate structure you know today was complete in its creation. That's when wages began to fall, and haven't stopped: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/

Yes, I'm well aware of the Nixon shock. What does this have to do with "corporate structure"? Can you be concrete about anything? — Xtrix

Yeah, I could, but it's gonna be a while, there's a good deal of info that goes into the whole thing. You can start here to learn what the hell they are, as opposed to normal businesses:https://open.oregonstate.education/strategicmanagement/chapter/2-the-evolution-of-the-modern-corporation/#:~:text=Corporations%20have%20existed%20since%20the,the%20British%20East%20India%20Company.
Check out the wikipedia page on them to see how they operate in the states:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
Numerous funding methods through banking system:https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/03/062003.asp
Banking system controlled by the Fed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

This is all a good place to start investigating the massive coporate behemoth that the government feeds off of, I assure you there's more. But, no, it isn't something I can just explain. It's something you'll to piece together, no one argument is gonna do it. It's a topic for a series of discussions.

product it best cheap. — theRiddler

The words of a deeply entrenched consumer, who loves consuming market products for consumption.

I keeps Honest, pragmatic men; cheap, tasteless men. Cause I must suffer. — theRiddler

since the markets are largely influenced by government intervention, the "effectiveness" you talk about can be equally interpreted as a result of policy. — Xtrix

No, it can't. Because governments have existed for thousands of years without those results. — Garrett Travers

Nation-states have not existed for thousands of years. We're talking about the modern world, and modern industrial capitalism.

Regardless, to argue "without those results" is, once again, pure fluff. What results? The results of GDP and wages, for example? Yes, no kidding these results didn't exist -- because GDP and wages weren't measured, and weren't "a thing." It's like arguing that the Roman empire didn't produce the electric generation capacity.

The point I was making, and continue to make, is simple: there are various metrics to analyze: GDP, poverty, wages, productivity, infant mortality, lifespans, education, etc. All kinds of things to analyze. Simply throwing a graph around means nothing. To point to said graph and say "this is because of markets" is, as I said before, absurd. There are many factors involved, including fiscal and monetary policies, regulatory systems, tax structures, subsidies, welfare programs, etc., which all contribute to these measurements. To point to higher GDP growth in the 50s and say "it's because of markets," is simply incomplete. Yes, soldiers returning from war played a role -- and so did the GI bill. The GI bill was hardly "the market."

Again, it's just not as simple as you want to make it out to be.

No. It's not an example of markets. Soldiers returning home had many effects, one of them being on markets.
— Xtrix

Yes, more people in the markets means more production. Sorry, basic shit. — Garrett Travers

Not necessarily. This is well documented as well. With the rise of better technology, better equipment, automation, etc. -- production can increase while the number of workers decreases. So it's not so "basic."

But that's also irrelevant. Because the fact remains that soldiers returning from war is a historical event, not "the market." You simply mis-spoke. Did this event have an effect on markets? Yes, of course.

I never said I had a devotion to Ayn Rand. All of you assumed this because you all have a devotion to your plagiarist god emperor Marx. — Garrett Travers

I know you never said you had a devotion to Ayn Rand. You don't need to say it, either. It comes through pretty clearly.

"All of us" have a devotion to the Karl Marx? I haven't once referenced Marx, or used his terminology. From what I've read, however, he's very useful.

Markets, in the capacity you or I know them, have NOT been around. — Garrett Travers

In the modern industrial sense, yes. Agreed.

In what fantasy of yours would people not trade goods? — Garrett Travers

Are you incapable of imagining a society that doesn't trade? A self-contained society that doesn't need to trade with outsiders, and can produce their own food and water, etc., would have no need for trade. Not hard to imagine.

That's not to deny that trade has been a very common feature in human societies, especially since the agricultural revolution. But so has social organization as well, albeit perhaps not warranting the term "government."

No, that's not close to what he's referring to; nor am I.

The second sentence is laughable and meaningless.

Also, you use the word "dirigisme" way too much. Friendly criticism.
— Xtrix

No, it's how I am describing how what he is describing is bullshit. There is only Dirigisme, and no I will not stop saying it. — Garrett Travers

A mixed economy is bullshit? That's the majority of nations today. There isn't complete control by the government, but there isn't "free markets" either.

And I didn't ask you to "stop saying it." I said you say it way too much. Why you often capitalize it is another mystery.

So the neoliberal era is primarily due to the effects of the Federal Reserve? I have no idea what this means, and I'm fairly sure you don't either. But feel free to elaborate.
— Xtrix

No, that's just an element, among all the other elements I highlighted. — Garrett Travers

Here if what you said:

As far as post 60's economy, that's primarily due to the effects of the Fed and federal taxation setting in, in tandem with the instantiation of the corporate structure we know today that initiated the decline in median income, all mixed in with new tech and innovations that sprang up out of post-war science. So, lot's of variables. Again, none of this stuff is anything I disagree with you on, except for what you call it. State economic domination has been going for thousands of years. — Garrett Travers

So I still have no idea what that one element even means. I realize you mention other elements, but I'm asking about the first one: the "effects of the Fed." I still have no idea what that means. What effects? From what actions? Are you talking about Volcker? That was the late 70s. I'm genuinely unclear about what you're driving at, all snide remarks aside.

Don't worry about it, just know that you have no evidence to back up the opinions of some neoliberal age of non-regulation and what that entails. Regulations have not stopped building since FDR's tyrant ass. — Garrett Travers

I never once said regulations "stopped," or that they "stopped building" (in this sense you mean total number, which is irrelevant).

There is enormous evidence of deregulation of various industries, particularly finance.

Some major examples:

1976 – Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act PL 94-435
1977 – Emergency Natural Gas Act PL 95-2
1978 – Airline Deregulation Act PL 95-50
1978 – National Gas Policy Act PL 95-621
1980 – Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act PL 96-221
1980 – Motor Carrier Act PL 96-296
1980 – Regulatory Flexibility Act PL 96-354
1980 – Staggers Rail Act PL 96-448
1982 – Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act PL 97-320
1982 – Bus Regulatory Reform Act PL 97-261
1989 – Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act PL 101-60
1992 – National Energy Policy Act PL 102-486
1996 – Telecommunications Act PL 104-104
1999 – Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act PL 106-102

From Wiki:

The financial sector in the U.S. has been considerably deregulated in recent decades, which has allowed for greater financial risktaking. The financial sector used its considerable political sway in Congress and in the political establishment and influenced the ideology of political institutions to press for more and more deregulation.[30] Among the most important of the regulatory changes was the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, which repealed the parts of the Glass–Steagall Act regarding interest rate regulation via retail banking. The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.

Such deregulation of the financial sector in the United States fostered greater risktaking by finance sector firms through the creation of innovative financial instruments and practices, including securitization of loan obligations of various sorts and credit default swaps.[31] This caused a series of financial crises, including the savings and loan crisis, the Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) crisis, each of which necessitated major bailouts, and the derivatives scandals of 1994.[32][33] These warning signs were ignored as financial deregulating continued, even in view of the inadequacy of industry self-regulation as shown by the financial collapses and bailout. The 1998 bailout of LTCM sent the signal to large "too-big-to-fail" financial firms that they would not have to suffer the consequences of the great risks they take. Thus, the greater risktaking allowed by deregulation and encouraged by the bailout paved the way for the financial crisis of 2007–08.[34][33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation#United_States

A pretty good summary. But there are dozens of others. If you want references, I'm happy to give more. David Harvey has a good book about it. But there are plenty of other scholars. Ha-Joon Chang, Michael Hudson, etc. Brookings and RAND have done very thorough studies as well.

An interesting perspective on the neoliberal era:

https://prospect.org/economy/neoliberalism-political-success-economic-failure/

Lastly, that "tyrant" was also one of the most popular presidents we've ever had. And probably the best one.

What does this have to do with your statement that the "neoliberal phase" is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed?" The "Fed" is the Federal Reserve, which is the central banking system of the United States. Did you mean the government?
— Xtrix

That isn't what I said. — Garrett Travers

Yes, it is what you said.

Let's go over it again:

You stated:

As far as post 60's economy, that's primarily due to the effects of the Fed and federal taxation setting in — Garrett Travers

To which I replied:

What is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed"? — Xtrix

To which you said:

The "neoliberal" phase of a heavily regulated economy that hasn't stopped in a long time. — Garrett Travers

Then I said:

So the neoliberal era is primarily due to the effects of the Federal Reserve? I have no idea what this means, and I'm fairly sure you don't either. But feel free to elaborate. — Xtrix

Your response to this? The following:

No, that's just an element, among all the other elements I highlighted.

Now you say "I never said that."

So let's start over: What exactly did you mean by "primarily due to the effects of the Fed?" What was "primarily due to the effects of the fed?" Since you now claim it's not the "neoliberal phase," what exactly were you talking about?

Not a surprise, given that these are concrete, and well documented, policies that have taken place over the last 40 years, starting in the late 70s.
— Xtrix

That are directly refuted by the stats I posted, but okay. — Garrett Travers

What stats? Be specific. Referencing one website, with many metrics, doesn't "refute" anything -- especially when you haven't once demonstrated that you understand these policies. It's not only deregulation, for example -- it's also tax cuts (Reagan's, Bush's, etc.), privatization, union destruction, etc. All facts, all non-controversial. How is any of this -- the policies I refer to above -- "refuted" by the "stats you posted" (which, incidentally, you didn't do -- you simply linked to a website)?

The absolute number of regulations on the books is not what is meant by deregulation. So your source doesn't address even this.
— Xtrix

It covers more than that across numerous decades, and if you looked through it, you would know that. — Garrett Travers

So cite the relevant passages. Since you've "looked through it," that should be easy enough. I'll be happy to take a look at what I missed. "More than that"? Meaning more than regulations? Like what? What else does it "cover"? Tax policy? Free trade agreements?

In 71 Nixon solidified the economy as a fiat one. In conjunction with the fed, the tax structure and the growing regulatory and SS system, the corporate structure you know today was complete in its creation. That's when wages began to fall, and haven't stopped: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/ — Garrett Travers

I hate to nit-pick, but "Nixon solidified the economy as a fiat one" is meaningless. What you mean to say, I think, is that we went off the gold standard -- meaning away from representative currency (backed by gold) and into fiat currency (backed by the government).

That aside, the rest is a hodgepodge of words without any sense that you really understand what you're communicating. "Conjunction of the fed, tax structure, and the growing regulatory and SS system" -- throwing a lot of terms around wins no points with me. I see right through this, so please stop doing it. If you don't understand it, don't pretend. If you do, you have got to write clearer -- otherwise it looks like word salad.

None of this -- not the state of social security, not regulations, not the "tax structure," and not the Federal Reserve -- has the slightest thing to do with corporate structure. The structure of the corporation is and has been essentially the same for eons. Corporations consist of boards of directors, and top executives (CEO, COO, CFO, etc). The shareholders (if a company goes public) elect the board of directors. The CEO, which the board hires (and can fire), is the top management whose decisions and orders, in coordination with the board (and often with their approval for major decisions), get disseminated throughout the organization.

This is the basic structure of a corporation. This is how a corporation is organized. Shareholders, board of directors, and CEO/management.

This did not change in 1971. So I have no idea what you're talking about.

Incidentally, none of the data from the Pew reference goes before 1980, so far as I could see. Nothing about 1971. But regardless, even if there was -- it still has nothing to do with a change in corporate structure.

Yes, I'm well aware of the Nixon shock. What does this have to do with "corporate structure"? Can you be concrete about anything?
— Xtrix

Yeah, I could, but it's gonna be a while, there's a good deal of info that goes into the whole thing. You can start here to learn what the hell they are, as opposed to normal businesses:https://open.oregonstate.education/strategicmanagement/chapter/2-the-evolution-of-the-modern-corporation/#:~:text=Corporations%20have%20existed%20since%20the,the%20British%20East%20India%20Company.
Check out the wikipedia page on them to see how they operate in the states:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
Numerous funding methods through banking system:https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/03/062003.asp
Banking system controlled by the Fed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

This is all a good place to start investigating the massive coporate behemoth that the government feeds off of, I assure you there's more. But, no, it isn't something I can just explain. It's something you'll to piece together, no one argument is gonna do it. It's a topic for a series of discussions. — Garrett Travers

It's as if you're trying to explain to me what a corporation is. I know what a corporation is.

Likewise, I know what the Federal Reserve is, and what it does.

I appreciate the links -- but none of them address the point you made about corporate structure. So maybe this is a better question: what do you mean by "corporate structure"? Can you at least define that? Did you mean corporate governance models? Because that certainly has changed -- from managerialism to shareholder primacy. But if not this, I'm not sure what you mean.

It's not natural that honest, humble men should suffer so that Patty and her clinically obese step-triplets can each have five ice cream sandwiches for desert, is all I'm saying.

Almost everyone is forced to meet the quota of a lazy ass society that just wants more, more of this and more of that, something just to buy something. On top of that, it's destroying the planet.

Patty and her lazy obese ass destroying the planet. I'm forced to meet five men, each have sandwiches. I'm saying I just wants more, more of this for desert. On top of that, society should suffer, everyone. men, Patty, step-triplets. more of that, to buy something. suffer is all I'm saying — theRiddler

This is too much to respond too, brother. I can't keep doing it, it wears my brain out. It just keeps getting bigger and bigger. We'll have to move to singular topics to address from here on, no more of these huge ones. Try to pick something out of your comments to chat about and we'll tackle some more.

Well, we don't have much else to go on except other human conceptualizations, so I'm stuck with empirically approaching this from what is most well understood. I'm open to ideas, of course. — Garrett Travers

Well, I’m not entirely convinced that you ARE ‘open to ideas’ as such - based on your insistence on an empirical approach. But I’ll take your word for it.

Quantum physics demonstrates that predictability beyond empirical data must take into account a qualitative aspect to potential energy as well as a quantitative one. This is the rational structure of potentiality. At this level, human conceptualisations of the process don’t much matter - so long as a qualitative application of a quantitative prediction works with consistent accuracy. It’s kind of in reverse to an empirical approach, but it remains consistently accurate in a way that an empirical approach (assuming we could acquire one) cannot hope to match.

From what I understand, affect in brain function seems to work in a similar way: through a process of aligning four-dimensional prediction structures with four-dimensional application in terms of distributing attention and effort. That’s just one way to conceptualise it - and arguably not the best way - but suffice to say the process works, and is consistently more accurate than an empirical approach. This is the speculative ‘idea’ I’m working with.

Those are all good postulates, I just don't know how much support they have empirically. From what we know, consciousness is a neural phenomenon, so is reason and rationality, and those processes are confined to the individual brain producing them. The concept of the individual qua individual, is empirical. I'm talking to you right now, and you me. Neither of us are talking to anyone else in this specific conversation. Individuality is self-evidently so. And I don't see any way around that. — Garrett Travers

Okay, fair enough. So, allow me to speculate wildly for a bit. Consider that our respective ‘individuality’ is an heuristic device to consolidate potentially inconsistent structures of rational consciousness for the purpose of discussion, using shared language concepts. Now go back to my tentative conceptualisation of interacting four-dimensional structures above, and imagine this taking place within a five-dimensional potentiality or ‘consciousness’, and that consciousness being ‘yours’, in a conversation with ‘mine’. I don’t believe ‘individuality’ bound to an empirical brain is as self-evident as we like to think. Of course I’m not certain of this, and I probably haven’t described it in the most universally understandable way, but I think the reasoning is sound, and consistent with phenomenal experience.

To be honest, the only real irrationality I've ever noticed, as everybody operates empirically in their day to day functions, is the kind that is encapsulated in values. The dismissal of reason as a value itself. The kind of stuff that allows people to pray over cancer patients, and then thank God when chemo works out. Reason is a natural function of the brain itself, it is constantly taking in data in these recurrent feedback loops. One's values can guide that process at a very high level. Reason, even from the Randian view, makes room for natural capacities/limitations, that's not really an issue at base Objectivism level. It can be when you're talking about the genuinely under privileged. — Garrett Travers

I guess it makes sense that you won’t notice much irrationality if you’re not looking beyond empirical evidence. What you dismiss in your phenomenal experience as unquantifiable or lacking conceptualisation is what others use as possible qualitative structures for understanding when empirical information (or indeed rationality) is insufficient. Correlating this with affect without sound logical structure is considered ‘sufficient’ for a prediction in the same way that quantum calculations correlating with potential energy are considered sufficient for quantum physics - it’s in the application that what’s missing needs to be taken into account - qualitative structural relations in QM, and rationality in the case of cancer patients.

The point I’m trying to make, though, is that accurate reasoning needs to acknowledge the relativity of logic, energy and quality, regardless of how we conceptualise reality. If we dismiss rationality from our prediction, it has an unpredictable effect on empirical observations, contributing to prediction error in affect (experiences of loss, pain, humiliation). Likewise, if we dismiss indescribable quality (‘significance’) or unexplainable affect (‘feelings’) from our prediction, the accuracy of any reasoning is limited relative to what’s ignored. An alternative structure of consciousness aligning with such a prediction is going to come across qualitative and/or affective distortions in their own interpretation, simply because they cannot account for the same significance or feelings the author experienced in relation to this particular expression of their reasoning. Whenever we conceptualise our reasoning, this distortion is unavoidable, and arguably the source of most disagreements in philosophy (and quantum physics).

That’s probably enough for now. I can address the rest later...

P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival. — Garrett Travers

Humans have other means of survival, such as cooperation. But I do not know whether you are implying that logic, rationality and conceptual activity are the ONLY means of survival. Maybe you meant they are some of the means of survival. (Side note: You used rationality, a synonym of reason, to define reason)

it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty — Garrett Travers

Values don't necessarily come from the use of reason. They can come from emotions for example. And we can live a live in accordance with our values without the use of reason. (Side note: What do you mean by "conceptual faculty of reason" ?).

People follow their values for reasons other than reason. Plenty of people believe killing is wrong, and don't commit murder due to some fear of a god or the law, not directly because of their values.

then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals — Garrett Travers

I don't see how this follows from your premises. Let us assume that humans survive only through reason, and that they create and follow their values with reason. A sceptic could argue that values developed with reason are unreliable, and that values must come from some religious text. They could then proceed to the conclusion that reason is dangerous when applied to morality, that we must prevent people from forming their values rationally and that we must put in place a totalitarian government ensuring that people abide to the rules of the religious text and do not apply reason to their values. Therefore, by assuming that he is right we do not deny your premises yet we can deny your conclusion, and as such your argument is invalid.

Quantum physics demonstrates that predictability beyond empirical data must take into account a qualitative aspect to potential energy as well as a quantitative one. This is the rational structure of potentiality. — Possibility

Quantum physicis demonstrates that we must do such specifically in regard to quantum mechanics. Those mechanics don't apply to the macroscopic world. Unless you have a way to actually relate them to the macroscopic world, I don't see the relevance of this particular line of thought. Nothing about quanta demostrates a need for dismissal of empiricism, it is, in fact, still empiricism that scientisits use to study quanta.

and is consistently more accurate than an empirical approach. — Possibility

This is going to have to be shown. How is it more consistent?

possible qualitative structures for understanding when empirical information (or indeed rationality) is insufficient. — Possibility

Doing so, incorporating anything that you are talking about into thought and data that inform behaviors, is in fact an application of reason. I don't how you're drawing this conclusion. Reason cannot be insuficient if you are using it to do what you're describing.

The point I’m trying to make, though, is that accurate reasoning needs to acknowledge the relativity of logic, energy and quality, regardless of how we conceptualise reality. If we dismiss rationality from our prediction, it has an unpredictable effect on empirical observations, contributing to prediction error in affect (experiences of loss, pain, humiliation). Likewise, if we dismiss indescribable quality (‘significance’) or unexplainable affect (‘feelings’) from our prediction, the accuracy of any reasoning is limited relative to what’s ignored. — Possibility

All of this is reason. Every bit.

An alternative structure of consciousness aligning with such a prediction is going to come across qualitative and/or affective distortions in their own interpretation, simply because they cannot account for the same significance or feelings the author experienced in relation to this particular expression of their reasoning. Whenever we conceptualise our reasoning, this distortion is unavoidable, and arguably the source of most disagreements in philosophy (and quantum physics). — Possibility

All of this seems quite probable to me. I fail to see how you are not reasoning with it all. Again, any data gathered to be used in informing behaviors of approach, or anything like that is specifically what reason is.

Humans have other means of survival, such as cooperation. But I do not know whether you are implying that logic, rationality and conceptual activity are the ONLY means of survival. Maybe you meant they are some of the means of survival. (Side note: You used rationality, a synonym of reason, to define reason) — Hello Human

Reason is the human's only tool to navigate the world in pursuit of the resources needed for longterm survival, and the fulfillment of his/her values. Co-operation is an excellent example of not just reason, but the respect of reason between people.
Disclaimer: I am not talking about basic autonomic functions that keep humans alive, I am talking about actual methods of navigating the world and procuring resources. Talk of autonomic functions are not relevant in this discussion.

Values don't necessarily come from the use of reason. They can come from emotions for example. And we can live a live in accordance with our values without the use of reason. (Side note: What do you mean by "conceptual faculty of reason" ?). — Hello Human

Emotions are a part of the reasoning process. Values that aren't imparted to you in childhood, before you can truly reason, require reason to establish, either through reward, social interaction, or someother means of processing data. Reason is the faculty by which we generate concepts and form conclusions in accordance with sensory data. Reason: think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

People follow their values for reasons other than reason. Plenty of people believe killing is wrong, and don't commit murder due to some fear of a god or the law, not directly because of their values. — Hello Human

All of this is reason.

I don't see how this follows from your premises. — Hello Human

You are correct, it does not. Earlier discussion brought my attention to my bad form of syllogism, we actually dismissed it a while ago. Better now to just debate the truth value of the premises independently, or you can take a crack at my reformulated syllogism. Which is:

If individual humans are the source of moral reasoning, then individual benefit is the standard for moral action.
Individual humans are the source of morality,
therefore, individual benefit is the standard for moral action.

A sceptic could argue that values developed with reason are unreliable, and that values must come from some religious text. — Hello Human

They could. The point here would be, how did they conclude?

that we must prevent people from forming their values rationally and that we must put in place a totalitarian government ensuring that people abide to the rules of the religious text and do not apply reason to their values. — Hello Human

Yes, this is precisely what has caused most of the problems in the world. Using reason to conclude reason is dangerous is itself a violation of reason at its source. This is not reasonable, and leads to the oppression of reason, meaning it is not moral, as morals come from reason. Meaning, violating the source of reason, violates the source of morality, which is not moral by definition.

Therefore, by assuming that he is right we do not deny your premises yet we can deny your conclusion, and as such your argument is invalid. — Hello Human

We'll not be assuming as much. But, we can dismiss my original syllogism.

I'd meant "within my purview" with that, sorry. But, yes. These ethical standards that are directed at others are in fact beneficial if the ethical standards of those others align with yours. I wouldn't suggest being kind to a clepto, drug addict, or a murder in any way that implied connection or collaboration. But, for those who respect you as a reasoning individual, being good to them is being good to yourself through respect of THEIR individual reason. Rand highlights this in Atlas Shrugged endlessly. And I mean, over and over and over. — Garrett Travers

Well, I would suggest being kind to a clepto, drug addict or murderer - just not in any way that might endorse or enable the particular aspects of their ethical standards that conflict with yours. Your willingness to connect and collaborate with them, particularly towards increasing their awareness with regards to ethics, nets gains with respect to their potential in developing a rational consciousness, and will broaden this overall capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration beyond your own ‘individual’ reason. The challenge here is to refrain from moral judgement - which I argue is a possible reductionist methodology, not a necessary one - without ignoring their potential for ‘evil’.

I really didn't enjoy that one all that much, smacked of her attempt at Russian Existentialism. It read well for a Russian to English first time novel, but I prefer her Romanticism. — Garrett Travers

Yes, it’s easier to influence the qualitative attentions than the political efforts of a rational mind.

Yes, Howard was written specifically for that, as in specifically. He was supposed to represent the walking ideal of "integrity at all costs." It's a Romantic novel. The point being that if one cannot have their own reason and consciousness, and all of the contents of its product, then life isn't worth living. I would agree. She didn't grow up like that, and currently we live in a world that is only now getting close to being conducive to it- apart from Russia, of course, who'd have thought? Human societies flourish when mutual respect for individual consciousness and reason are values of that society. Such is rational selfishness defined, as applied broadly. This does not apply to many societies in history at all. — Garrett Travers

I get that in Rand’s perspective this virtue of ‘integrity’ translates to respect for an essentialist concept of individuality. But the rational ideal of integrity is honesty with oneself - inclusive of a humility that comes from an honest understanding of your own limitations. For Howard, it was arguably not about rational self-interest, but this rational ideal of integrity achieved through collaboration - it wasn’t so much Howard’s isolated, individual qualities that brought ultimate success, but a collaboration with Wynand whose own quantitative power correlated with the qualitative inspiration of Howard, and with the affect or desire embodied in Dominique. To me, that makes more sense. None of these three characters is really complete as an ‘individual’.

How do I take the whole of human interaction, and reduce it to its base function? I have the individual, his/her capacity to reason, which informs his/her interactions with others. That's the basic unit. You've nailed something that is key here. If I can't approach our interaction from exactly that perspective, you and I are going to have issues with one another, especially if our interactions are in person. I think you and I should explore this more, to expand appreciations and what not, if you feel like. — Garrett Travers

I think it’s fair to say that this basic unit - one’s individual capacity to reason - is inconsistent, relative, and variable. It’s no wonder we have issues with one another. Perhaps we need to look for an alternative ‘basic unit’. Personally, I’ve found the Tao Te Ching to propose an intriguing model, but it’s difficult to translate into conceptual language (which I suggest might be the main issue here).

Reason is the faculty by which we generate concepts and form conclusions in accordance with sensory data — Garrett Travers

I guess my objections to your premises have been properly addressed with this definition then.

If individual humans are the source of moral reasoning, then individual benefit is the standard for moral action. — Garrett Travers

A skeptic could answer by saying that though morality is discovered through human reason, the principle one discovers through moral reasoning is that you must play your pre-determined role in society. In that case, you accept the premise yet you deny the conclusion.

Quantum physicis demonstrates that we must do such specifically in regard to quantum mechanics. Those mechanics don't apply to the macroscopic world. Unless you have a way to actually relate them to the macroscopic world, I don't see the relevance of this particular line of thought. Nothing about quanta demostrates a need for dismissal of empiricism, it is, in fact, still empiricism that scientisits use to study quanta. — Garrett Travers

They are not two different worlds - this is a misinterpretation, and a closer look at theoretical quantum physics (not just the calculations of QM) would show you that. Qualitative applications of QM are a relation to the macroscopic world. And I haven’t called for a dismissal of empiricism - just a recognition of its limitations. Read again what I wrote, only this time without bringing your preferred explanation of quantum mechanics into it. Be open to ideas.

All of this seems quite probable to me. I fail to see how you are not reasoning with it all. Again, any data gathered to be used in informing behaviors of approach, or anything like that is specifically what reason is. — Garrett Travers

Doing so, incorporating anything that you are talking about into thought and data that inform behaviors, is in fact an application of reason. I don't how you're drawing this conclusion. Reason cannot be insuficient if you are using it to do what you're describing. — Garrett Travers

An application of reason, yes. Not reason itself. Reason (rationality limited by an ’individual’ human consciousness) is not identical to its application. Any data gathered is not identical to its use in informing behaviours. I just wanted to clear this up before we go any further.

Fair enough. Here's one that I think strikes at the heart of many disagreements, but which is also concrete:

A hypothetical scenario. A corporation makes $10 billion in profits per quarter (after taxes, after expenses, etc -- net earnings). Many of their workers are making $12 an hour and can barely get by. The board of directors decides to spend $6 billion on stock buybacks and another $3 billion on dividends. The workers have no seat at the table, but they'd all like a significant raise. The company (mostly the CEO) says that a large raise would put the company at a disadvantage and negatively effect share price.

Is this a desirable way of governing business?

I guess my objections to your premises have been properly addressed with this definition then. — Hello Human

Awesome, welcome to neuroscience.

A skeptic could answer by saying that though morality is discovered through human reason, the principle one discovers through moral reasoning is that you must play your pre-determined role in society. — Hello Human

Humans are the owners and source of the reasoning mind that generates his/her own famework of engaging with that societal one to properly achieve maximal benefit from within it. For example, I regard the state as an evil, generally speaking, that's a value predicated on data I have recieved. So, I do my best to avoid any contact with the state I am suspended in. There are all kinds of roles in society, and most are all are chosen in accordance with benefit, or values that were shaped as producing maximal benefit. I may have a moral framework foisted upon me, and you may as well. But, the points at which we depart from alignment internally, or accept alignment internally, are all aspects of individual reason, and are all associated with maximizing benefit. Even the moral framework of society is predicted on the benefit of itself and asserts its own standards in accordance with those needs. It is all a reasoning process, all human sourced, and all predicated on benefit of either the individuals that adopt them, or the collective of individuals it attempts to be applied to, which is the same concept that requires individual benefit in a net way. Meaning, individual human benefit is the standard for moral behavior as its source. Does that make sense, or would you like me to go more into details and such?

Also, some data to put this into perspective. This is actually the process from a simple functional perspective of what the brain is doing, according to current research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4472787/

Is this a desirable way of governing business? — Xtrix

It's complicated. There's variables like voluntary employment. But, no, this isn't how I would run a business, and it isn't how private owners do, by and large, in accordance with their profits. This is particularly a corporate phenomenon, and I hate corporations probably more than you do - not meant as a slight. Check out this source. This is not the way business should be operating, and such business is a state manufactured form of business. Tell me what you think about this: https://open.oregonstate.education/strategicmanagement/chapter/2-the-evolution-of-the-modern-corporation/#:~:text=Corporations%20have%20existed%20since%20the,the%20British%20East%20India%20Company.

They are not two different worlds - this is a misinterpretation, and a closer look at theoretical quantum physics (not just the calculations of QM) would show you that. — Possibility

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were two different worlds. I meant domains of observation within the same world. How things operate disparately between domains isn't important if they don't translate between the domains. My apologies. Is that more clear?

And I haven’t called for a dismissal of empiricism - just a recognition of its limitations. Read again what I wrote, only this time without bringing your preferred explanation of quantum mechanics into it. Be open to ideas. — Possibility

I haven't brought anything of the sort. I'm saying issues like the observer effect, or things of that nature in QM, are not examples of the limitations of empiricsim, but gaps in empirical methods that have been devised that can meet the challenge associated with that domain of observation. It was actually empiricism that revealed the mysteries themselves, and empiricism that is being used to solve them, exclusively.

An application of reason, yes. Not reason itself. Reason (rationality limited by an ’individual’ human consciousness) is not identical to its application. — Possibility

This is not true, as far as I can gather from research. Applications of reason are reason. In fact, the brain is perpetually in a state of reasoning, even if it is not directed from executive function. Reasoning takes place at different levels across multiple cortical regions that assist our executive function: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927039/

Any data gathered is not identical to its use in informing behaviours. I just wanted to clear this up before we go any further. — Possibility

This is going to need some defense, this is not clear from the research on this subject. The human being is a reasoning animal, as I said at multiple levels, in its nature. Data retrieval is a recurrent process that informs all emergent behavior. We can explore this assertion, but I don't know if there's data to suggest the truth of it. There is more data to suggest the exact opposite, that I know of.

Well, I would suggest being kind to a clepto, drug addict or murderer - just not in any way that might endorse or enable the particular aspects of their ethical standards that conflict with yours. — Possibility

You'll notice I qualified the assertion with "in any way that implied connection or collaboration." Doing this, is going to require tact and rationality, which is a conceptual framework of behavior predicated on navigating that territory with minimal acceptable benefit, or preservation.

Your willingness to connect and collaborate with them, particularly towards increasing their awareness with regards to ethics, nets gains with respect to their potential in developing a rational consciousness, and will broaden this overall capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration beyond your own ‘individual’ reason. — Possibility

I like your reasoning, it assumes a possible benefit associated with the interaction for all involved. Remember, their ethics is a benefit to you, not just your own. Net gains are a self-benficiary analysis. You have not only applied reason in this scenario, but done so on the basis of mutal benefit thereof.

But the rational ideal of integrity is honesty with oneself - inclusive of a humility that comes from an honest understanding of your own limitations. — Possibility

No, that's your take on the rational take on the concept, which is fine. But, integrity is honesty and principle. Whatever those principles are: rationality, humility, what have you. Limitations is what one will already notice if he is guided by reason, they're obvious most of the time, and revealed through application of conceptual behavior.

For Howard, it was arguably not about rational self-interest, but this rational ideal of integrity achieved through collaboration - it wasn’t so much Howard’s isolated, individual qualities that brought ultimate success, but a collaboration with Wynand whose own quantitative power correlated with the qualitative inspiration of Howard, and with the affect or desire embodied in Dominique. To me, that makes more sense. None of these three characters is really complete as an ‘individual’. — Possibility

Yes, Rand highlighted that concept over and over again in Atlas Shrugged. It isn't really about rugged individualism, but values, integrity, productivity, and the value of the mind as that which produces it.

think it’s fair to say that this basic unit - one’s individual capacity to reason - is inconsistent, relative, and variable. It’s no wonder we have issues with one another. Perhaps we need to look for an alternative ‘basic unit’. Personally, I’ve found the Tao Te Ching to propose an intriguing model, but it’s difficult to translate into conceptual language (which I suggest might be the main issue here). — Possibility

It isn't inconsistent, it's universal a far as any sort of conceptualization goes, it's human cognition. But, relative and variable, definitely. That doesn't change the fact that a human cannot even be moral without it. It's where formulation of morals comes from, and every rationalization one gives oneself. I'll look into the Teo Te Ching bit. Where does that stem from?

It's complicated. There's variables like voluntary employment. But, no, this isn't how I would run a business, and it isn't how private owners do, by and large, in accordance with their profits. — Garrett Travers

There's much to say about voluntary employment, which does get raised a lot. "It's not as if someone has a gun to your head -- you can leave and get a better job," etc. But let's table that.

I wouldn't run business that way either. I agree that many small business owners don't run their businesses this way either -- they have relationships with their employees, and genuinely care about them, etc. So if I wasn't clear, I'm restricting my hypothetical to a major corporation, especially one publicly traded.

That out of the way, I'm glad we agree that this isn't close to an ideal way of running a company.

This is particularly a corporate phenomenon, and I hate corporations probably more than you do - not meant as a slight. — Garrett Travers

I wouldn't say I hate them. I see them as kind of a like a tool -- a legal invention that can serve a decent purpose, or can be harmful. I don't particularly hate the people who run them, either -- I just think they're making a terrible mistake in their decisions. Not only to the environment and the population, which is bad enough, but to the businesses themselves -- as William Lazonick and the late Lynn Stout did excellent research on.

This is not the way business should be operating, and such business is a state manufactured form of business. — Garrett Travers

It's certainly aided by the state, who shares a major responsibility in all of this, no doubt. But I think the thinking/justification behind a lot of this bad decision making -- which we've seen get especially worse in the last few decades (stock buybacks, etc.) -- is more a class phenomena. Meaning that a class of people at one point felt threatened and, with the aid of academia, developed a new way of running things which, ultimately, has the effect of transferring most of the generated wealth to themselves. Shareholder primacy theory, for example. You can also read basically a blueprint of this movement from the 1971 Powell memo to the Chamber of Commerce.

Thus you have the widening of income/wealth inequality, etc.

So yes, there's much to blame the government for. But recalling that corporations weren't always managed in this way, and that government wasn't always influenced by the same special interests, should give us reason to also question the class of privileged, wealthy people and their attitudes/reactions to the New Deal and, especially, the movement of the 1960s. That too was (and is) very real and had enormous effects of corporate governance and the behavior of elected representatives in government.

As for your link -- I looked at it once before. It's not very long, but interesting. The following questions are, I think, definitely the right ones:

Behind these concerns lie a number of fundamental questions. Who “owns” a corporation? What constitutes “good” governance? What are a company’s responsibilities? To shareholders? To other stakeholders, such as employees, suppliers, creditors, and society at large? How did Wall Street acquire so much power? And, critically, what are the roles and responsibilities of boards of directors?

I wouldn't say I hate them. I see them as kind of a like a tool -- a legal invention that can serve a decent purpose, or can be harmful. I don't particularly hate the people who run them, either -- I just think they're making a terrible mistake in their decisions. — Xtrix

Yes.

As for you link -- I look at it once before. It's not very long, but interesting. The following questions are, I think, definitely the right ones: — Xtrix

Yes, they are. If we insist on keeping things they way they are. I don't see how it's sustainable, The earth is oppositional, the wealth disparities are too poignant for people to handle, consumerism is fucking with people's development, and everything that once was contained in are and music seems to be dead. But, we've locked ourselves in. We abolish it now, millions of people die before the world picks itself back up. Solutions to problems like this have to start ground up, and I don't mean grassroots politics. I mean the socialists of the world have to start buying land and building independent prosperous communities. The entrepeneurial spirit of small-scale productivity has to come back - it has in some domains of industry. You see what I'm saying? This isn't something a state, or politics is going to fix, it's part of the machine generating it. By the way, there's a huge sect of Libertarians that are on board with everything I'm saying, and a growing number as well.
So there are allies all over in this particular domain of initiatives. I'm glad to see that we've reached some concensus. I'll also have you understand that when people like me use the term Capitalism, and you need read this because it's something even Rand overlooked this, we are only talking about real businesses, not these corps of today, or of Mercantilism. Real people, doing real work, that is really valuable, and giving them the freedom from force to do so. But, what else can we cover? Keep it one at a time, it's the only way to do this sort of thing.

the collective of individuals it attempts to be applied to, which is the same concept that requires individual benefit in a net way — Garrett Travers

Could you please clarify?

Could you please clarify? — Hello Human

Applying the ethical standard of rationally selfish benefit to a collective of individuals, is still individual benefit as decided and recieved by those individuals that comprise the collective, and is also still distributed by individuals to them, individually. Meaning, rational selfishness is the only rational, consistent, or scientifically correspondent starting point for ethical standardization, even beyond the fact that the individual human mind is the source of all ethical deliberations in the first place. Does that make sense, or need more?

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were two different worlds. I meant domains of observation within the same world. How things operate disparately between domains isn't important if they don't translate between the domains.

I'm saying issues like the observer effect, or things of that nature in QM, are not examples of the limitations of empiricsim, but gaps in empirical methods that have been devised that can meet the challenge associated with that domain of observation. It was actually empiricism that revealed the mysteries themselves, and empiricism that is being used to solve them, exclusively. — Garrett Travers

Ok, perhaps not so much limitations in empiricism, then, but in quantifying observation and measurement. The fundamental formulae of quantum physics were discovered not by empirical but by analytical methods, by working ‘backwards’ from existing data - this points to an important atemporal aspect of QM, which in empiricism amounts to a different ‘domain of observation’.

Time in empiricism flows in only one direction, but when we correlate different ‘domains of observation’, what we struggle to conceptualise we have no problems in applying accurately, suggesting that we’re missing something from our conceptual reasoning that is not missing from our application: qualitative intentionality, or a particular focus of attention. QM is solved when calculations qualitatively align with specific observation/measurement - and vice versa. It’s this potential reversibility of QM that is beyond the limits of observation/measurement and (for some) empiricism. I’m talking four-, five- and six-dimensional reality. I don’t think this is necessarily beyond empiricism, but it’s well beyond certainty.

An application of reason, yes. Not reason itself. Reason (rationality limited by an ’individual’ human consciousness) is not identical to its application.
— Possibility

This is not true, as far as I can gather from research. Applications of reason are reason. In fact, the brain is perpetually in a state of reasoning, even if it is not directed from executive function. — Garrett Travers

Reasoning is an ongoing action/event; Reason is a capacity/potential. They are not identical. Applications of reason include reasoning and affect. Reasoning is a process of drawing from experience and reason to generate ‘thought and data’ that inform not only behaviours, but also adjustments to reason. But what directly informs behaviour is affect (energy distributed in a four-dimensional system of ongoing attention and effort), so reason must translate into affect in order to inform behaviour. This is an application of reason. But affect is not reason, it’s a qualitative arrangement of energy. Reason, on the other hand, refers to qualitative ideas in a logical structure.

Ok, perhaps not so much limitations in empiricism, then, but in quantifying observation and measurement. The fundamental formulae of quantum physics were discovered not by empirical but by analytical methods, by working ‘backwards’ from existing data - this points to an important atemporal aspect of QM, which in empiricism amounts to a different ‘domain of observation’. — Possibility

Sure, there's going to be analytical elements, but those formulae don't just emerge in analytics and then become immediately accept by the physics community, they have learned to be applied, learned through applications ahead of those developments. That's why we have the domain of applied physics, the empirical domain. But, yes, you are correct as well. I just wouldn't separate them with too much space in between.

Time in empiricism flows in only one direction, but when we correlate different ‘domains of observation’, what we struggle to conceptualise we have no problems in applying accurately, suggesting that we’re missing something from our conceptual reasoning that is not missing from our application: qualitative intentionality, or a particular focus of attention. QM is solved when calculations qualitatively align with specific observation/measurement - and vice versa. It’s this potential reversibility of QM that is beyond the limits of observation/measurement and (for some) empiricism. I’m talking four-, five- and six-dimensional reality. I don’t think this is necessarily beyond empiricism, but it’s well beyond certainty. — Possibility

Right, you're echoing my position. Empiricism is how we test for reality, but that doesn't mean our methods are currently up to snuff, hence the LHC. That thing was designed, wonder of the modern world, to approach empirical understanding of quanta. In the end, when we do understand how QM and Relativity are compatible, it will be through empirical methods. No doubt whatsoever.

Reasoning is an ongoing action/event; Reason is a capacity/potential. They are not identical. Applications of reason include reasoning and affect. Reasoning is a process of drawing from experience and reason to generate ‘thought and data’ that inform not only behaviours, but also adjustments to reason. But what directly informs behaviour is affect (energy distributed in a four-dimensional system of ongoing attention and effort), so reason must translate into affect in order to inform behaviour. This is an application of reason. But affect is not reason, it’s a qualitative arrangement of energy. Reason, on the other hand, refers to qualitative ideas in a logical structure. — Possibility

Again, this is echoing what I have already asserted here. Affect is an element of reason. Emotions, attention, conceptualizition, all elements of reason. We are agreeing.

Applying the ethical standard of rationally selfish benefit to a collective of individuals, is still individual benefit as decided and recieved by those individuals that comprise the collective, and is also still distributed by individuals to them, individually. — Garrett Travers

If I understand well, your claim is that a benefit to a collective of individuals also constitutes a benefit to the members of the collective ?

Also, what do you mean exactly by “benefit” ?

If I understand well, your claim is that a benefit to a collective of individuals also constitutes a benefit to the members of the collective ? — Hello Human

Yes. The only reason a collective would claim right to something as a general good, would be because it is of good to each individual, or the maximal number of individuals. Meaning, even if one wants to stray from the baseline standard of ethics, they simply cannot, any more than they can see throught the eyes of someone else.

Also, what do you mean exactly by “benefit” ? — Hello Human

Any perceived gain. However, a rational approach, as implied by 'rational selfishness,' would have one consider that not all perceived gains are actual gains, and to be sure that analysis is present.

Your willingness to connect and collaborate with them, particularly towards increasing their awareness with regards to ethics, nets gains with respect to their potential in developing a rational consciousness, and will broaden this overall capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration beyond your own ‘individual’ reason.
— Possibility

I like your reasoning, it assumes a possible benefit associated with the interaction for all involved. Remember, their ethics is a benefit to you, not just your own. Net gains are a self-benficiary analysis. You have not only applied reason in this scenario, but done so on the basis of mutal benefit thereof. — Garrett Travers

So, you agree with this approach only insofar as there is sufficient self-benefit. But mutual benefit is not the basis - that’s just to consolidate this point beyond which our approach differs. Because when I talk about collaboration netting gains, I’m not referring to a self-beneficiary analysis of actuality. Increasing awareness, connection and collaboration nets a qualitative gain beyond the sum of individually perceived gains - that is the nature of collaboration. There’s no empirical evidence of this, of course, unless you’re looking for it specifically. And where’s the reason in looking? Beyond this ‘event horizon’ of rational self-interest, for starters.

It isn't inconsistent, it's universal a far as any sort of conceptualization goes, it's human cognition. But, relative and variable, definitely. That doesn't change the fact that a human cannot even be moral without it. It's where formulation of morals comes from, and every rationalization one gives oneself. I'll look into the Teo Te Ching bit. Where does that stem from? — Garrett Travers

I discussed the Tao Te Ching in considerable detail with T Clark in his thread last year, including the difficulties of translating from an ideological to a conceptual language. Our views were quite different, but I found the discussion and deep exploration itself was useful.

The TTC is written in an ideological language, not a conceptual one. The language of traditional Chinese literature consists not of word concepts (the naming of 10,000 things), but of qualitative ideas (characters) arranged according to a logically structured syntax and grammar. The first chapter of the TTC outlines the limitations of the text in relation to reality, including what is missing (desire/affect), and basically explains that the truth of reality consists in embodying a relation of individual affect with this logical arrangement of qualitative ideas. So, the text remains consistent, even though each quality/character is variable according to its relative position in the text, and each reader always approaches the meaning of the text from a variable position of relative affect.

So, you agree with this approach only insofar as there is sufficient self-benefit. But mutual benefit is not the basis - that’s just to consolidate this point beyond which our approach differs. Because when I talk about collaboration netting gains, I’m not referring to a self-beneficiary analysis of actuality. Increasing awareness, connection and collaboration nets a qualitative gain beyond the sum of individually perceived gains - that is the nature of collaboration. There’s no empirical evidence of this, of course, unless you’re looking for it specifically. And where’s the reason in looking? Beyond this ‘event horizon’ of rational self-interest, for starters. — Possibility

I just don't see how that could be the case. "Net gains" describes an individual benefit for a number of individuals receiving benefit. The "qualitative net gain" you speak of would not be agreed to by people who did not understand how they were benefitting, and would not be agreed to it unless you forced them. Nor should they. There's no way out of the individual cost/benefit analysis, which, has always been the basis of Ethics. The "good life" of the ancients is the same "rational selfishness" that individuals decide upon in mutual co-operation. You must be able to see this. You wouldn't be speaking with me here if you hadn't perceived some gain from it, and the same goes for me. We're hardwired to avoid pain and seek pleasure, and that is the basis of all ethical deliberations. That doesn't mean that that is where deliberations end, that's where rationality comes in. But, it is an ethical non-starter if an action is not at bare minimum self-beneficiary.

I discussed the Tao Te Ching in considerable detail with T Clark in his thread last year, including the difficulties of translating from an ideological to a conceptual language. Our views were quite different, but I found the discussion and deep exploration itself was useful. — Possibility

Don't know how I missed that. Must have been when jackass wasted my time for an entire night before he ran off.

The TTC is written in an ideological language, not a conceptual one. The language of traditional Chinese literature consists not of word concepts (the naming of 10,000 things), but of qualitative ideas (characters) arranged according to a logically structured syntax and grammar. The first chapter of the TTC outlines the limitations of the text in relation to reality, including what is missing (desire/affect), and basically explains that the truth of reality consists in embodying a relation of individual affect with this logical arrangement of qualitative ideas. So, the text remains consistent, even though each quality/character is variable according to its relative position in the text, and each reader always approaches the meaning of the text from a variable position of relative affect. — Possibility

I'll give this a look when I have some bandwidth to spare. I had a buddy that exposed me to some Buddhist philosophy that was unreal in the realm of logic, super interesting stuff. Have a look if you'd like. But, as a side note, given where we are in the conversation, tell me what your take on the Randian view is now that we've explored a bit. Are you less hostile, are you more hostile? Are things more clear, did you have misconceptions that were dealt with? Give me a comment jus on that sort of analysis, would you?

Buddhist stuff I mentioned:
https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth