I believe that one of the key reasons why a man will hate women is because of the power they seem to hold over him as sexual objects of desire. A woman can make a man want (to possess) her and yet also deny him access to her, thereby frustrating his desire. Women are perceived to be intentionally taunting men with their bodies, like a carrot on a stick, and men resent this. Hence why men often see sex as a form of conquest, in which a woman is finally dominated and put in her place. Sex is a form of revenge for these men. However, this very thing that men hate women for doing to them (manipulating their sexual desires) is itself often a form of revenge on men by women, who resent men for objectifying them. — _db

The main delusions here are that a man is the central, rational subject of a chaotic reality - and women have subjective intention ONLY in relation to him. This assumption gives the false impression that a woman’s actions are determined in a necessary relation to men. Men who delude themselves that their own intentions are entirely rational, maintain this delusion by projecting all their fears and desires onto the world as external ‘forces’ against his rationality. A man acts on his reasoning, but a woman acts on her relation to a man’s desires? Nope. It is too common a misconception that a woman chooses (or should choose) her action, clothing, etc as a direct and intentional response to the fears and desires of the men around her. So when a woman acts contrary to his desires, or fails to allay his fears, she presents as a chaotic force to be subdued by his efforts.

Is it too much to recognise that both men and women act on AFFECT, translated from reasoning and inclusive of fears and desires? The fact that a woman may be sufficiently self-aware to NOT feel the need to appear rationally unaffected does not give men permission to do so - a man’s fears or desires are NOT a woman’s manipulation, responsibility, or fault. His inability or unwillingness to reason amidst his own fears or desires has nothing at all to do with women.

All this is still firmly in the realm of craving, tanha. The craving for sensual pleasures, the craving for becoming, and the craving for non-becoming.

(Your project is based on what is sometimes termed "the third-and-a-half noble truth: suffering is manageable".) — baker

I’m not saying that suffering is ‘manageable’. You’re grasping for criticisms, here. Reducing suffering is not the same as avoiding it.

Nor am I saying that awareness is just reading and listening to music. My point here was that reading and listening to music was not considered ‘collaboration’.

It’s easy enough to translate every action into craving. We cannot act without translating reason into affect, so I’m not going to deny this. But you’re just avoiding what I’m actually referring to. What do you think it is about listening to music that increases awareness? The sensual pleasure is nice, but there’s a reason that certain music resonates with higher intelligence, and why we often need to ‘develop an ear’ for more complex music. And why do you think merely listening to music is not an example of collaboration?

But in moments when we are genuinely doing nothing, fully awake and alert (such as in meditation),

That's not "meditation", that's zoning out. — baker

Fully awake and alert is not ‘zoning out’. Come on, Baker!

Early Buddhism isn't interested in merely minimizing suffering. It proposes a complete cessation of suffering. This makes it a whole other category than what many other paths teach. — baker

Buddhism explores the possibility of a complete cessation of suffering - this is not the same as saying we all should follow that path to the end. I think that would be a misinterpretation.

That's not Early Buddhism, just to be clear, and not to misuse terminology. — baker

Never claimed it was.

I’m simply saying that there is more to a conscious existence than you are describing here, and choosing not to follow a particular socio-cultural agenda does not necessarily entail premature death, pessimism or antinatalism.

You'll need to spell this out. What other options are there?
In specific terms, please, not just anything that might fall under "awareness, connection, collaboration". — baker

Oh, so many. But you’re only looking for actions so you can reduce them (in your worldview) to ‘following the socio-cultural agenda’.

There is a tendency here to isolate the ‘individual’ as some concrete concept, and then reduce everything else to a binary relation. But the individual cannot act on a singular binary relation - all it can do is embody one side or the other of a moralistic view. So apparently we’re either dissatisfied with our worldview as an individual, or we’re completely taken in by it.

Both the individual and this worldview are five-dimensional conceptualisations that vary in relation to each other - and you know that your conceptual structures are far from identical to schopenhauer1’s, even if an evaluative relation reduces to the same side of the binary. But you’re not meant to look at the concepts, just trust that the word is the same, so it must represent the same consolidation of value.

The reduction being imposed here is: x>y

That’s it. Either you’re x or you’re y, and we can quibble about the variables later. Pick a side.

What’s missing from this model, though, is the distinction between quantitative (effort) and qualitative (attention) value. If only one or the other mattered, then there would be no problem here. But the equation is true for this conceptual structure in two incongruous ways:

1. The world is more powerful than the individual.

2. The individual is more valuable than the world.

I’m not very good at logic, but even I can see that there’s something amiss here.

Again with the implicit... Let me reiterate once again that I am NOT arguing FOR procreation, and I am NOT saying that we should procreate because we should collaborate. So STOP misrepresenting my position - I am getting sick of repeating myself on this point. Can you honestly not see that collaboration does not necessitate procreation? I will not condemn procreation itself as immoral, because I don’t believe it is, but nor do I advocate it as a necessarily moral act. This is a false dichotomy, an illusion limited by value structure.

I can see collaboration doesn't necessitate procreation. I do not agree obviously with all you said. But I still don't get what you are going on about with this collaboration.. What's the point of saying we should collaborate? Is that like your idiosyncratic way of working together to produce something? Clearly you are making a normative statement.. And it really just sounds like the middle-class idea of entrepeneurship and so-called "constructive projects"... I mean.. Achievement by working with others.. I mean this is pretty pedestrian stuff.. It's one of many parts of existence.. I don't get your trying to reify it. People tend to allay their boredom by "connecting" with other people. Some people use this "connection" to "collaborate" on projects. And by doing so, they become more "aware" about how something works, or make something new that other people become "aware" of.. Okie dokie.. Moving on.... — schopenhauer1

I have not said that we should collaborate, although if reducing suffering is your priority, then yes, I think increasing collaboration is the most efficient method - but not at the expense of awareness or connection. This is not a normative statement, but a rational one. I’m not talking about collaborating on isolated projects, but simply a general decision to collaborate rather than exclude whenever the opportunity presents - because one option never presents without the other, despite appearances. It’s invariably painful, humbling, risky and seemingly impossible, but it’s always ultimately worthwhile (just maybe not for any particular individual).

You mine as well say to just be a productive citizen and look to Dudley Dooright.. Celebrate the moments of our lives.. and all the other slogans... Every day we go to work or try to survive with other humans were are doing these things.. So, the fuck, what?? It's just how we survive. Cultural knowledge gathered through humans interacting over time... — schopenhauer1

But that’s not what I’m saying. Why bother to survive? What does that achieve? No one survives, in the end. Stop trying to survive or be socio-culturally productive, and instead find a way to make an incremental difference in the bigger picture. Fuck the agenda - don’t try to avoid suffering (in most cases it won’t actually harm you) - stare it down and use it to change the game. Don’t just gather knowledge, but strive to understand beyond what you can know with objective certainty. Take risks - you’re going to die anyway. Find out what you’re capable of. Intentionally do nothing - stare boredom in the face and discover what motivates you at your core: is it fear or something else? So many choices, so little time...

You have no idea what happened before the Big Bang, any more than most scientists.. and certainly has nothing to do with the qualitative aspects of connection, awareness, or collaboration.. all things that can and should only be attributed to sentient beings of a certain type and complexity.

What do you mean by "awareness, connection and collaboration with experiences of suffering".. you are always speaking in vague notions. — schopenhauer1

No, I don’t know, but I do have ideas. And you can’t be certain that it has nothing to do with what I’m describing, because you don’t know, either.

Awareness is not reserved for sentient beings - that’s consciousness. The simplest quality of awareness is the vaguest indication of ‘other’. Connection, too, is not reserved for sentient beings. It’s just a relative arrangement. Molecules connect with other molecules based on their qualitative structure and energy. Lego blocks connect when you press them together in a particular arrangement. And collaboration is simply an arrangement that enables the pooling of resources. Ants collaborate, so do genetic structures. No sentience required.

Well, if we don't get up and survive, we die.. So fine.. Let's all die by passively doing nothing and sitting. This is pretty much all this amounts to. Seeking any value structure is still DOING SOMETHING. Your philosophy does not somehow negate what I am saying about the dissatisfaction. The SEEKING is the dissatisfaction. — schopenhauer1

Sure, eventually you will die. But do you have any idea how long you can sit there, doing nothing, before you do die? It’s at least a couple of days. And this feeling you get that is motivating you to get up after only a few minutes - what is that? It isn’t you dying, that’s for sure. That space between you wanting to get up and you dying because you didn’t - there is a lot to learn in there.

I’m not trying to negate anything - just suggesting a broader perspective. Seeking an alternative value structure doesn’t require us to get up. It’s not about dissatisfaction with life, but recognising inaccuracies with the help of reason.

you seem to be saying to me that my perspective is wrong because it doesn't take into account your (really vague) ideas of collaboration, connection, and awareness. What do you MEAN? I still don't have any concrete examples. Collaborate, connection, and be aware of WHAT!! It all sounds like there is no "there" there. And somehow you will then say, "Yes that's the point.. it's very Buddhist, cause there's no there there"... and we will talk in circles.. and then to make it more concrete you will bring in some non-analogous physics terminology that is not helpful.. So really, just give me a succinct understanding of your worldview using concrete examples. You know that pretty much whatever it is you will say, I will just counter with the fact that X goal/event is the result of our dissatisfaction... If we are to stick with the premise of this thread. BEING itself would be enough! What's the POINT to keep saying collaborate, etc..? You are trying to provide this spiritual dimension.. There is no "WE" just "bits of collaboration" that want to "collaborate" to be "fulfilled".. Perhaps it's your just-so inevitability towards "collaboration".. Your view that "collaboration" is some underlying principle that I just don't get.. Maybe because there are NO CONCRETE EXAMPLES whereby I can even look at it critically. It's a value structure YOU have simply asserted... a normative goal you have placed (COLLABORATE!).. But why? — schopenhauer1

In the end it doesn’t matter if I think your perspective is wrong - it’s a valid perspective - but the fact that it requires you to reject valid information from others’ experiences indicates logical inaccuracies, or at least limitations. I do mean awareness, connection and collaboration of everything - supplying concrete examples only gives you permission to ignore, isolate and exclude what is not concrete. This is what unsettles you - that I’m not fitting my philosophy into your conceptual worldview. Yes, our individual conceptualisation of BEING (which excludes qualitative or aesthetic ideas) could be consolidated into a linear structure (by isolating the quality of the individual), and then reduced (by ignoring qualitative structure) to a binary: satisfaction or dissatisfaction. But what’s the point of this reduction? How useful is it for any life that we manifest, given the inaccuracies? Or is it simply an attempt to attain satisfaction at a moralistic level?

And why should this concept of BEING be enough? Even Kant recognised the qualitative variability of our conceptual BEING in an affected relation to the aesthetic idea. Our process of conceptualisation does not accurately concretise the reality of our experience - there IS an existential dimension beyond it - whether you call it ‘spiritual’ or something else. And it is a choice you make to ignore or increase awareness of it, to isolate it as ‘spiritual’ or simply seek connection, and to exclude it as non-conceptual (no concrete examples) or find ways to collaborate with what is effectively a qualitative possibility of ‘oneness’.

Collaboration is not a goal - it’s a possibility: the absolute, paradoxical quality and energy of pure logic. I’m not saying the term is a perfect summary - it obviously loses something when isolated from its paradoxical relation, from ‘exclusion’, and from awareness/ignorance and connection/isolation, but these are the most accurate terms and relations I have found.

I think that definition works just fine. The parent causes a new person to BE in a particular state when they procreate them. So they are "bringing" them into existence. But even if you don't agree with that definition, use whatever verb you want for that phenomenon. This tangent is unnecessary, and seems like an odd red herring. Use the word "cause to exist" if you want. What's the point of wasting time on this pedantic debate though? Was it really unclear what I mean that parents are agents that cause a new person to exist by their actions? — schopenhauer1

I’m trying to draw your attention to the qualitative structural difference between actual and potential. It’s not that I don’t agree with the definition - I think it’s fine, too - I’m just trying to point out that this definition has more to it than you realise. Because a ‘person’ must potentially exist prior to procreation - just NOT in a particular state. And there is no definition of procreation that can avoid this distinction.

Existence is commonly assumed to be four-dimensional only - that’s the structure of language use, of the universe, of this particular state we’re in. Yet we can only be aware of this state and this language-use if our existence extends beyond four-dimensional structure. This is a fundamental logic of qualitative geometry. So it is rational to assume that a person, a consciousness, is a five-dimensional (potential) relation to BEING. And this faculty by which we render or describe a four-dimensional structure must at least logically structure this five-dimensional potentiality, from the possible existence of a six-dimensional relation.

Regardless of what we can prove empirically, the logical structure of possible existence extends, at least qualitatively, to six dimensions. It’s easy enough to ignore, but the logic is undeniable. This is the foundation of my philosophy.

So when we talk about what we ‘bring into existence’ or ‘cause to be in a particular state’, I would argue that we’re not bringing it from non-existence, or causing existence, per se. We’re manifesting a four-dimensional state of existence - from five-dimensional potentiality that includes but is not limited to our own potential existence. I don’t mind if you say ‘bring’ or ‘cause’ - so long as you recognise that what you mean by ‘existence’ in this sense is four-dimensional actuality.

Well, last I checked, sex under certain conditions or artificial means are the two main ways that "lead to procreation". How is that not something you can isolate? — schopenhauer1

‘Sex under certain conditions’ isolates human behaviour from these ‘conditions’ under which it occurs. I’m saying that when you isolate it like this, you don’t have an accurate or objective model, because both ‘sex’ and ‘certain conditions’ are highly variable in relation to each other. There is much more complexity to ‘sex under certain conditions’ than this description suggests.

As far as intentional awareness, all the best intentions and upbringing cannot prevent suffering, harm, and certainly still does not overcome the direct violation of dignity in causing someone to follow an agenda (i.e. the socio-culutral-physical agenda of human suvival/thriving in order to not die, despite the fact that we might want things differently.) — schopenhauer1

Intentional engagement with potential may not prevent all suffering and harm, but its capacity to reduce suffering and harm extends well beyond that of intentionally isolating potential. The dignity of someone’s potential is not violated by actualising it. We may ‘cause’ a potentiality to BE in a particular state of ‘following an agenda’, but once they are aware of an agenda as such (which as a parent should be our aim), we are no longer the ‘cause’ of them following it. And in case you were wondering - this is not to say that we SHOULD actualise someone’s potential - only that we are not necessarily violating someone’s dignity by doing so - so long as it is their potential we intend them to realise, not our own. Their potential remains intact, whether we engage with it or not. The only difference is in our perception of it.

Having said that, I do get what you’re saying: the potential of an individual seems infinite in relation to the sum of any random actualisation. But the potential of an individual also varies in relation to any randomly perceived potentiality. So an individual is then a relative value, which seems less infinite in itself, but only if you consider value to be linear (one-dimensional) in structure, and infinity to be quantitative. Which I obviously don’t.

Carlo Rovelli once described the universe as consisting not of objects in time, but of ‘interacting events’, or relative temporal structures. Time, he says, is not linear except in our localised experience of it. We can consider potentiality in the same way: the universe consisting not of events or living systems interacting along a single linear structure of value or potential, but rather of interacting potentialities or relative value structures.

Oh, this is rich.. So, no, that is not what I am doing. I am forcing, literally NOTHING onto ANYONE. Not procreating forces nothing on no one. Nor am I advocating my philosophy through force. HOWEVER, this isn't the case for the other side of the equation. For the pro-procreators, this definitely IS forcing someone into a situation.. In fact that's one of my major points.. Someone is always harmed in procreation and is always caused to follow the agenda, and can never have been consented de facto (I just say "forced" but you will probably be pedantic about it as a red herring). However, in the pro-procreator camp, there is always collateral damage. There is always some kind of "force" going on. Someone who is caused to deal with this or that (I'll just say the socio-cultural-survival agenda). — schopenhauer1

You are evaluating every act in relation to the apparently infinite value of a consolidated, individual potential against any attempt to actualise it as a living system, and rejecting all other possible value structures. When I describe an alternative perspective, you simply impose your own value structure on what I’ve written, and argue that “this is what you’re really saying, and it’s immoral”. Yes, impose - not necessarily on me, but on what I’ve written. You might consider it to be an equation with only two sides (yours and the wrong one), but my point is that there is more to this supposed ‘force’ than you seem willing to consider - more to causation, more to value, and more to the individual.

I agree a lot in the first part there, but you turn vague when you say "increasing awareness, connection, and collaboration beyond our own value structures". What has led you to those three words/concepts? Did you read it somewhere? Did it come to you in an epiphany? What is your influence there if at all? — schopenhauer1

The notions of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion come from an exploration of ‘will’ - as the faculty by which all actions are determined and initiated - as well as the structural relations between atomic, molecular, chemical, biological, conscious and self-conscious systems. What distinguishes each of these systems from each other is directly related to qualitative dimensional geometry and these three ‘gates’ of interaction. The carbon atom, for example, demonstrates the most ideal balance between consolidated atomic stability and variable molecular awareness, connection and collaboration among all the elements. The part it plays in the evolution of the universe is no accident.

And more importantly, what does that even mean in the context that we are discussing? I am simply saying that harm and suffering exists. So does the fact that we cannot escape the forced agenda, lest suicide. Collaborating does not take away this fact. I am not against it.. I like to read about scientific discoveries.. I like to read history. I like to listen to music.. I can talk with others about these things. I can discuss philosophy on this forum.. None of this is relevant to "dissolving" the problems away that I am discussing. You can't outwit this. — schopenhauer1

I agree that harm and suffering exist. But I disagree that we cannot escape this apparently ‘forced’ agenda - there are many other options besides self-ignorant compliance or self-excluding suicide. The three gates I’ve proposed provide us with those options.

Reading and listening to music is increasing awareness. Talking with others and most discussions of philosophy are connection. Collaboration is maximising a collective efficiency of limited resources. It takes the focus off the individual and risks non-existence to build on this vague, qualitative sense of a higher dimensional level of existence. This is how atoms developed into molecules, how molecules developed into chemical systems, then into biological systems, how biological systems developed consciousness, and how conscious systems developed a self.

My point to this is that this has an implicit "political" goal in mind. Political not in the idea of government per se, but a sort of social agenda that other people must follow. I would say that it's find to hold a view on this or that social arrangement.. However, once procreation enters the picture, it becomes a political agenda on behalf of someone else. See, YOU want X (in this case collaboration with existence), and the individual, who is an agent, has to experience existence and thus will suffer. They not only suffer, they are forced to follow the agenda of being alive at all.. That is to say, if let's say an industrialized economy.. it more or less follows a rather predictable fashion of work for money for survival and consume stuff, get more comfortable with environment, and entertain oneself in that economic framework. Things. like that. There is obviously a lot more to say on it, but I am giving you the rudimentary here. The antinatalist/pessimist doesn't want to set agendas for others to follow. We may be alive ourselves, but we don't continue the chain. You can try to obfuscate and say that somehow "existence collaborates its way anyway", but as an agent we can individually not participate in procreating that suffering and agenda onto another person who experiences it and must follow it. I choose and promote not choosing for others to put them in these situations. Not existing hurts no one, and deprives no one. Existing hurts someone, and the collateral damage of suffering will take place. — schopenhauer1

Again with the implicit... Let me reiterate once again that I am NOT arguing FOR procreation, and I am NOT saying that we should procreate because we should collaborate. So STOP misrepresenting my position - I am getting sick of repeating myself on this point. Can you honestly not see that collaboration does not necessitate procreation? I will not condemn procreation itself as immoral, because I don’t believe it is, but nor do I advocate it as a necessarily moral act. This is a false dichotomy, an illusion limited by value structure.

In considering procreation we need to recognise that it is the extent of our own ignorance, isolation and exclusion - of which we cannot be more than vaguely aware - that WILL contribute to the suffering of a child if we choose to go ahead. I get that you consider this to be a morality issue, but here’s the thing: in the event that we choose NOT to procreate, we have not taken any step towards reducing any overall contribution to suffering in our own life. We will continue to interact in the world, distributing the same effort and attention with the same level of ignorance, isolation and exclusion as we would have had we directed it towards a child. Preventing one person in the world doesn’t reduce suffering on its own - it’s like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Antinatalism isolates and excludes a consolidated potential for suffering, which is not the same thing.

Existence even prior to the Big Bang does tend weakly towards awareness, connection and collaboration overall, but this tendency is qualitative - fundamentally unquantifiable. Every experience of suffering is a result of some ignorance, isolation or exclusion, and yet it is through this quantitative consolidation that existence is able to eventually develop an understanding of itself. Non-existence isn’t the only way to keep from hurting others. One existence intentionally maximising awareness, connection and collaboration with experiences of suffering has the potential to reduce suffering beyond what is prevented by one individual non-existence. This is the fundamentally misunderstood truth of both Buddha and Jesus.

Besides which, as is the theme of this thread, boredom I believe to be a powerful understanding of the standard human condition. That is to say, we cannot generally, sit too long and meditate on nothingness all day. We have to get up. The agenda of survival and our own dissatisfied minds makes it the case. You can try to distract from this point by bringing up some "higher truth" of "attachment" versus the action itself, but I think my point still remains. Not sure if you will make that move (usually attached to Buddhist concept of suffering) but just addressing it now in case. — schopenhauer1

A dissatisfied mind cannot force us to get up. Neither can this so-called agenda of survival. We choose to prioritise values such as survival, but the reality is that ‘survival’ for us is only ever a temporary achievement, as is a ‘satisfied’ mind. Which means they aren’t really values at all. So, what do we gain by this illusory value structure, except a sense of the ‘individual’ as infinitely valuable? Intentionally experiencing this state of ‘boredom’ without feeling that we must ‘reject some forced agenda’ to do so is precisely what Buddhist meditation is showing us about the human condition. The point is to get past this feeling that we have to get up, we have to survive - and in that state realise our own capacity to not follow any so-called ‘set agendas’. To recognise them as illusion, and seek a more accurate value structure - rationally developing a self from an understanding of the energy of affect in relation to the quality of ideas.

All I get from your philosophy is we are in the great "collaboration" scheme. That doesn't tell me much. It's like saying, "The world is made of fluctuating X". That doesn't tell me much as far as what I am discussing. String theory, for example, doesn't really tell me anything other than perhaps some scientific points about how we can interpret the makeup of the universe given the evidence and math that we have at the moment and through our historical development. — schopenhauer1

It’s not just collaboration - it’s maximising awareness, connection and collaboration which brings all of existence towards an absolute, infinite interconnectedness. But that’s effectively in paradoxical relation with absolute non-existence. This is why I persist in these frustrating discussions with you, because in many ways I find we are in a similar philosophical position - except that one of us is focused on a meta-philosophy, while the other is focused on an ethical framework. I guess I’m curious as to why it seems to you like I’m somehow denying your experience when I argue for a broader perspective.

Individuals are not ‘brought into existence’ from somewhere else they’d rather be.
— Possibility

I never said that! This is a straw man.. I said they were simply brought into existence. I didn't say that to imply that they existed prior to their birth, so stop. — schopenhauer1

Bring: Cause (someone or something) to come to a place. Cause someone or something to BE in a particular state or condition.

The implication in this verb is that they were in a different state or condition prior to birth. So to ‘bring into existence’ is to imply that non-existence of something is a state or condition. can you explain that?

An agent is making a choice to procreate or at the least, engage in activities that lead to procreation. Nothing more is needed here in your model. I don't have to look at neurons or quantum physics to make this claim. It has to do at the level of human behavior. To start making it otherwise, is to obfuscate. Why are you doing that? What is the point? To be clever? Do you think because it is so simple, it can't be right, that we can actually talk at the level of agents making choices in regards to procreation and evaluating whether it is good to make a decision to bring someone else into the world? — schopenhauer1

You can’t isolate ‘human behaviour’ and expect to render an accurate or objective model of ‘activities that lead to procreation’. And when you talk about ‘making a choice to engage’, what are those activities, and to what extent are they intentionally engaged? And I’ve already repeatedly explained that I’m not arguing FOR procreation as necessarily a good thing. I think there needs to be considerably more awareness of what one’s intentional engagement sets in motion, before evaluating the decision. If that occurred, then far less people would choose to procreate, and those who do would be more intentionally engaged in the process.

Experiencing suffering and harm isn't "someone's fault", but procreating people where it is known that suffering and harm occur can be construed as a choice that an agent takes. The universe did not breed me (unless you mean in the non-useful-here evolutionary sense of the term). Humans have agency and can decide not to produce more people that can and will suffer and are forced into X, Y, Z situations as a result. What I mean by that is that the situatedness of the world is already such that people have to follow this socio-culutral-physical agenda of human suvival/thriving in order to not die, despite the fact that we might want things differently. The only thing you can do to counter this is say that "It's YOUR fault for not learning to go along with the program" OR to simply say, "None of this is real, so you aren't really suffering". Both of these are false.. and yes I will say, existentially gaslighting answers to the problem I am presenting. — schopenhauer1

There is much more to procreating people than the occurrence of suffering and harm - this is your reductionist evaluation, and that’s fine, but you have no right to impose this on others as some objective morality. I’m not laying blame, and I’m not denying your experience. I’m simply saying that there is more to a conscious existence than you are describing here, and choosing not to follow a particular socio-cultural agenda does not necessarily entail premature death, pessimism or antinatalism.

Also, I am waiting to hear the profoundness of this "truth" you hold. Collaboration makes all this go away, is that it? Like procreating more people who suffer isn't bad because Collaboration? Procreating more people who suffer isn't bad because, "it's only my reality and not real"? That it too? Just a yes or no would be fine... and then a SHORT summary of why or why not in a COHERENT fashion that isn't self-referential. — schopenhauer1

No, no, and no.

Maximising awareness, connection and collaboration, in theory, makes the problem not so much ‘go away’ as cease to be considered a ‘problem’. Procreating more people (while neither good nor bad necessarily) is not an efficient way to collaborate at all, given our capacity for collaborative understanding in potentiality. The more we learn to collaborate, the less we will perceive a ‘need’ to procreate.

What is harmful is the notion that any child I bring into the world is perceived as a property of myself - to become only as aware, connected and collaborative as I find valuable or rewarding to me; or as an extension of myself - their individual value rendering my own potentially insignificant or redundant. This is how most people raise their children, despite stated intentions to ‘make the world a better place’ or ‘give them the opportunities I didn’t have’. They very soon find themselves in a power struggle with an alternative value structure (rather like you assume is going on between us). The sooner we learn, as a parent or anyone, that it’s not about power but about increasing awareness, connection and collaboration beyond our own value structures, the greater and more variable our capacity to reduce suffering overall for the child, for ourselves, and for any future interactions.

I think the question was, what is the source of the sense of good and evil. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perceived homeostasis vs homeostatic disruption is the basic sense. Equilibrium vs chaos from the level of individual perception. — Garrett Travers

Obviously not, because good is attributed to acts, and equilibrium is attributed to a lack of activity. "If you want to get to heaven, you got to raise a little hell". — Metaphysician Undercover

Where did you generate this idea from? That's not true at all. Humans (all life forms, really) achieve homeostasis through acts that accrue the resources that allow them to do so. Homeostasis is the basic impetus to action. — Garrett Travers

This seems an oversimplification, a collapse of the wavefunction upon observation. Humans achieve homeostasis through a balance of action AND inaction - actually, that’s an oversimplification, too. It’s more accurately non-commuted values of attention and effort in a four-dimensional structure. We just don’t observe the inaction. Makes good and evil a little more complex, doesn’t it?

Just like you're at ease enough with the idea that humans act essentially out of boredom (while not all other people are at ease with this idea), some other people are at ease enough with the idea that selfhood is a construct (while you (and many others) are not at ease with said idea). It's why some people can discuss a particular topic without such discussion causing them unease, and others cannot.

There is in some religious/spiritual traditions a warning given that one should not discuss certain religious/spiritual topics with just anyone at just any time in just any setting. This warning is given with good reason, it is intended as a measure to avoid unnecessarily upsetting people, and to avoid wasting one's time.

I haven't seen such consideration emphasized in Western philosophy, but I think it is very much in place. — baker

I appreciate your open-minded approach. I think this warning is often along the lines of ‘when the student is ready, the teacher appears’. I agree that some people are not ready to explore beyond their event horizon - it’s an unsettling and often terrifying process. Far less risky to step away from the apparent precipice. But I also think we have this faculty of imagination for a reason, and it isn’t really to avoid getting bored or to talk ‘hocus pocus’. Philosophy is about enabling the interaction of logic, affect and value structures in a way that challenges the structures themselves to improve their accuracy and effectiveness. That means we need to be prepared to dismantle them to understand why they’re not working.

Right, but getting to nirvana is a sort of discipline no? I’m saying this is one more burden, one of the do (not do) of Buddhism.

If there’s a delusion of self there’s being non deluded but that takes X thing that one must deal with like everything else from being born at all..hence my pessimism of even Buddhism which ironically is a kind of path forward from its own pessimistic evaluations — schopenhauer1

As I said before, Buddhism is commonly misinterpreted as a practice to self-improvement, but the path to enlightenment is not a one-time deal. There’s no consolidation at the end known as ‘enlightened’ - Buddha’s ultimate achievement was non-existence. We’re not obligated to follow this or reject it, but invited to explore the path in order to understand, and from there make choices in genuinely reducing suffering (not just our own experience or observation of it), as far as our awareness, connection and collaboration allows.

I’m inviting you to connect and collaborate to increase awareness - not because I think I know better, but because the very fact that we’re not on the same page indicates there is an aspect of awareness that we don’t share. You can choose what you want to do with that. No one is forcing you to respond. But when you do, I will be trying to find a position from which I can understand yours without denying my own experience - knowing I may need to imagine the possibility that such a position exists. You don’t have to join me there, but I’ll try to describe it, just the same.

The world I understand is through my mediating self. It was the individual brought into existence and that suffers. You can twist that logic all you want and you ain’t gonna change that point. I might interact from it and learn information that I can process to survive in my environment and entertain, but it’s still the individual who is processing and using this information and outputting it. You can’t just skip over that. — schopenhauer1

You can’t twist logic, but you can ignore it.

Individuals are not ‘brought into existence’ from somewhere else they’d rather be. They are ‘conceived’ in potentiality by mostly unintentional collaboration of existence. This conception manifests life via lots of small and seemingly insignificant choices or ‘willing’ collaboration, until such time as there is sufficient intentional awareness, connection and collaboration among willing aspects to construct a ‘self’ as a local consolidation of choice in potentiality. But this ‘self’ is not identical to the conception from which your life manifest in the first place. Although in language it would make sense to consider them the same ‘individual’ subject, it is this ‘flattening’ of what is a more complex potentiality for the purpose of language that leads to conflicting value structures.

Formal logic insists that only one of these value structures can be our ‘true’ value structure - so it seems as if we’re ‘forced’ to choose between the qualitative primacy of the individual (in which case the problem is existence), or the quantitative primacy of existence (in which case the problem is individual, personal).
— Possibility

This sounds incoherent. It sounds like you are saying what I already gathered, that it’s the individuals fault for experiencing the sufferings and harms. It also sounds like you think you can take the view from nowhere regarding your own existence. But you can’t. All choices are mediated by a person with a will, values, reasons, goals, etc that de facto are forced upon them as they are born and interacting. — schopenhauer1

Well of course it sounds incoherent - this is the conflict. And I don’t see why experiencing suffering and harm is necessarily someone’s fault. You’re looking to attribute intentionality in a moralistic structure, but you need to reconcile the conflicting value structures first - which is as easy as reconciling quantum physics with general relativity. Your solution is to exclude one in favour of the other - and then fight to deny anyone’s experience which might suggest the reality you’ve decided on might be ignoring aspects of the truth. Hmm... and yet I’m the one accused of gaslighting.

All choices are mediated by a person whose will, values, reasons, goals, etc are continually reconstructing as they are born and interacting. This variability can be mapped, just as Copernicus mapped the solar system without leaving Earth.

Fine collaborating about pessimism then. Awareness of the forced agenda we are all a part of. Why force people into life? Any answer implicates you mam. It implicates that you too have an agenda for people.. — schopenhauer1

How about collaborating between pessimism and optimism? Or awareness of a broader agenda that is not forcing a consolidated ‘individual’ into a quantitatively limited, temporal existence, but rather opportunity for a potentially constructed ‘self’ to manifest actual collaboration with existence? You may choose to limit your collaboration to increasing pessimism, but your comments here have been denying my capacity to choose optimism, or to move freely between the two, simply because it doesn’t fit with your own limited perspective. So stop trying to accuse me of gaslighting.

Then tell me your philosophy! Can you actually summarize your argument in a succinct intelligible way? Do you even grasp what I’m arguing? All I’m getting from you is that it’s the pessimists fault for not seeing some truth that I’m sure you think you have access to cause you are seeing it from some quantitative way. — schopenhauer1

You don’t want to hear my philosophy - you want me to tell you who I think is to blame for this situation we’re in. But I’m not laying blame. If you were interested in my philosophy at all, you would have been reading what I actually wrote, instead of reducing all my words to some moralistic stance you can argue against. If you genuinely want to hear my philosophy, then go back and re-read my posts, and then discuss those words, rather than what your mediating self feels that I’m saying.

Ok, so gaslighting is doing or seeing something crazy and then making the other people think they are crazy for thinking what they witnessed was crazy. So, Trump was a master at gaslighting. He constantly pushed the boundaries of decent presidential behavior and then made everyone else look like they are crazy or overblowing what he just did.. — schopenhauer1

No - gaslighting is denying aspects of someone else’s experience when it doesn’t fit with your perspective. It’s falsifying by exclusion.

So, for example, the human condition comes with a LOT of inherent and contingent forms of suffering and harm. Yet, what you (albeit subtly) try to do is then say, "No, no, it's not existence that is the problem, it is YOUR problem". Thus I call it "existential gaslighting". It is making what actually is crazy (the pessimistic nature of the human condition) into a personal thing (YOUR problem). Thus things like the ethics of procreation, subjects like the objective understanding of having a willful striving nature, even the complaining about such injustices/tragedies cannot be discussed rationally, you see, because it is all in MY head.. and thus relegated to things like therapy and not philosophy. It is a subtle dismissing of what I am saying by RELATIVIZING it.. — schopenhauer1

Again, you are misrepresenting my position. What I’m saying is that perceiving a ‘problem’ with existence - this pessimistic nature of the human condition - is indicative of a value structure that conceives the ‘individual’ as more important, greater qualitative value, than existence. What is ‘problematic’ is how this value structure relates to the measurable potential of existence (ie. its quantitative value) being greater than that of the individual. Formal logic insists that only one of these value structures can be our ‘true’ value structure - so it seems as if we’re ‘forced’ to choose between the qualitative primacy of the individual (in which case the problem is existence), or the quantitative primacy of existence (in which case the problem is individual, personal).

My argument is that this conflict in value structures or double bind is a relative condition, as in not absolute, which is not the same as dismissing it. Of course it’s relative - it’s a human condition. But I do think there is a rational way of looking at this that effectively renders the problem you’re outlining as an illusion - in much the same way as the earth being flat is an illusion.

I think you’ve demonstrated that it’s possible to have a reasonable discussion about ‘injustices/tragedies’ such as the ethics of procreation and having a wilful striving nature - so long as the participants share this value structure - but I would argue that it isn’t an entirely rational discussion. Take a breath before you respond now, because a rational discussion isn’t twisting my words so that they seem like an attack, an insinuation, or an accusation towards YOU. No-one can be both rational and defiant at the same time. If you’re feeling existentially threatened by what I’m saying, then I ask you to imagine for a moment that there is no person at this end, and examine the words as if they were just ideas in a rational structure, void of intention or feeling. Just try it.

I did not subtly try to hint at insinuations that you have something else more than "collaboration, connection, awareness" in mind..as that is a process and you dismiss it when used for things you don't find to your taste (like pessimism or antinatalism), and thus you are actually (subtly again) hinting at a NORMATIVE value more than the three-word process you keep listing off. Your process seems to HAVE to lead to a non-pessimist conclusion.. Interesting how that works. It ends up being something like.. "Your distaste for life is something you should reflect upon.. join the connection club that I espouse, and you will join forces with the GREATER awareness of the whole.. etc. etc." How is this not Hegelian in style? All you have to do is add in the Absolute and you're pretty much there. A big behemoth existential process that humans are a part of leading to ultimate growth... Hegel (though his oddly stopped around the Prussian state in the 1800s rather than infinite growth I guess). Anyways, unintentional or not, I'm characterizing it as such as I see the parallels of group-process optimism. — schopenhauer1

No - the process leads to... collaboration, connection and awareness - it’s neither pessimistic nor optimistic. If I choose to be optimistic about it - well, that’s my choice, as I’ve said. Repeatedly.

Yes, every time we act, we must consolidate a ‘self’.
— Possibility

You don't have to go any further..This is all that matters for a self to be a de facto necessity. Anything beyond this is hocus pocus. — schopenhauer1

Right - de facto, which is relative to value structure, and contingent upon action. That’s an illusion of ‘necessity’.

But we still MUST make choices.. The choice-maker is the SELF.. This is all subtle gaslighting, again, to try to say that I should seek therapy and join the "collaboration forces" for your Hegelian whatever, optimism thing.. What you are doing is COMPLETELY overlooking all my griping and just saying, "Hey, that's your problem, not existence's.. it's YOUR CHOICE".. I get what you are saying, mam.. But that doesn't resolve the moral problems of procreation, and the inherent suffering of existence.. No THAT isn't a choice as you KEEP insinuating. — schopenhauer1

No - the CHOICE is the self, and it exists only in potentiality. I’ve also explained to you before that I don’t consider procreation a necessity nor an obligation, and that reducing suffering is a fundamental aspect of increasing awareness, connection and collaboration.

It is this ‘sitting Buddha’ (an awareness in potentiality of stillness and no-self) that enables us to employ reason in the determination of ‘self’ rather than being bound by some externally ‘forced’ value structure.
— Possibility

The very fact that I am thrown into this situation at all that I am discussing. Anything, including being a "sitting Buddha" is part of this throwness.. You have the values of the middle-class suppressors here.. "It's all in YOUR MIND" is the way to make people complacent with the existential situation. I think we both agree there is no way out... But I am going to be defiant and not this bullshit, where I place the blame on myself for not "seeing" the bigger picture. Fuck that, mam. — schopenhauer1

You’re playing the victim. And you clearly have no idea what my values are, as you can’t get beyond your own. It’s not about either complacency or defiance, nor about finding a way out, but a way through. This is easier to do when you can imagine the situation from a position already beyond it.

No, because the manner in which we do that isn't straight forward, it's a fluid and amorphus group of methods and multisensory correspondence, including parental guidance, and then a process of coherence thereafter. It's really not like something that can be backward or forward. Do you see what I mean? Every new verified dimension that constitutes a basic unit contributes to the concept in question, from whence more concepts can be abstracted. As far as I know, this is aligned with modern cog-sci. — Garrett Travers

I get where you’re coming from, and I agree that the ongoing conceptualisation process is atemporal. I don’t doubt that modern cognitive science supports that. But Rand is referring here specifically to ‘building blocks’: first, second and third stages of a child’s initial concept formation. But her assumed sequence of ‘logic then quality’ is more obvious in chapter 2.

I do think that, when we reflect on our reasoning processes, Rand’s sequence makes sense. But I also think that this reflecting is conducted rationally - that is, from a perspective that values logic over quality, and pays no mind to affect/energy at all - because it isn’t useful at this level. That’s different to what she’s trying to describe here: how concepts are formed. Abstracting concepts from a basic conceptual ‘unit’ is not how young children first develop conceptual structure. They are very much in the experience, not in their heads.

You'll notice that it actually didn't, even in the quote you provided. "Integration" is repeated, but "differentiation" is explained as "isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition." That is differentiation, it's the same process as described above. — Garrett Travers

Ok, so we differentiate into basic units by characteristic(s) first, then integrate them back together under new, united differentiation. So how do we identify these characteristic(s) by which we first differentiate? Where do those ‘characteristics’ emerge from, and how are they differentiated? Do you see how backwards this is?

Yes, she covers this in great detail throughout chapter 1 and 2. None of this is contradictory to Rand or modern science so far. — Garrett Travers

Not contradictory. Backwards. But I’ll read the article and get back to you.

Yes, she covers this in great detail throughout chapter 1 and 2. None of this is contradictory to Rand or modern science so far. — Garrett Travers

In Chapter 2 she starts with measurement - with quantity, not affect or quality. Then this ‘measurement’ is stripped of quantitative characteristics. This is the difference. It’s a key difference, because it comes from an assumption that logic alone is a priori. You have to read between the lines to realise that the unquantified, qualitative relation of ‘length’ has already formed in the child’s mind before he applies it to the objects in any logical relation of measurement.

You know, I see what your contention is, but I find it difficult to not place us at the top of the animal kingdom, at least for now. It appears we are, in fact, this planet's pinnacle predator. — Garrett Travers

It’s the assumption of ‘pinnacle’ that bothers me, as if there is nowhere else for us to go in terms of evolution.

Just first chapter. You think it's garbage after that, I'll never bother you about again, you have my word. — Garrett Travers

Not garbage, but let’s just say that I think there are at least two main ways we can approach concept formation. Rand appears to give primacy to quantitative integration, I give it to qualitative differentiation. I’ve encountered this difference with others in many discussions at this level, and I usually put it down to a general distinction in our value structures. It doesn’t contribute to the discussion to simply say that she’s wrong, because the very methodology she employs in concept development doesn’t enable an awareness of what I believe is missing.

I’ll start with the definitions of the first two chapters:

“Consciousness, as a state of awareness, is not a passive state, but an active state that consists of two essentials: differentiation and integration.”

This then quickly moves to:

“A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition.”

When did differentiation take a back seat? This explains a lot about the issues I have with her philosophy.

Now to her supposing an implicit concept on the level of sensation - this is where I think the difference in awareness between something and nothing is more accurately a qualitative sense of valence/arousal, not a ‘thing’ or object. It highlights the criticism I also have of Kant’s aesthetics: the unnecessary reliance on a pre-existing ‘object’ of attention. There is simply no need for a subject-object distinction here - that’s a function of conceptual language structure, not pre-linguistic concept formation.

Concept development, according to Rand, starts with an awareness of objects representing an implied concept, and then an awareness of particular properties of that implied concept, followed by grasping the relationships of similarity and difference between each instance of that concept...?

This is all back to front. It may be how most people are taught to logically construct or define concepts, based on a Cartesian illusion of certainty. But surely you would agree that modern neuroscience doesn’t support this as a process of pre-linguistic concept formation? It certainly doesn’t fit with my own experience as a parent.

An infant would process sensation according to awareness of affect first, and then develop a differentiation of quality, before grasping logical relations that formulate a predictable structure. All of this can be fast-tracked by language as a pre-existing value system, which is then learned in much the same way - ie. most useful or desirable goal-concepts first (‘mum’, ‘more’, ‘no’, ‘teddy’); then qualitative relational descriptions such as ‘here/there’’, ‘behind’, or ’hot/cold’ ‘soft’, and lastly logical relations and structures such as numbers, letters, measurements, etc.

An example from personal experience: one of my daughter’s first words was ‘bah’, which wasn’t surprising, given her love of bath time. I noticed one day while we were driving in the car that she kept saying ‘bah’ at seemingly unsolicited times. After observing her for a while, it occurred to me that she was referring to the puddles from the rain that she spotted on the side of the road. Her use of the word ‘bah’ was to represent the more general qualities of ‘water’ - she just hadn’t yet differentiated bathwater from rain puddles.


I do enjoy the way Rand writes, though - no romanticism here... except for that niggling, quiet assumption that humanity constitutes the pinnacle of evolution.

“This is the key, the entrance to the conceptual level of man’s consciousness. The ability to regard entities as units is man’s distinctive method of cognition, which other living species are unable to follow.”

I do agree with the second sentence, but that’s not the entrance - it’s a laurel we’ve crowned ourselves with, and then rested upon, in my opinion.

Okay. Can you point me to them I'll have a look? If I'm wrong, I will retract this portion of my argument. — Garrett Travers

Prediction error minimization for emergence of altruistic behavior

Altruistic food sharing behavior by human infants after a hunger manipulation

Also, there is a sense of gaslighting going on.. — schopenhauer1

Can I just address this ‘gaslighting’ accusation for a bit...

Gaslighting: “psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.” - Merriam-Webster

In the vernacular, the phrase “to gaslight” refers to the act of undermining another person’s reality by denying facts, the environment around them, or their feelings. Targets of gaslighting are manipulated into turning against their cognition, their emotions, and who they fundamentally are as people.“

“It’s important to separate gaslighting from genuine disagreement, which is common, and even important, in relationships. Not every conflict involves gaslighting, and, of course, there are healthy and helpful ways to resolve conflicts. Gaslighting is distinct because only one of you is listening and considering the other’s perspective and someone is negating your perception, insisting that you are wrong or telling you your emotional reaction is crazy/dysfunctional in some way. — Dr Robin Stern

Without offering an interpretation of what I’m apparently implying, are you able to highlight actual quotes where I have refused to listen or consider your perspective, negated your perception, insisted you were wrong or told you that your emotional reaction was in any way dysfunctional. Meanwhile, take a closer look at your own words...

You are implying that... — schopenhauer1

Just hollow buzzwords... — schopenhauer1

Certainly you think that... — schopenhauer1

...it's just a form of (Hegelian-style?) optimism bullshit — schopenhauer1

...again implications that YOU have SOMETHING IN MIND MORE THAN... — schopenhauer1

Now we can look past all the attempts at emotional manipulation, and address your argument.

This kind of "detachment will set you free" thing just isn't feasible because I would be a sitting Buddha for eternity if it were true.. But "something" needs to pee.. It's a "body" that this is happening to.. What is the thing that "feels" the need to release the bodily fluid? What is the thing that decides that it will go in a white bowl rather than on the carpet? Oh it's not "me"? Call it what you want, but now it is just word play semantics.. The "consolidation" of decisions, feelings, and behavior is traditionally assigned as "self" or an "I".. You can't get away from it the instant anything is experienced, desired, needed, etc.. (like the feeling of having to go to the bathroom, or pain, etc.). You can do some practice and say, "This feeling is not "me".. but when you wet yourself, crap yourself, and then starve to death just sitting there.. well, doubtful "you" will let that happen.. The instant "you" do something, that becomes a self needing/desiring.. I don't care what was said earlier as some mantra of "this is not me" prior. Eventually you get up.... — schopenhauer1

Buddhism is commonly misinterpreted as moralism. “Detachment will set free” is not meant as an imperative, but an invitation to increase awareness in potentiality. Yes, every time we act, we must consolidate a ‘self’. But what we experience, desire or need - that is, what we assign value to - remains potentially a matter of choice, from which we determine a ‘self’ as a value structure, and this allows us to generate a change in distribution of attention and effort that determines bodily action/inaction. It is this ‘sitting Buddha’ (an awareness in potentiality of stillness and no-self) that enables us to employ reason in the determination of ‘self’ rather than being bound by some externally ‘forced’ value structure.

The idea in this kind of thinking is that we suffer and we are convinced that various unfair things befall us (specifically, having been born) because we construe ourselves as persons, because we take for granted that we really exist, as solid entities (but which are nevertheless subject to birth, aging, illness, and death).

In other words, you gripe about having been born because you see yourself as a person. If you didn't see yourself that way, you'd have nothing to gripe about. — baker

That’s close, and I appreciate you taking another look. As ‘persons’ (and I use these quotes because I don’t assume we’re talking about an identical concept) we experience our selves as no more than this solidness of our entities - the birth, aging, illness and death to which we are subjected (in four dimensions).

But reason tells us that this entity that is capable of perceiving its own birth-change-death must be at least potentially more than this in order to do so. And the variability with which we each perceive this four-dimensional event (even simply as valuable or not) suggests that these entities interact in a broader sense of reality - one differentiated by value.

Now, I assume we understand that most atoms don’t act like billiard balls, but are relational structures of energy that are variably open to restructure from spatial interaction. And we understand that few three-dimensional objects are impervious to change across time, through interaction. A variability between entities at any dimensional level corresponds to an internal variability of each entity as they interact with each other within a broader dimensionality.

So, it stands to reason that we are at least capable of perceiving our birth-change-death not as ‘solid’ but internally variable, interacting with other event structures, and that this broader sense of reality in which we interact is structured by value. In the same way that time/change can be described as an unavoidable ‘force’ subjected onto a three-dimensional existence, so value/potential is this unavoidable ‘force’ subjected onto a four-dimensional existence.

If we extrapolate this rationality again, it also stands to reason that there is potential variability to our internal value structure in relation to other value structures (persons)...

So what we seem to be griping about is that this value we consolidate as a ‘person’ is not impervious to internal variability through interrelation, like literally everything else.

"Reason exists without spatiotemporal location". Ok, but what's a (5th) dimension? — Agent Smith

Dimension is basically a qualitative structure of relations. When you make two marks on a page, the relationship between them is one-dimensional. But when you draw (or imagine) the line connecting them, that one-dimensional line exists in two dimensions because of its internal relational structure (as a series of points) and their relationship to a reference point or observer. So a line exists as a dimensional structure only in relation to an extra-dimensional point.

Each dimension also has a quality to it that is relative to the overall structure, and to the structure of the observer. The basic qualitative structure goes: distance, direction, space, change, value, meaning.

Give me time to play with this idea, this is new to me. Any references to look up with this? I believe I can probably adopt it into my own philosophy, maybe even Rand's, if it isn't woo. Which, I don't think you've been a woo type guy thus far, so that's a good sign. — Garrett Travers

No references - this is my own speculative philosophy. Let’s just say that the article you posted about Buddhist logic is indicative of how I have developed this - by resisting the urge to simply dismiss the woo, and finding more rational ways that we already accept to make sense of seemingly irrational expressions of reality. Following the Tao Te Ching’s structure makes this easier. Carlo Rovelli’s ‘philosophical’ writing has also been very helpful, as was a book entitled ‘Quantum Enigma: Quantum Physics Encounters Consciousness’ - my understanding of quantum physics is not mathematical. But I do have a specialist Mathematics teacher in my back pocket, who keeps me from going wildly off the reservation, because my basic approach is almost purely qualitative (think Ontic Structural Realism).

I make sense of the dimensional structure by extrapolating from my understanding of dimensional geometry and art, particularly the relationship between awareness and processes of expression, definition and creation, as well as describing and rendering. I’m pretty confident the structure I have in mind can withstand empirical testing, but I’m no scientist - I lack the time and the academic discipline to develop workable hypotheses at this stage.

Most people here don’t see it - they don’t understand how I make sense of the dimensional structure. For me, it is beautiful in its rational symmetry and simplicity, but I find it’s really complicated to answer the question: what is a dimension?

I get the 4D part of it (we reason in spacetime). What about the 5th dimension? — Agent Smith

Did you get this part...?

Reason exists without spatio-temporal location, as a system of value/potential. Another term for this is conceptual structure (which I prefer as it’s less confusing), or mind. Reason develops in potentiality, and informs the reasoning process by generating predictions, hypotheses, etc, based on existing knowledge, values and beliefs, structured according to perceived value or significance (not according to time or space). — Possibility

We conceptualise in potentiality.

I’m not talking about an overall judgement of someone as ‘ignorant’, but the little choices we make everyday to increase awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation AND collaboration/exclusion in every interaction. Let’s take your awareness of suicide - you keep skirting around this subject, as if it’s not a legitimate option, but the fact is that you have chosen to dismiss it for your own reasons - this is not forced. Until you explore the choice and your reasons honestly, recognising them as part of what makes you who you are, you will remain relatively ignorant of this apparent ‘force’ you insist is acting from outside of you.
— Possibility

Oh the "Why don't you pessimists/antinatalists go kill yourself" trope :roll:. You mean being in a position where one has to decide to commit suicide or join the program? — schopenhauer1

Gross misrepresentation of everything that I’ve written. Read it again.

Again you misrepresent me - you’re the one adding scare quotes and exclamation marks here. I’m not telling you to get with the program, I just don’t agree with your interpretation of the program as ‘forced’ from outside of the ‘individual’. It is this consolidation of the ‘individual’, and with it the isolation or exclusion of opportunities to increase awareness, to connect and collaborate, that contributes to this idea of a ‘forced agenda’.
— Possibility

Actually, you can have a community of griping pessimists.. collaborating and connecting about the forced agenda! ;). — schopenhauer1

Sure - I haven’t said that you can’t. But you’re not really going to increase awareness, connection or collaboration beyond those who already agree. From here, all you can do is promote a certain level of ignorance, isolate amongst yourselves and attack or exclude anyone who disagrees with you...

It's being forced with the OPTION in the first place of dying a slow fuckn death or outright quicker suicide..both painful to the leadup and scary for most people unless severely strained/depressed... Don't confuse not committing promortalism with pessimism or antinatalism. It is not an inverse relation.. — schopenhauer1

Wow, you really do reduce everything to a false dichotomy, don’t you? But okay...so you’re recognising a fear of death and an avoidance of pain, and acknowledging that you’re not sufficiently strained or depressed to intentionally pull the plug. That’s a start.

"Your 'decision' to stay alive means you wanted to be in this position in the first place". I mean, how am I NOT wrong that you are existentially gaslighting the hell out of me? (It's not existence, it's you!). You haven't defended anything, but dug yourself deeper as to what I expected. Pessimism does not entail immediate suicide, mam. — schopenhauer1

Well, because that’s not at all what I wrote, and not what I meant. You’re making that interpretation, not me. I agree that your decision to stay alive should not be interpreted as wanting to be in this position. And I agree that pessimism does not entail suicide. What I’m arguing against is the reductionist view of your options here.

It does seem to me that there is a value you attribute to the concept ‘individual’ that is fundamentally absent from any overall measurement you take of BEING. I think that’s a fair assessment from your perspective, and it interestingly has parallels with certain interpretations of quantum mechanics. What makes quantum mechanics work, though (and work more accurately than any empirical method), is that it recognises an interaction between two four-dimensional systems. There is the quantitative measurement of a system, and there is the ‘observer’, which must be qualitatively aligned with the system being measured - that is, it must be attending to a precise four-dimensional location. There simply is no single measurement, description or perspective of a four-dimensional system that will suffice to describe what is in fact a five-dimensional relation. This is because a five-dimensional relation consists of an interaction between two four-dimensional systems, at least. Any four-dimensional system within this interaction can only ever describe the relation in terms of their own qualitative response to another system (eg. Pessimism). Even a reductionist five-dimensional description would consist of a qualitative position (which you’re providing) AND a corresponding quantitative value (which you’re not, although from memory it has to do with ‘harm’?).

What I’m trying to say is that your pessimism as a qualitative position will always correspond to a particular and limited quantitative value, not to some overall or ‘objective’ evaluation of BEING. An accurate five-dimensional (‘individual’) perspective of BEING would need to recognise a qualitative and quantitative relativity to any measurement and/or measurement device. Not to mention that other ‘individuals’ would need to precisely align with either your qualitative position (pessimism) or your precise measurement of BEING first, before they will agree. Not such a surprise that you don’t seem to be making much headway with your arguments, then...

I’m not trying to defend any particular opposing position as negating yours - just the simple validity of disagreeing with your qualitative position. But I don’t appreciate your continued attempts to misrepresent my position, which is not necessarily in opposition to yours at all.

No, we're not. Children are the exact opposite of altruists, they are irrationally selfish beings by nature, as are all animals that are not eusocial, which we are not. And I'm not altruistic at all, and I find it to be grotesque, the concept. Exchanging value between people who value one another is not altruism. Altruism is specifically placing a higher value on life that is not my own. If what you describe is how you operate, you will suffer for it. Consider this your friendly warning from a fellow philosopher, I really woudn't just say it to make a point. I genuinely believe it as a result of reason and experience, and history for that matter. — Garrett Travers

I just noticed this in passing and felt the urge to pipe in. Studies show that babies and young children are not as selfish as we assume - this is part of what makes them so vulnerable. Altruism is commonly misinterpreted or consolidated as placing a higher value on life that is not one’s own. But I see it as part of an underlying impetus to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, which prevails to some extent in all of existence, drives evolution through variability, and forms the basis of ethics.

Well, I'm not talking strictly pain/pleasure analysis, although that's going to be the basic biological impetus to action. I'm talking any perceived benefit, which is up to subjective analysis. What you are describing is a benefit analysis as an impetus to action, it just may be more broad than pain/pleasure, and may include values that differ from mine, i.e. the avoidance of the ignorance that blinds a basic pain/pleasure analysis. It's still all rationally selfish, it's unavoidable. — Garrett Travers

I agree that the basic biological impetus to action is more broad than pain/pleasure - it’s more along the lines of valence and arousal. A subjective analysis must eventually tend towards a form of ‘rational selfishness’ in proposing a distribution of attention and effort, but this is merely a translation of reasoning into affect, not a justification.

So, this is a cool perspective, but it isn't really aligned with modern cognitive neuroscience, which is one of my personal philosophical/scientific pursuits. Reason is how we take miultisensory data, and use it to inform future behavior, at a basic level. Is this kind of what you're getting at? Because, they postulate that reason evolved as a means to overcome adversity in a chaotic set of changing environments. So, in other words, even reason was designed by nature to be a rationally selfish tool, and actual may encompass what you're talking about here in this paragraph. — Garrett Travers

Yes. DNA was ‘designed by nature’ as a means to overcome adversity in a chaotic set of changing environments, too - just at the level between 3D and 4D structures. Reasoning - or the process of converting back and forth between affect and reason - achieves the same at the level between 4D and 5D structures.

Yes, biologically, affect is older and more imperative, as it were, from that perspective. But, reason is the executive function that conceptualizes how such affect can be utilized for future behavior. Any process by which you inform future behavior is reason, or is encompassed by reason. And it happens to be your only means by which to navigate the world in pursuit of the means to sustain your life. — Garrett Travers

This is an oversimplification. The process is more of a collaboration between reason and affect. Reason cannot function in the world without affect, but affect can function without reason - just not anywhere near as accurately.

Hehaha, I have no back up, brother. It's just me. I agreed to take you all on here, irrespective of how many of you came to detract. I consider it a pleasure. And, frankly, the only ideology that has resulted from Objectivism is Libertarianism, and it is the only remaining legitimate political party in America for reasons of having not been associated with war crimes, mass murder, or any other major evil in America's history. However, let's handle these topics at a different time, topic is too big. — Garrett Travers

Your focus here is on defending Rand, I get that. I’m not suggesting that Rand or indeed Objectivism was the cause in any way. But a lack of political association with ‘evil’ does not necessarily amount to innocence, only a lack of responsibility. Libertarianism seems to me an a-political movement, not a political party. Still, I’m not American, so my capacity to debate this topic is severely limited by ignorance - and I agree that it’s too big to take on here. We have enough to discuss.

Her writing was meant to convey the ideal human's, but they're Romantic novels by nature. Like reading about Jean Valjean, same idea. In other words, it was intentional. It wasn't meant to be argument. Her arguments are far more structured and supported. I recommend you check out at least chapter 1 of Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, if you haven't, to get a sample of what I mean. Her arguments are grounded and sophisticated. Probably the most sophisticated ethical arguments of the past century. — Garrett Travers

I will check it out, thanks.

You are just presenting a false dichotomy here. It's not awareness/connection/collaboration or ignorance. I do have awareness, and that is of having to de facto fall in line, whether I like it or not, lest suicide. That does involve de facto connection and collaboration because of the nature of how we survive and entertain ourselves and that we tend to be social creatures. That isn't anything new. — schopenhauer1

I’m not talking about an overall judgement of someone as ‘ignorant’, but the little choices we make everyday to increase awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation AND collaboration/exclusion in every interaction. Let’s take your awareness of suicide - you keep skirting around this subject, as if it’s not a legitimate option, but the fact is that you have chosen to dismiss it for your own reasons - this is not forced. Until you explore the choice and your reasons honestly, recognising them as part of what makes you who you are, you will remain relatively ignorant of this apparent ‘force’ you insist is acting from outside of you.

Well, yeah, it is. And that's because life can never be not forced. Sorry but it is. You seem to be saying, "You are forced, no get with the program, otherwise SUFFER!!!" (scare quotes and all). I am saying to reject the agenda and not buy into it, whether with sugar (collaborate, therapy) or shit (buck up, STFU and get to working! Stop griping, etc.)! — schopenhauer1

Again you misrepresent me - you’re the one adding scare quotes and exclamation marks here. I’m not telling you to get with the program, I just don’t agree with your interpretation of the program as ‘forced’ from outside of the ‘individual’. It is this consolidation of the ‘individual’, and with it the isolation or exclusion of opportunities to increase awareness, to connect and collaborate, that contributes to this idea of a ‘forced agenda’.

Yeah yeah, until I start starving and dying of hypothermia and all.. then I have to do things like subsist and survive.. the things you seem to think are a choice. It is, if you want to die a slow death, true.. Not into that either though.. Which is indeed part of the predicament. — schopenhauer1

Subsisting and surviving IS a choice. And you’ve chosen NOT to die a slow death - no-one is forcing you to reject this option, but you. Therefore, you are contributing to your own ‘predicament’. I’m not the one buying into anything here...

How is reason(ing) 5 dimensional? — Agent Smith

Reason exists without spatio-temporal location, as a system of value/potential. Another term for this is conceptual structure (which I prefer as it’s less confusing), or mind. Reason develops in potentiality, and informs the reasoning process by generating predictions, hypotheses, etc, based on existing knowledge, values and beliefs, structured according to perceived value or significance (not according to time or space).

Reasoning is an ongoing (4D) event without a definitive spatial location, as a system of change. Reasoning is the process by which our conceptual structures are open to change from experiential data, and vice versa - through a mutual language of affect. Reasoning occurs in time.

Not really - you seem to be equivocating reason and reasoning without qualification. Reason is five-dimensional, reasoning is four-dimensional. Affect is also four-dimensional: an element in reasoning, but an aspect of reason.
— Possibility

reason- think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
reasoning- the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

This is what I mean. Not equivocating anything. Look, man. Just read what I say. Don't worry about interpreting it, just read what I say and that will suffice. — Garrett Travers

Trying to follow you here, but you keep using ‘reason’ as a noun, and then define it as a verb.

Reason (noun) - the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically.

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. — Garrett Travers

You seem to be assuming that I’m talking about ethics in relation to a collection of individuals, but I don’t subscribe to individualism at all. I recognise that the individual cost/benefit analysis applies in relation to choosing to act (or not), but that’s all. The possible gain I perceive from our interaction has always been to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, and whether that occurs in my mind or in yours is a gain either way. To that end, I sometimes have to step away and work through the pain of humiliation, or restrain my glee before engaging, because this tendency to avoid pain and seek pleasure only distorts perception through ignorance, isolation and exclusion, which is counter-productive at this level of discussion. Action is another story.

To say that Rand’s philosophy amounts to individualism is a misunderstanding of the rational depth and breadth to the terms ‘happiness’, ‘productivity’ and ‘reason’. These extend through reasoning processes far beyond the individual towards a logical absolute, prior to any self-beneficiary analysis.
— Possibility

A fair assertion. What is this area beyond the individual, — Garrett Travers

I’m talking dimensionality (again - bear with me). The ‘individual’ is a five-dimensional consolidating system of potentiality in consciousness, defined in common perception by the observable/measurable (4D) logical and energy structures of a human life, yet extending in qualitative variability beyond these spatio-temporal limitations through reasoning processes. Beyond this ‘individual’ is the perceived potentiality of the universe, with which this ‘individual’ is considered an eternally interacting element.

But this perceived potentiality is defined in reasoning by the (5D) logical and energy correlations of the human mind, extending in qualitative variability beyond perceived value through rational speculation. Beyond rationality is the imaginable possibilities of reality, to which this mind exists in necessary relation.

... and when does anybody involved contemplate an ethical action without a self-beneficial analysis? — Garrett Travers

When reasoning in perceived potentiality or rational speculation - ie. engaged in philosophical discussion.

When we act, we do so necessarily from a position of selfishness: reason, at the end of the day, is not what moves us.
— Possibility

..... Then what moves you? It's reason that moves me. Describe what moves you, and in what way it is divorced from reason. — Garrett Travers

You misunderstand me. I did not say that what moves us is divorced from reason. Let’s be honest: not all affect derives from reason, and not all reason contributes to affect. Yet it is affect that moves us, and affect which is ultimately selfish - as this term is more commonly understood.

Ignorant? You're gonna need to have a supported argument before you get to use that term here. — Garrett Travers

Okay, let me be clear here first, before you get your back up. I do recognise the pure romantic ideals behind these ‘-isms’. But the political ideologies that result do tend towards ignorance, isolation and exclusion. Individualism ignores the logical interconnectedness of reality; Moralism ignores relativity; and Capitalism ignores intrinsic quality. Most ‘-isms’ do ignore something.

Except it has never been associated with mass murder the way all of her competition has, from Marxism, to Kantian Deontology, to Christianity. All of these are murderous ideologies on their own, Objectivism is not. Again, you just saying things doesn't make them true. You're going to need to defend your claims, or at least explain why you are claiming them. — Garrett Travers

Don’t get defensive - this is not a competition, but she was aiming for perfection, was she not? If Rand wants her philosophy to see us maximise our capacity for reason, then she needs to address this romanticism as a weakness. These notions of morality, nobility and singularity are not rationally absolute.

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. — Garrett Travers

There is no ‘space’ in between - it’s all about qualitative structure. Theoretical physics is five-dimensional, applied physics is four-dimensional. That’s the only real difference.

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. — Garrett Travers

I appreciate the phrase ‘to approach empirical understanding’. I have my doubts that we can achieve a sufficient level of certainty or agreement in any conceptual understanding of reality at this level. It is the nature of conceptualisation that lets us down, as a key tool in our empirical methods. But this appears to be an unreasonable assertion of faith on your part. To reach a position of ‘no doubt whatsoever’, there must be a degree of ignorance, isolation or exclusion. Our finite access to time, effort and attention seems to be the problem - and we’re already deep in the red here, collaboratively speaking. A dose of humility is in order - preferably as an experience of prediction/calculation, rather than observation.

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. — Garrett Travers

Not really - you seem to be equivocating reason and reasoning without qualification. Reason is five-dimensional, reasoning is four-dimensional. Affect is also four-dimensional: an element in reasoning, but an aspect of reason.

I just wanted to address these before I tackle your approach to ethics...

More existential gaslighting. YOU'RE the problem because YOU were born. It's YOUR choice. [But it wasn't].. So all the "You were created because of X, and now you must do Y because I know the truth about the world".. [Eh no]. — schopenhauer1

"You see, your following the agenda will fulfill you because you will be connecting, collaborating, and being more aware. I mean, what else choice do you have? Suicide? Griping? Being a Pessimist? [maniacal laugh]." — schopenhauer1

I don’t know where you got all of that from - it wasn’t from anything I wrote here. Your own assumptions, perhaps?

No, it wasn’t your choice to be born. No, it isn’t the case that ‘you must’ do anything. Yes, you do have alternative choices to awareness, connection and collaboration: you can always choose ignorance, isolation or exclusion - it’s easy enough to do, but always increases suffering. Yes, I do consider suicide or pessimism to be legitimate choices. I wouldn’t personally make either of those choices at this stage, but I would never say never.

I don’t think BEING is supposed to be about survival, subsistence or incorporation at all. That’s the language of consolidation: of an ‘individual’ whose perceived ego appears to be forced into a life they wouldn’t choose for themselves. There’s a sense of attachment to self, here. Bhava Tanha - a craving to be something - comes from a misunderstanding of eternalism/permanence.

This is New Age stuff. I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole. — baker

Ignore, isolate, exclude...

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? — Garrett Travers

I’ve been trying to process all of this carefully, and I have to admit that my original criticism of her philosophy being ‘limited’ came from individualist approaches to the essence of her philosophy, which she described as:

“the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

To say that Rand’s philosophy amounts to individualism is a misunderstanding of the rational depth and breadth to the terms ‘happiness’, ‘productivity’ and ‘reason’. These extend through reasoning processes far beyond the individual towards a logical absolute, prior to any self-beneficiary analysis.

When we act, we do so necessarily from a position of selfishness: reason, at the end of the day, is not what moves us. But it is our capacity for reasoning (extending awareness, connection and collaboration towards a logical absolute) that can take into account these limitations of humanity - our finite resource of time, effort and attention - and from it create a qualitative contribution to rational consciousness.

I do think there is a romantic variability to Rand’s philosophy that leaves it vulnerable to the ignorant, isolating and exclusive political ideologies of individualism, moralism and capitalism - all three of which Rand supported to an extent. That is its weakness, and perhaps the main reason for hostility and misconception. What constitutes a qualitative contribution in her philosophy is too easily hijacked by propagandists, and then capacity for reason is limited.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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...

This additional dimensionality to Schopenhauer’s approach comes from recognising a qualitative relativity to both reasonable and ethical descriptions of the human condition. Schopenhauer’s philosophical ideas show no awareness of qualitative variability - this is particularly evident in his colour theory. With a father who supposedly committed suicide and a mother who seemed far from accepting of his personal qualities, I would say this is understandable.
— Possibility

So how come that you have this awareness of qualitative variability, while Arthur Schopenhauer didn't have it?

Were you born with it?
Or did you learn it? — baker

Maybe because he ignores or isolates it - partly as a coping mechanism, partly in favour of rationality. That’s speculation, though. I wouldn’t say that he didn’t have that capacity for awareness (I didn’t meet him in person, but I would suggest that he did to some extent), only that he didn’t recognise it or show it in his philosophical writing.

The former (Rand agrees here), constitutes unnecessary ignorance, isolation and exclusion of the potential of self
— Possibility

No, she regards it as evil because it asserts that it is proper for the human to be regard as a fit subject for the practice of sacrifice, either to someone, or someone to your self. Respect for one's own reason is inconsistent with this view. — Garrett Travers

Same argument, just a broader perspective.

(Rand is less forthcoming here) permits ignorance, isolation and exclusion of the potential of ‘other’
— Possibility

That is your choice. It is against the value of reason to hold others not responsible for their own pursuit of knowledge and a better life. — Garrett Travers

Again, same argument, broader perspective. Your understanding of ‘the value of reason’ is relative to a human conceptualisation of affect.

The trick, I think, is to recognise that Rand’s idea of a rational consciousness is limited by the perceived potentiality of individual human survival.
— Possibility

Yes. Individuals are bound to this one precarious life woth only their reason as a means of survival. — Garrett Travers

Perhaps, but consciousness isn’t, and neither is rationality. Which suggests that there may be more to rational consciousness than Rand’s philosophy makes out. And certainly more to consciousness than this concept of the ‘individual’.

So, it still permits a level of selfishness, and therefore ignorance, isolation and exclusion - which Rand seems to argue is necessary.
— Possibility

100%, it simply doesn't admit willful ignorance, that's irrational. — Garrett Travers

Fair enough. Except how can you tell the difference, when each individual’s reasoning and will are necessarily bound by their own (irrational) preference for survival? What you judge as wilful ignorance may simply be ignorance on their part, and vice versa. In this sense, we can only make moral judgements on our own behaviour and intentions. But then we have no way of determining the extent of our ignorance.

Yes. It is impossible for me to do any good for those I love within my virtue, without an increasing knowledge base, productive skills, and refinement of virtues. — Garrett Travers

Agreed - and yet we don’t often include these potential gains in rationalising our willingness to do good. It’s also arguable that kindness, generosity and gentleness regularly net gains in awareness, connection and collaboration - increasing our knowledge base, productive skills, refinement of other virtues, etc - in ways that are unpredictable, or at least unquantifiable in potentiality.

her fictional writing (particularly in relation to characters who intend beyond their rational self-interest) does not.
— Possibility

That's a cool point. Who did you have in mind? — Garrett Travers

Irina and Sascha in We The Living who resist the communist regime at the cost of their freedom. Howard Roark in The Fountainhead also loses his one opportunity to work as an architect by choosing integrity. These characters muddy the waters somewhat, choosing to risk their self-interest for the idea of a rational consciousness that is ultimately bigger than this one precarious life. It’s a minor point, granted, but for me it renders the idea of rational self-interest as a possible reductionist methodology, not an obligation.

I think it is telling that we have to "get" to some state by meditative techniques in the FIRST PLACE. Again, this is not countering anything Schopenhauer had said with my original OP quote, especially the part in bold. That is to say: Just more proof of his point that if BEING was something absolutely POSITIVE in itself, we would want for NOTHING, because BEING would be its own satisfaction. The lack at the heart of motivations and "getting caught up in the drama and affairs of this or that person, story, hobby, value". — schopenhauer1

Well, no, we don’t have to meditate, as such - it’s simply a case of accepting a state of ‘boredom’ instead of feeling like we have to fight against it or avoid it. My own children learned very quickly not to complain of being ‘bored’ as if it were a negative state: I gave them chores. But I don’t think boredom is necessarily positive, either. What I aimed to teach my children was that boredom was simply a neutral state of BEING. I think it’s important to recognise this, and to ask ourselves why we feel or think we need to strive against it.

The reality is that energy flows through everything, so even in this neutral state of BEING there is a relative awareness of affect in potentiality - the valence and arousal of attention and effort - and with it our capacity to choose between awareness or ignorance, connection or isolation, and collaboration or exclusion (ie. will). There’s a lot of variable potentiality in simply BEING. It’s no surprise that some of us would describe it as more of a (determinately) positive condition, and others an unavoidably negative condition in which cognition in service of the will condemns us to a life of ceaseless striving.

In relation to Schopenhauer’s philosophy, then, it is from this neutral state of BEING that we choose to embody either will or representation in relation to the world. In the world as will, my faculty of pure reason is limited in its capacity to interact by my current condition of affect and value perception. In the world as representation, I have no sense of this limited capacity to interact, subjecting any embodiment of will to unpredictable failure - and with that, to suffering.

I could choose to actively or passively ignore, isolate or exclude either aspects of the world as representation (accepting a limitation of reason in service of the will), or aspects of the world as will (idealism, solipsism, etc).

From this neutral state of BEING, however, I could also choose, insofar as I am capable, to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, recognising that this perceived capacity is limited at any one time (and subject to suffering) by an ongoing condition of affect and value perception, but that such capacity expands as I increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the world from a genuine sense of compassion, of ‘suffering with’ - and in doing so predictably reduces further instances of suffering, for myself as well as others. It is this striving, insofar as it is a choice determined from a neutral state, that seems a reasonable use of my limited attention and effort, as a POSITIVE net gain across a fleeting and fragile state of BEING. It’s a small gain, but it’s better than asceticism, by my account.

What does Rand mean by selfishness? Is it true that we ought to encourage humankind to be more selfish? Which is more widespread and more problematic in Western civilization: an excess of altruism or an excess of selfishness? — ZzzoneiroCosm

By selfishness, I understand Rand to mean rational self-interest - assuming of course that we’re talking about the possibility of a wholly rational consciousness, which human beings are not. What is problematic is insisting on either altruism or selfishness in an affected consciousness with a relative capacity for awareness. The former (Rand agrees here), constitutes unnecessary ignorance, isolation and exclusion of the potential of self; the latter (Rand is less forthcoming here) permits ignorance, isolation and exclusion of the potential of ‘other’. The trick, I think, is to recognise that Rand’s idea of a rational consciousness is limited by the perceived potentiality of individual human survival. So, it still permits a level of selfishness, and therefore ignorance, isolation and exclusion - which Rand seems to argue is necessary.

If altruism is a moral no-no, is there any moral obligation to decrease the suffering of suffering people? — ZzzoneiroCosm

No obligation as such, according to Rand. She does, however, appear to encourage it insofar as it doesn’t conflict with our own pursuit of rational (honest, justifiable, productive, etc) self-interest. There are a number of other ‘objectivist’ virtues that extend this self-interest, steering us towards increasing awareness, interconnection and collaboration with others, but only insofar as any action doesn’t impede our own success, happiness, survival, etc. This means that kindness, generosity and gentleness, for example, are considered conditional virtues.

Rand’s philosophy does make a certain amount of rational sense, offering a broad reductionist methodology for those who believe themselves to be wholly rational beings. But I think its over-complicatedness owes itself to a limited and distorted understanding of reality. And while her philosophy seems to render this limitation (human survival) necessary, her fictional writing (particularly in relation to characters who intend beyond their rational self-interest) does not.

You're missing that the various experessions of this qualitative variability still all function on the same platform, namely that of craving. — baker

No, they don’t - that’s only because you assume all forms of expression are a craving, a dissatisfaction with the world. But have you considered that many expressions of qualitative variability in the human condition don’t reach your attention, specifically because they are not an expression of craving, or not requiring your interaction? Are we aware of human expressions of inclusive collaboration with the world, or are we attune only to suffering?

What attracts our attention is usually tied to our perceived potential - our capacity to interact intentionally with the world. But in moments when we are genuinely doing nothing, fully awake and alert (such as in meditation), we are able to explore a more complete awareness of reality, inclusive of what has no need of our potential to interact. I’m not saying this is an easy state to reach, and there is certainly plenty on our radar to pull our attention back to what society says we ‘should’ be striving for. But both Buddhism and Taoism encourage an intentional stillness or emptiness that enables us to embody the quality and logic of reality, without striving. In this state, we relate to the possibility for energy to flow freely, the possibility of no suffering - and with this develop an awareness of our own creative capacity to intentionally minimise suffering in the way we connect and collaborate. The more we can embody this ‘stillness’, the more we realise that there is nothing we need to be striving-for in any moment in time - only allowing for a free flow of possible energy.