Karl

Part 3 existence as possessing primacy over consciousness. The primacy of consciousness viewpoint is that consciousness has the power to alter and control the nature of objects. A does not have to be A if consciousness does not wish it so. This rejects all of the basic axioms; it is an attempt to have existence and to eat it. To have it: because without existence there is no consciousness. To eat it: because existence is malleable to mental content-to shrug off the restrictions of identity in order to obey desires. This is to want existence to exist as nothing in particular. Unfortunately existence IS identity. This isn't proof of the primacy of existence, that's a bit later. Proof pre-supposes the principle that facts ARE NOT malleable. If they were, there would be no need to prove anything and no independent datum on which to base any proof. If existence is independent of consciousness, then knowledge of existence can be gained only BT extrospection. Nothing is relevant to cognition of the world except date drawn from the world. Every step and method of cognition must proceed in accordance with the facts. Every fact must be established directly or indirectly by observation. This is the policy of following reason. If a man accepts the primacy of consciousness then it is consciousness that controls existence. It is then unecessary to confine oneself to studying the facts of existence. Introspection itself becomes a means of external cognition. One should then bypass the world in the quest to know it and look inwards, searching for elements in ones mind which are detached from perception (intuition, revelations, innate ideas). In relying on such elements, the knower believes he is not, ignoring reality; he is merely going over the head of existence to its master (human or divine). He is seeking knowledge of facts directly from the source of facts , from the consciousness that created them. This kind of metaphysics implicitly underlies every form of unreason ( something I attempted to point out to BES ). The primacy of existence principle is a key objectivist tenet. Modern western philosophy has generally accepted the opposite. It is dominated with attempts to construe existence as subordinate. There are three versions distinguished by the answer to the question 'upon who's consciousness is existence dependent?'. 1. Super naturalistic (Plato and Hulme). Existence as a product of cosmic consciousness-God. It is implicit in Platos theory of forms and later with Christian development. God is an infinite consciousness that creates existence. Epistemologically, this variant leads to mysticism: knowledge rests on the communications from the supreme mind to the human, either as revelations to select individuals to impart, or innately planted ideas within everyone. It's been abandoned by most modern philosophers but persists in the question "who created the universe". It is useless to object to this question pointing out infinite regression (if the universe needs a creator then doesn't God also require a creator). Here we have consciousness as the starting point, but certainly not existence itself. A religious person refuses to begin with the world which we know exits: he jumps to the unknowable even though such a procedure explains nothing. This isn't rational argument but the Christian Middle Ages. 2. The phenomenal world which is the secularised philosophy of Immanuel Kant. God gives way to mans consciousness. Implicit in this theory is the social version of the primacy of consciousness developed by Hegel and then Marx. No single individual is responsible for the universe , but mankind as a group. Knowledge is said to rest on a consensus of thinkers ( something seen in the consensus of scientists and anthromorphic global warming). Thus Governments are prepared to fudge figures whilst asking for faith, optimism and Keynesian animal spirits. If people believe in a policy then it will be succesful-build it and they shall come. 3. The personal version (once the premise of sceptics). Each mans consciousness creates and inhabits its own private universe. "What is true for you is not true for me" Objectivism rejects them all on the same grounds: existence exists. If existence exists then then it is a metaphysical primary. It is neither derivative, manifestation, of some true reality at its root such as God, society or ones urges. It is reality. As such it's elements are uncreated and eternal, and it's laws immutable. Even Aristotle and Parmenides were not consistent in this regard. Only Ayn Rand brought her philosophy to a ful, systematic expression of the primacy of existence.

You think its far less or far more ? It looks to me as if it's exactly whatever amount it is and not a penny more or less. Of course I'm saying this knowing exactly where this is headed. First we should define what life is, what identity is with reference to a unique human individual - and I presume you agree we are all unique ?

Part 2 causality as a corollary of identity. Our first grasp of existence is as babies. We must first reach the implicit concept of identity in order that we distinguish this object from that object from out of chaos. At this point we have learned of the concept of entities. This is an axiomatic concept but it is not an axiom. The grasp of identity and then entity makes possible the discovery of the law of causality. Entities though axiomatic can only be specified ostensibly by pointing at solid things that are perceived by the senses. An entity can be a solar system, BMW or a subatomic particle. These entities are reducible to combinations, components or distinguishable aspects of entities in the primary sense. We don't necessarily observe all the attributes, actions and relationships, but only some of them. A by product of this process are categories such as qualities (red, hard), quantities (five inches, six pounds), relationships (to the right, father of), actions ( walking digesting). None of these categories has metaphysical primacy, or an independent existence; all are merely aspects of entities. There is no 'red' or 'hard' appearing seperately to the entity. There are no floating actions: there are only actions performed by entities-the law of cause and effect-and every entity must act in accordance with its nature. Things have definite ways of acting. Cause and effect is therefore a universal law of reality. Every action has a cause and that cause is the nature of the entity which acts. The same cause in the same circumstances will lead to the entity performing the same action. This is not to be taken as proof of the law of cause and effect. This is however the observation and it is self evident that an entity must act in accordance with its nature. "The law of causality" Ayn Rand sums up "is the law of identity applied to action". All actions are caused by entities and the nature of the action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature. Causality is explicit knowledge representing the beginning of scientific outlook on existence as opposed to a world of miracles and chance. Intellectuals such as David Hulme never discovered causality for themselves, they counted on it whilst rejecting it. This appears to be a fairly common example of the use of the stolen concept. Causality is best classified as a corollary of identity. A self evident implication of already established knowledge. A corollary is not an axiom, it is not self evident apart from the principles at its root. A corollary is not a theorem, it does not permit or require a proof of process . It is a new angle on an established principle following on from the principle on which it depends. The law of causality does not state that every entity has a cause. The universe itself does not come into being or pass away. The concept of cause is inapplicable to the universe, the universe contains or causes, natures and actions. By definition there is nothing outside the universe to act as a primary cause. Only non eternal entities have causes. It is action which is caused by entities. By the same token the causal link does not relate two actions. A billiard ball striking another is commonly said to be the cause of the motion of the second. This implies that the balls can be dispensed with completely and that it is the motions themselves that are the cause of other motions. That is a ridiculous idea. Motions do not act, they are actions. It is entities which act and cause. It is not the motion of the billiard ball which causes the effect it is the entity (billiard ball) which does so by a certain means. To test the principle one need only replace one ball by an egg or a soap bubble. The law of causality states that entities are the cause of action- not that every entity has a cause, but that every action does; and not that the cause of the action is action, but that the cause of the action is entities. Many will cite Heisenbergs uncertainty principle that we cannot specify both the position and momentum of subatomic particles, that their action is not entirely predictable and the law of causality breaks down. This is a non sequitur, a switch from epistemology to metaphysics , from knowledge to reality. Even if it were true that owing to a lack of information we could never predict a subatomic event, it would not show that, in reality, the event was cause less. The law of causality is an abstract principle; it does not, by itself, enable us to predict certain occurrences ; it does not provide us with knowledge of particular causes or measurements. Our ignorance of certain measurements does not affect their reality or the consequent operation of nature. Causality, in the objectivist viewpoint is a fact independent of consciousness-whether Gods or Mans. Order, lawfulness, regularity do not derive from the cosmic consciousness ( argument from design). Nor is causality a subjective form of thought that happens to govern the human mind (Kant). For the objectivist it is a law inherent in being qua being. To be is to be something and to be something is to act accordingly. One may no more ask: who is responsible for natural law (who caused causality) than one may ask: who created the universe (what totality created totality) the answer to both questions is: existence exists.

Part 1 Reality and the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity. Philosophy is a necessity. It isn't simply a subject like physics, cookery or sociology. If man wishes to function at all he requires a philosophy. The reason is because man is a conceptual being by nature and he must choose everything he does. In order that he chooses wisely he must build himself an internal guide. That guide is his philosophy. All men are stuck with the necessity of having one. Your only choice is whether you define that philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulous logical deliberation-or let the subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalisations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentifiable wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated into a mongrel philosophy and fused into a single solid weight - SELF DOUBT-like a ball and chain in a place where your minds wings should have grown. Existence, consciousness and identity as the basic axioms: The concept of existence is the widest of all concepts and subsumed everything. The concept does not specify that a physical world exists-only that there is something, something as against nothing. Existence is identity; consciousness is identification Existence exists and consciousness is conscious of something and not no-thing. These two axioms cannot be escaped, they are irreducible primaries. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of the solar system the axioms remain the same: that it exists and you know it. The final axiom is implicit in the first two. It is the law of identity: to be is to be something, to have a nature, to possess an identity. A is A. That which is the sum of its existent attributes and characteristics. Existence is identity as opposed to existence has identity. Identity is not separable. Either implies the other. If something exists, then something exists; and if there is a something, then there is a something. The fundamental fact cannot be split. Existence differentiates a thing from nothing. This is the primary identification on which all others depend. It is a recognition in conceptual terms that the thing IS. Identity indicates not that it IS. But that IT is. One thing is differentiated from another cognitively. The perspective is not: it is (vs it is not) , but: it is this (vs it is that). An axiomatic concept write rand, is: the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analysed or reduced. It is implicit in all facts and knowledge. It is a fundamental given and directly perceived or experienced and requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest. Axiomatic concepts cannot be defined, their referents can only be specified. Being implicit knowledge from the beginning , existence, consciousness and identity are outside the province of proof. Proof is the derivation of a conclusion from antecedent knowledge, and nothing is antecedent to axioms. Axioms are the starting points of cognition, on which all proofs ultimately depend. One knows this not by inference but by direct perception. Of course you may wish to refute these axioms, but they have built in protection: they must be used and accepted by everyone including those who wish to attack them. There is no way to prove these axioms are true, but any attacker must rely on these axioms at the base of their own knowledge. All arguments presuppose these axioms, including the argument that all arguments presuppose these axioms. That you cannot prove you exist ignores the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge. Existence can only be proven from a position of non existence and consciousness from a position of unconsciousness. In other words to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero. Neither is an axiom a matter of arbitrary choice that can be accepted or denied, anyone attempting to utter such a thing has accepted it automatically. A reliance on these axioms establishes their position as a foundation for all knowledge, but it is impossible to convince the reader of this until he accepts the axioms himself. Anyone who denies them is thus beyond argument and can be ignored. No one can think or perceive for another man. If reality does not convince a person by its self evident nature, then reason has been abdicated.

I could pull you up with the fallacies in your argument BES, but it would seem like I was throwing darts. "But it's a useful tool for many daily things, not to be discarded" You treat reason as if it's an adjunct that can be switched off and on, yet you are using reason to think it. That is use of a stolen concept. Substitute consciousness instead of reason and you might see how crazy that is. Our entire hierachy of conceptual knowledge is impossible without reason, because you must choose everything you do, nothing is automatic or purely perceptual. You may not reason logically but you cannot escape the need to use reason consistently.

It occurs to me that it is you that is conscious thinking and materialistic writing whilst simultaneously denying one or the other. I have no such conflict I accept both. If I only accepted materialism then I would need to accept determinism and as I don't, then you can take it I'm not a materialist. Conscious humans have choices, their nature is that of man and the nature of man is to have free will. A billiard ball has no choice in its existence, it has no requirement to survive, but man must choose his life as the standard of value first. I will open up an Objectivist thread if you are interested in further discussion, but for now I do not think we should clutter up the thread. It isn't about me, or objectivism, but about Orion.

It would take too long to explain it fully. Existence exists independent of conscious identification of it. I'm careful not to say 'reality' as we have not yet defined reality, but existence is an axiom as is consciousness. I've given this statement previously: existence is identity ; consciousness is identification. You can google Ayn Rand/Peikoff and materialism and you will see that Objectivism refutes materialism completely. Peikoff describes it as a belief in glandular squirtings and Rand as the mechanistic universe. Materialism is a form of mysticism, as Rand describes it 'mysticism of muscle'. I'm very familiar with it. One thing that's vital in Objrctivism is to be objective about objectivism and to refuse any part that defies reason or definition except where it is axiomatic. Rand and Peikoff have both said the same thing that I will now repeat. I do not care if the whole world disagrees with me, I require no confirmation from anybody else and I have no interest in creating a cult of like minded thinkers. Objectivism is about individualism. If you want to believe in fairies or the great OM then you should go ahead, but, don't try to create a world based around your ideology.

My Dad refused to fill in the census when we were kids. He had to go to court and was offered either a prison sentence or a fine-he opted for the fine. He filled in the very next census.

I have never eaten much meat, but I do eat some meat because it is good for the body and frankly it tastes a lot better than dreary vegetables. Balance in all things. There is a correlation between a pure vegetable diet and a weakening of the mind. It's easier to control vegans than it is meat eaters. Interogation and Nazi death camps reduce protein and meat to the bare minimum to lower the resistance of the subject.

Well good on you for having that attitude, but you did fill in the states questionnaire ;-) You chose the lesser and that's what compromise is about and what I was suggesting. You can't live by your own moral standards and completely ignore the state. Eventually you will be faced with dealing with them. The state doesn't always apply maximum force, but it does find ways to make you tow the line progressively. Funnily enough I just read a piece by Eric Peters which used the analogy of the hair turning grey overnight, when it actually happens bit by bit. I prefer the boiling frog analogy. The thing is, even if you have to step outside your door to talk to one of the states thugs, then you have an opportunity cost. Instead of doing some gardening, listening to music or having a beer, you are forced into remonstrating with the state bully. Then they get you to fill in a form which also has an opportunity cost and which you must apply your name and sign (put your mark) or more bullies will appear and more form filling demands will ensue. They will raise the stakes until you either comply, or are marched off in hand cuffs.

Well it's an interesting theory and partially correct. I was certainly more open to the possibility of the spiritual side of things than most people I knew. However, you are completely wrong about equilibrium-I have not found that, neither do I wish it, but I do know that when a seeker gets in a stall or a dive then it's better to level out than just to crash-except in my case I chose a hard landing. If you understood objectivism then you would see that it is neither materialist or spiritually mystic. It is your sense of polarity that imagines it is one or the other, objectivism is effectively an integration. It is the combination of consciousness and body, it is the acceptance of a soul which is inextricably integrated into the physical flesh. I know of no other philosophy which achieves that. It only removes the mysticism from muscle or spirit, but leaves the muscle and spirit intact. Anyway, this is about my hoping that Orion finds equilibrium and not that he discovers Objectivism. I expect he will find his own way in his own time and this isn't the place to go foisting alternatives. I thought your post deserved a reply.

Sometimes it's necessary to go to the top of the mountain, or the bottom of the bottle before reality is accepted. I've been where you are now. Some will tell you that the answer is more grounding, or that you have become too fascinated with non-relational self inquiry. At the rarified heights you have reached I don't think it's so easy to simply leap off the mountain. Inevitably what goes up must eventually come down. You may do that in little steps and tarry a while or even stay forever at a lesser height that is manageable. I jumped, but I doubt many would, but that's my nature to discard the useless. I hope you find equilibrium.

What ? Exactly 80 years. There are plenty of people with a lifespan far less and some far more.

The market doesn't support the land being given over to feed crops. The reality is always the same. If you looked at the UNICEF report that underpins the figures obtained from the website you cut and pasted from, then you would have discovered that one of the very worst areas for child nutrition was China. However, China is now vastly improved and rapidly moving towards a second world-if not yet a first world country from the perspective of child nutrition. The reason for poverty remains the same everywhere. Property rights, capitalism and the rule of law. As China has become more free, the poverty has fallen. The solution isn't vegetarianism, the problem is not Western capitalists eating meat. The problem is lack of capital, rights to ownership of land and good law. I watched a program about India and water shortages. It's a ridiculous situation because there is clearly enough water for everyone, but of course it is the state which controls the water supply. In a poor country, officials of the state and the general population have become engaged in a racket. There are criminal gangs (for want of a better term) who hijack the water pipelines and sell the water to the villagers, they then pay part of the money to the corrupt officials. Every so often the officials conduct a raid to shut down a few of these illegal water supplies leaving the villages dry. Of course, not long after it all begins again and this time the criminal gangs are forced to pay a higher percentage of their takings. In effect it's a tax.

I see that you don't dismiss reason at all, you are using it right now to argue your point. As evil emperor said in Star Wars "good, use the power of the dark side" ;-) Yes, it is you that implies that you believe you no longer use reason, but I'm saying that you most definitely do use reason and no other thing-you just stopped believing that you have. That's an error. So, that is my observation. My conclusion is not that you have stopped reasoning, but that you think you have. However, you then add the caveat that you still 'think'. That's a little get out clause. If a man thinks they are a tomato, my observation is that they think they are a tomato, but I conclude from observation that they are a man that thinks they are a tomato.

Have you ever had to test that out ? That's where intention meets reality. At what point would you take action ? Presuming that as long as the states morality agrees with your own then there would be no conflict, or if so far you have escaped detection. The state isn't known for accepting disent without violent reaction. If you tried to put the camera where the sun don't shine, then shortly you would be surrounded by armed officers of the state intent on adjusting your attitude one way or another. It's easy to say you would do a thing when you are below the radar, or you agree with the current rules, but would you really go to war for some minor extra rule that infringed your current beliefs ?

It doesn't make me happy, it's just an observation. If I said you were stupid, then you could accuse me of being condescending, or rather impolite, but I certainly don't think that to be the case at all. Instead you have drawn the wrong conclusions, but then you seem to imply you are ultimately reliant on the heart (emotional/feeling/intuition) and that irrationality is your preference for providing you with knowledge. From that perspective you dismiss reason as the ONLY tool of knowledge and its from there that I make that observation. If I said that I also relied on some degree of emotional, intuitive to provide me with knowledge then you could accuse me of being condecending.

Oh contrare, I certainly do know that you think and would never-and have never asserted that. Certainly I would say that you don't do so adequately, that your reasoning is in error and so are your conclusions. I certainly know what's going on in your mind because you write it down. Unless you are in the habit of posting complete rubbish, then I must assume that this is what you believe to be true. I don't, however know if you like a certain food, or dream of being a ballerina, but then you don't post those specifics.

Surely everybody's morality matters to you ? Unless you would subscribe to the notion that having a camera installed by law in your home to monitor physical prudence and to lock you up should you be found incorrectly attired. The people on the other end of the camera woukd have found nudity offensive and against their happiness. They would not think it much that you should be correctly attired unless in the bath of in the process of getting dressed. That, they would say, was a small price to pay for their happiness. Humans aren't snooker balls, they are self regulating. That means they a very specific kind of causality which isn't uniform. A snooker ball has a certain weight and action when pushed towards another snooker ball, but men do not.

I need to sit down and talk you through this obsession with your assertion of my 'refusal to feel' :-) it's completely incorrect. The problem here is a lack of understanding. In your mind there are two mysticisms; one of muscle (materialism) and one of spirit (spiritualism). You have been brought up believing in this left/right, mind/body dichotomy. Because I don't appear to fit into the second category of mystic spiritual, you are assuming I fit into that of materialist. However I reject both and put man as a combined material/spiritual being at the centre of things.

"As long as it doesn't negatively affect others" and that's the crux of your anarchist philosophy, but you are evading morality by espousing it and that brings you into conflict. Sooner or later that kind of mental evasion/conflict will manifest as physical conflict and then the problems begin. People don't act without effect on other people, it's simple cause and effect. Perhaps this idea is because you are a materialist MH ? I noticed you describe me as a physicalist-which would be essentially a materialist which I'm not. To believe that is to discount free will and therefore a proponent of determinism. In other words 'whatever will be will be' ?

Classic.

If it actually didn't affect anyone else then I would agree with you. The fact is that it does not occur in isolation, it supports an anti-life narrative. To want happiness sans morality is problematical as well as contradictory. Totalitarian dictatorships are the result of many individuals accepting a lie, to then accept that the individuals are just trying to get a bit of happiness is to ignore the possibility that one day you might well be forced into the position of shedding blood to defend against their philosophy. You know that better than anyone. So, now, does that alter your acceptance in that you might be an unwitting contributor ?

Mmmmm pork crackling. I like your non-sequiturs. Why don't we take one of you factlets and see what it really means. For instance that there is a conclusion that Western meat eaters are responsible for 82% of starving children. That's of course the implication for bad westerners, who are of course regarded as greedy capitalists guilty of forcing starvation on the weak in a representation of vile capitalist oppression. Whether it be the environment, workers or the starving populations of third world countries, the solution is always the same 'socialism'.

Och Aye lassy I ken.