Karl

Because you use the conceptual word. In your head is the concept as you define it. If you define the universe as a toy car on a lawn, a chunk of seemingly empty space full of planets and Suns, or whatever else you conceptualise, then you misunderstand the word and the definition that it represents. The universe is our concept of everything, all toy cars, lawns, seemingly empty space and planets. To conceive that something created the universe, or that it has a source would require the concept to be something measurably smaller than what it actually is, in other words a part of the universe. It is not I that must prove it. It cannot be disproven because it is the concept we have of it. There can be nothing outside the universe, no beginning, nor an end to the universe. There is no source, there will be no destruction. There is no creator, nor created as a universal totality. If any of those things are untrue, then it isn't the universe as we conceive the term. We had better go back to thinking mount Olympus is where the Gods hang out, or the dung beetle rolls the Sun across the sky. Define what you mean by universe to yourself and then see if you can have a source. ;-)

It's here that you have misunderstood objectivism. What you have said is partially true, but you offer only an olive branch to patch up the differences between muscle mysticism and objectivism. I've seen that happen over and over as either rejection or inclusion (with caveats) into the Mystics cannon. "Objectivism is right, up to the point it deviates with the Mystics philosophy". It's the same old story repeated ad nauseum, that consciousness has primacy over existence. Kant had one clear purpose which was to deny reason in the minds of his readers. He succeeded brilliantly. Differentiation, or identification is forced upon us if we wish to survive. Conception is not automatic, it is a conscious process. Because we are rational creatures our automatic perception is not sufficient, we not only have choice, we are forced to choose. We are the only creature that, as yet, has the power of voluntary, consciously chosen self destruction. You are right that there is a continuum of causality with respect to our perception and relativity, but we are here and present. Just because our awareness shifts does not mean existence at the point has ceased to exist, only that we are perceptually unaware of it. Yet we conceptualy grasp it and this seems to be where the difficulty is experienced by the mystic in refuting reality. Logic is a tool of reason, reason is the faculty of integrating concepts, concepts are the non automatic means of humans building an internal map of reality, but that map is based on direct perception of reality by the senses. This preoccupation with consciousness (the observer effect) as having an effect on existence is hogwash. Any quantum entanglement is material only. In other words we cannot remove the material body of the observer be it through sensor, or distance. Pure consciousness without a body does not exist and this is precisely what Kant set out to prove was true. Reason destroyed his philosophy and so it had to be dealt with. Since then, scientists have had reason stolen from them, except in the limited silos in which they engage in their work, science is dying, perhaps dead because of this fragmentation through Kants stated philosophical aim. A is not A because of some quirk of logic, but because we humans must insist upon it in every conceptual abstraction. Even if it's wrong it makes no difference, because we have nothing else. Reality either conforms to our conceptions or our conceptions are pure floating abstracts- castles in the air. I find that it's difficult to explain, because it should be obvious to anyone and is a mystery to me why it isn't. In a nutshell we can't utter a phrase like 'there are no absolutes' without realising that uttering the phrase IS an absolute. The proof that is part of our reasoned approach to science IS of necessity required to compare our abstract conceptions to existent reality. Logic is required because this has been and remains our only sure method of ensuring our integrations and methodology conform to reality. Logic is not a floating abstraction but a method of tying conception to perception. Kants entire work, though completely wrong, is wrong, not simply because of an error, but by deliberate effort to blur the reality between the necessity to use reason, logic, existence to write the book, but in effect to deny that use. It's a master stroke. It is the icicle used in the murder which melts away leaving no visible weapon, however Kant accomplished this through mental contortions of effort which we would properly call today 'hypnotic writing'. Kant weaponised philosophy to achieve his stated aim of destroying reason whilst simultaneously being forced to use it, but in such a way as to make the reader doubt it. Any argument presented must be the result of reason, it can't be avoided, no one can do it any other way. All proof depends on our direct perception of existent reality and that cannot be avoided. Existence has primacy and reason is an axiomatic corollary of identification. It's exactly like any equation. Rand's legacy is 'existence is identity; consciousness is identification'. That's the genius part. Consciousness must be conscious of something and that means existence must have primacy. Just as with the chicken and the egg, we do not have an ad infinitum regression, but Kant would have it so. Consciousness is aware of something existent and in that moment of there is both identification of it.

That's why we should first define the word. The universe has no source, so, in the sense of the philosophy you follow, then this would constitute an absolute. Everything within the universe is changing, but as everything is an integral part of the universe, then it too is an absolute. So, absolute doesn't mean unchanging, it means from the uncreated, the unsourced, the permanent in a universal sense. So that a speck of dust is an absolute even though it may one day evaporate into a gas, or concretise into a planet. It is what it is moment to moment. That might be a way of interpreting it in conjunction with your philosophy ?

That's the point of the second part of the quote Bob. Bacon was an astute logician, so there is a balance between what can be commanded by man that depends on what he must first obey. He doesn't create reality, he might have conceptive delusions and hallucinations, but reality is absolute. Absolute includes all change, why did you think it meant unchanging ?

I can utilise nature. I can turn something into something else, but only if I obey nature first. Funnily enough many on here believe that the universe is a product of their consciousness and that they ARE creating their own realities. Not me though. Existence exists and consciousness is the faculty for grasping that existence.

The restraint is only if there is a deliberate attempt to create violence as opposed to arguing a point. For instance a certain Mr Choudry has been put in prison in the UK for 'supposedly' supporting ISIS, now, I don't lie Mr Choudrys philosophy or viewpoint, neither do I like communists, but, putting people in prison to shut down discourse is violence.

as the original post by TI has been removed I have edited my post accordingly as the comment is now superfluous.

Nature to be commanded must first be obeyed. We don't create out own reality, reality is an absolute and we are part of it. So, it's fair to say that there is no universe to trust, only people. The universe isn't malevolent, it contains the resources we need to survive and be happy, but we have to think and perform work in order for that to happen.

I found it useful to hallucinate the mantra but cultivate a feeling of universal love by surrender to something greater. It develops an outgoing sense of good which feels something like a love transmitting mast. Hallucinating the mantra removes the mechanical aspect but develops awareness, the stirring of the emotions creates a feeling of universal well being which moves the focus from 'I'. I'm not sure how practical it is to copy that approach.

Are you taking predisilone ? My brother has had it since he was 16 and has it stabilised but the drug has not been kind in other areas, my friend got it at 40 and has recently moved onto a very new drug which has allowed him to cut back on the steroids. Ultimately, I guess you know, that colon removal is an option. I met a guy on holiday who had it carried out and blessed the day he decided to do it. We all have to live with these things. I've got tinnitus and Meniers disease which is not the most pleasant thing to endure. A jet engine in my ear 24/7 and balance problems is not great, but it can be managed. Have you contacted a support group ? Other people in the same situation can be helpful in seeing that you really aren't alone and sometimes with chronic illness it can start to feel that way.

Is it u/c, crones disease or something else ?

Everything you say is part of your belief system. Part of understanding that is cultivation of the witness during DM. Conceptions appear as abstractions and these are not automatic and must be consciously integrated, our senses and perception are automatic as are those of animals. Our eyes and other senses originated out of the same star stuff, the senses are real as are the perceptions. Nature would not evolve senses that sensed something other than reality. Have a great time in the mountains or desert. I like deserts but we don't have any around here, plenty of mountains.

Your belief IS your absolute belief system. This is as it is for me. If you have a cold then you don't doubt it, the cold is an absolute. Is there any point at which you doubt you have a cold ? If I have a cold then your answer would be that because you don't, then I'm being an absolutist and you are some omniscient being capable of holding both possibilities in perfect balance. Do you decide if I have a cold, or I decide for you ? No. It so not that quantum theory is ridiculous because of the theory, but because of human conception. We don't hold perfect opposites, or different ideas which appear one moment and vanish inexplicably the very next moment. When you have Schrödinger's cat living in your mind then you can't be certain of anything at all. This isn't about describing scientific theory but our ability to differentiate and integrate consistently.

Well as previously stated I'm not a libertarian as this is yet another form of mysticism, but that aside. I suppose you haven't considered it might instead be you who is over complicating it ?

Can you see that this opinion is your absolute truth ? Whilst you accuse me of having an absolute truth and that's fine by me, I don't regard such things, in context, as any kind of negative. Where as what you are saying is that you have your own view of an absolute truth which you are equally keen to propagate, but which you consider is a greater absolute truth, where as mine is apparently the lesser. So, why don't you drop the pretense and say that you believe your absolute truth is more absolute truth than mine ? Why carry on with the charade that the problem is all mine because I won't listen/black and white/absolute, when you are making an identical claim. What does 'truth' mean ? How can you test it and on what does it stand ? Doesn't truth require evidence ? Is evidence available in some other sense than concrete perceptions ?

It isn't for nothing that we tell agitated people to 'breathe' Tapping works pretty well.

Then you should try harder if you think you have a better argument. As I have proven, if someone presents a good argument then I will listen. It's no good a shopkeeper complaining that I've chosen not to buy his goods because I'm ignorant of the benefit of buying them. I used to have salesmen that adopted that attitude and ended up fired. Now I don't complain that you don't listen, or you have cloth ears, or you can't see it, I just give the argument and a rebuttal/refutation. Few of you listen, that's my problem, I don't get annoyed about it, I wonder if I'm not clear, or perhaps where my argument is poor, or even where I'm not entirely clear in my own head. I find that it's mainly whinging and bad temper if anyone challenges, or fails to accept your views (I mean generally, I'm not singling you out here Ralis). This seems to progress until one or other gets to brow beating, insults and threats. I could easily level the same accusation that it's you that believe you hold the absolute truth, but that serves no purpose, of course you do or you woukd expound your own view. There aren't many people that hold views that they disagree with.

Was it take drugs.

Well, you might be shocked to hear, that I wasn't born with an Ayn Rand mind map, nor a libertarian one, neither did I understand capitalism, or economics, neither was I intrinsically peppered with self inquiry, deep meditation, spinal breathing, NLP, hypnosis or many other of these things. So, how did it happen I accepted some and rejected others ? If my mind was full of socialist principles then how was it I no longer hold to those principles. Crazy as it may seem, I'm actually a judge of what I read. If it has something to say, then I listen. I could not have gone from strong socialist to libertarian without the ability to listen and alter my views. So, should something come along that makes more sense then, as I did before I will make the judgement. It does not benefit me to be dogmatic and my progress has shown that I am not, otherwise I would still be flying the red flag and buying the morning star. I certainly wouldn't have entertained new age/eastern mysticism never mind practising it.

@A&P "The issue that I had taken was that testing, for Objectivists, appears to exist solely in the comparison and contrast of ideas---not applying the ideas to their proper subject-matter to see if they work. (Note, this is a charitable phrasing of what I have observed)." I don't understand at all what you are implying. What would be tested on what ? Can you give an example ?

I didn't turn back, nor give up. This is why I say that meditation can be an important exercise for some people. If the mind won't settle and if we are prone to emotional upheaval, then it's sometimes necessary to drop an anchor. Should those conditions manifest again then I would retrench, but it's unnecessary once the emotions are subordinate to reason.

Its all right for you, I bet you didn't bother wading through the entire hour of hippy consciousness. I had enough of that during long nights listening to beefheart and smoking weed. There seems to be a very rosy spectacled version of the 60s (a time when the CIA thought it a good idea to see how far they could get with mind control drugs). Hey, far out man.

Not the post, but the posting of someone else's ideology.

As an addendum to the above I have Peikoffs reply that finally threw Kelley out of the ARI "IN HIS LAST PARAGRAPH, Kelley states that Ayn Rand’s philosophy, though magnificent, “is not a closed system.” Yes, it is. Philosophy, as Ayn Rand often observed, deals only with the kinds of issues available to men in any era; it does not change with the growth of human knowledge, since it is the base and precondition of that growth. Every philosophy, by the nature of the subject, is immutable. New implications, applications, integrations can always be discovered; but the essence of the system — its fundamental principles and their consequences in every branch — is laid down once and for all by the philosophy’s author. If this applies to any philosophy, think how much more obviously it applies to Objectivism. Objectivism holds that every truth is an absolute, and that a proper philosophy is an integrated whole, any change in any element of which would destroy the entire system." It appears to me a dichotomy which doesn't really exist. Any value we are both working to hold, but not to smother. It's a balance of fundamentals against the potential for those 'other ideas' to threaten the fundamentals. This came up in AYP and I suppose it's common to all philosophies. The only way they can be tested is to test them. Individuals must do it, they must attempt to break the philosophy and if it's strong it will stand. The problem is that human nature looks for an easy way to achieve happiness and always someone comes up with a short cut, that bends or bypasses the philosophy. So, we don't need someone to interpret what Rand said, or Yogani, or Buddah, it's the individual that must do it, who must question its value not blindly follow it, nor try and reinterpret it to mean something that it didn't imply. It's like a piece of art, it is what it is and you can take whatever you want from it, but the proof is that it remains what it is regardless of copies and evolutions. One can always go back and see the main principles in action as well as the flaws in the conception. Really, this shows that we require a philosophy for philosophies and this is indeed what Rand does by asking those three open questions where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do ? She answers them in her own philosophy, but it's up to each of us to test our own philosophies against this challenge-Objectivism included. None of us a free floating spirits, we are stuck with reality no matter how we think of it, our only purpose is our happiness and that is the only measure of the success of the philosophy. I would like to bring up the recently departed 'Jim' who asked that question of the Tao and received no answers beyond dogmatism. It's hard is this stuff, life is difficult, but we must surely begin by at least trying to be honest.

Further to my post above I woukd like to submit this essay by David Kelley as a rounded form of the legacy of Ayn Rand. It might help to blow away some of the myths and often the dogmatic view point often expounded by objectivists-in particular Leonard Peikoff who I have an enormous respect for, but who's keeping of the light has the sense of tribalism about it. If we keep four square on the premesis that were unique to Rand then these form an ideal basis for development. The problem is that often it is the base premises that become corrupted and Peikoff is fighting to preserve those, but in doing so he has adopted the posture of a dogmatist. Once people are thinking and reasoning along the lines of Objectivism then that's enough. No need to tote around the books and the paraphernalia of cult. As Kelley says here, objectivism isn't yet a movement, it has hardly moved off the starting blocks and so Peikoff is protective of the tiny sapling barely risen from the soil. IMO it requires a certain letting go to really flourish. You can love something to death and smother it. http://atlassociety.org/about-us/about-us-archive/3350-chapter-5-of-the-contested-legacy-of-ayn-rand