Karl

Those are damaged people Nungali. Victims of torture, abuse or serious trauma were not been free to choose, but that isn't the case with the rest of us. You know I'm not going to invoke Karma. I haven't got an answer for serious trauma victims. The effect is to divorce them from reality as you pointed out by suggesting they 'choose' reality, but they don't, they choose to try and evade reality.

Sounds like it might be a bit yawn inducing. ;-)

I don't like the sound of that 'reprogrammed' as it most definitely smacks of cybernetics. This is what the CIA were up to with MK Ultra and I can't imagine they would soon give up the idea of the perfect little robot.

We have volition, free will, we have to choose what we ingest into our consciousness and what we tuck away in our sub consciousness. Thats our responsibility we cannot get a mental bug.

You do want to know the origin of man ? Our conceptual faculty and volition are critical to any analysis. If you wanted to know where anything comes from you must first understand what makes it tick, but even more so if that object is man himself and this is the faculty that is required to discover it. Unless you have figured it out of course, then I defer to your knowledge.

Yes, our precepts our direct experiences from our sense organs.

Part 13 concept formation overview. For man, sensory material is only the first step of knowledge, the basic source of information. Until he has conceptualised this information, man cannot do anything with it cognitively, nor can he act on it. Human knowledge and human action are conceptual phenomenon. Concepts are built on precepts, but they are a profound development, a new scale of consciousness. An animal knows a relatively few concretes; the relatively few trees, ponds, men and the like it observes in its lifetime. It cannot go beyond those observations-to generalise, identify natural laws, hypothesise causal factors, therefore to understand what it observes. A man observes no more (possibly less) than an animal, but can come to know and understand facts that outstrip his limited observation. He can know facts related to ALL trees, EVERY pond and droplet of water, the universal nature of man. To man, the object of knowledge is not limited to a narrow, observable corner of a single planet, but the immense universe, the remote past and distant future, the most minuscule unpercievable particle, to the furthest unpercievable galaxies not yet vowed by astronomers. A similar contrast relates to actions. An animal acts automatically on its perceptual data; it has no power to project alternative actions or the long range consequences of its action. Man chooses his values and actions by a process of thought, ultimately based on a philosophical view of existence; he requires the guidance of abstract principles to select and achieve his goals. The animal is limited by knowledge and must adapt itself to nature. Man (if he adheres to the metaphysically given) adapts nature to his own requirements. A conceptual attribute is a very powerful attribute, it goes to the essence of the species, determining its method of cognition, action and survival-it differentiates and defines man as the rational animal. To understand man-or any human concern/creation-one must understand concepts-to discover what they are, how they are formed, how they are used (and misused) in the quest for knowledge. We need to analyse in slow motion the innermost essence of the processes which make us distinctly human, the ones which, in daily life we perform at lightening speed and take for granted as unproblematic.

All of those concepts are based on other concepts that are already integrated. It's not necessary to know or understand the exact sequence of the perceptions, differentiations and integrations. I'm covering concept formation next in 101, so I can expand a bit on a very complex subject. It will also cover an infants perceptions to first conceptions-entity, identity, classification.

I don't know how MH meant it, only it was something to do with the Tao which I'm not too familiar with. Yes, it's an ordered system of sorts-I'm being careful not to imply rigidity. It's difficult to give much space without breaking up each part of 101. Just put the part that you want to ask questions about. When I said 'rooted in' I mean that we hold concepts related/predicated on our direct perceptions. The implication of that statement is existence exists prior to consciousness and we can know it through direct perception of our senses. Once at the conceptual stage we can for instance imagine a perpetual motion machine even though it cannot exist. We can do so because we have the concepts of motion, causality etc and we have the concept of a machine, we have every other concept such as identity, shape, colour in order to create the integration. When we try and relate the conception back to perception/reality then we realise we have made an error.

Not sure what you mean by 'one power' ? Yes, concepts are based on direct experience (perception of the senses), but they are abstractions of perceptions. Their roots are in reality-even if the concept is a floating or erroneous abstraction, an intentional evasion (disintegration of concepts) or erroneous combining of concepts (integration). Depends what you mean by order ? There is a hierachy but don't think of it as something precisely linear or ordinal. We have lower order concepts and higher order concepts. I'm about to cover all that in objectivist 101. Direct experience of reality is already covered in 101-it would be up to you to rebut it whilst depending on it to support any argument utilising it. Every concept must be proven by the senses that percieve it. Depends what you mean by externals. I mean external to the conscious mind and not to the body.

I would take issue with the 'happy fish' story itself, but your comments are always most welcome.

Part 12 volition as axiomatic Can one prove that the choice to think is real, and not, as determinists would say an illusion caused by our ignorance of the forces determining us ? Can one prove that mans consciousness does not operate automatically ? The concept of 'volition' is one of the roots of the concept of 'validation' (and it's subdivisions such as proof). A validation of ideas is necessary and possible only if mans consciousness is volitional. This applies to to any idea, including the advocacy of free will; to ask for proof is to presuppose the reality of free will. We have reached an axiom. Something holds true simply by asking the question 'does it hold true'? To ask for validation (proof) is to presuppose that there is volition. It is self evident from introspection. Just reading these sentences one decides to focus, to grasp, to judge, to drift, to evade, to decide to think or not to think. Every item of conceptual knowledge requires some form of validation, the need of which rests on the fact of volition. Even its detractors must depend on it. When a determinist claims that man is determined, this applies to all mans ideas also, including his advocacy of determinism. He believes he had to be a determinist, just as his opponents claim otherwise. How can the determinist know his view point is true ? Ate the factors the shape his brain infallible ? Does he automatically follow reason and logic ? Clearly not or he wouldn't have made the error, because if such were the case, a man would be incapable of relying on his own judgement. He could claim nothing as objective knowledge including the theory of determinism. An infallible being-such as an animal (on its own level) can be devoid of volition, yet still acquire knowledge. It does not need to perform the process of thought, but man ( beyond the perceptual level) must think in order to know and do so in a reality oriented manner; the commitment to do so is observably no in built. If it were not within mans power of choice, human consciousness would be deprived of its function; it would be incapable of cognition, detached from existence and therefore unconscious. Volition isn't an independent philosophic principle, but a corollary of the axiom of consciousness. Not every consciousness has volition, only fallible conceptual,consciousness has it. A determinist would have to argue that he is In control of his mind and to decide to focus on reality and not merely submit to a string of forces stretching back to infinity. He would have to say he was free to be objective, free to conclude that he was not in fact free. Like any rejection of aphilosophic axiom, determinism is self refuting. Just as one must accept existence or consciousness in order to deny it. A philosophic axiom cannot be proved because it is one of the bases for proof. If we have no volition then there is no requirement for proof. That the argument exists presupposes volition. The traditional opponents of determinism have regarded free will as mystical. Kant: "God, freedom and immortality". How can one uphold volition on the basis of "ghosts, choice, heaven". It makes freedom laughable if it is connected to two aspects of the supernatural. By identifying the locus of ones will as the conceptual faculty Rand aborts mysticism at its root. Will, in her view, is not something opposed to or added to reason. The faculty of reason IS the faculty of volition. Mans senses are valid. His mind is free. Now we should examine how he should use his mind.

Part 11 human action, mental and physical as caused and free. Aside from involuntary responses, such as bodily reflexes, all human actions, mental or physical are chosen by the actor. Thought is a volitional activity, it is not forced on man by his nature or external reality; they are chosen. The direction taken is always a matter of choice and not necessity. A mans nature requires him to think, but it does not determine what he thinks. The principle of causality does not apply to consciousness in the same way it does to matter. In regard to higher level actions of a volitional consciousness, to 'be caused' does not mean to 'be necessitated'. Therefore, though we can consider the circumstances and ideas that brought a man to make a decision, there is no direct causal link, there is no determinism at play, a man can choose any action. Some philosophers regard self determinism (indeterminism) as insanity. Therefore man is either determined, or insane. Objectivism regards this as a false alternative. Mans action does have causes; he chooses a course of action for a reason-this neither makes the choice determined or unreal. It does not because man is the independent arbiter of that choice and the governing reasons for making it. Man chooses the causes that shape his actions. A mans thoughts may be tied to reality, or they may not. In the first case he is still capable of error but not deliberately so; in the second he may choose blind faith, or deliberate evasion. He must choose to act in accordance with his values or not. To act in accordance with ones values is a complex responsibility. It requires that one knows what he is doing and why. He must assume the discipline of purpose and of a long range course, selecting a goal and then pursuing it across time in the face of obstacles and distractions. It requires that one heed the hierachy, the relative importance of his values. He has to keep in mind that some of his values are primary, or immediate, whilst others are subordinate and he must determine the time and effort spent on them.

Exactly my point with 'everything is made from something else'. We coalesced as humans and here we are. Trying to find an origin of a computer is easier because man created it-the origin of a computer is man, the origin of the materials for the computer is the universe. Man had no origin from the perspective of a creation of something such as God, but mans material being and consciousness is part of the causality of the universe. If man had a creator, that creator is of the universe and, just like the computer we are a product of its mind, our material is a product of the universe and exactly the same regression applies to any creator.

Very little to nothing at all. Horoscopes told us nothing about evolution or the existence of genes.

Hierarchy of concepts based on direct experience of and rooted in reality. The nature of man is a rational animal-who most use his mind to survive as his only tool of survival. However, it is relatively easy to distort the link to reality by the use of torture- as practised by millions of state education institutions and by violent/abusive parents. Indoctrinate children with the idea that socialism is good, there is a God, reality can't be known and therefore pragmatism is a necessity, use tests to allocate them their place in society which will follow them around from job to job, discourage them from critical thinking and logic-teach skills, disrupt their learning with bells, give them pointless tasks in order that they obey commands from authority, teach them Government/ state are necessary for their survival and happiness. However, though brain washing indoctrination certainly works and breaks the link between reality and concept the mind is still able to relearn, to undo what was done, to break the states conditioning and reconnect with reality.

Y'know what I mean, it does get tedious describing causality. Ah Segway, I had wondered :-)

You did exaggerate, I simply stated a fact. I minimised your argument for violence as a solution to violence. You were acting as a propagandist justifying war by exaggerating the actions and idealism of the enemy. You are promoting conflict instead of applying logic and reason.

You are talking about emotion ? Then that is so.

How have I minimised it ? Alternatively you are evading by demanding minority rights, without accepting that the smallest minority is a single individual person. Philosophy and reason would answer your question, if you would only let the light in.

Depends what you mean by human nature ? I would need your definition of human nature before I could comment. The problem we have is not in schools but in universities from which the tutors are derived. The intellectuals within these universities are a product of a Kantian philosophy which is collectivist and therefore are pragmatic collectivists. This ideology inhabits the media, publishing, politics, films, education, educational books and economics. It's here that the philosoph needs to be changed from collectivist to individual and pragmatism to reason. Unless people begin to see the idividual instead of the group then racism will continue unabated. It is primitive altruistic tribalism and it has become embedded in modern man by a philosophy that refuses to accept that man is a moral being, but is being prevented from that achievement by the use of statist violence and an education that preaches pragmatic collectivism. If you deny men their identity, rationality and freedom then don't expect them to act rationality. I don't think anyone is beneath me Ralis. I see the potentiality in each and every person and the incredible potential for the human race-I'm a John Taylor Gatto in that regard. So far statism, pragmatism, mysticism have created horrendous conflict which shows no sign of abating. Time for something new and only the philosophers can provide that insight-they cannot create policy, only a better understanding. Schools need to teach the basics of grammar, calculation and broad science subjects plus geography, history then, for those with the aptitude higher grammar plus logic and rhetoric. Students learn to learn and then choose what they want to learn for a higher academic level.

not 'everywhere' then ? You have fallen back on the minority rights bandwagon as the answer to racism. I'm not denying racism exists, I'm saying the solution isn't to deny private individuals their individual rights as the smallest possible minority. All you are advocating is mob rule. Violence never solved social problems, only education does that.

We rarely, if ever, agree on anything and yet you have also spotted the obvious mangled argument (equivocation)

Yes, you can 'imagine', but 'imagining' isn't reality and isn't an excuse for bringing in anti-Liberty laws on the rest of the population, taking away their right to choose who they freely associate with. Remember who it was that promoted and protected slavery and who brought in the Jim Crow laws. If you object to those laws, then you must, by any kind of logic, reject any laws which enforce anti-discriminatory affirmative action. The key is life, liberty, Justice, property rights and the pursuit of happiness. If any one of those rights are being abused then you must object or be branded a hypocrite. Slavery and negative discrimination laws were abolished, just as positive discrimination laws should be abolished. To pretend otherwise is evasion and immoral. However let's look at what is being advocated by whom and for whom. It is automatically accepted that 'minorities' are those we need to protect by law against the majority. Yet, what is the very smallest unit of the minority-the individual. It's the individual who's rights must be protected and anyone trying to negate those rights is acting as an oppresser, a racist and a bigot.

Particularly for old river-some non Randian Television :-) If you like VU and Joy Division, this straddles the divide.