Objectivism 101

[Karl]

Part 12 reminded me of Chuang Tzu's "Happy Fish" story.

 

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

[Karl]

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.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

Part 14 differentiation and integration as the means to a unit-perspective.

 

The concept 'existent' has 3 stages of development:

 

1. A child's awareness of things or objects, representing the implicit concept of 'entity'.

2. Whilst still at the perceptual level the child distinguishes specific entities as different from one another. This is the concept 'identity'.

3. Finally they undergo a final conceptual stage by grasping the 'relationships among the entities, as similarities and differences'

 

The first two stages have a parallel in the animal kingdom, but the third is unique to humans. At the third stage the child no longer views the objects as animals do: merely as distinct existents, each different from the other. Now, he regards objects as related by their resemblances.

 

As an example: if you direct your own attention, say, to a person seated near you, you grasp not just entity, and not just this entity vs that one seated over there, but: this man, this entity in relation to all the others like him and in contrast to the other kinds of entities you know. You grasp this entity as a member of a group of similar members.

 

The implicit concept represented here is: 'unit' as "an existent regarded as a seperate member of a group of two or more similar members".

 

This is the key to mans conceptual consciousness. This ability to recognise entities as units is mans distinctive method of cognition.

 

An animal cannot organise is perceptual field. It observes and reacts to objects in whatever order they strike it's consciousness. Man, by contrast can break up the perceptual chaos by classifying concretes according to resemblances. Even though cats, tree, roads, houses, people and cars are all jumbled up in reality, a man can see the similarities as to be able to segregate them mentally. He continues to regard each person as a seperate entity, but not as an unrelated entity but as a group of similars-as a unit.

 

This is an entirely new scale of cognitive ability. It is of the order of a 2D world vs a 3D world. Given the unit perspective, man can pursue knowledge purposefully. He can focus his attention and specialise intellectually. He treats the segregated groups as units of a single concept, he can then apply all the knowledge he gains by studying a comparative handful (assuming correct concept formation); he is then capable of induction.

 

It is important to understand that in the world apart from man there are no units; there are only existents-seperate, individual things with their properties and actions. To view things as units is to adopt a human perspective-which does not mean a subjective perspective.

 

Rand writes on the concept 'unit' : ...this method permits any number of classifications or cross classifications...but the criterion of classification is not invented, it is perceived in reality. Thus the concept 'unit' is a bridge between metaphysics and epistemology: units do not exist qua units , what exists are things, but units are things viewed by a consciousness in certain existing relationships.

 

Without the implicit concept of 'unit', man could not reach the conceptual method of knowledge. He could not count, measure, identify quantitative relationships; he could not enter mathematics. Thus the same (implicit) concept is the base of two fields: the conceptual and the mathematical. This suggests that concept formation is a mathematical process.

 

There are two main processes involved and are also essential to consciousness on the perceptual level: analysis and synthesis, or differentiation and integration. Differentiation is the process of grasping differences between objects in awareness and integration is the process of uniting elements into a whole.

 

In order to move from the stage of sensation we have to first discriminate certain sensory qualities, separating them out of the initial chaos. Then our brain integrates these qualities into entities. The same process occurs in the movement from precept to concept, but with one vital difference-it is not automatic.

 

Concept formation begins with isolating a group of concretes. We do this by observed similarities distinguishing those concepts from the rest of our perceptual field. The similarities that make possible the initial differentiations are 'observed'; they are available to our senses without the need for conceptual knowledge. We can look at a ball, consider what we might use it for, then check the ball with our senses again to see if it's suitable for our needs. At a higher stage of development, concepts are often necessary to identify similarities between philosophies, or political systems, but they are entirely based on perceptual givens, available to both animals (not all) and men.

 

The distinctly human element is the ability to abstract such similarities from the differences in which they are embedded. Example: we recognise a table despite the differences in colour, shape, texture or size. Abstraction is the power of selective focus and treatment; the power to mentally seperate and make cognitive use of an aspect of reality than cannot exist seperately. An animal does not have this power. An animal perceives the whole object, including some similarities and differences (it knows a mouse from a snake), but it can't isolate or unite a group of concretes; it can't do anything cognitively with the relationships it perceives. To an animals consciousness, noting similarities is a dead end. Man CAN do something: he makes such data the basis of a method of cognitive organisation. The first step is to mentally isolate a group of similars.

 

But an isolated perceptual group is not yet a concept. Mere isolation achieves nothing, we must procede to integrate. Integrating precepts is the process of blending all the relevant ones (the precept of tables)into an inseparable whole. Such a whole is an entirely new entity, a mental entity (the concept 'table'), which functions as a single, enduring unit. The entity stands for an unlimited number of concretes, both observed and unobserved. It subsumed all instances belonging to the group, past, present and future. Here we see a similarity to mathematics. An equation has no value in itself, it is a representation of all instances of all quantities ( and always some quantity) and it is entirely open ended.

 

The root that makes this kind of integration possible is language. A word is the only form in which mans mind is able to retain such a sum of concretes. It's important to explain that it need not be a specific language, it could be a grunt in the mind of a man, or some symbol. Without words man woukd be incapable of integration. A word is a symbol that denotes a concept; it is a concrete, perceptually graspable symbol. It transforms a sum of similars, and the resolve to treat them together, into a single (mental) concrete.

 

Only concretes exist. If a concept is to exist, it must exist in some way as a concrete. Language is a code of visual or auditory symbols (tactile for the deaf, or even eye movements or facial expressions) that converts concepts into the mental equivalent of concretes.

 

Words (including every form tactile or otherwise) are not necessarily primarily for fommunication, but they are essential to the process of conceptualisation and thus to all human thought. They are also necessary in the privacy of mans mind in a public forum; on a desert island, or in a crowded hall. The word constitutes the completion of the integration stage (interestingly the Bible seems to touch on this during the 'creation' but I'm not suggesting this is exactly what it meant, but it's possible to pull out a different view).

 

Using the soul-body terminology, we may say the word is the body, and the consciousness perspective involved is the soul. The two form a unity which is inseparable. A concept without a word is at best an ephemeral resolve; a word without a concept is noise. Words transform concepts into mental entities, definitions provide them with identity.

 

I shall skip the philosophical discussion regarding the relationship between concepts and existents, but can add it it if anyone is concerned vis a vis the Mystics.

 

We have been using concepts to reach the truth. We must now turn to the precondition of this use and face the fundamental problem of epistemology. We must ground concepts themselves in the nature of reality.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Karl

[zerostao]

hi, just now having time to look at this thread.

from the opening post

The statement which really sums up objectivism is: existence is identity; consciousness is identification

is there any distinction made between existence and being?

 

existence is prior to consciousness

sartre said that existence precedes essence

do you draw distinctions between what i quoted of yours and sartre?

 

does objectivism think that nothing/ no-thing/ nothingness exists?

 

objectivism thinks we are creatures with free will ? are there any limits to this free will ?

Edited May 23, 2016 by zerostao

[Karl]

hi, just now having time to look at this thread.

from the opening post

The statement which really sums up objectivism is: existence is identity; consciousness is identification

is there any distinction made between existence and being?

 

existence is prior to consciousness

sartre said that existence precedes essence

do you draw distinctions between what i quoted of yours and sartre?

 

does objectivism think that nothing/ no-thing/ nothingness exists?

 

objectivism thinks we are creatures with free will ? are there any limits to this free will ?

 

If I sum up, it's probably easier to simply say that objectivism holds that consciousness has identity. It is something and not no-thing.

 

There is no dichotomy between will and reason. Reason IS will, and therefore the power of choice is the power that rules man, in regard to both body (action) and soul. Man is not only free, but is directly a product of his freedom; of his intellect.

 

For Satre, will is potent because reason isn't. For objectivism reason is will and will is reason.

 

Good questions by the way. I'm not overly familiar with existentialism or Satre. Like many philosophies it is relatively easy to draw conclusions based on apparent similarities, but the divergence is greater once the complete philosophy is taken into account.

[Michael Sternbach]

Okay, Karl, you asked for this (on another thread).

 

What strikes me regarding the Objectivists that I have met so far is that the one thing they are not being objective about is themselves. They are naive regarding their abilities to perceive the reality of things. Any "objective" reality out-there is of little consequence as long as it's not being perceived.

 

The Subjectivist is aware of the relativity of all perspectives, hesitant to make absolute statements, and may, paradoxically, find themselves more in line with the complexity of reality as it is.

 

For instance, in chemistry, there are about three different models of the atom in use. It hasn't been possible so far to blend the respective characteristics of these into a single model, so the chemists pragmatically apply whichever best describes a particular situation.

 

The occasional reconciliation of seemingly contradictory, yet equally valid perspectives is tantamount to a quantum leap in consciousness. Will it lead to THE truth? No, it will only close a chapter and open up another in the open ended search for knowledge.

 

This is is an ongoing process that lasts as long as consciousness evolves, with perceived reality ever mirroring the stage that it has reached so far.

[Karl]

Okay, Karl, you asked for this (on another thread).

What strikes me regarding the Objectivists that I have met so far is that the one thing they are not being objective about is themselves. They are naive regarding their abilities to perceive the reality of things. Any "objective" reality out-there is of little consequence as long as it's not being perceived.

The Subjectivist is aware of the relativity of all perspectives, hesitant to make absolute statements, and may, paradoxically, find themselves more in line with the complexity of reality as it is.

For instance, in chemistry, there are about three different models of the atom in use. It hasn't been possible so far to blend the respective characteristics of these into a single model, so the chemists pragmatically apply whichever best describes a particular situation.

The occasional reconciliation of seemingly contradictory, yet equally valid perspectives is tantamount to a quantum leap in consciousness. Will it lead to THE truth? No, it will only close a chapter and open up another in the open ended search for knowledge.

This is is an ongoing process that lasts as long as consciousness evolves, with perceived reality ever mirroring the stage that it has reached so far.

 

You are making a typical error in understanding perception in objectivist terms. What we perceive we perceive. We perceive reality directly no matter what science discovers about the physics of the object, we only have our senses, so, as we chase down the nuances of molecules and atoms we now perceive those.

 

Where things can be in error is the conceptual stage. There is no conflict with the subjectivist ideology at that point. Objectivists don't say they reason/conceptualise with omniscient accuracy. We alo have to account for new information which can alter the conceptual integrations over time. However that does not alter the perception. The perception continues to remain that of direct reality.

[Marblehead]

Nice response Karl.

 

What is, is.  Objective

 

It's pretty.  Subjective

[Michael Sternbach]

You are making a typical error in understanding perception in objectivist terms. What we perceive we perceive. We perceive reality directly no matter what science discovers about the physics of the object, we only have our senses, so, as we chase down the nuances of molecules and atoms we now perceive those. Where things can be in error is the conceptual stage. There is no conflict with the subjectivist ideology at that point. Objectivists don't say they reason/conceptualise with omniscient accuracy. We alo have to account for new information which can alter the conceptual integrations over time. However that does not alter the perception. The perception continues to remain that of direct reality.

 

It is said that, when the Spanish first arrived at the Bahamas, the natives couldn't see their ships showing up on the horizons, because they had no concept of them.

 

When I looked at something undefinable from a certain distance and with poor lighting, it took a few seconds until my mind concluded that it must be a horse (taking into account the place where it was standing), only then were my eyes able to see it as such. This unspectacular event made it clear to me how much my perception depends on my mental images.

 

Only a small part of the information our senses receive actually reaches the brain. Most gets filtered out as irrelevant.

 

So, what we don't have a concept of, generally we can't perceive.

[Karl]

It is said that, when the Spanish first arrived at the Bahamas, the natives couldn't see their ships showing up on the horizons, because they had no concept of them.

 

When I looked at something undefinable from a certain distance and with poor lighting, it took a few seconds until my mind concluded that it must be a horse (taking into account the place where it was standing), only then were my eyes able to see it as such. This unspectacular event made it clear to me how much my perception depends on my mental images.

 

Only a small part of the information our senses receive actually reaches the brain. Most gets filtered out as irrelevant.

 

So, what we don't have a concept of, generally we can't perceive.

 

Urban myth.

 

We begin with the senses, the actions on the senses are automatically turned into perceptions. The perceptions are not automatically conceptualised.

 

As babies we have to perceive the world before we can conceptualise it. That's where you will find a split, because you have an intrincisist view that concepts are revelation, or some kind of transfer.

[Marblehead]

... because you have an intrincisist view that concepts are revelation, or some kind of transfer.

Well, when I finally realize the truth of something and I have conceptualized this truth I feel as if that is a revelation.  You know, the Eureka moment.