[MD] Objectivism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Laramie --


> In what way does DQ fail to account for man's
> relation to reality, metaphysically and epistemologically
> - or take individualism to its cosmological roots?

The MoQ does not even define "man" as a creature with proprietary
consciousness.  It is concerned with mankind in the collectivist sense -- as
a social species, as a product of biological and intellectual evolution.
The very faculties that make man unique among living organisms -- 
self-awareness, intellection, value sensibility, moral judgment, and
creativity -- are relegated to an obscure, unsubstantiated esthetic realm
that is self-sufficient in its own right and denies the individual of any
contribution or role in the universe.  If evolution proceeds automatically
to "betterness", what purpose does man serve?  He is a complex but captive
biological organism swept up in this cosmic movement without free choice or
any hope of transcending differentiated existence.

> Rand transcends traditional classification.  She
> definitely made some idealistic sounding claims,
> such as: "I don't die, the world dies" and "You
> must not let the world hold you".  Hazel Barnes,
> in "An Existentialist Ethics" makes this interesting
> observation:
>
> "There is always in Rand's work an implicit reference
> to an absolute judgment which stands outside
> immediate involvements of the individual life, which
> remains human and yet is never caught up in human affairs."

I don't know what "an absolute judgment" implies, but if it's outside the
involvements of the individual life, what happens to Individualism?

After consuming more of the "Objectivist Epistemology", I see that it was
Peikoff, not Rand, who articulated the epistemology.  The only statements
attributed to Rand are contained in the appendixes (the last two-thirds of
the book) which Peikoff explains are edited "excerpts from four workshops on
epistemology that Ayn Rand conducted in New York City between 1969 and
1971."  Therefore, except for these excerpts, we have to rely on Peikoff for
the "official" theory.

Peikoff dwells heavily on the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy in philosophy,
mainly to debunk Kantian phenomenalism.  He wants to make the case that
"analytic" judgments based on logic "can be validated only on the basis of
experience [synthetic knowledge]".  This, again, posits Existence (i.e.
material reality) as the only truth.  The following statement is a good
synopsis:

"It is senseless, therefore, to contrast propositions which are true 'by
definition' and propositions which are true 'by experience'.  If an
'empirical' truth is one derived from, and validated by reference to,
perceptual observations, then all truths are 'empirical'.  Since truth is
the identification of a fact of reality, a 'non-empirical truth' would be an
identification of a fact of reality which is valuated independently of
observation of reality.  This would imply a theory of innate ideas, or some
equally mystical construct."  --[Peikoff: Logic & Experience, page 117]

See the problem here?  Empirical truth is infallible, which means that
experience is infallible, which is nonsense.  This is really pure
Existentialism which not even Pirsig would accept.

> Have you figured out yet why Rand feels Plato was an
> extreme realist?  He, he.

No, but you can see that Rand is.

[H]:
> But the ultimate Essence is NOT Existence.  Existence is a cognitive
> "representation" of Essence-Value -- two steps removed from Essence.

 [L]:
> According to Essentialism.  We've been down this road
> before.  If Essence is anything beyond your fancy,
> it either IS or is encompassed by Existence.  What is,
> is the open ground of Objectivism.

Essence IS; but it is not "encompassed" by existence.  Existence is grounded
in nothingness.  It is a construct of the individual intellect -- of the
Self which is itself nothingness.

[L]:
> Objects are grounded in Existence.  Objectivism rejects
> Cosmology.  Existence is the undifferentiated Absolute
> Source.  Existence is multi-dimensional.

I can see I've gotten nowhere with you, Laramie.  To reject Cosmology is to
reject a fundamental theory.  "Grounded in Existence" makes no sense to me,
nor does "Existence is the undifferentiated Absolute Source".  All existence
is differentiated, hence it cannot be the Absolute Source.  You've just
admitted that Existence is multi-dimensional!

[L]:
> Existence is the holistic essence from which existents
> are manifested in space/time and ordered by the mind.

This is Pantheism without the diety.  Everything is "one whole".  No primal
cause.  No absolute source.  You can't make a "theory of everything" into an
Absolute Source.

 [L]:
> Life is GOOD, and time is short.  That's the underlying
> metaphysical principle!

Oh ye of little faith!  I'm disappointed in this self-revelation, Laramie.
It's nice to feel that Life is GOOD.  That value judgment may make you a
happy person, but not a very thoughtful or intellectual one.  Life is a
balance of the good and the bad, just as the evolutionary world is.
Morality is man's means of ordering his world toward what he sees as
beneficial and useful.  This can't be achieved so long as man is a Pollyanna
or believes that he is subservient to the vicissitudes of Nature.

 [L]:
> Existence includes a basic drive to self-organize and
> self-transcend.  Sensibility or awareness is a form of
> organic evolution.  Existence is the primary source
> of the subject/object dichotomy.
>
> Nature, with a capital N, encompasses consciousness,
> and consciousness encompasses nature,  lowercase n.
> Great Chain of Being.  Within Objectivism they are
> perfectly integrated, but the hierarchy remains.

If the hierarchy remains, there can be no "perfect integration."  That is
reserved for Absolute Essence --  the uncreated source of all difference.

We have a fundamental incompatibility in our philosophies, Laramie.  I'm
sorry that your perspective is currently too limited to realize the
essential truth.  Perhaps you will want to reconsider your position at some
future time.

Meantime, enjoy your adventures in Qualityland.

Best regards,
Ham