[MD] Objectivism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Greetings Laramie [Micah mentioned, others welcome] --


> Ham!
>
> A "self-confirmed Randian"?  -What the?-  Rand is an endless source of
inspiration,
> but I don't consider myself an orthodox Objectivist.

Well, perhaps "self-confirmed" exaggerates your position, although Micah did
identify himself as an Objectivist based on Rand's writings.  In any case,
both of you have come to the MD with a strong Randian persuasion.

> How do I square my individualism with the MoQ?
> Well, the Phaedrus of ZAMM was an individualist
> if there ever was one.

I'm an individualist, too, but I'm not an Objectivist and either is Pirsig.

> There are indeed profound similarities between Rand
> and Pirsig.  The primary concern of both is overcoming
> the dualism of mind and body perceived to be at the root of
> modern man's spiritual alienation.  Each share a sense of
> the heroic, hate Kant, honor capitalism, and deny that
> morality is relative.

I have no evidence that Pirsig honors capitalism.  Certainly his followers
don't.  Also, while I hear a lot about morality being inherent in nature and
evolving toward "betterness", I haven't heard Pirsig assert belief in an
absolute morality.  To me, what isn't relative is either absolute or doesn't
exist.  (I happen to be a moral relativist.)  You'll have to persuade me of
the "profound similarities".

> The work sited by Craig is worth getting your hands on.
> And I'd especially recommend "The Evidence of the Senses"
> by David Kelley, which explores epistemology and perception
> from a perspective inspired by Objectivism while criticizing
> Locke, Descartes and Kant.  You might find it surprising.
> Kelley articulates an interesting distinction between perception
> and "perceptual judgment", similar I believe to DQ and SQ.
>
> Stop looking for a book called "Objectivism" by Ayn Rand.
> It doesn't exist.

Thanks for the suggestions.  But how much of "Introduction to Objectivist
Epistemology" is Rand's work, as opposed to Branden, Peikoff, Kelley, etc.?
I didn't realize Rand had explored epistemology, and guess I'll have to
order Kelley's book.  Meantime I found a website called "Foundations Study
Guide: Epistemology" in which David Kelley echoes what Leonard Peikoff had
said about Rand's Objectivism:

"Objectivism maintains that existence exists independently of consciousness,
and that the mind's function is to grasp the identity of what exists.  This
position, known as realism, or the primacy of existence, is opposed to
idealism, or the primacy of consciousness, which holds that the objects of
knowledge are dependent in some way on the knower-that reality is
constituted by or relative to our own minds.

"Objectivism subscribes to the thesis of empiricism: that sense perception
is our basic form of contact with reality, and that all knowledge rests on
perceptual evidence. The Objectivist viewpoint on perception, however, is
unique in a number of respects. The most important is its rejection of the
representationalist view that we perceive external objects indirectly,
through the medium of images or representations internal to consciousness.
The representationalist view, which dominated modern philosophy and is still
commonly accepted, arose from the fact that the appearance of an object is
partly dependent on the nature and operations of our sensory systems.

"Objectivism offers a radically new theory of perceptual appearances as
forms in which we perceive objects directly."

Okay, so as I read this, we have existence (objective reality) defined as
primary to and independent of (subjective) consciousness.  We also have
consciousness defined as a function of that reality and described as
directly in contact with the objects of reality.  Clearly the Objectivist
rejects "representational" views of reality that are the basis of
semiotics, idealism, and phenomenalism.

I've got two questions to lead off the Fringe Factor.  (Incidentally, I have
no ax to grind here; I like what Rand has to say about individualism, but
suspect I'm not alone in my skepticism that Objectivism can be squared with
the MOQ.)

1. What's the difference between Rand's division of consciousness and
physical existence and the mind/matter duality rejected by the MoQ?

2. Wouldn't Rand's "realism" (i.e., direct perception of objects) rule out
Experience as a "mediator" of Quality (or Value) which is Pirsig's
epistemology?

Most likely Micah or others will jump in here before you reply.

Essentially yours,
Ham