Reality, Consciousness and Transformation 1: Ayn Rand Ken Wilber

[ameriCAN3008]

you're both gay

[tangoyte]

I appreciate the candor but your request avoids the the issue. An analogy: your mechanic tells you that your car needs a big alignment fix. You tell him, "please, tell me how this will affect my driving in SPECIFIC situations. How about when I drive on gravel roads, or asphalt, etc.?"

How about finding out what alignment IS in the first place, and realize that alignment (analogy: basic axioms) affects driving (analogy: thinking) on flat roads (analogy: about reality) AS SUCH.

[GameOfThriving]

to continue the analogy.

mechanic: it will drive better.

me: how will I notice it?

mechanic: Look, alignment is important! Sheez!

me: OK, but how? can I get an example? I don't understand. There is a point where the cost of improving alignment outweighs the benefits. How will this alignment help?

mechanic: It's your damn alignment! don't you get that?

me: I think I will work with another mechanic who is willing to justify why I should invest in the work.

Fair enough?

[tangoyte]

Since we are talking about the very foundation of all philosophy and of all thinking, a better analogy would be: your car's wheels are stacked inside the trunk. You yourself can judge the necessity of having the wheels touch the road. You don't need to take a mechanic's word for it.

[GameOfThriving]

The challenge with your metaphor is that I am driving quite well as I am. I can go everywhere I want. However, you are telling me that my wheels are in my trunk.

I feel comfortable that I have a more than adequate understanding of Rand's axiomatic concepts, and her concept of axioms. You think otherwise. You don't feel it necessary to show me the limitations and problems that my understanding brings.

The invitation for you is there. No worries if you don't accept.

[tangoyte]

So basically you are saying, "my thinking WORKS. Why should I be concerned with the truth or falsehood of my most fundamental ideas, as long as they 'work'?"

[GameOfThriving]

Rule #1 in the Game Of Thriving is:

Put Your Money On Reality.

Because existence has identity, our identifications can be more or less accurate in describing that existence, and the quality of our identification determines our capacity to thrive.

Reality always wins. Never fight _against_ reality. Never stop fighting _for_ your values by working _with_ reality.

Yes?

[GameOfThriving]

the point is that - existence has identity - consciousness is identification of that identity - so that we can act _consistent_ with that identity in service of our integrity/life/thriving - and partner interdependently with similarity situated others - to ingeniously create ever increasing beauty i5 Identity - metaphysics Identification - epistemology Integrity - ethics Interdependence - politics Ingenuity - aesthetics

[tangoyte]

Actually, I can point out problems here, too. The thing is: using your own "loose" formulation is good and well, but Ayn Rand's formulations are very precise FOR A REASON.

[tangoyte]

Mark says (3:26)"...for something to exist presupposes that there is a consciousness to perceive it."

This is at best a rather imprecise statement of Ayn Rand's account of the axioms. Mark, would you care to elaborate what YOU mean by this?

[GameOfThriving]

Busted! I meant to say: "To speak of something "existing" presupposes a consciousness that perceives it."

And, I do not parrot Ayn Rand chapter and verse. I integrate her unparalleled insights (metaphysics: reality; epistemology: rationality; ethics: responsibility; politics: respect) into a system that BOTH enriches AND is enriched by the other systems described in my youtube profile. In service of this integration, I articulate her ideas in novel ways, and sometimes make mistakes! :-) Oops!

[tangoyte]

Ok, well, I still don't know what that means. Wold you care to explain?

Or, rather than tell me what you meant to say in that moment, can you just give me your most precise statement of the idea you have in mind there? Thanks.

[GameOfThriving]

Hmmm. if you know enough to critique my articulation of Rand...I"m not sure what more you want.

Precise: "To speak of something "existing" presupposes a consciousness that perceives it."

[tangoyte]

You just repeated the same words again. What do you mean by those words? I find your words very confusing.

[GameOfThriving]

Yes. I did. I will try, but I don't have much to add!

To speak about existence implies that a consciousness has an idea about that existence, which implies that there is a consciousness that is perceiving it. The fact of communication, language, statements...these all presuppose a consciousness that understands and articulates that understanding. At the bottom of every thought and statement is the axiom that existence exists and consciousness is conscious of that existence.

Hope that helps

[tangoyte]

Actually, you just changed your statement in an important way. Originally you said: 1.) "to speak of something 'existing'..." and now you say: 2.) "to speak about existence."

From the context it is clear that in 2.) you mean saying things ABOUT something. Isn't that different from the meaning in 1.)?

As I read it, 1.) says you speak fo the fact OF something existing, not some idea ABOUT the something existing.

[GameOfThriving]

I don't see the importance of making that distinction to my point. Let's say I meant "of something existing" or I meant "of existence" - is there a logical consequence to that difference that makes a difference?

You obviously have something to add to the conversation, please just add it.

What is your concern?

[tangoyte]

This issue comes at a level of knowledge before logic!!!

The axiom of existence says NOTHING "OF" existence. An infant's grasping of it, by, let's say, perceiving a red balloon, without even knowing WHAT it is, means nothing "OF" existence. It only means "THAT" it exists.

[GameOfThriving]

OK. Sure. - So let's say that you are accurate. Does it have any effect on the point we are making in the video? Either the adult is speaking/thinking about the "red balloon", or the infant is sensing a "red frequency visual stimulus" or perceiving a "red object" and gesturing towards it in some way that constitutes "communication" - presupposing existence and consciousness. Yes?

Again, does your point affect the ideas in the video? Is there something else you want to say?

[tangoyte]

The point is: I would like to encourage YOU to be accurate IN YOUR OWN MIND. An issue so fundamental has enormous power. I hope you're not saying that you practice philosophy "unselfishly" for the audience of your video and are indifferent toward your own functioning!

[GameOfThriving]

I am not indifferent (does that mean I am different! :-) to my functioning/Thriving - it is my pinnacle value in the hierarchy. Which is why I am asking you:

How does making this distinction "clear/accurate" help?

How does your own clarity/accuracy on this issue assist you personally in your functioning?

What mistakes are predictable if it is not clear?

What power does it give me if it is clear?

That is the purpose of my work, and this video set, so please add your track to the mix!

[tangoyte]

This is a perfect example: you are asking: "what particular power does this give me, and what particular mistakes become predictable depending on understanding this issue?"

It is the exactly the power of abstract thought that makes your mind useful. The more fundamental the idea, the wider it's application. So you don't have to ask each time, "ok, but what about this case, does it matter in this case?" Since we are talking about THE most fundamental fact of all, it matters for EVERYTHING!

[tangoyte]

Or else, in my opinion you don't really believe in philosophy except as a GAME.

I encourage you to re-read Ayn Rand on THE AXIOMS and reflect/introspect. (and leave all the abstract ideas that you accumulated over the years OUT) I remember that when I was reading about this, it took a time to digest it.

[GameOfThriving]

Philosophy is in service of Thriving. It is a tool, not an end. Or "Reason requires a reason to use it."

I am interested in traction/leverage towards Thriving. Philosophy is a lever, its accuracy is where we place the fulcrum.

My criteria for investing in learning/articulating a distinction is: "Does this distinction move the fulcrum in a way that significantly increases my power to achieve my values IN THIS CONTEXT?"

2) does precisely articulating a distinction in "this context" add to

[GameOfThriving]

Yes. Abstract thought is powerful/useful/critical "in general." Note: I am not asking "if" it matters, I am asking "how" it matters and "how much?"

Keep context. Life always happens "in specific." There is an infinite amount of thinking and learning to be done. One of our central choices for Thriving is where we focus our Time Energy Reputation Captial Identity (Let's Talk TERCI). Rule #6 in the Game of Thriving is Get The Best Bang For Your Buck.

So, how is it useful in specific?

[SIRUS80]

awesome.. great you guys! like oxygen to the mind...

p.s.

nice landmark reference lol