In death, all particular perspectives of consciousness must eventually become collateral damage from the unfolding purposes of the field of consciousness. Our material world is not the best of all possible; we are only its gardeners, always pursuing communion, and perhaps eventual merger, with a happier state of being.
In a moral sense, can "enlightened selfishness" reasonably subsume or substitute for altrusim? In what sense can it be meaningful or fulfilling to prescribe or relate that one's highest moral duty is only to will or pursue that which one happens to intuit, believe, emote, or identify to be consistent with one's selfish interests? To have capacity to make consistent sense, would not one need some secure fulcrum against which to test and define one's terms? What does or should one mean, by: reason, indifference, caring, meaning, fulfill, relate, one, self, moral, duty, will, identify, interest, unselfish, charity, humane? How does one rationalize or make sense of any consideraton of the dependency of the reality of fields and particles (holisms, relationships, and things) upon the perspective of the viewer?
WFB recalled how Rand's work was devoid of respect for charity. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/78291.html. However, is it even possible to be charitable, without serving one's self interest? Perhaps even more startling, is it possible to serve one's self interest without being charitable?
Unless some genius devises a way, here and now, notwithstanding the relativity of space and time, to measure the breadth of our universe in its number of ultimate particles (anyone found a Higgs boson lately?), there does not appear to abide to quantitative measure any such a thing as an independent thing-in-itself, much less any such a thing as a definable personal "self." Rather, our "selfness" seems necessarily bound up with feedback and relationships (as with other selves).
If there is no ultimate, quantitative, material particle, perhaps there abides an ultimate qualitative aspect (holon?), i.e. --- consciousness. (Voltaire considered, "It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason.") Perhaps, the ultimate reconciler abides in a way that is beyond reconciliation, that allows IT to imagine stepping outside ITself, to avail fleeting illusions of wholes, parts, selves, relationships, perspectives, and unfolding interests. In whatever way IT imbues or attaches ITself to any unfolding, measurable interest, that interest becomes ITs then and there moral pursuit. In whatever way IT communicates and inspires other perspectives of ITself to join in such interest, that interest becomes a common pursuit of ITs thus joining perspectives.
At some meta level, such various perspectives of consciousness may intuit or empathize that they are each derivative of one and the same aspect, i.e., a quality of consciousness. That meta capacity for empathetic appreciation (that we are each a perspective for pursuing the guiding, synchronizing, unfolding, changing interests of a common reconciler) would seem a basis for apprehending an innate and common purposefulness or morality, i.e.: --- "Be Empathetic." If so, we have no choice but to make choices, just as we have no choice but to serve, in some capacity, a reconciling moral pursuit.
That said, there becomes availed to many of us a path for bringing such pursuit into a more consistent and coherent plane of conscious awareness. For that, perhaps we are not more innately moral, but only more consciously participatory and aware of our moral path. Thus, we sense more that is to be sought, and more that is to be avoided (or what we may deem "evil"). Those who arrive at such a plane, to give rein to their capacity to participate in moral decisions, intuit or feel a need to be availed with such degree of freedom and respect for reconciling purposefulness as to make such decisions their own voluntary, unforced, not artificially or governmentally required decisions. Otherwise, the quality of human morality becomes reduced to the "morality" of a pre-programmed robot or zombie.
Bottom line: Human morality necessitates (1) a degree of freedom, and (2) regard for a reconciling purposefulness. It is in the second aspect that I consider Rand to have been deficient in appreciation.
Compare http://www.fsmitha.com/index.html.
In a moral sense, can "enlightened selfishness" reasonably subsume or substitute for altrusim? In what sense can it be meaningful or fulfilling to prescribe or relate that one's highest moral duty is only to will or pursue that which one happens to intuit, believe, emote, or identify to be consistent with one's selfish interests? To have capacity to make consistent sense, would not one need some secure fulcrum against which to test and define one's terms? What does or should one mean, by: reason, indifference, caring, meaning, fulfill, relate, one, self, moral, duty, will, identify, interest, unselfish, charity, humane? How does one rationalize or make sense of any consideraton of the dependency of the reality of fields and particles (holisms, relationships, and things) upon the perspective of the viewer?
WFB recalled how Rand's work was devoid of respect for charity. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/78291.html. However, is it even possible to be charitable, without serving one's self interest? Perhaps even more startling, is it possible to serve one's self interest without being charitable?
Unless some genius devises a way, here and now, notwithstanding the relativity of space and time, to measure the breadth of our universe in its number of ultimate particles (anyone found a Higgs boson lately?), there does not appear to abide to quantitative measure any such a thing as an independent thing-in-itself, much less any such a thing as a definable personal "self." Rather, our "selfness" seems necessarily bound up with feedback and relationships (as with other selves).
If there is no ultimate, quantitative, material particle, perhaps there abides an ultimate qualitative aspect (holon?), i.e. --- consciousness. (Voltaire considered, "It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason.") Perhaps, the ultimate reconciler abides in a way that is beyond reconciliation, that allows IT to imagine stepping outside ITself, to avail fleeting illusions of wholes, parts, selves, relationships, perspectives, and unfolding interests. In whatever way IT imbues or attaches ITself to any unfolding, measurable interest, that interest becomes ITs then and there moral pursuit. In whatever way IT communicates and inspires other perspectives of ITself to join in such interest, that interest becomes a common pursuit of ITs thus joining perspectives.
At some meta level, such various perspectives of consciousness may intuit or empathize that they are each derivative of one and the same aspect, i.e., a quality of consciousness. That meta capacity for empathetic appreciation (that we are each a perspective for pursuing the guiding, synchronizing, unfolding, changing interests of a common reconciler) would seem a basis for apprehending an innate and common purposefulness or morality, i.e.: --- "Be Empathetic." If so, we have no choice but to make choices, just as we have no choice but to serve, in some capacity, a reconciling moral pursuit.
That said, there becomes availed to many of us a path for bringing such pursuit into a more consistent and coherent plane of conscious awareness. For that, perhaps we are not more innately moral, but only more consciously participatory and aware of our moral path. Thus, we sense more that is to be sought, and more that is to be avoided (or what we may deem "evil"). Those who arrive at such a plane, to give rein to their capacity to participate in moral decisions, intuit or feel a need to be availed with such degree of freedom and respect for reconciling purposefulness as to make such decisions their own voluntary, unforced, not artificially or governmentally required decisions. Otherwise, the quality of human morality becomes reduced to the "morality" of a pre-programmed robot or zombie.
Bottom line: Human morality necessitates (1) a degree of freedom, and (2) regard for a reconciling purposefulness. It is in the second aspect that I consider Rand to have been deficient in appreciation.
Compare http://www.fsmitha.com/index.html.
8 comments:
Can "enlightened selfishness" reasonably substitute for altrusim? WFB recalled how Rand's work was devoid of respect for charity. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/78291.html. However, is it possible to be charitable, without serving one's self interest? More startling, is it possible to serve one's self interests without being charitable?
"Self" is a tricky concept. There doesn't appear to abide to real or quantitative measure any such a thing as an independent thing-in-itself, much less any such a thing as a definable, personal "self." Rather, one's "selfness" is bound up with qualitative feedback and relationships (as with other selves). Those who think about morality in a philosophical sense aren't necessarily more moral, but only more (self) conscious of their moral path.
To make sense, human morality implicates (1) a degree of freedom (a forced contribution is not charity), and (2) regard for a reconciling purposefulness. Ayn Rand and Sam Harris both express concerns about higher purposefulness, but prefer not to associate it with religious traditions. Given the many abuses of organized religion, that is understandable.
Still, I don't apprehend how they expect that organized religion can or should be cast aside by enlightened thnkers. Consider concepts with which society may wish to replace religion, i.e., various kinds of economic, environmental, or earth science, sprinkled with notions about genetics and psychology. Insofar as such concepts lead to social and political urges about which many people can easily doubt, how do proponents mean to justify cajoling respect for “science backed” rulings --- except by claiming they have a closer relation to higher truth, justice, morality, or goodness?
Yet, choices must be made, both by individuals and by bodies politic. To what, then, should a concept of morality appeal, when an advocate says such and such is best --- if not to family based notions of human decency and metaphysical truthiness (i.e., religion)? At bottom, a philosophy of objective morality based only on selfishness, that shows no way even to define "self," is necessarily incomplete.
@Centauri, re: "James Taggart? Orwen Boyle? Eugene Lawson? Wesley Mouch? Directive 10-289? The Unification Board? Shall I go on?"
Yes, Rand was absolutely against looters! Problem is, apart from appealing to their sense of humanity, by demonstrating how awful the result is for all the little folk, how would Rand have society defend against them? Not with appeals to religious morality, not with community charities, and not with big government regulations. In each of the cases you list, those characters claimed to be do gooders. If anything, their self delusion as do gooders, by using "forced charity" (oxymoron) through governmental intrusion, made them all the more dangerous in their act before the public. They had themselves convinced that they really were looking out for the little guys (who, per James, never got a chance). So yes, as to them, fellow nomenklatura, fellow socialists, and labor union thugs, Rand demonstrated the fallacy --- with which all those characters were eventually brought face to face.
So far, so good. If that were all that need be done, we could have a sort of Christmas Carol in reverse, to convince such scoundrels, by the ghosts of their own deeds, of their own moral lack. And if they had a moral bone in their bodies, they should take the lesson. So I join your praise of Rand's debunking of socialism in the vein of labor union lobbying and thuggery.
Now, that said, where does Rand address how to combat the union thuggery of crony capitalists ---- not for the purpose of helping the little guy, but for the crass purpose of simply reducing and ruling the little guy? Does Rand ever advocate monopoly busting? Does she advocate means for prohibiting the buying and selling of politicians and governments? Means for alerting the public that, not only are there mistaken do gooders, but plain old out and out sociopaths, who only pretend to want to do good? Does Rand ever advocate philosophical reasons (higher values?) for why people ought to look out for one another and not be advantage-taking, sociopathic, interstate dealers in buying and selling human beings?
Were I a sociopathic competitor in the buying and selling of human beings, what in Objectivism teaches me that I should not do that? What in Randian Objectivism teaches Rearden that he ought not corner the steel market, or, once cornering that, move on to corner the market in buying politicians? Yes, Rand sneered at those who divert their attention from the producing of real goods to the producing of "government pull." However, if I'm really loyal only to my own ego, why should I care whether Rand sneers?
If Rand and Objectivism were any kind of real constraint against disloyal and international crony capitalism (I mean crony capitalism that is not in the least concerned with doing good for anyone else), why do you suppose we have so much of it today? If Randian corporatists had remained pure, and our woes were all laid at our doorsteps only by labor union goons, I would take your point. However, the same corporatists who cite Rand to rail against labor unions fail to follow Rand when it comes to declining to compete for government pull. Why do you suppose that is so? I suspect it is so because those who do not so engage come to a point where they simply cannot compete against the prevailing culture of corruption. At that point, one begins to ask: What has brought us to this prevailing culture of corruption? And how has Randian Objectivist Atheism (Code of Egoism) protected us from that, in the least? Hmmm.
IOW: Does Rand believe the general good will automatically follow (if automatic, if A is only A, then for what reason call it "good"?) from each pursuing his own interests? Or does she ever recognize that each, in calculating his own interest, "ought" to keep in mind a concept of the general good? If not in respect of some such higher spiritual source, from whence does Rand derive her "oughts?"
@Centauri, re: "a society, ruled by objective law rather than the arbitrary whim of men granted arbitrary power"
Well, the first rule of objective (indifferent?) law is: He who has the gold makes the rules. To say that is not "genuine" law (or genuine Objectivism?) is no solution. We come full circle, back to the starting point: How do we get this "genuine" system? Do we get it by: (1) the masses somehow getting the attention of our legislators, notwithstanding the hold of those who have the gold (not bloody likely); (2) by non-governmental civic clubs and churches inspiring people to be better human beings (notwithstanding the general climate of "get yours while the getting is good," and notwithstanding the efforts of secular humanists to ban non-p.c. and non-science based espousals of moral values from the public square); or do we get it (3) by teaching people that all will be well if only everyone will give genuine, objectivist egoism a chance?
Regarding Libertarian semantics: The thing is, after 1200 pages of Atlas Shrugged, I rather expect that the salient points of Objectivism, if such exist, should already have been made. I don't think I need to chase a mirage to see that the word "genuine" does not avail a solution to the prevailing culture of corruption that is undermining America.
Again, I have deep admiration for Rand's showing of how "do gooderism," when forced by the government, is quite contrary to good. That said, the problem of international crony capitalism is far more insidious, and far more advanced towards sinking America into a dystopic NWO, than can be cured simply by outlawing labor unions or planting the words "genuine objectivism" into the parlance of ordinary Americans. If we cannot even inspire Americans to believe that the general good necessitates that we assimilate a sustaining vision of the general good, above the egoism of individuals, then I see little hope to evade a relapse into an historical default position: rule by the powerful over the powerless, with no sustainable middle class, i.e., feudalism.
People need to see that pursuing the general good is in their individual interests, and that the interests of their "selfs" extends far beyond the perimeters of their material skins. For that, Sam Harris seems not quite the atheist he poses. In my interpretation of his work, he senses, in consciousness, a quality of the spiritual. To me, consciousness is not, in itself, moral, but simply is. And it "is" in a way in which we all partake, in common. However, consciousness identifies with fluxing interests, and insight often shows that the nurturing of such interests should better be served by some tactics over others. When we assimilate to pursue such tactics, we tend to improve our chances. To me, to organize in order to assimilate in such common pursuit of the good carries religious overtones.
If you are suggesting an interpretation of Rand that approves of such assimilation, whereby each participant shares a vision of the common good, and then sacrifices and works individually in order to help bring that good about, then, to my lights, she (and Harris) are religious. Insofar as religious efforts are enhanced when they are discussed, shared, and organized, it seems to me that Rand and Harris are not against organized religion, per se, but only against the aspects of organized religion that take advantage of weak minds in order to sell stock in heavenly shores. In that light, I can support them. But when they suggest that the masses ought not be humored to attend their traditional modes for sustaining inspiration, but instead ought to defer to the "objective" or "scientific" pronouncements of their elite betters, then I do not.
If we are to restore America, we will need better strategies to reset the balance of power, so that all power to make the rules is not in they who have the gold. Spreading freedom of expression and enterprise is the goal. Destroying capitalism is not. Spreading income would be counterproductive. But spreading wealth would be part of self defense, for a capitalistic nation to defend itself against international crony capitalists.
We need to stop trying to wipe out religion and seek instead a better understanding for a proper role for religion. For example, Islam, as practiced, is cultural imperialism --- not religion. We need to stop using the income tax to redistribute income, and instead use a progressive consumption tax to neuter some of the abuses of those who seek to buy and sell politicians. In extreme cases, we need Rico-like forfeitures of wealth. When you seek to inspire genuine faith in the general good of freedom of expression and enterprise, above sociopathic, crony egoism, then I am with you.
specially when one is too wedded to literalisms, one will find overwhelming differences between Judaism and Christianity. Not being a literalist, I tend to look to figurative commonalities. Most Christians accept the Ten Commandments. Jews and Christians alike tend not to believe in Lex Talonis, and tend to believe in a caring God, who wants us to apply our talents and be empathetic with one another, who does not commission us to slay others simply because they don't share our literalistic beliefs. Indeed, if one looks past notions of heaven and original sin, it becomes easier to make coherent sense out of a notion of a field of consciousness, which avails to guide our particular perspectives in respect of it. I think that is where some people, even those who presume dramatic stances as atheists, hear the still, quiet voice of a guiding, spiritual essence.
To me, a field of consciousness is intuitively obvious. As to such a field, strictly speaking, one does not find that which one never lost. Yes, consciousness does identify from time to time with variously fluxing, transitory, and recurrent forms of expression of bodies, which do pass on. The general field of consciousness, however, neither lives nor dies, but simply abides. It has no need of any permanent El Dorado in the Sky. Nor does it have any need of mind control freaks. Voltaire observed, "It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason." As to Ayn Rand's American based philosophy, there is no reason its better aspects could not be joined to such a religious interpretation. (Without such joinder, her adherents will continue with much quacking, with little to show for any reduction in crony capitalism.)
Voltaire was right, that our material world is not the best of all possible material worlds. Rather, the material world is only our garden --- often pleasing, sometimes foul, always calling for attention. It's only in one's relative freedom of attitude and quality of conscious attention that one can reasonably seek meaningful fulfillment. Freedom is essential to enhance a religious appreciation of consciousness, by joining a Randian like quest against economic dictators and mind control freaks --- such as crony capitalists and mohammedan subjugators. Had Ayn Rand thought more about the field of consciousness, there was hardly need for her to take the unnecessarily debilitating stance of an atheist.
Put it all together: Purpose driven, talent developing, empathetic people, who want to allow and teach people habits of personal, familial, and cultural freedom and responsibility, and not to give people habits of codependency --- people with a sense of destiny, trusting in God. Doesn't that describe attributes of those Jews and Christians who are of an assimilating American mindset? As to whether that is a superior mix, yes, I believe it is.
Where Is Self?
"There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle-ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area we call the 'Twilight Zone."
Where is Rod Serling? Between trinities, between the Inception of a dream within a dream within a dream, a representation of a representation of a representation, a person in a garden in a world, a savage in a Social Contract in a Brave New World, a self within a Borg within a Matrix, emotion bound to logic bound to apprehension, Godot to Godel to God, part to mediator to whole, Son to Holy Ghost to Father, measurement of consciousness out of gnosis out of nothing but information, from Will to Program to Machine --- in what Twilight Zone rests or goes individuated consciousness of freedom and dignity and communication of meaningfulness? Honey, I drained myself into the Socialist Umma.
Post a Comment