The Ayn Rand World

[George Simpson]

Rand failed to understand that we are not self-constructed, but rather we
construct our minds on the lattice of concepts that history provides us and
others introduce us to. The individual can make a contribution to that
lattice of concepts - what one might call the "conceptual field", but it is
imbalanced to insist that the individual is all-important.

[Alan Forrester]

Post by George Simpson
Rand failed to understand that we are not self-constructed, but rather we
construct our minds on the lattice of concepts that history provides us and
others introduce us to.

This is unclear.

Other people introduce you to concepts? I should think that some particular individuals introduce you to concepts by talking to you or writing books or whatever.

Post by George Simpson
The individual can make a contribution to that lattice of concepts - what one might call the "conceptual field", but it is imbalanced to insist that the individual is all-important.

Is there anything other than an individual that makes a contribution to the "lattice of concepts"?

Suppose you go into a meeting and a bunch of people are talking. Is there some system in the room that creates ideas that isn't a subsystem of the brain of some particular person?

Do you agree or disagree with the arguments at these links?

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualism.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/trader_principle.html

Alan

[George Simpson]

Post by Alan Forrester
**

Post by George Simpson
Rand failed to understand that we are not self-constructed, but rather we
construct our minds on the lattice of concepts that history provides us and
others introduce us to.

This is unclear.
Other people introduce you to concepts? I should think that some
particular individuals introduce you to concepts by talking to you or
writing books or whatever.

Post by George Simpson
The individual can make a contribution to that lattice of concepts -what one might call the "conceptual field", but it is imbalanced to insist that the individual is all-important.

Is there anything other than an individual that makes a contribution to
the "lattice of concepts"?
Suppose you go into a meeting and a bunch of people are talking. Is there
some system in the room that creates ideas that isn't a subsystem of the
brain of some particular person?
Do you agree or disagree with the arguments at these links?
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualism.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/trader_principle.html
Alan

Hi Alan,

As a student, I was for a time a Rand evangelist, but her philosophy holds
a deep flaw.

When she says "All the functions of body and spirit are private. They
cannot be shared or transferred". she makes a serious and fatal mistake.

The functions of the spirit are both individual and corporate, and the
individual that cuts themselves off from the corporate resources does
themselves harm. Rand herself, in her books, shares her spirit - this is
the whole motivation for writing.

Re the Trader, she misrepresents the situation. The power of an exchange is
more than just that which passes between the parties. It is the creation
of "mutual information" (Vlatko Vedral's term) that persists after the
exchange that is most important. This web of mutual information, which I
call the "conceptual field" is central to the fabric of reality.

Specifically, for example, trust is created. Trust is surely an aspect of
the real world, but where does it exist? It is not an aspect of space-time,
but rather a relationship, mutual information.

Re "Suppose you go into a meeting and a bunch of people are talking. Is
there some system in the room that creates ideas that isn't a subsystem of
the brain of some particular person?":

Again, it is the exchange of ideas that creates new links in the field that
creates the value. Certainly this is something going on between
individuals, but the individual on his own cannot create that abstract but
real edifice that glues us together - the conceptual field.

I have written about this in "Conscious Patterns Dancing in the Field - the
Physics of Mind" (Amazon), building on David's ideas and others'.

[Alan Forrester]

Post by George Simpson

Post by Alan Forrester
**

Post by George Simpson
Rand failed to understand that we are not self-constructed, but rather we
construct our minds on the lattice of concepts that history provides us and
others introduce us to.

This is unclear.
Other people introduce you to concepts? I should think that some
particular individuals introduce you to concepts by talking to you or
writing books or whatever.

Post by George Simpson
The individual can make a contribution to that lattice of concepts -what one might call the "conceptual field", but it is imbalanced to insist that the individual is all-important.

Is there anything other than an individual that makes a contribution to
the "lattice of concepts"?
Suppose you go into a meeting and a bunch of people are talking. Is there
some system in the room that creates ideas that isn't a subsystem of the
brain of some particular person?
Do you agree or disagree with the arguments at these links?
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualism.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/trader_principle.html
Alan

Hi Alan,
As a student, I was for a time a Rand evangelist, but her philosophy holds
a deep flaw.
When she says "All the functions of body and spirit are private. They
cannot be shared or transferred". she makes a serious and fatal mistake.

You haven't addressed the argument that follows that quote in the paragraph that immediately follows the sentences you quoted, which is a criticism of the sort of argument you give below.

Post by George Simpson
The functions of the spirit are both individual and corporate, and the
individual that cuts themselves off from the corporate resources does
themselves harm. Rand herself, in her books, shares her spirit - this is
the whole motivation for writing.
The fundamental motive of a writer - by the implication of the activity, whether he knows it consciously or not - is to objectify his values, his view of what is important in life.

She doesn't say she wants to share her spirit.

Post by George Simpson
Re the Trader, she misrepresents the situation. The power of an exchange is
more than just that which passes between the parties. It is the creation
of "mutual information" (Vlatko Vedral's term) that persists after the
exchange that is most important. This web of mutual information, which I
call the "conceptual field" is central to the fabric of reality.

So you think Rand didn't know that people have knowledge of other people?

Post by George Simpson
Specifically, for example, trust is created. Trust is surely an aspect of
the real world, but where does it exist? It is not an aspect of space-time,
but rather a relationship, mutual information.

No. Trust is a subjective feeling that one person may have toward another, and that is sometimes but not alway reciprocated. For example, lots of people trusted Bernie Madoff but he didn't trust them enough to tell them the truth before he was caught. Trust is irrational because it involves suspending criticism of the trusted person: if you consider their actions and ideas carefully and critically you are not trusting them. And Rand addressed issues like admiration and respect, which she considered payment for a person's virtues, not an act of trust. All of this is in the links I gave you.

Post by George Simpson
Re "Suppose you go into a meeting and a bunch of people are talking. Is
there some system in the room that creates ideas that isn't a subsystem of
Again, it is the exchange of ideas that creates new links in the field that
creates the value. Certainly this is something going on between
individuals, but the individual on his own cannot create that abstract but
real edifice that glues us together - the conceptual field.

It can't be the exchange of ideas that creates all the value. If there were no individuals coming up with ideas there would be nothing to exchange.

And why does an individual exchange with another individual? If he is rational, he does it because he prefers the situation he ends up in to the situation before the exchange. Any other position involves ignoring criticisms you have of proceeding with the exchange, which is irrational.

Alan