Perception refers to the constant, automatic awareness of what’s “out there”-the sensory input from the external world, processed without verbalizing or conceptualizing anything. What would be the equivalent word for the automatic awareness of what’s “in here”? For example, I’m listening to you speak in this video, and then something pops into my mind-like a signal about the need to search for the term “mindfulness.” Whether or not I verbalize this thought as a question like, “Does this [what you are saying of awareness] relate to mindfulness?” or “This reminds me of mindfulness,” there was already an automatic awareness of the thing appearing in my mind. The same applies to emotions. What’s the term for the constant and automatic awareness of internal states-thoughts, emotions, and signals arising within us? Right now, I’m using the word “experience,” but I wonder if there’s a more precise term.

Oh boy. Envy is a killer of civilizations :(

The example about “the girlfriend stealing your wallet” made things really clear in terms of thinking about atheism and agnosticism. Thank you.

So, the objectivist goals/values are: Ultimate goal (and standard of value): A life as a rational being Value 1/3: Active reason at all times (Virtue: rationality) Value 2/3: High self-esteem (Virtue: pride) Value 3/3: Long range productive schedule (Virtue: productivity)

Are Ayn Rand and Objectivism considered propagandist and propaganda, respectively?

⁠​​@DonWatkinsLive Not sure if you agree, but I find it helpful to think of focus as an activity in which one defines and holds a conceptual context within which to think. This requires use of the conceptual faculty, which explains why nature cannot determine one’s focus and why focus cannot have an antecedent cause, because focus requires abstraction.

⁠​​⁠ @DonWatkinsLive Not sure if you agree, but I find it helpful to think of focus as an activity in which one defines and holds a conceptual context within which to think. This requires use of the conceptual faculty, which explains why nature cannot determine one’s focus and why focus cannot have an antecedent cause, because focus requires abstraction.

Interestingly, Richard Feynman said in an interview that the scientist's question is not Why? but How? His point being that at some point you run out of answers to Why questions once you reach the fundamental level. He can't answer "Why does an electron do that? he can only say that "It does do that". When I hear determinists talk about free will, they are always looking for deeper and deeper Why answers within their causal framework. At some point you have to stop and say "That is how the thing is, and that's it - there is no why". Is Don familiar with Feynman on this, and is this one of the distinguishing parts of the opposing theories of causality, that separate Objectivism and Determinism?

When you're talking about the law of identity being something other philosophers do away with, I immediately think of multiculturalism. The thought that people are different by their very nature because of where they were born, which spurs the belief their morality that they embrace must be automatically valid. If you believe this then you mine as well be a racist because if you believe you have no right to influence someone's view of right and wrong, but also understand their views are detrimental to your own way of life, then you will come to the conclusion that you need to build a wall or something to keep those people out of your area. How else would you stop the spread of something that's completely outside the realm of choice? And this opens more deterministic doors like classism and thinking people are different by their very nature simply because of their class they were born into. It really does come down to ignoring the identity of man, specifically our power of free will. If we can't choose for ourselves, then we'll need someone who knows better to corral us together by our ethnicity or class, speak for us as a whole, and help conform us to their "enlightened" view of that particular group's essence. Like a dictator or pope.

Such a valuable video! Thanks!

This might help with your problem with helping folks at the sentence level. Crafting compelling sentences: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aIWqc6xsrtmhnJo

Aristotle argues that the human function is rational activity. Our good is therefore rational activity performed well, which Aristotle takes to mean in accordance with virtue. This is also what Ayn Rand believed.

I think focus definition is "The situation of human consciousness where consciousness is in cognitive contact with reality and oriented to a cognitive goal."

Such an easy concept to understand and validate and yet it is virtually unknown. Whenever I bring it up I get accused of using "word salad". Hmm, is it "word salad" because you want it to be or is it word salad independent of anyone's thoughts, wishes, beliefs, attitudes, demands, or statements to the contrary?

Thank you, Don...excellent content. I bought OPAR when it was first published. I'm re-reading it as part of this series.

I very much enjoyed your presentation. I struggled with the feeling that there was something wrong or insufficient with me if I didn’t “buy” Objectivism right off the bat. Thank you for sharing your experiences.

You last chapter title should be "Altruism is INjustice".

Where could I find more info on the quick condensation method? I think it be very helpful!

Thanks Don, I love your series covering all of this.

The objectivist definition of consciousness as something that needs an outside object is completely arbitrary. Why couldn't a God and its consciousness be all that exists, without awareness of what objectivists call "existence"? Why not just define consciousness the way normal people and philosophers define it, as subjectivity itself?

Could you recommend any writing courses other than through ARU?

"The secret" is a book that the killer Elliott Roger was fond of... Edit: Or at least something similar.

Politically correct revisionist history is exactly what I thought when I heard Ayn Rand talking about this issue. Their throwing modern politics into a past situation and act shocked and appalled when there's an entire context they're avoiding. Civilization was still in diapers and crawling on the floor banging it's rattle into things. You can't judge the baby the same as you do an adult. And that's if you'd even call the politics we have now an adult.. probably more like an emotional teenager who hasn't grasped reality just yet. Adult politics would be more of a nation that embraces reality and capitalism. But civilization made huge strides and people need to understand that ideas evolve and shape themselves over time on wider scales like an entire nation.

Amazing video. This alone could catapult Objectivists so far.

I don’t see how extraversion could be anything other than a product of value judgements. Could you elaborate on that at all?

Great video. Really helped me to improve my understanding of the issue, I think you offer many integrations and in some ways a wider context than OPAR

This is so great! You're an amazing speaker! Thanks for the video

Great video

I miss most of your lengthier casts, Don, so I love these shorties. Broad yet concise. Thanks.

106

After introspecting on his discussion of good examples in this talk kzbin.info/www/bejne/pmSUnJ-Gptafn5Y I think I've figured out what the 5 C's are. 1. Concrete and specific (example of a phone: iPhone 13 is better than “Smartphone”) 2. Clear (Won’t help clarify the abstraction if the example itself is unclear and requires a lot of explanation) 3. Clear-cut (not a mixed or border-line case. “Center of the page” example.) 4. Crow-Friendly (Binswanger calls it simple and concise. Not too verbose. Should easily fit in working memory.) 5. Classic (Binswanger uses the word “Metaphysical.” Meaning that the example should apply to all times and places, not just some times and places. Evergreen, timeless.) He probably didn't have the 5 C's worked out back in OCON 2018, but I'm pretty sure this is what he had in mind in this podcast.

5:40 Benevolent Universe premise: Happiness is not only possible but the metaphysically normal

0:00 Moral as Practical 3:00 Ultimately, evil is impotent without cooperation from the good (Sanction of the Victims) 5:48 Soul/Body Dichotomy as the source of the Moral/Practical Dichotomy Severing principles from reality, theory from practice, and epistemologically, severing concepts (subjective or other-worldly) from percepts (this-wordly). In effect, there are no principles (subjective) or principles have nothing to do with reality (other-worldly). 10:00 The purpose of this chapter is to underscore the fact that the virtues and values we discussed in the previous chapters are not rules or duties, they are for happiness/fulfillment here on earth. Recommended: The Moral and the Practical, by Onkar Ghate: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r2OchWN7idegpNU 15:09 The crucial importance of reality-oriented goals. As opposed to unrealistic goals or people-oriented (comparative) goals. 19:30 Virtues are necessary conditions for success. They don't guarantee success at every step, but set you on the path for long term success, within the realm where choice can be exercised.

I really like the point about being comfortable with being uncomfortable. Makes so much sense with regards to why people use rationalistic methods and the difference in psychological states and world views from someone who gets excited at the challenge.

So where's episode 1?

There's also another curious problem with the Objectivist movement today. Objectivists have little interest in Bitcoin and cryptocurrency. This might very well bring about the free-market revolution that Objectivists want, and they have mostly ignored it.

As of 2020, the Objectivist movement is no longer a pro-liberty movement. No self-respecting libertarian organization would ever give a platform to a grifter like Amesh Adalja. Real libertarians (not fake ones) rejected the corona virus narrative and saw it as a politically-motivated power grab. Will ARI ever get its head of its ass? I won't hold my breath.

Everything is easier to understand when CHEEZITS are involved.

Great interview, Don! You kept the conversation focused but managed to cover a wide range of topics. Shawn’s work with Story Grid on genre types and conventions has been some of the freshest and most workable contributions to story theory in recent years. Excited to see what he has to offer with the Story Helix.

Can't believe I found your channel so late despite knowing ARCUK.

It's always a pleasure to listen to Sandra and I thank Don for this interview.

Thoroughly enjoyed this interview. Ordered the book.

Thank you :)

Thank you for coming to Yaron's show. You have no idea how much I was craving for such a series. I'm currently reading OPAR and its hard. I tried Piekoff's lectures but I want something more simplified and summarised like yours!

“You’re seeing artists pushing the technology”. I had never heard this take… I know this was in reference to ancient art like “The Winged Victory” but as a game developer who works closely with artists and are always trying to push the technology, this gave me chills (in a good way). Awesome!

Sandra, I absolutely loved your presentation at OCON! I missed in-person but was able to catch the recording. Unfortunately, the recording expired before I was able to put together a list of all of the art you showed in the presentation. I hope that becomes available publicly so I can see the great art again!

Don, is there a way I can speak with you off the grid about your book? I honestly do not want to be contrary, but I had a small problem with the opening scene in the ARC copy which meant I did not want to leave a review. You may not care, and that is OK, too. But I believe in the power of positive criticism even when it is not simply a pat on the back, and I hope you do, as well. Best of luck to you and your book.

As a fellow author who works with Randy, I had to laugh at the story you tell at 33 minutes. I went through the exact same thing, asked myself the exact same question and came to the same conclusion; Randy was right and his ideas worked. I'm a full believer in Story Grid, and Randy as an editor, and I also look forward to reading your book.

Great tips Luc Travers! I am looking forward to receiving your new book. And, such excellent questions, Don Watkins!

Yup, ya'll made Story Grid publishing history... YIPEE!!!