From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:32:51 GMT

I am going to break down and respond to one of these (but only one!).

In article <1992Sep2.182103.4167@cis.umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>	[Sorry for not replying to various messages for several days but I lost
>track of my messages while learning to use my home computer. My highly sel-
>ective library is only a few feet away, enabling me to offer even more exist-
>ence and objectivity]
>	[This is a reply to various messages over the last few days]
>	
>	Please understand my comments to be on the existence of things rather 
>than their proof or any other epistemological status. Epistemology is fine
>and good. There is nothing wrong with it. the relation between existence and
>consciousness is a proper concern. However, there is also the existence of
>existence, consciousness, and their relation. Existence is not metaphysically
>superior, in some Platonic manner, to knowledge, consciousness, epistemology,
>or proof. It is one more thing or concern among many. But it does
exist.

	There is the question of what "existence" means.  Are we
	talking about the "mass" of everything which exists or the
	property of existing (which can be identified with the
	universal set or class)?  I would certainly agree that both of
	these things exist, but one must draw distinctions.

 
>	And the consciousness/existence relation also exists. I am not claiming
>that it exists in all limits (or contexts) since, within the limit of subject-ivity, it does not exist. So Kranowski is correct, within his limit of subject-
>ivity.

	"Existence is an absolute" -- Rand, somewhere.  I am not a
	disciple of Ayn Rand, but I also maintain that existence is
	not relative.

 But there is more, there is always more. consider the existence/consciousness (or sub/obj) relation in another limit, not subjectivity. EG, they are
>related as words in this message, as words that can be spoken, as thoughts
>that can be pondered, as ink spots on paper, as objects of philosophical in-
>quiry, as marks on a blackboard, and in an infinite number of limits.

	Observe the elementary philosophical mistake of "confusion of
	use and mention" in innumerable variations.  The symbol for a
	thing is not the thing; the thought of a thing is not the
	thing; the field of study whose object is the thing is not the
	thing.  Even Rand could draw these distinctions.

 The
>above limits may seem trivial but they exist, and in them, existence and cons-ciousness are related. People who don't like something can find some limit in
>which that thing does not exist. E.g., volition does not exist within behav-
>iorism or psychoanalysis. But volition exists within Objectivism. Individual
>achievement does not exist within Marxism but it does within the Objectivist
>view of capitalism. Pick your limit knowingly and carefully. You may get more
>more than you bargained for.

	I fail to see how the existence or nonexistence of an object
	in a false theory (several are listed) reflects on the thing
	at all.

>	You may consider the proof of these comments or you may consider their
>existence. These comments do exist.

	The comments exist, but their existence is irrelevant; their
	_truth_ is in question.  This is "confusion of use and
	mention" again.

 Kranowski limits the sub/obj split to
>"we can conceive of time travel and sentient flamingo beings, but that does 
>guarantee their existence." Yes, within that limit, the sub/obj split exists,
>but there is more, there is always more. There are other limits, however.
>And, in some, subject and object are related. You may consider those limits
>as non-philosophical, trivial, hateful, or whatever but they exist. You may
>have three apples but four apples also exists. You may have a Ford but Ferr-
>aris also exist. As existents, they both exist equally. In the limit of per-
>formance, Ferraris are superior. In the limit of ecxonomy, Fords are super-
>ior. Pick your limit with your eyes (and your mind) open. You may get some-
>thing unpleasant. As rock chanteuse Marianne Faithfull so tartly observed,
>"We've been trying to get high without having to pay." Some insist on the
>importance of subjectivity (emotions, images, hallucinations, etc.). This is
>good. Emotions are very important but guiding action by some allegedly meta-
>physically privileged emotion is dangerous. You can make subjectivity your 
>limit or absolute if that is your value, but there is more there is always
>more.

	All of this depends on Grossman's incoherent notion of "limit"
	(a very strange use of this word) or "absolute".  Of course,
	real absolutes are not objects of choice, and Rand knew that,
	too.

>	Of course, as an Objectivist (shifting to conventional philosophy), I
>value objectivity. I know there are other limits (here, philosophy) but I
>don't value them. They do exist, however. I don't tell subjectivists that
>using subjectivity as an absolute or limit is impossible. It is possible, 
>within some limit, which i don't value. I suggest, however, that non-Object-
>ivists have an unidentified limit to their denial of objectivity. (This is
>logical, not ad homenim) They think subjectivism can exist only if there
>is no objectivity. If objectivity is p[ossible, they think, subjectivism is
>false. I have only recently considered this issue so the following is in the
>objectively narrow limit of ad homenims. I simply have, as yet, no properly
>wide view. People who don't want to consider the reality of their situation
>in life have a psychological motive to value a philosophy of subjectivism.
>Then they have an intellectual/moral justification for evading the reality of
>their life for...whatever, nihilism, relativism, theism, etc. Can anyone up-
>grade this ad homenim to logic?

	As Rand herself would tell you, it is not legitimate to evade
	reality.  Period.  (I should reiterate that I am not myself an
	"Objectivist" -- but Grossman claims to be -- but I do agree
	with this proposition!)

>	Remember, within its proper limit, objectivity, like subjectivism, ling-uistic analysis, Existentialism, etc., exists. Hallucinations and objectivity 
>both exist.

	Strangely enough, this is also a case of "confusion of use and
	mention".  Certainly, hallucinations exist.  But their
	existence is not in question; what is in question is whether
	they represent reality.


 I value one and my opponents, the other. Everybody to his own, I
>sometimes say. Objectivists value connecting their minds, via choice and log-
>ic, to existence. And their philosophical opponents do not. Both sides should
>agree, tho for radically different causes. Kranowski may value paradox but
>that is his limit and there is more, there is always more. I have not yet read the following but it seems valid here: "Platonism's Inference from Logic to
>God"-Leonard Peikoff, _Inter. Studies Philosophy_16, 1984, p.25. Those who
>deny objective reality will eventually claim subjectivity is in contact with
>a transcendental superreality, or as Kranowski suggests, "a transdimensional
>phonelink to late night burger marts on Saturn." See, that's just what I mean
>about narrow limits. My transdimensional phonelink is to Marilyn Monroe. Now,
>she's metaphysically privileged! And a gentleman would agree.

	I don't think that Rand regards the opposite moral choice to
	hers (in her scheme) as being a matter on which a "live and
	let live" attitude is appropriate.


	In short, Grossman is both _wrong_ and _not an Objectivist_ by
any objective standard (no pun intended).  Somehow he has wandered
into a morass of relativism without noticing it.  I hold no brief for
Objectivism, but it is a better philosophical school that the one
Grossman seems to inhabit!

-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu