From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Obj/Exist
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:21:03 GMT

	[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. 
	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. 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. 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.
	You may consider the proof of these comments or you may consider their
existence. These comments do exist. 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.
	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?
	Remember, within its proper limit, objectivity, like subjectivism, ling-uistic analysis, Existentialism, etc., exists. Hallucinations and objectivity 
both exist. 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.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta