From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Mar 16 2005 - 15:16:46 GMT
Platt and all MOQers--
My apologies to you all for the incomplete URL in my posting yesterday, and
thank you, Platt, for providing the full address. (It didn't work for me
the first time, either.)
For the record, and to make your review easier, I've copied the relevant
portion of Thorn's essay below.
Platt had this comment:
> It reiterates and justifies Rand's axiom "existence exists," but begs the
> question of "how" or "why" existence came to be. The MOQ proposes an
> answer.
Yes, you are correct, Platt; neither the essay nor Rand's books offer a
metaphysical ontology for existence. Can you direct me to specific passages
in the Pirsig literature that explain "how or why existence came to be"?
I've examined ZMM, LILA, SODV, and Anthony's thesis, but have yet to find an
answer that is not buried in patterns & levels (i.e., SOM) terminology.
Here's the extract from Thorn's essay, the full text of which can be found
at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE/Metaphysical_Primacy.htm
___________________________________________________________
The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy: Where Do We Start?
In order to begin, let us look at the principle of metaphysical primacy, as
defined by its originator, Ayn Rand. In her essay, "The Metaphysical Versus
the Man-Made," Rand introduces the idea of metaphysical primacy as the
fundamental principle which guides all philosophy:
. the basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of
philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.
The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists,
i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any
consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific
nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that
consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists - and that man
gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms
represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness - the notion that the
universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a
consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological
corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking
inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it [allegedly]
receives from another, superior consciousness).
The term 'primacy' in this context means the state of ranking first. Dr.
Leonard Peikoff, in his book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand,
clarifies why existence has primacy over consciousness:
The primacy of existence is not an independent principle. It is an
elaboration, a further corollary, of the basic axioms. Existence precedes
consciousness because, consciousness is consciousness of an object. Nor can
consciousness create or suspend the laws governing its objects, because
every entity is something and acts accordingly [i.e., according to its
identity, not according to the desires of consciousness]. Consciousness,
therefore, is only a faculty of awareness. It is the power to grasp, to find
out, to discover that which is. It is not a power to alter or control the
nature of its objects.
Eric Johnson, in his review of Peikoff's book, restates this very point:
Since the nature (identity) of consciousness is to be aware of reality,
existence is prior to, necessary for, and not subject to the control of,
consciousness. As a rephrasing of more basic axioms, the principle could be
said as "It is....whether you want it to be or not.". In essence, the point
is that consciousness, in and of itself (barring physical action) does not
change existence.
Not only do we find in our activity in reality that the objects which we
perceive do not respond directly to our desires, commands or whims, we also
find that, when we focus on the reasons why this is the case, a hierarchical
relationship between the objects we perceive and our act of perceiving them
becomes evident. Since our consciousness is consciousness of something -
i.e., of something which exists, the issue of metaphysical primacy is
implicit throughout all cognition, beginning with our first perception of
the entities in our environment.
Objectivism holds that implicit in every act of consciousness are certain
unalterable and fundamental truths, which are represented by the axiomatic
concepts 'existence', 'identity' and 'consciousness'. Our perception of the
objects around us testifies to the truth of these concepts and to their
relevance to our cognition. When we perceive an object, we gain awareness of
its existence. From this we also gain awareness of the fact an object is
something as distinguished from nothing and from other objects which we
perceive or have perceived (identity), and that we are aware of it
(consciousness). Once we begin to identify these concepts in explicit terms,
as Objectivism does, we equip ourselves with the material needed to form our
first principles in philosophy.
To do this, as one essay puts it,
it is important to note the order in which these axioms were presented. Note
that existence comes first. And it must, because to speak of consciousness
is necessarily to speak of existence (because consciousness must be
conscious of something), while one can speak of things existing without
anyone being conscious of them. This is the Objectivist principle of "The
Primacy of Existence". According to it, facts are facts, independent of
anyone's consciousness.
While the natures of the objects we perceive vary from each other, one fact
binds them all: they exist. This fact, the fact of existence, does not
change. It is so rudimentary, fundamental and self-evident that most
non-Objectivists dismiss discussion of axioms and axiomatic concepts as
unimportant, simply because their truth is obvious. And their truth is
obvious, indeed we all take them completely for granted. But this is
actually their virtue in establishing a starting point: the axioms are
inescapable, undeniable, indisputable and indispensable. The fact of
existence is the bedrock on which the development of a rational philosophy
can establish its foundation. And that is precisely what Objectivism does.
When we recognize that there is an order to the axioms, an order which
parallels our discovery of them, we set in course the beginning of a
hierarchy, a hierarchy that is implicit in our every awareness, in the
formation of every concept, in every argument we construct. That hierarchy
is the hierarchy of knowledge, the hierarchy which accounts for the fact
that one must learn to grasp why 2+2=4 before he can comprehend differential
calculus, or that one must identify reality and a means of knowledge proper
to man before he can define a proper code of values (morality) and the
proper form of government (politics).
Objectivism is correct to treat the concept 'existence' as the widest of all
concepts. It includes everything which actually exists, regardless of its
particular nature or attributes, and that includes also consciousness as
well. And once we recognize the nature of existence, that it exists
independent of our consciousness of it, that the concept 'existence' is the
widest of concepts, and that the relationship between the concepts
'existence', 'identity' and 'consciousness' sets in course a hierarchical
progression, we have what we need to recognize the importance of the issue
of metaphysical primacy, that existence holds primacy over consciousness.
The essential distinction to keep in mind in consideration of the issue of
metaphysical primacy is the relationship between what exists (existence) and
the act of being aware of or perceiving that which exists (consciousness).
Clarifying and recognizing this distinction eliminate the tempting confusion
which entraps some thinkers who interpret the issue of metaphysical primacy
as treating existence and consciousness as mutually exclusive and/or as
jointly exhaustive concepts. Indeed, since Objectivism recognizes both that
existence exists and that consciousness also exists, this confusion is
unfounded and untenable, however it is still encountered among those
unfamiliar with or uncharitably critical of Objectivism. What is likely the
case is that such confusion is the result of poor reading and/or
insufficient integration. Objectivism does not assert the commonly mistaken
dichotomy "existence or consciousness," but identifies the distinction of
holding the primacy of the one over the other as philosophically
significant.
Confusions such as this often lie at the root of one's misunderstanding of
the issue of metaphysical primacy. David Kelley, an Objectivist philosopher,
makes a final point which clinches the essence of the issue:
The fundamental question. is whether consciousness is metaphysically active
or passive by nature. Is consciousness creative, constituting its own
objects, so that the world known depends on ourselves as knowers; or is
consciousness a faculty of response to objects, whose function is to
identify things as they are independently of it? In Ayn Rand's terms, it is
a question of the primacy of existence versus the primacy of consciousness:
do the objects of awareness depend on the subject for their existence or
identity, or do the contents of consciousness depend on external objects?
Those who wish to affirm the primacy of consciousness in any sense,
essentially hold that consciousness is metaphysically active (i.e., that
consciousness creates or manipulates the identity of its own objects),
according to Kelley's identification here. Objectivism corrects this by
pointing out that "consciousness is the faculty of awareness - the faculty
of perceiving that which exists", and that "Existence is Identity, [and]
Consciousness is Identification."
One's position on the issue of metaphysical primacy, whether explicitly
defined as in Objectivism, or inferred implicitly from a mass of unexamined
assumptions as we encounter in other philosophies, has broad-ranging
philosophical implications. The issue of metaphysical primacy has not only
implications for knowledge, as we'll see briefly below, but also for
morality and politics.
In regard to one's own values, which is the concern of morality, the primacy
of existence versus the primacy of consciousness is a distinction with life
and death consequences. On the primacy of existence, one recognizes that
reality has certain constraints and that man has certain needs. In other
words, he recognizes that identity is not subject to the influences of his
wishes or feelings. He recognizes that his acceptance or denial of these
constraints is a matter of his own existence or non-existence as a living
being, and that his choices and actions must take this into account if his
goal is to remain a living being. On the primacy of consciousness, however,
one's wishes or feelings (or those of one's social circle, or of the ruling
consciousness) hold metaphysical primacy over these constraints and needs,
and can appear and vanish according to conscious intentions.
_____________________________________________________
Aside from the missing ontology, I'm still interested in whether you all are
in general agreement or disagreement with the objectivist viewpoint outlined
here.
Essentially,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 16 2005 - 15:20:28 GMT