Autonomist Article

If someone had not pointed this out to me, I would never have noticed it. I have no interest in what anyone says about me or attributes to me, personally. I'm an independent individualist, and what anyone else thinks or says about me is of no interest to me. This is not about me, but about an idea.

It is a bad idea that contradicts my entire philosophy, but was attributed to me here nevertheless. I'm only responding to this false attribution to eliminate any possible confusion for anyone interested in my philosophy. The false attribution is this: "If the mind is spiritual as Firehammer holds, then it spells a mind-body dichotomy and eventually primacy of consciousness."

For the record, which will not be necessary for anyone who knows what I've said, I do not hold and have never said or written that the mind is spiritual, because it is not.

As a matter of fact, both Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff are much stronger in their view that the mind and body (or mind and matter) are different things:

First a brief quote from Leonard Peikoff about Rand's view from, Objectivism:The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, "Chapter 1—Reality":

[Note: A Monist is one who holds there is ultimately only one thing or substance and would therefore deny that mind and physical matter are different, that is, one who rejects the mind-body dichotomy.]

"The monist insistence that, despite the observed facts, reality (or man) can have only one constituent, is groundless; it is an example of rewriting reality. The materialist equation of physics with science is equally groundless. ... "A philosophy that rejects the monism of idealism or materialism does not thereby become 'dualist.' ..."

And this from Rand's, The Journals of Ayn Rand, "14 - Notes While Writing Galt's Speech," "Mind and Body:"

"Man is an entity of mind and body, an indivisible union of two elements: of consciousness and matter. Matter is that which one perceives, consciousness is that which perceives it; your fundamental act of perception is an indivisible whole consisting of both; to deny, to [separate] or to equate them is to contradict the nature of your perception, to contradict the axiom of existence, to contradict your basic definitions and to invalidate whatever concepts you might attempt to hold thereafter.

"... "Just as life is the integrating element which organizes matter into a living cell, the element which distinguishes an organism from the unstructured mass of inorganic matter—so consciousness, an attribute of life, directs the actions of the organism to use, to shape, to realign matter for the purpose of maintaining its existence.

"That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, the life-keeper of your body. ..." [All emphasis mine.]

The following are comments I made elsewhere about Rand's view of consciousness and the mind:

If there is a weakness in Rand's presentation of her view, it is an ambiguity in her language, and possibly her conception of the distinction between the physical and mental.

She said, "Man is an entity of mind and body, an indivisible union of two elements: of consciousness and matter."

The confusion comes from her use of two words, "elements," and, "matter." The word "element" carries with it a connotation of a "thing" and it is very difficult to shake off the impression that if a body is a physical thing and mind is also a thing but not physical, it must be some other kind of thing (which truly would be classical dualism). This is obviously not Rand's intention. A better "term" might have been "aspects" or even "attributes" as, "Man is an entity ... an indivisible union of two attributes of existence, the physical (body) and the mental (mind). I think this is what Rand intended by the words, "an entity" ... "an indivisible union," not of two "things" but two attributes of one thing, man.

Rand used the word "matter" to refer to physical existence or existents, which is it's common meaning. In this case, however, "the physical" would have been better, and I think, philosophically, "matter" is better understood as all that exists independently of anyone's consciousness or knowledge of it. From that view, the material includes all the attributes of existence, including all physical attributes (which we know by direct perception) as well as the attributes, life, consciousness, and volition (which can only be known introspectively, subjectively, and conceptually, but cannot be directly perceived).

"If the mind is spiritual ... it spells a mind-body dichotomy and eventually primacy of consciousness.

There is a common theme among today's so-called Objectivist that "rejects" all sorts of dichotomies. There are certainly plenty of false dichotomies being pushed today, but they are not the sort Objectivists "object" to. To the author's credit, physicalism is strictly rejected, but he seems to be totally unaware of Rand's observation that "Man is an entity of mind and body, an indivisible union of two elements: of consciousness and matter. Matter is that which one perceives, consciousness is that which perceives it ..." Rand held, as I do, that mind (consciousness) and "matter" (that which we are conscious of) are not the same thing. While Rand seemed to think mind and matter were different things, I hold and have at length explained they are different attributes of the same material reality. I actually think the author of this piece was aiming at that conclusion, though it is a bit vague--I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

There is an almost mystic fear of dichotomies among some who are familiar with Rand's Objectivism, but obviously do not fully understand it. Rand never suggested there was no dichotomy between mind and the physical, or even between the mind and body; what there is not is any antagonism, contradiction, or disagreement between the mind and body, so long as one's mind is used rationally.

I've addressed these false ideas about dichotomies before. These notes deal specifically with the so-called "reason/passion" dichotomy, (which has been used by certain pseudo-Objectivists to put over various forms of hedonism), but the principles hold for all so-called dichotomies.

There is a mistaken philosophical view that denies what it calls a "reason/passion dichotomy." The basis of this is a misinterpretation of the Objectivist rejection of the soul-body dichotomy, as described in For the New Intellectual and elsewhere. For example:

"The New Intellectual...will...discard the soul-body dichotomy. He will discard its irrational conflicts and contradictions, such as: mind versus heart, thought versus action, reality versus desire, the practical versus the moral. He will be an integrated man." [Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual]

The Objectivist rejection of the dichotomy does not mean an obliteration of the differences. The Objectivist rejection of all such dichotomies is in opposition to those philosophies that make the differences between these things irreconcilable and contradictory. It is not a denial of the differences.

To simply reject any dichotomy between reason and passion (or mind and body) is like denying any dichotomy between hands and eyes. The hands and eyes are different things but we can learn to coordinate their behavior. Reason and passion are different things, but we can learn to integrate their function. The proper coordination and integration between reason and passion cannot be achieved simply by denying there is any difference or "dichotomy" between them; it can only be achieved by identifying the differences and integrating their function objectively.

Ayn Rand describes the proper relationship between reason and passion (emotion) this way:

"An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others." ["Playboy's interview with Ayn Rand," pamphlet, page 6.]

All our emotional reactions are the result of what we are conscious of, what we know, understand, and value. It is reversing this process and attempting to make our knowledge, our understanding, and our values conform to our feelings that is the cause of all emotional instability and irrational behavior. Let me recast my quote of Ayn Rand above to explain:

"There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions— provided he observes their proper relationship. So long as he observes that, "proper relationship," his "emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed .... If a man takes his emotions," including his desires and passions," as the cause ... if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is ... condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others."

Usually I would not bother, but since this article falsely accuses me of holding a "spiritual" view of consciousness or mind, it seems appropriate to comment on the article itself, as a kind of, "consider the source," explanation.

"Free will doesn’t exist outside of the human mind and the human mind is not a product of a biochemical or some mysterious sub-particle process, it’s neither physical nor “spiritual” but an entity on its own."

Assuming that, by "free will," he means volition, I agree that it is neither physical, or spiritual; but it is not an entity either. If volition were an entity, and is not physical, its existence would be independent of the physical which introduces exactly the kind of duality, the very mind/body dichotomy, he seems to be arguing against.

Volition is not an entity, it is an attribute: volition is an attribute of an organism, just as life and consciousness are attributes of organisms.

He seems to have fallen into the same trap Rand and Peikoff did. They know that consciousness and volition cannot be physical, but in attempting to say what they are if they are not physical, resort to calling them "elements" (as Rand did) or "entities" (as this writer does), which both imply some other kind of non-physical existence—which sounds suspiciously like spirit (or since the physical is usually equated with the natural, non-physical would be supernatural) to me. This cannot be what either Rand or this author intended.

The mistake is in assuming that mind or volition are things. The mind, or consciousness, is an attribute of all higher animals, but more precisely it is an attribute of matter that distinguishes or differentiates between living organisms that are conscious (animals), and those that are merely living (like plants).

The solution is one I've delineated many times at length, especially in my ontology. Briefly, the physical attributes or properties of matter are a subset of all possible properties of matter, and those properties are hierarchical. All material existents have physical properties. The physical properties of are those properties of material existence we can be directly conscious of, that is, we perceive. Some material existents have the property life as well as all the physical properties; existents with the property life are organisms. Some organisms have the property consciousness, such as all higher animals and man. Some conscious organisms have the property volition, that is, human beings.

The mistake Rand and others made is attempting to explain the aspects of living organisms that cannot be physical while accepting the physicalist's view, that the physical (and therefor physical properties) is all there is. While everything must have physical properties to exist, the physical properties are not all the properties material existence is capable of having. The sciences are limited to studying the physical properties (which the other properties—life, consciousness, and volition cannot violate and depend on) because only the physical properties can be directly perceived and demonstrated.

"When we understand how a conglomerate of organic molecules started to act toward their self-preservation and self-improvement we’ll understand the origin of life.

"During billions years of evolution these mechanisms had developed into the phenomena which we call awareness or consciousness. The whole process of evolution can be explained in terms of gradually increasing levels of awareness-better awareness provides the organism with better tools of survival."

It has always amused me the Objectivists have so easily accepted at least two of today's orthodoxies, psychology and evolution. I'm in the process of addressing psychology elsewhere, but this tacit assumption of evolution is simply amazing.

It might be because Objectivists have bought into the false view that the only alternative to evolution is creationism (or "intelligent design"). Neither creationism or evolution can be accepted, and unless some radical new approach or discoveries are made with regard to evolution, in it's current form, it is a religion itself, not a science.

Like all religions, there are as many different "evolutionary" explanations as there are evolutionists, and just as I say about religion, if any of the explanations is correct, all the rest have to be wrong--but I suspect they are all wrong.

There are heaps of problems with every version of evolution, but there is one very knotty problem with it for Objectivists—it contradicts one of Objectivism primary ideas, which this writer, himself, alluded to: "life is a self-generated and self-sustained process."

This does not mean that life creates itself ex nihilo, on the contrary it is a rejection of abiogenesis, the spontaneous generation of life from non-living sources. In other words, life always comes from life, it generates and sustains itself.

One cannot consistently hold that life, billions years ago, just started up, and that life only comes from life—one either rejects the objectivist view that life is self-generating and self-sustaining (what does not exist cannot generate anything, much less itself) or rejects evolution, in all its current flavors.

So how does this author know, "During billions years of evolution these mechanisms had developed into the phenomena which we call awareness or consciousness?" Isn't that faith? He has nothing but the words of the priests of evolution to base it on. And how did these "mechanisms" develop into awareness? Somehow! Or as Rand would say, "Blank out."