Objectivity of Mind

It is generally defined that an ‘objective’ fact is that which exists independent of mind. The correct meaning of this concept (ie., one that corresponds to reality), is: Existence of an objective fact doesn’t require any mind. Observe that it is mind that identifies the facts, and identification of a fact has no meaning without a mind to identify it. Independent of whose mind is perceiving the fact, when identified correctly, identity of the fact must remain the same.

There can be no confusion about the meaning of this concept, except on the grounds of evading the distinction between Existence and Consciousness. The evasion can be observed in how the meaning of ‘objective’ is conveyed: An objective fact is that which is identified without the use of mind.This distortion is used to conclude that: Since it is an individual’s mind that perceives any alleged fact, and since objectivity requires “absence of mind”, mind cannot perceive objective facts.

This conclusion is maintained by accepting a false premise: Words do not symbolise concepts that correspond to reality, they are meaningless sounds articulated by arbitrary will of the collective, and can be used without any meaning. This effectively renders language as a method of cognition, unreliable.

The reason for accepting false premises is non-objectivity of mind. In this article, I will present the meaning of Objectivity of Mind, and its corresponding relation with Rationality.

Objectivity is the voluntary choice of a man to form his conclusions and evaluations, exclusively from what he knows. To be objective, a man can neither disregard what he knows for a fact, nor can he take on faith, anything that he doesn’t know. ie., to be objective is to be contextually absolute: to neither allow any context-dropping, nor allow any concept-stealing.

Reason, which is Consciousness qua man’s reasoning faculty, is that which identifies and integrates the information that he perceives. It is through a process of reason, that man identifies and integrates his contextual observations into the entire body of his knowledge.

Reason neither works automatically, nor can it identify and integrate that which doesn’t exist. Reason can only identify and integrate, that which exists. This is due to a fundamental principle, which can be called Absolutism of Reality: Reality exists as an absolute. A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, in the same manner. Or, as Ms. Ayn Rand puts it, “You cannot have your cake and eat it too.”

In every instance of correctly identifying any A as A, and in the general proclamation of the universal law that A is A, implicit is the principle of absolutism of reality. That something exists as an absolute, and you are identifying it as such.

A contradiction is the result of an error made by man in the process of identifying that which exists. Contradictions as such do not exist in objective reality, because of its absolute nature. What can exist temporarily, ie., until a man voluntarily corrects himself, is his own error in identifying existence. If an individual misidentifies any A as non-A, he doesn’t alter the objective fact that A is A. He merely faces a contradiction when he attempts to integrate such false observation with his knowledge, which indicates that his identification was erroneous.

Rationality is the voluntary choice of a man to exercise his faculty of Reason. To be rational is to voluntarily identify existence, and integrate his observations into his entire knowledge, without contradiction. ie., to leave no part of his observations unintegrated with his entire knowledge. ie., to drop no context.

Now, to be Irrational means to attempt the impossible: to attempt the integration of non-existence with existence. ie., to fake reality and pretend that one has observed what he in fact, has not observed. Ie., to steal concepts that he has not formed himself. This is the process of claiming a false witness of reality, primarily to himself. To be irrational is to be non-objective.

Hence, Rationality is the method to preserve the objectivity of mind. An objective mind must be a rational mind.

– Avinash Kumar

23 September 2020.

You are what you are

If you are teaching what you know is false, you are a conscious cheat. If you are teaching what you do not know is false, you are an ignorant liar. If you have accepted another man’s word as truth, when its truth or falseness is not validated, you are a self-made victim, who has wilfully accepted suffering as a way of life.

All the suffering in this world is initiated by a few conscious cheats, propagated by thousands of ignorant liars, and accepted by billions of self-made victims.

If you have decided to cease to be a self-made victim, do not accept anything as knowledge, when it cannot be validated as truth. Check the validity of your premises: Statements that you have accepted as truth. If they contradict with any knowledge that can be validated as truth, your premises are false. Stop deriving your actions from false premises.

If you are an ignorant liar, you wouldn’t listen to anyone but your master: the conscious cheat. You have made yourself a slave to his teachings. I do not deal with slaves because they cannot take their own decisions.

If you are a conscious cheat, you know what I am, and what I am doing. You have the intelligence to understand that your game is up.

Avinash Kumar.

Problems of the World

All the problems plaguing the world today are in fact problems of Science. And all of them are completely solvable within a time span of few decades, by understanding the identities of existents, especially Man. First thing to grasp is the fundamental law of existence. The rule that makes all knowledge possible: A is A.

Atheistic nature of an Objectivist

An objectivist is an atheist. He doesn’t hold any irrational values, since reason is his primary, defining value, and the means of his survival in existence. He is an atheist because he understands that to believe in God is irrational.

Now, most people define God as someone who created the Universe. Careful examination of this statement will show its own self contradictory nature. Because, by definition, Universe is everything that exists. And Something/anything is always a part or subset of everything. Hence, the idea of that which is a part of everything has created everything is self contradictory. 

Now, an even irrational believer in God could argue that God doesn’t have any definition. But this is a still more obvious self contradictory statement. Because when you are saying that something doesn’t have a definition, you are confessing that it doesn’t have an identity or existence. Because anything that exists has an identity of its own, and it must be definable. A is A. That is the meaning and purpose of definition: A statement that specifically points out anything in existence, if it truly does exist. So, by confessing that God doesn’t have a definition a theist is accepting that God doesn’t have existence.

Now another theist rises up and claims, God is true because I and millions of others like me want to believe it to be true. This final statement is a theist’s confession of his own insanity. The truth or falseness of a claim has nothing to do with the number of people who believe that claim. It depends on objective validity of that claim. Just because you want to believe that a woman who has been raped hasn’t been raped, it doesn’t make it so. Just because you want to believe that you can fly like a bird when you jump off a cliff, doesn’t make it so. If you act on the premise that believing in something makes it true, you’ll destroy yourself, and possibly many others around you.

Millions of people have been killed all over the world just for being sane and  understanding that God doesn’t exist. And what is still more sad is the bloody conflict among different groups of people that fight over the superiority of their own particular non existing GOD.

Core of any conflict of interests is Irrationality. There are no conflicts of interests among rational men. Rational men do not resort to violence and kill each other. They reason with each other. No rational man in history had ever been able to massacre millions of men. It had always been made possible by manipulating the gullibility of the people to believe in some non-existent by an irrational man, guided by Philosophers of non-reason. You want objective proof? Massacre of Jews in Germany by Hitler, guided by philosophy of Will to Power by Nietzsche. Massacre of millions all over the world by leaders of commune, guided by philosophy of Communism, the political manifestation of Altruism, framed by philosophers acting on the premise: Death is the ultimate value. Still more reason to point out the objective necessity of a rational philosophy for man: Objectivism.

Avinash Kumar