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.

Theories and Concepts

A Theory is an abstract structure of non-contradictory statements based on an assumption. Its purpose is to explain a fact of existence, or to make a calculated prediction about a future event, or to create a new structure from other existents, that has no existence of its own, till then. For example, Theory of Relativity was used to predict the motion of the planet mercury. Theory of GOD was used to create caste system which was in turn used to maintain inequality of men before the establishment of the days past.

The assumption, which is the first statement of the theory being stated, can be a reasonable one, ie., which does not contradict the known facts of existence: like in the case of theories of physical sciences. Or a blatant contradiction of the fundamental laws of existence, especially the law of identity: like in the case of the theory of God (Refer my previous article, “Atheistic nature of an objectivist”). If the assumption contradicts existence, the assumption is false, so must be the entire theory built on it.

Validity of a theory is judged by its conformity to knowledge. And all valid knowledge exists in terms of concepts, the integrations of facts of existence. A concept can be an integration of either previously defined concepts, or it can be an integration of percepts: the data directly gathered by the senses, and processed by the consciousness.

Hence a concept cannot be formed by integrating non-existents, since that which doesn’t exist cannot have characteristics(let alone defining characteristics), and no definition can be framed to describe it.

The goal of sciences is to establish and further the knowledge by means of concepts. It is done by collecting and subsuming the evidence into a defined concept, and only when that cannot be done, develop a new theory by making a reasonable assumption to explain the collected evidence, with an understanding that a new definition(a new concept) will be framed in the future, which makes the assumption, and the associated theory, redundant. Till the day a concept is defined and integrated into the entire knowledge by a human consciousness, it must be cautiously observed to never accept the theories as concepts. Theories are what they are: reasonable(or contradictory) assumptions. Concepts are valid knowledge.

Root of human suffering lies in trying to counterfeit science. ie., creating and propagating false theories as concepts and accepting the associated false assumptions as facts of existence. The creation part is done by conscious cheats, propagation is done by ignorant liars, and this entire business is silently accepted by billions of sufferers.(Refer my previous article: “You are what you are”).

The trick to rule over men is to make them accept the false theories as concepts, particularly and especially in two major fields of science: Economics and Politics. The typical bright student anywhere in the world will readily find these two sciences nonsensical and boring right from the beginning in majority of the countries, and in majority of the countries these fields are not considered sciences at all. This is not happening by accident.

Popular economic and political theories taught in the university classrooms are devised ambiguously, by purpose, and PhDs being awarded are to those who are the most dissociated from existence, by purpose. To create the so called “experts” of Economics and Politics that will make the masses accept: that the only way to lead lives is to maintain the status-quo, or to not deviate too much; that suffering is eventual to anyone and must be accepted by everyone at some scale, irrespective of any crime being necessarily committed; that it is the purpose of the Government to offer free services to the non-productive at the expense of the productive; that Man’s authentic rights, especially his right to his own property are not necessarily valid all the time; that the new rights being conferred by the constitution of the country can sometimes “acceptably” contradict the Man’s right to his own life.

An objectivist will never betray the law of identity, and every theory he is being thrown at, he will, independent of others, verify its truth or falseness by means of valid concepts, ie., with existence as the standard. He can’t be made to lie that A is not A. He can’t be made to conform to anything less than a completely free society, where authentic individual rights are absolutely respected.

Avinash Kumar