Chapter 2

Index | Parent Index | Build Freedom: Archive

Flame War Justice

Chapter 2

Objectivists' Challenges to Neo-Tech

Alt.philosophy.objectivism

In article <4915d4$gru@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU, mstachow@athena.mit.edu (Maciej Stachowiak) wrote:

In article <48u14p$1dc_002@netcom.com, nickrich@netcom.com (Nicholas Rich)

This is just the sort of go-nowhere, meaningless minutia and distinction that's so aggravating in these discussions. This is a bad comparison.

What is a pyramid, in this context, but a 3-dimensional "jigsaw puzzle?"

Challenge

The distinction is very important. A jigsaw puzzle all lies on the same layer, and you can't really tell if it's fitting together or not from the beginning. Indeed, you can have doubts until it is completely done. The key difference in my pyramid analogy is that it is hierarchical; you can look at layer by layer, and validate each layer, one at a time. I am afraid that the presentation of Neo-Tech has been far more like a jigsaw puzzle than a pyramid. I have seen no hierarchy. I have seen no solid foundation, and no building on that foundation.

Response

It is useless to continue this part of the discussion. We've been reduced to arguing about analogies, neither of which are real. The analogies are simply abstractions which help us to identify reality, but are not real in themselves.

Furthermore, it is impossible (at least for me) with time constraints to present an entire hierarchical picture of NT from the ground up. At the same time, I am here and available to aid and clarify anyone's understanding as they attempt to explore what NT is all about.

So, if it looks like I've presented a bunch of disjointed puzzle pieces, that's because it's what I've done. I'm the first to admit that my postings are limited in context and do not take everything into account at all times. What I can do is to show how certain pieces connect to other certain pieces. But I can't possibly show how the piece relates to the whole in complete context.

He could have just as easily said "a tall building." Now, if you look at all the components separately, it's difficult to tell what the structure is going to be. And looking at the hole in the ground which serves as the foundation isn't going to be a lot of help either. But once the structure begins its upward climb, it becomes easier and easier to visualize and understand the entirety.

Challenge

No, looking at the foundation helps a lot. If we examine it, we can tell if the building at least has a chance of standing. Each layer must still rest solidly on the last. Realize, of course, that analogies can be abused, but I thought TF's was far more egregiously wrong than mine is.

Response

It doesn't really help to argue this. Yes, for a philosophy, the foundation must be sound, and we can examine it. More importantly, we can derive the philosophy from the foundational premises alone. A building is different. You can't picture the form of the building solely from examining the foundation.

Again, we're diverging significantly from reality. Analogies only go so far.

Apparently, as is the danger in using analogies, people often take them too concretely.

BTW, Oism is NT's foundation

Challenge

That's a very nice assertion. So show me the first layer of NT above Objectivism, which you have implied the existence of by this post. What is the core set of Neo-Tech ideas that supposedly can be validated with reference only to Objectivism, NT's supposed foundation, and not any other layers of the philosophy?

Response

What you need to understand about NT is that it does not purport to be a philosophy, per se, but rather wide-scope, business-mode applications of Objectivist principles.

Therefore, what one needs to do is to examine each technique and application and decide whether it's valid with respect to Objectivist principle. Perhaps the best and first place to start is with the 114 Advantages from The Neo-Tech/Zonpower Discovery (700+ pages and not online). These are all real-world applications of Oist principles. Interestingly, when I first began reading Rand, I could clearly see the Oist principles underlying the 114 Advantages which I had learned from NT. That gave me a deeper understanding of objectivism.

Challenge

Maciej Stachowiak (mstachow@athena.mit.edu) wrote:

Response

Oh, this is so absurd.

The solid foundation is OBJECTIVISM.

If you want to argue the analogy of the jigsaw puzzle vs. the analogy of the pyramid into the ground, you care less about the value of time and of intellectual conversation than you claim to.

Challenge

No, looking at the foundation helps a lot. If we examine it, we can tell if the building at least has a chance of standing. Each layer must still rest solidly on the last. K realize, of course, that analogies can be abused, but I thought TF's was far more egregiously wrong than mine is.

Response

Everything in NT/Z (that I've seen) rests extremely solidly on its foundations, and everything is consistent with itself and reality.

But it will cost you some effort to see this.

And here we lose you, because of your feet being tied to concepts that are mismatched to the topic at hand.

NT is not building philosophically upon Objectivism. Objectivism *is* NT's philosophy. NT merely APPLIES Objectivism, and makes the further identification that consciousness is the controlling force of existence.

Challenge

Well, the reason I take this stance is that as far as I have seen, TF's analogy in fact does correctly describe NT. You are welcome to try to demonstrate otherwise.

Response

In the context in which it's presented, the analogy works. In your distortion of the context in which it's presented it doesn't.

Surprise, surprise.

Challenge

I'm confused now. I thought you were supposed to be the "bad cop" (you've dismissed me with templates in the past) and TF the "good cop" (who takes a more accommodating stance). Now you guys are switching. How am I supposed to understand anyone's views here if you are not only inconsistent with each other, but with yourselves?

Response

By referring to the source as the only valid answer to your questions.

A lurker sent me a private e-mail with a great analogy, and they were right on with the identification. It's like trying to see a jigsaw puzzle by focusing on the individual pieces. You will never be able to see the who image, and you will never be able see that it's worth your time to pursue the image, by focusing on the individual pieces.

Challenge

Maciej Stachowiak (mstachow@athena.mit.edu) wrote:

This is a bad analogy. Good philosophy is not like a jigsaw puzzle, it is like a pyramid of blocks, which each level resting on the next below. The main problem I have with NT is that it is presented as a jigsaw puzzle, with no attempt to lay it out hierarchically. You can see whether a pyramid has a chance of being a sound structure just by looking at the foundation. You don't have to pursue it all to see how it works. If NT is not built like this, then I don't have the time to try to find out if it all fits together. If no one can show me the foundation, I will assume there is none.

Response

But it is hierarchically reached. But several different scientific and philosophic hierarchies are integrated simultaneously to form the complete picture that is the jigsaw puzzle.

The philosophical foundation is Objectivism. The foundation for its conclusions about consciousness and its evolution are from the work of Julain Jaynes.

If you assume there is no foundation because no one can show you one, you are making an unwarranted conclusion

Challenge

Again, I agree that I shouldn't waste my time on a philosophy that is a jigsaw puzzle rather than a pyramid. Give me a hierarchy, not a disconnected (or over-connected) jumble

Response

Fine. But don't deceive yourself and others into believing that you're objectively and rationally seeking honest reality.

There is no disconnection in NT/Z. In fact, literally EVERYTHING in it is consistent with everything else, and everything is connected.

Challenge

I have never seen anything along the lines of a proof that there is no force that existence other than consciousness. Of course, I am giving you a large benefit of the doubt on your phrasing here, by making the assumption that what you really mean is, "Conscious minds can affect existence through physical action in accordance with the laws of nature." Nonetheless, each existent has a particular nature and acts in accordance with that nature, regardless of whether there is any consciousness at all. Are you denying that there could be existence without consciousness?

Response

There cannot be consciousness without existence.

And, take the nature of consciousness...what it is, what it necessarily does... and extrapolate. You will necessarily arrive at the conclusion (if you take it that far) that consciousness is the controlling force of existence.

Challenge

You have, and now you make me doubt that your ideas even deserve defending, with your talk of "jigsaw puzzles." I see you deleted your remarks about Objectivism being axiomatic. Backing off on that, too?

Response

Nope. In the context in which I presented the idea, Objectivism *is* axiomatic. Nick's response was his own, and was taken from the perspective of the anticivilization. My context is from the perspective of the Civilization of the Universe.

In context, the jigsaw puzzle analogy is an excellent one.

Challenge

In article <48rjfa$e23@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, mstachow@athena.mit.edu (Maciej Stachowiak) wrote:

What I was asking here was, are there any concretes subsumed under the concept "Neothink" which are not also subsumed under the concept "reason" ? The answer appears to be no. And since apparently not every form of reason is "Neothink," this means that reason is a broader concept than "Neothink." Assuming, of course, that "Neothink" is reason at all, and I have not been convinced of this yet. (Nor, frankly, do I expect to be.)

Response

Let me see if I can put this into different terms to aid your understanding.

Think of Neothink as reason which operates in business-mode here on Earth. Now, expanding the perspective, think of it as business-mode Zonpower operating in the context of existence as a whole.

To elaborate, let me discuss what I mean by "business-mode reason." Essentially, it is eliminating all that is not essential in the context of value production (recall that values are required for man's survival).

For example, one who spends great amounts of valuable time on apo arguing minutia about Objectivism is exercising reason in the strict sense of the word. He is identifying facts of reality and integrating them accordingly within the context of the discussion. Business-mode reason (neothink) always focuses on the larger context of value production (man's survival and happiness). So, whereas he could be exercising reason, strictly speaking, within the confines of the context of arguing minutia, his business-mode thinking prevents him from doing so because it would be a net drain on overall value production of the type required for survival and happiness.

Stated another way neothink is what keeps you using reason in a red-to-black mode, in a continuous, never-ending improvement process - as all businesses must do to remain viable. Neothink is applying reason to every facet of your life so as to keep you in a continuously improving mode.

These are elements which are not necessarily implicit in the concept of reason, but are implicit in the concept of neothink.

Now, take it a step further and filter all of the above through the Zonpower identification, conscious control of existence.

Test it out. Make a list of each task that you perform in a space of two hours.

Now, stop and deeply consider each one from the perspective of business and continuous improvement. Then, consider each one from the perspective that consciousness is the primary controlling power of existence. See what you come up with.

Now, lest you wish to argue that I'm mixing ethics and epistemology, consider that neothink follows from the identification that business is the essence of metaphysics.

Challenge

Maciej Stachowiak (mstachow@athena.mit.edu) wrote:

Well, you've made some attempt to answer, so I'll respond at least this one time. When people discuss the big picture, you say they must look at the parts. When they discuss the parts, you say they must look at the big picture. This makes it impossible to attack your position in any way regardless of whether it is true or not. Such ideas make it impossible to reason.

Response

People "discuss" the big picture without any understanding of it. Hardly a discussion. Show me ANYONE who has attempted to discuss the big picture of Neo-Tech.

Nobody is willing to invest the time to understand it, let alone attempt an honest discussion of it.

You dismissal is negated by that fact of reality.

Challenge

You have still ducked the question. Either Neothink is a form of reason, or it is irrational. Which is it? One or the other. Yes or no. This is such a simple question, and no one has answered it yet.

Response

I have answered it already. You don't like the answer.

Neothink cannot be performed without reason, and reason is a necessary (indeed, axiomatic) aspect of it. That you claim that they are at odds with each other is a strawman of your own creation.

Neothink is Neo-Tech's epistemology. That is the context of the discussion, and that is the point from which I am writing.

Challenge

You have just dodged the question again. Regardless of what "business" is taken to mean (and you will note I didn't use any specific meaning in my post), it cannot be a wider integration than reality because reality is all there is. Reality is the widest of possible integrations. Some process of controlling aspects of reality cannot be a wider integration than reality itself. So once again, I ask you, is "business" (in the NT sense) a part of reality, or does it contain things that reality does not? One or the other. These are the only possible choices. You are welcome to dance around and explain it all you want, but first give a straight answer.

Response

Business is the means of controlling reality. It is not at odds with reality. It does not "contain things that reality does not". Where do you get these ideas? Why do you throw up these discussion-confusing things? We have never claimed it. We have never argued it. Yet you attribute it to us. Why?

Challenge

I just showed two ways in which Neo-Tech is incompatible with Objectivism. From the Objectivist's perspective, prior to having learned what the NT identification is.

Perspective is irrelevant. Nowhere did I use anything about the term "business" (in the NT sense) in proving that it is either mystical or a subset of reality, and the only fact I used about Neothink in proving that it is either a form of reason or irrational was the claim of NTers themselves that it is a form of thought.

Response

Who made this claim? Neothink is a way of using your mind, a way of thinking, whereby you integrate clusters of information to control your life.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism

From: think1st@netcom.com (THINKfirst!)

Subject: Re: Neo-tech: ignore it

Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 18:47:43 GMT

You want the big picture, but you're not willing to take the time to see each of the pieces that MAKES the big picture. You CAN'T see the big picture without seeing its component parts.

Challenge

Maciej Stachowiak (mstachow@athena.mit.edu) wrote:

But wouldn't it be out of context to just look at the parts? I too am ready to duck out, since no one has answered any of my arguments. I will ask one final time :

Response

It *is* out of context to look at just the component parts. But that is what you're doing! You need to understand that there is a big picture, and that EACH of the component parts makes the big picture WORK. If you just look at the big picture, you miss the component parts. If you just look at the component parts, you miss the big picture.

Neo-Tech fully INTEGRATED honesty. It is honesty from the widest context available. But it is still honesty, and all objective, reasonable, logical, honest standards apply.

Look at your question below. You want to fully understand a component part. But you refuse to even consider the whole

Challenge

Does Neothink include anything that reason does not? Since reason includes all forms of applying logic (the art of noncontradictory identification) to the facts of reality, then if the answer to the above question is yes, then Neo-Tech is irrational. If no, then Neo-Tech claims that it is a wider integration than reason are a lie. Which is it? You lose either way, and I've seen no coherent answer.

Response

Reason is a necessary component of Neothink. Neothink takes reason as axiomatic and self-obvious. Neothink is not a replacement for reason. Reason is the foundation. Neothink is the integrating of clusters of reasoned information.

Challenge

How can "business" be a "wider integration" than reality, since reality includes everything that exists, and is therefore the widest possible integration? Any integration that includes things other than reality is mysticism.

Response

Business assumes reality as axiomatic and self-obvious, from the wider perspective of the Neo-Tech integration. "Business", in the sense that you're using it, is commerce, trade, profit-seeking through value exchange.

But as Neo-Tech uses the word "business", it is already taking the whole of Objectivism as axiomatic and self-obvious. It has already made the wider integration that conscious beings are the controllers of existence. (This, by the way, is integration you ignore in your quest to understand how business can be a wider integration than reality. But it is a necessary contextual point. You cannot answer your question without considering the wider context of consciousness being the controlling force of existence, because THAT is the context in which the statement is MADE.)

I wish I could give you a better analogy to make this more clear. Business, within the context of Objectivism, is a wide-scope identification. But with the wider identification that Neo-Tech has made (consciousness being the controlling force of existence), business takes on a different context and perspective.

Challenge

I just showed two ways in which Neo-Tech is incompatible with Objectivism.

In the first case, it is either irrational or it lies. In the second case, it is either mystical or lies. Just because Neo-Tech claims to be compatible with

Objectivism doesn't mean that it is. This one last argument I could not stand to leave unanswered. But if my two arguments above remain unanswered, I will feel not at all uncomfortable about ducking out here.

Response

Everything you're saying is valid from the perspective of Objectivism. This is why we keep having these clashes with you. But the misunderstanding comes merely from ignorance of the integration that Neo-Tech is.

When the authors of the Neo-Tech/Zonpower material write something on the websites, they are writing from the perspective of Neo-Tech. They are writing from the perspective of having MADE the integration... seeing it, knowing what it is and what it is not.

When you READ the material, you are reading it from the perspective of Objectivism. It is not a valid position from which to judge the material, because your position has not made the identification that is already implied in the material.

You're looking for a way that Neo-Tech violates Objectivist tenets. It does not. Neothink does not undercut or circumvent or otherwise ignore reason. It already accepts it as self-obvious.

The WHOLE of Neo-Tech accepts the WHOLE of Objectivism as self-obvious and axiomatic.

Look at my .sig. Do you know what that is? That is Objectivism, in 13 words. THERE IS NO OTHER VALID PHILOSOPHY than Objectivism, and it can be reduced to these 13 words. And these words, upon integration of Neo-Tech become self-obvious, redundant. The very fact of existence makes this axiomatic.

Take it from there.

You continue to read Neo-Tech/Zonpower material from the perspective that Neo‑Tech/Zonpower is offering a competing philosophy, or offering new and conflicting ideas. And as long as you read it from that prejudiced perspective, you will NEVER see what is really there. Because you're not considering it objectively.

Consider for a moment that Objectivism is self-evident, obvious, axiomatic (which it *is*, once you make the integration that consciousness is the controlling force of existence). It is reality. Necessarily.

Where to from here? What does that mean? What does it imply? What are the ramifications of that?

It's is SO frustrating to me that people like Betsy and Brad and others ignore and reject Neo-Tech. It is infuriatingly frustrating. Have you ever had a non-Objectivist reject your notions out-of-hand without giving any real thought to them? Since it doesn't fit into their mold, they just dismiss you. And it drives me crazy, because they don't even see what they're doing to themselves.

Whether or not you make the Neo-Tech integration is up to you. It's your life and you have to live it the way you see fit. But it's just such a shame that you'll allow yourself to get the wrong idea, because you're trying to fit bigger ideas into a smaller box. Neothink does not fit into Objectivism. It can't. It takes Objectivism as self-obvious. It can't be a part of it.

No Neo-Tech person is arguing Objectivism. If we never brought the topic of Neo-Tech up with you, and found long-winded ways of saying the things we're saying, you would consider us to be great Objectivists. (I know this because I spent time on CompuServe forums talking about these ideas before coming here. I never talked about Neo-Tech, and had several people complimenting my clarity.) If you start from the perspective that we disagree, you are limiting the potential scope of the discussion. And we'll never be able to express ourselves.

We agree with Objectivism in its entirety.

I, for one, am stunned by Ayn Rand's clarity of mind and the power of her works. Without it, the integrations of Neo-Tech could never have been made.

Well, I've started rambling. The point is that in order to understand Neothink, you must think about it from the integrated perspective of consciousness as the controlling force of existence through the application of fully integrated honesty. Neothink makes no sense if considered from the earth-bound, narrow view perspective. It sounds mystical. And you start comparing it with reason (which is a senseless comparison).

You need the context in which it is presented in order to consider it accurately. Shy of that, you will always consider it mystical, and at odds with Objectivism. But you will be wrong. And reality will be the final arbiter to tell you so.

Date: Tue, 05 Sep 95 03:49:33 GMT

Sender: think1st@netcom15.netcom.com

Challenge

Jeffrey Haber (haber001@gold.tc.umn.edu) wrote:

That a Neo-Techer would present the philosophy by beginning with a jumble of out-of-context definitions demonstrates part of what's wrong with Neo-Tech--it doesn't have a rational Epistemology.

If Neo-Tech were a rational philosophy, it would hold that knowledge is both contextual and hierarchical and present itself in that fashion. A proper presentation would begin with a brief overview of the metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics of the philosophy.

Response

Err... Neo-Tech does hold that knowledge is both contextual and hierarchical. You presume to understand the complete context and hierarchy of it from reading a few posts.

Here's the initial hierarchical point:

Objectivism is the only 100% valid philosophy. Everything in Neo-Tech holds that as its context. If you read something as being in violation of that context (and therefore, being contradictory) you need to check your premises.

Challenge

Zon is an invalid concept. It is nonsensical. I really can't refute it since I'm having difficulty finding a definition for it. Perhaps what is meant here by Zon is "ideal world", but it would be much more useful to just use the term "ideal world". The concept "Zon" is so badly defined and unwarranted that it's an irrational concept--how can anyone make use of it?

Response

Context. You omit context, and actually hope to understand it.

Challenge

So--someone who fully adheres to Neo-Tech, consistently, will have "Zonpower"? THIS IS SUBJECTIVISM!!! The notion that someone can have the "power to control existence" is out and out subjectivism.

Response

You've dropped all context.

Challenge

It suggests that consciousness is primary to existence and that by being a consistent Neo‑Techer, practicing "fully integrated honesty", and thus gaining Zonpower one will magically have the power to control existence--that means--to control all that exists--omnipotence.

Response

Primacy of existence. Always. Your attack is out of ignorance alone.

Challenge

New techniques? New technology? How's that? Are you suggesting that the philosophy itself creates physical values?

Response

Why not consult the source?

Challenge

Anticivilization--OK, I can deal with that definition. Neo-Tech has it wrong by saying the essence of anticivilization is dishonesty. Bad epistemology is.

Response

From the more limited perspective, maybe. Actually, irrationality is the essence of the anticivilization.

Challenge

Why not just use the term "Ideal Universe"?

Response

Because Civilization of the Universe is not some utopian ideal. Don't try to change the name of an identification without understanding what's being identified.

Challenge

Not all parasites are elite.

Response

Err... duh. "Parasitical elite" refers to...(you guessed it!)... the ELITE of the parasite class.

Challenge

"Wide-scope accounting of Neo-Tech"?

Response

Yup. It's wider than the wide-scope accounting of Objectivism. And that's why a.p.o "Objectivists" have such a hard time with it.

Challenge

Instead of "Neocheating", why not just use the words "Stealing" and "Committing fraud"?

Response

Because those words don't encompass that which is being identified by the concept of neocheating. Bill Clinton is a neocheater. A common thief is not.

Challenge

A "subjective law" in a political context doesn't necessarily mean a law that is immoral, just a law that is so ill-defined that it cannot be interpreted objectively, if at all. It will be given better definition by a politician or a judge when the issue arises in a committee or court.

Response

You suffer from GroupThink (i.e., imagining that the collective is more powerful than you).

Challenge

Why is utilitarianism important to Neo-Tech? True, laissez-faire capitalism would benefit everyone who was rational, but as a secondary consequence. The emphasis that it would benefit everyone suggests that the Neo-Tech politics arises from collectivism and not individualism.

Response

If you would consider the wider perspective for a moment, you would see what would be YOUR OWN, PERSONAL benefit from a completely free society.

I want everyone to embrace rational, objective honesty for my OWN sake, not for their sake.

Challenge

What is Ego "Justice"?

Response

Ego "Justice" is the use of political-agenda laws to gain harmful livelihoods and feel false importance. Ego "justice" is the survival tool of many politicians, lawyers, and judges. Ego "justice" is the most pernicious form of neocheating. ...Parasitical elites thrive on subjective laws and ego "justice" to the harm of everyone else and society.

Challenge

Scrap this entire definition. The concepts "fascism" and "dictatorship" will do just as well if they are properly defined and evaluated.

Response

You'll only scrap it if you've dropped the context that brings us to it. You want to excise that which you don't understand. Too bad.

Challenge

What are Golden Helmets?

Response

Golden Helmets are all-revealing, wide-scope accounting tools that evolve naturally from the fully integrated honesty of Neo-Tech. Golden Helmets are the tools needed by businesspeople to generate limitless wealth for others and society. Golden Helmets are what economically control existence and will bring the Civilization of the Universe to planet Earth.

Challenge

What?!? What are these "tools"? Do you mean "means of production"? OK--these "tools" either have a concrete physical existence or they are useful concepts--which is it?

Response

A "Golden Helmet" is an entire concept that is at the top of a hierarchical chain. It as a tool integrates some physicalities and some concepts.

Challenge

This is another invalid, useless concept. In one concept we have "omniscient (all-revealing), wide-scope accounting tools that economically control existence".

First off--how is omniscience possible? Also--how does existence itself depend on economics?

Response

Omniscience is not possible. It's a mystical concept not applicable to reality. I believe *you* introduced it.

Existence does not depend on economics. I believe you also smuggled in this notion.

Challenge

Here's what I find most interesting. Somehow, magically, Golden Helmets will make it possible for businessmen to create limitless (infinite) wealth !?! And those wealth creators are doing so for the benefit of others (altruism and collectivism)? I suppose that the Neo-Tech "Civilization of the Universe" is, to borrow something Von Mises wrote and mentioned by a poster on a different subject, a "cloud-cuckoo-land where roast chickens fly into one's mouth."

Response

Your verdict is based on your misunderstanding of reality. Adhere to it all you wish. But it doesn't change reality.

Golden Helmets are not magical. The wealth they create is not infinite. Such notions are absurd.

And no person integrated with Golden Helmets could use one for collectivist, altruist purposes. Their entire effectiveness would be undermined.

Challenge

If Neo-Tech believes that there is a "power of consciousness...to control existence", then Neo-Tech is out and out Subjectivism.

Response

You are misinterpreting the words. You are using consciousness to mean one person, and existence to mean the whole of reality.

You are failing to use your mind, and reading your prejudices into the material in an effort to find what is not there.

Challenge

Intelligence is redefined by Neo-Tech as the range of integrated thinking.

Intelligence is the ability to gain and to use knowledge.

Response

The Neo-Tech definition subsumes your own. THINK first!

Challenge

"Integrated thinking" isn't a false definition, but it is unclear.

Response

You chose to ignore the hierarchy, and then you call it "unclear". Predictable ends considering your means.

Challenge

What!!! "Purpose of Existence"? This is Intrinsicism. Or does Neo-Tech mean "the purpose of one's existence is"? (In which case it should just say that.)

Response

If you would try reading what is being written, instead of inferring as much as your prejudiced subjectivism will allow, you might see what's really there.

Challenge

Notice that one of the purposes of existence is to expand happiness (for others I presume?). Also, Neo-Tech seems to emphasize the collective, that the purpose of someone's life should include creating values for others.

Response

Your presumption is wrong. Entirely.

Challenge

What!!! "To survive, we invented consciousness". This is totally inane. How can anything be :invented without consciousness? It's reminiscent of the fallacy of the stolen concept--in this case it uses what it creates as part of the means of creating it!

Response

Read the book THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS by Julian Jaynes (should be in your local library). Jaynes is NOT a Neo-Tech person. His book is objective and scientific, and makes this conclusion.

Challenge

(The rest is too disgusting and mushy for me to stomach analyzing.)

Response

We're so sorry for you.

Challenge

This is dishonest--to dishonor Henrik Ibsen, a British playwright, like this.

Response

You're absurd. Everything you're writing is based on the erroneous assumption (which is unfounded - note that everything "seems" like it's saying this, or "sounds" like it's meaning that) that Neo-Tech is contrary to Objectivism.

Neo-Tech recognizes Objectivism as the only 100% valid philosophy. START FROM HERE. THIS is the foundation upon which Neo-Tech builds. If something seems contradictory, check your premises.

Challenge

I thought that some elements of Neo-Tech might actually resemble some aspects of Objectivism. Perhaps, I thought, some of the politics and ethics might be similar.

Response

Identical, in fact.

Challenge

Having just gone through the definitions, I am convinced that there is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between Objectivism and Neo-Tech.

Response

You went through the definitions? Where? I'd like to see the post.

What you did in THIS post was apply a prejudiced SUBjective approach to material that you assumed to have a complete grasp of. You assumed an understanding of the entire context and hierarchy without ever having considered such things.

It's like saying you know that God exists, and setting out to prove it. You'll see things that aren't there.

The OBJECTIVIST approach is to say that you don't *know* if God exists, and seeing what your reasonable and logical investigations conclude with.

Challenge

I conclude that Neo-Tech is a philosophy of disintegrated irrationality and subjectivism.

Response

And your conclusion is entirely based upon your disintegrated, irrational, subjectivist approach to the matter.

Think about it, Jeffrey. THINK! THINK! THINK! THINK!

Read the definitions again, and start with the assumption that they already take for GRANTED that Objectivism is the only 100% valid philosophy. You will see a wider picture developing. You will see that what you interpret as subjective and irrational isn't any such thing.

Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech,alt.philosophy.objectivism

From: nickrich@netcom.com (Nicholas Rich)

Subject: Re: An appeal to Neo-Techers

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 03:05:17 GMT

Challenge

Jeffrey Haber <haber001@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:

Recently I have become interested in learning a little bit about the basic structure of Neo‑Tech since certain people have been claiming that Neo-Tech is philosophically consistent with Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, and based on what I can garner about Neo-Tech, it certainly is not.

I would like to hear the responses from some Neo-Techers to a few questions. I'm not looking for giant expository essays or references to extensive web pages, concise, to the point answers.

What is Neo-Tech's:

Metaphysics?

Response

Business. A wider, more dynamic mode than simply static reality. Of course, existence is primary and reality is what is.

Challenge

Epistemology?

Response

This would take some context building. Think of it as applying static reason/logic to a business mode. In other words, it's not only about taking in facts and identifying appropriately, it's about a never-ending struggle to seek out more and more facts at an ever increasing rate through the use of INTEGRATED THINKING. Integration is the key to building knowledge at an increasing rate of change.

Challenge

Ethics?

Response

Value Production. Selfishness, again, is somewhat static. Value Production, in the Neo‑Tech sense, is necessarily selfish or egoist. But value production is a wider, more dynamic model to living than is just selfishness. We all need values to survive. Being and recognizing selfishness is not enough.

Challenge

Politics?

Response

Free Competition. Capitalism is the license, freely competitive business modes are what's best done with the license. Notice that free competition subsumes capitalism.

Challenge

Esthetics?

Response

Value Reflection. Notice how all are wider, more dynamic and subsume ARs summaries.

Challenge

What exactly is "Zon", and what makes this concept valid?

Response

Zon is you. It's an expression meant to shed light on the supreme value of consciousness, and to differentiate it from any other sort of life. Only conceptually conscious life can attain "zonhood."

It derives from the word Zonpower, which is simply "the power to control existence through conscious, purposeful action within the framework of fully integrated honesty, business, and within the laws of nature."

Zon is someone with the ability to rule nature through honest use of the mind and actions within the laws of nature.

It's an expression of the ultimate in human achievement--godhood, in the real, non-mystical sense.

Challenge

Does Neo-Tech hold the belief that eternal life is possible at present?

Response

Neo-Tech holds the view that Commercial Biological Immortality is possible with the collapse of irrationality as a force in society. It requires knowledge and the elimination of value destruction within society.

Challenge

According to Neo-Tech, who/what is the final authority in ethics?

Response

Reality. That which is objectively good for an organism, within the standard of the real and observable is moral. That which is objectively bad is immoral.

Reality is the only and final arbiter.

Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech,alt.philosophy.objectivism

From: think1st@netcom.com (THINKfirst!)

Subject: Re: An appeal to Neo-Techers

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 04:13:56 GMT

Challenge

Maciej Stachowiak (mstachow@athena.mit.edu) wrote:

Smoking is not "mysticism." It may arguably be irrational, depending on context, but that is not the same thing. There are many forms of irrationality that are not mysticism. Furthermore, the original post I quoted mentioned philosophical and personal mysticisms. Where is objectivism Mystical? And finally, I really hope you are not asserting that the value of someone's work must be judged based on an evaluation of his moral character.

Response

Objectivism is not mystical. That is why it is 100% valid and completely consistent. Rand herself had a tendency to rationalize. But whether or not she had personal mysticisms does not invalidate any of her work in the slightest, except as she let it seep therein.

Challenge

I have trouble believing in the complete end of irrationality in any and all human beings

Response

Who asked anyone to "believe in" the complete end of irrationality? It will be achieved only via competitive dynamics, and by each individual's own personal choice to abandon all aspects of irrationality for his own sake.

Challenge

So, let me ask you specific questions.

1) Is there anything that is Neothink but not reason? If so, provide an example.

Zon.

2) Is there anything that is reason but not Neothink? If so, provide an example.

Response

Objectivism.

Challenge

I object. I have defended myself against destructive actions, but I have never done this by any means that are not plainly obvious from Objectivist principles. If Neo-Tech gives me nothing new, why should I buy the book? If it is just a new identification and nothing else, why should I want to read about it? I do just fine in life and have yet to find anything useful I can gain from it.

Response

Then don't bother. No one's forcing you, and I don't recall anyone *asking* you to read it.

Just don't reject and attack that which you admittedly haven't taken the time to understand. That's all.

Challenge

I'll look at the online document. I'm not buying the book unless someone can demonstrate to my satisfaction that it will be useful to me.

Response

Skepticism. Always a good sign.

Challenge

Yes, actually you have been a lot more informative than most Neo-Techers, and much more reasonable, too. I am glad that you do not just automatically dismiss anyone who questions your philosophy with that inane "Pip" template.

Response

Now it's my turn to object.

Since I first arrived on the newsgroup (a.p.o) over a year ago, I have been trying to rationally and reasonably explain and offer honest help. Whenever I met with legitimate requests for information (believe me, yours was not the first), I always responded as quickly as possible, and as thoroughly as possible.

The thing that has struck me about a.p.o is that everyone feeds on everyone else. There is actually very little individual thought, except when it comes to discussing the fiction. Everybody is really just repeating what they've heard or read from Rand's works.

The attack against Neo-Tech at first baffled me. It seemed so out of character for Objectivists (at least, what a real Objectivist was in my mind). Neo-Tech compliments Objectivism. It builds upon the foundations. Rand came along and said, "Here is man's only possible philosophy". And Neo-Tech said, "YES! And here's how we can *apply* it and take ourselves into the next evolutionary stage."

But a.p.o "Objectivists" don't want to go. They want to bask in themselves and pretend like they're accomplishing things by discussing the eighty different possible character variations in the novels of Rand. They want to make sure there's a distance between them and Libertarians. They want to make sure that their peers consider them worthy of being here in the elite.

What a crock.

If you think Objectivism is the be-all and end-all of human conscious thought, then you can sit right here on a.p.o and discuss until your eyes turn blue. Let the active among us get out there and accomplish something.

To me, the strength of Neo-Tech is found in its understanding of business dynamics in a way that a.p.o'ers and even plenty of offline "Objectivists" don't understand.

When all you can do is attack and ridicule, then you should figure out that you're in a hole. Neo-Tech doesn't attack Scientology. Why? Because it's too stupid to bother with. Who cares about it? In the big picture, it's laughably irrelevant.

And the fact is, if you think (even after taking a close look) that Neo-Tech is laughably irrelevant, why on earth would you waste your valuable time attacking and ridiculing it?

Think about it.

Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech,alt.philosophy.objectivism

From: nickrich@netcom.com (Nicholas Rich)

Subject: Re: An appeal to Neo-Techers

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 18:11:21 GMT

Challenge

Maciej Stachowiak (mstachow@athena.mit.edu) wrote:

Rationalizing and mysticism are not the same! You can't just use mysticism as a synonym for irrationality. Besides, what are the "general" mysticisms in Objectivism?

Response

Don't believe it's used that way. It is the mysticism *in* irrationality which leads people to rationalize. Rand's smoking is one example that she did sometimes rationalize. Hence, she had irrational tendencies as does everyone.

But big deal. The values she produced far outweigh any of her mysticisms we can identify--such as her rather vindictive, mean-spiritedness at times as documented by the Brandens in "Passion" and "Judgment".

It requires the integration that conscious beings are the controllers of existence. The nature of consciousness is to control existence to satisfy its needs and desires. Business is the voluntary exchange of values between individuals. Thus, control of existence (of all reality) is carried out through the dynamics of business. Business is the integration of reality, thinking, values, and life.

Challenge

I say again, is not business necessarily a part of reality? If not, it does not exist. If so, it is a narrower integration than reality. There can be no wider integration than "reality," because by definition reality is all there is.

Response

You are correct that reality qua reality, or existence, is the widest integration as it subsumes everything. However, it's a static integration and hence does not really tell us very much as far as living, prospering, achieving happiness.

What the Neo-Tech definitions seek to accomplish is to integrate the five philosophical branches into a dynamic whole. So, "metaphysics as business" is an identification which recognizes 100% the primacy of reality and then integrates it with epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics in order to achieve an integration which really shows a person what the *essence* of existence really is. The essence is not *just* reality. If Objectivism is a philosophy for conscious individuals to achieve Earthly happiness, then it needs to imply more than just reality. And it does, but not in the tightly integrated fashion that Neo-Tech does.

What Neo-Tech has done is to *generalize* the philosophy of Objectivism.

Challenge

I repeat :

1) Is there anything that is Neothink but not reason? If so, provide a concrete example.

2) Is there anything that is reason but not Neothink? If so, provide a concrete example.

Response

Neither. The distinction is that it follows as a dynamic integration of metaphysics as business. Reason and non-contradictory identification are essential. But they say nothing about where I should spend limited time in exercising these methods of identifying reality.

But if my metaphysics is business, then it follows that my epistemology needs to be something that exercises reason to fulfill the essence of existence. In other words, a constant movement from one state to another with a net gain in all that's good.

I could sit around in lazy fashion, know that I am sitting around doing nothing, and be perfectly consistent with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. However, the Neo‑Tech view of the same shows me that though I'm recognizing reality and am doing it through an exercise in reason, I'm not fulfilling the essence of being a human being, operating in business-modes and continually making wider and wider integrations with respect to that essence.

Challenge

Neo-Tech benefiting others is altruism.

Response

The notion that one can produce for others is not automatically altruist. In fact, you miss a very important integration if you cling to that erroneous idea.

See, since it is only through voluntary exchange of values that man prospers, you can only satisfy your self-interest (in business) by satisfying others -- producing for them. If you start a business solely to satisfy yourself, you will go broke very quickly. (It amazes me how few "Objectivists" are integrated with business.) If you start a business to satisfy others' wants or needs, you will accomplish your own self-interested desires.

Everything must always be done for rational self-interest. And value production (for others) is the way a conscious being satisfies that interest.

Challenge

If this is the Neo-Tech view, then Neo-Tech is in conflict with Objectivism. A business is not an out-of-context end in itself. It is a means towards gaining values for yourself. I know very well that man only prospers by voluntary exchange of values, but the production of values is a means to the end of prospering, not an end in itself. And there are requirements of rational self-interest that cannot be readily described as "value production." If you believe that the conclusion of ethics is "value production" without regard to the context, you are not an Objectivist.

Response

I addressed this clearly in my post where I quoted Roark. An individual's happiness for his own sake is *always* the end, for both Neo-Tech and for Objectivism. The difference is how you get there. Neo-Tech gives us a dynamic view of the essence of existence which shows that we get there by operating in business-modes, red-to-black, versus other black-to-red modes.

What is business? The essence, the essential defining characteristic: The Production of Values.

But everyone really seeks to avoid this in favor of effortless or little-effort modes to produce things which are supposed to be values because of not-objective and intrinsic criteria. Business is purposeful and focussed effort - always, or it is not properly called business.

Whereas, in the Objectivism vs Neo-Tech essential views of metaphysics and epistemology differ primarily in integration and dynamism, this one is actually wider. Value Production is the widest possible summary of ethics, subsumes self-interest, and logically integrates business, neothink, and free-competition.

What you're omitting is the static nature of the Randian contrasts, versus the dynamic nature of the Neo-Tech contrasts. They share ideals, but the latter enters the dynamic, active mode.

Challenge

I don't see why you think Rand's concepts are "static."

Response

I attempt to shed light on this above. "Reality" is static. What is, is. Business is dynamic. It integrates what-is-is with all that's necessary to control existence towards achieving the desired end--happiness.

From: smoke@cs.pitt.edu (Sheldon Smoker)

Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech.alt.philosophy.objectivism.talk.politics.libertarian

Subject: Re: An appeal to Neo-Techers

Date: 7 Nov 1995 15:59:21 GMT

This is a key point here. How many essays do we see on a.p.o that go beyond what Rand wrote into new territory? Not a whole lot.

But a.p.o "Objectivists" don't want to go. They want to bask in themselves and pretend like they're accomplishing things by discussing the eighty different possible charter variations in the novels of Rand. They want to make sure there's a distance between them and Libertarians. They want to make sure that their peers consider them worthy of being here in the elite.

Yup, its mostly just wimpish philosophizing.

Hey, don't forget the high school essay contest, I'm sure they bring in 1 or 2 objectivist a year.

To me, the strength of Neo-Tech is found in its understanding of business dynamics in a way that a.p.o'ers and even plenty of offline "Objectivists" don't understand.

Just think how many people (myself included) had not even heard about Ayn Rand or Objectivism until after they bought Neo-Tech. Neo-Tech introduces tens of thousands of people to Objectivism each year.

But, it is too threatening to most people's stake in the anti-civilization and all of their built-up rationalizations of how to "live" in our irrational world.

Once you understand how Neo-Tech/Zonpower is different from all other idea systems (in that it is fully integrated and leaves no room for personal laziness or mysticism, and that it identifies the twin evils of laziness and dishonesty), then you understand why people are threatened by it, and will always make out-of-context attacks against it. And the easiest parts to attack are the parts that require the *most context*. Just read the posts and you'll see what I mean.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.neo-tech

From: think1st@netcom.com (THINKfirst!)

Subject: Re: More Neo-Tech Anti-Epistemology

Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 04:03:27 GMT

Hmm. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

On what do you base this false assertion?

Challenge

James D. Ousey (jdousey@voicenet.com) wrote:

I arrived at this conclusion at my continued observation of how NT/ZP deals with objections to specific statements made by NT/ZP. A critic would argue that a NT/ZP statement implies a premise that is easily refuted; a NT/ZP apologist would counter by saying the statement was taken out of context.

Response

First off, NT/ZP advocates are here discussing with you. You'll need to point out references in the material if you want to make any claim that the material itself is easily refuted.

Please: What NT/ZP statement implies a premise that is easily refuted?

When a point is argued from the NT/Z perspective, the conclusions made by the whole of NT/Z are taken for granted -- not because we presuppose them, but because they have been demonstrated elsewhere.

Challenge

But the point is not that they have been demonstrated elsewhere, but how they have been arrived at. Every argument presupposes something, ultimately down to the axiom that existence exists. When an objection is raised against a statement, the only way it should be countered is directly, by showing how the objection errs, NT/ZP attempts to do this by stating that objector does not take something into account, but refuses to state explicitly what it is. The counter-argument given by NT/ZP is that the statement is taken out of context and that the critic had better read the 114 concepts. If an objector finds an axiomatic flaw, then there can be no context under which the flaw can be denied. Since I have never seen an NT/ZP apologist do this, nor recant a statement, I can only conclude NT/ZP context has the opposite meaning that it has for objective argumentation.

Response

You must be new here. I have done just that on more occasions than I care to count.

A whole integration has been made by NT/Z. That integration is that consciousness is the controlling force of existence. This is the context of the NT/Z position. It does not contain any flaws in the chain of reasoning. But when arguing specific points, it becomes extremely time-consuming to have to point out the intellectual hierarchy of the integration every time, just to show how the out-of-context specific fits into it.

It can be done, it's just a waste of time to do it, when you can read and integrate the material for yourself.

Challenge

I suppose its too much to ask for the Secret, since, after all, its secret. Still, sounds like its up there with the Oracle at Delphi. Pure mysticism.

Response

Cassandra's Secret is a metaphor, as you would be able to see from even a cursory glance at the material. But hey, if you want to claim that it's mysticism before you even know what it is (just because it "sounds like" something else that was mystical), go right ahead. But don't call yourself an Objectivist.

Challenge

If it's a metaphor, why is it framed as a secret? What good can a secret do in a rational argument? Under what context can bringing a secret into a rational argument actually prove anything? And, by the way, I haven't called myself an Objectivist, I'll let any reader who has seen NT advertisements posted here judge for themselves what I am.

Response

Your questions are misleading. It is not "framed as a secret". "Cassandra's Secret" is itself a metaphor. There's no secret; it's plain as day.

You're confusing the metaphor with reality. One gives us insight into the other. Keep the two distinct and separate.

Challenge

Let me put this another way: I don't care that you reverberate with some Objectivist ethics and politics. Your mode of arguing about the fundamentals of NT/ZP makes clear that epistemology is the underdeveloped branch of philosophy in NT/ZP. Since I am looking for a fully integrated approach to meaning, one that can bolster itself without having to jump to a net-site, I'll stick with an integrated philosophy.

Response

Look at yourself. Look at what you're saying. My "mode of arguing" makes it clear?? What I argue is irrelevant. You want second-hand knowledge. You want the integration without having to integrate it.

The reason I (or others) refer people to the website is not because I can't argue without the website. It's because IT'S ALL BEEN SAID ALREADY. Why should I waste so much time with you? Why should I hand write some response to you when it's all already up for your viewing? To satisfy your laziness?

The essence of Neo-Tech is honesty and effort. The essence of mysticism and neocheating is hidden dishonesty and laziness.

Challenge

The essence of Objectivism is respect for the truth.

Response

Which is necessarily implied by NT, since NT embraces Objectivism as the only 100% valid philosophy.

Challenge

I see a cascade effect. NT embraces Objectivism to arrive at ethics and politics, which are then taken as "solved". It then goes on to try and replace the epistemology in order to make a mass-market philosophy with Objectivist-style ethics and politics as the goal. The irony is that in doing so, it promotes an ethics of honesty rather than integrity (which would imply truth), and a politics of collectivist individualism (ie, one should think in the new way).

Response

Well, you've seen what you wanted to see.

If you have a beef with Objectivism, study it to reconcile the beef. As far as NT is concerned, Objectivism is 100% valid. NT doesn't try to replace the epistemology; it simply expands it to make it dynamic.

Honesty and integrity cannot be mutually exclusive. One cannot maintain honesty and discard integrity. And integrity cannot be had without honesty. Being honest is how one ACHIEVES integrity.

You see truth and honesty as opposites. They are not. They are cousins. One is manipulatable and one is not. NT doesn't reject truth. It embraces honesty. For, without honesty, one cannot achieve integrity.

Challenge

No, and thank you for demonstrating NT/ZP's anti-epistemology. I am identifying when an objection is raised, NT/ZP claims that the critic is distorting NT/ZP. NT/ZP bows out of proof with appeals to context, and it bows out of providing the context with pointers to other net-sites. If one can't argue one's statements for oneself, then one should take extreme caution when making them. But NT/ZP does not take extreme caution when making statements, or else it wouldn't be talking about "secrets" etc.

Response

This is laughably ridiculous. What you're saying is that it's okay to take something out of context, attribute it WRONGLY to someone else, pretend as if they MADE the claim, and then reject their objection that you've taken their words out of context.

If you claim that I said something that I, in fact, didn't say - and then I say "Hey, I didn't say that!" ... how is that wrong?

Context is vital. Context is not some meaningless word that we use to hide behind.

If you tell me that I consider Objectivism to be outdated (which you did in another post), then the only way you could have come to that conclusion is by taking SOMETHING I said out of context. You removed the words from the idea they were expressing. And the result is that you made them mean something else - something I did NOT want them to mean.

If I say "Zonpower rules cyberspace" you will claim that it's a mystical statement. But the only way you can make such a claim is by taking it completely without any context - completely without any attachment to what those words mean.

So by you reject my appeal to context, you are merely giving yourself free reign to distort, confuse and then reject my words. That's just not fair. When I write my words, I write them to mean what I want them to mean. If you don't get my meaning, you will need to further elaboration. You'll need context.

Truth is an entirely valid concept. And something that is true, is true. The point NT is making is that truth can be manipulated, by manipulating the context.

Challenge

Truth cannot be manipulated. Under no context is an A a non-A, and no amount of manipulation can make it so. A conclusion to an argument, can be manipulated by proving the argument is not true.

Response

It's a concept you're not grasping. I really don't have the time to explain it to you.

Something can be true, but in the wider context be disintegrated with honesty.

NT has the same respect for the truth that Oism has. To imply that it doesn't is to miss the point entirely. NT just acknowledges that something can be true in one context and false in another. Honesty, however, cannot be true in one context and false in another. Therefore, fully integrated honesty is more powerful and accurate than fully integrated truth.

Challenge

NT has the same respect only for arguments that do not challenge NT/ZP. Truth is not subjective, any attempt to believe it is shows a lack of identification for what truth is, exposing the epistemological weakness of the philosophy in the process.

Response

Anyone who would attribute such an idea to NT or its advocates hasn't been paying attention, and has his own agenda here.

Did you ever stop and consider why NT even bothers to make the points you're rejecting? Did you ever stop and consider the point being made?

Challenge

Why should I consider why NT/ZP thinks truth is relative to the context at hand? It is enough for me to know that it does.

Response

IOW: When you get to some point that (out of context) doesn't mesh with your prejudiced agenda, you feel justified in rationalizing your prejudiced agenda.

A business mind sees earning money as a way to increase competitive efforts to produce ever more values and jobs...a way to do more for others and society.

Challenge

And an objective mind sees earning money as a means to justly acquire his own ends (not create jobs or be competitive).

Response

You're contrasting something that you don't understand, and your contrast is just plain wrong.

Challenge

"...a way to do more for others and society" implies that altruistic motives somehow justify the philosophy. This statement is entirely inconsistent with Objectivist ethics and politics and under no valid context can it be considered to be. If this is an official NT/ZP doctrine, then NT/ZP is inconsistent with Objectivism.

Response

Okay fine. Think what you like. You're not going to read my words, so why am I bothering?

Rational self-interest is the bottom line. You're not doing it for others and society. But *by* doing it for others and society, you can do it for yourself.

You refuse to think about it. So don't. All you can see are the words, the letters, the "bad" letter combinations that spell out that which you think Oism is against. But if you took a minute to figure out what's being said, you'll see that you are misreading the words.

NT agrees 100% with your statement. All NT action is based on rational self-interest. It STARTS with your statement, and builds upon it. NT is taking the whole of conscious society and integrating it -- something Oism doesn't do.

Challenge

There is nothing to be gained by showing how the material good of society increases under capitalism. Even Ludwig von Mises would have agreed (I think) that it is not the capitalism is better than anything else for material production, but that capitalism is the modus operandi of human action and anything less will destroy society.

Response

Read Neo-Tech. That's the point! Just READ it.

That you can't see what can be gained just demonstrates your inability to do any real thought on the matter.

Challenge

The statement is Marxist, even though the intent was probably to win people of the Marxist heart to NT/ZP.

Response

You see the NT statement above as being Marxist, but it's because you're not considering the perspective from which it's being stated. You're omitting the fact that implicit in it (as expressed by NT) is your very statement. Try reading it from that perspective and consider it then. Do you see the difference?

Neo-Tech Minds are the powerful, mystic-free minds of the Civilization of the Universe...minds based on fully integrated honesty and justice.

Challenge

NT minds are steeped in mysticism, only they see it as rationality, a marvelous evasion indeed.

Response

What mysticism is the NT mind steeped in? If it's anything you've addressed in this post, then you'll need to address my points.

Challenge

NT thinks truth is dependent on context. That something can be true in one context and false in another. That is mysticism.

Response

Check reality. See for yourself.

Truth is a mushy, hydra-headed word. Everyone disputes its meaning. Truth denotes a static assertion that changes from person to person, opinion to opinion, culture to culture. Thus, truth is a hollow, manipulative word that parasitical elites promulgate to gain credibility for their deceptions, destructions, and ego "justice".

Challenge

Interpretation: NT doesn't understand metaphysics or truth as it is, thus it takes the term out of context (truth comes through proof) and hopes to dismiss real proof from philosophy to avoid having to deal with it.

Response

No, actually you have only given a MISinterpretation.

You start from the erroneous idea that NT is somehow against Oism. But it's NOT. Implicit in everything NT writes is a complete and total acceptance and integration of Oism.

Challenge

Except that truth is not held to be absolute. The conclusion is that since everyone disputes its meaning, then there can be no objective truth. This puts anyone who makes a claim on equal footing, as long as they honestly believe what they say.

Response

Honesty is a solid, indivisible word. No one disputes its meaning. Honesty denotes a dynamic process that is identical for every conscious being. Honesty cannot be manipulated. Therefore, parasitical elites must squelch honesty in order to live off the productive class.

Challenge

Integrity is more powerful that honesty, since it assumes an objectively true definition of what man should be.

Response

Integrity is key, absolutely. But you're comparing apples and oranges when you hold it against honesty. Integrity is a personal adherence to honesty and moral standards.

Integrity is a personal adherence to honesty and a compulsion (not a duty, except to oneself) to discover what is true.

Subject: Re: NeoTech/Zonpower

From: cjensen@soka.edu (Clark Jensen)

Date: 8 Dec 1995 20:42:23 GMT

Challenge

Jamie Mellway (JDMELLWA@SCIENCE.watstar.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:

To address you question, though, for a simple, coherent account of the ideas that includes no buzzwords:

Response

First off, Objectivism is 100% valid. That is the foundation and the starting point.

Challenge

Well there's your problem, that is a BAD starting point.

Response

How is objectivism a bad starting point? Seems like it is a GREAT place to start.

Challenge

If you agree with the principles of Objectivism, you should use them to develop a coherent philosophy using the conclusions of Objectivism as a guideline. While doing this you should make sure that no contradictions come up and every aspect of the philosophy fits together in a coherent context.

Philosophy should be looked at as a verb. It is a process of continually evaluating and integration new ideas into a clear picture of reality.

Response

But this is essentially what NT already has done. It has developed a coherent philosophy using Objectivism as a guideline. Nothing contradicts the base, everything fits together neatly. NT is the process of continually evaluating and integrating new ideas into reality.

Challenge

But you should never just accept a philosophy as YOUR starting point, when you do that the original philosophy just becomes dogma... and then people start accusing you of being a member of a cult :) You can't just start by saying that a philosophy is correct, including all of its conclusions. If you agree with the primaries good, start there and see if they hold.

Response

NT doesn't linger in the past. For NT to verify objectivism would be a silly waste of time. NT starts where objectivism left off. It makes perfect sense to accept objectivism outright, then build from there. Granted, it looks mystical. It must. You're trying to see a whole picture with only a few pieces of it in place.

Challenge

It's ok to sound mystical because it goes beyond Objectivism??? Huh?

Response

In a sense, yes. Its ok if the material appears mystical to the unintegrated, uneducated mind. Consider the primitive eye gazing upon Manhattan's jumbled skyline. Or the ear used to hearing tribal drumbeats being exposed to full-blast Wagnerian opera. To the less experienced, there are appearances of chaos everywhere. Yet, on pursuing the understanding of reality, all such facades vanish as the purposeful order behind conscious actions is revealed.

Challenge

It is just a BAD idea to use mysticism to advocate a philosophy that denounces it.

Maybe it sells more books...but it wouldn't on here.

Response

NTP's strategies for selling books are unknown to me.

Here it is in a nutshell:

Rational happiness is the goal of the conscious individual. One achieves rational happiness (for oneself) through value production.

Challenge

Do you mean 'value' as in existents or as in ethics?

Response

Value as in value as in value----

Challenge

Only through value production? Are the means important?

Rational happiness can only be achieved through productive action, which almost always involves producing goods and services for others.

Since death is a disvalue to the conscious individual (because it no longer will have the capacity to be happy), death should be eliminated. In fact, it *must* be eliminated by any rational society as an impediment to individual progress and happiness.

Challenge

Just to make sure... Are you saying that death should be eliminated by medical means or philosophical?

Response

Death cannot be eliminated simply by philosophy. Death must be eliminated by technology, but such technology will only arise in a free market without destructive regulations. Thus, the philosophy of NT is required to collapse the hoax of mysticism to enable the free market to yield technologies that will obsolete death.

Eventually, any evolving society will reach the point at which it has the technology to destroy itself. In order to evolve beyond that point to any significant degree, the society will need to remove all irrationality and mysticism. A society that exists several hundred years past its ability to destroy itself would necessarily have to be 100% objective, rational, honest, logical. If it was not, it would have destroyed itself.

Challenge

Necessarily 100%??

Response

Or very close to it. ANY amount of irrationality will spread.

Thus, any society advanced significantly beyond our own must, of necessity, be completely rational.

Challenge

Huh? How do you get to that? How are you judging "advancement"? If it is science then: You can say that communism is more advanced significantly then caveman? Does that make communism rational?

Response

Because, in an irrational society, rulers exist. Those rulers have access to nuclear weapons.

Such societies would necessarily control their surroundings and the cosmos for their own survival and happiness (because that's what self-aware beings do). This makes "consciousness" the "controlling" force of existence.

Challenge

What do you mean by cosmos?

Response

Existence

Challenge

Consciousness and not reality is the controlling force of existence?!?!?!?!?

Response

Reality and existence are the same things. To say that reality is the controller of existence is to say nothing. Individual conscious beings which reside in existence are the controllers.

Therefore, my objective is to conquer the no-longer-necessary disease of death, and to control my surroundings for my own survival and happiness. Humans on Earth, as a whole, will either evolve into a completely 100% rational NT/Objectivist society, or it will fall prey to self-annihilation as technology increases rapidly and dangerously.

Challenge

How do you plan to get rid of death? And if death is gone what's left of ethics if survival is irrelevant, and what is left of 'purpose'? (ie. the omnipotent robot example)

Response

Never heard of the omnipotent robot. Death is gotten rid of by NT, then technology. Ethics are fully integrated honesty, guaranteed in any rational society, and purpose is to live happily by learning more and more knowledge (knowledge is endless)

Challenge

James D. Ousey (jdousey@voicenet.com) wrote:

I've been giving this some thought as well. After mulling the problem over for a few days, I have discovered the fundamental error with NT/ZP (and the communication problem between Objectivists and NT/ZPers). The fundamental error in NT/ZP, and indeed in all mystical creeds, is epistemological. Specifically in NT/ZP, the term "context" (from which an invalidated statement is often claimed to be removed from), refers to the conclusion of an argument which the statement is meant to support. In Objectivist logic, context seems to be the statements (premises and axioms) which support a conclusion.

Response

Well, at least we've finally found someone willing to THINK first (even if he did come to an erroneous conclusion).

Challenge

An Objectivist validates or invalidates a statement by "putting it in context"; that is, by showing how it would or would not refer to observables and rules of logic. An Objectivist does not validate or invalidate (or change the meaning) of a statement based on the conclusion the statement is meant to support. In other words, an Objectivist does not believe that the conclusion validates the statement.

Since the NT/ZP substitute for epistemology allows one to create a "matrix" of some kind (vaguely representing some complex web of concepts, culled from varying schools of thought and integrated by the mind of a cuisinart) and then proceed to make any statement to validate it, metaphysics necessarily suffers. The world becomes subject to statements made about it, rather than statements being subject to the world as it is. Since the definition of epistemology is a metaphysical one (in so far as metaphysics is "things as they are", and epistemology is "knowledge as man knows it") having a faulty attitude towards epistemology is a failure to see the human knowledge as it is.

Response

The problem with this analysis is that it's just not accurate. See Neo-Tech applies context in the same way Objectivism applies it. One does not have the conclusion FIRST and then rationalize it. One makes an assertion and then goes about proving or disproving the assertion.

The context of Neo-Tech is, essentially, a 100% rational mysticism-free, objectivist society.

The context of Objectivism is, essentially, a largely irrational, mysticism-bound, non-objective society (the one in which we live currently).

We are not arguing what dominates or what permeates or what currently is. We are arguing ideas and ideals. We must apply context in order for our ideals to be presented and understood accurately.

Challenge

Again, with a faulty epistemology, if they change their minds (by dismissing a statement), then by their creed, the statement must not be "real". Although they may not deny it was said, they do deny it has content. This allows them to keep their "context" by destroying both the objective context, and the meaning of context. This trap may be so tough for many to escape from that it seems easier to close one's eyes and hope for the best, in fact, have faith that the "best" will occur, rather than trying to see the world "as it is". In other words, a lack of rational epistemology leads to a lack of rational metaphysics.

Response

This would be completely accurate, if the essence of Neo-Tech and the essence Oism were of the same perspective. But one is evolved beyond the other. Thus, they each have different contexts.

Very good post, though. Thanks for posting it!

Challenge

George G Kouros <gkouros@emory.edu> wrote:

Is freedom really the natural state of affairs?

Response

Yes, it would be in a mysticism-free society.

Challenge

What if you're a person of color, a person with a different sexual orientation, a member of an ethnic or religious minority?

Response

The Neo-Tech solution to racism and other forms of discrimination is simple: Assure that INDIVIDUAL rights--namely, the right to be free from the initiation of force, threat of force, or fraud--are upheld. If you will check your history books closely, you will find that government has enforced discrimination throughout history.

More to the point, the mission of Neo-Tech publishing is to COLLAPSE mysticism (the acceptance or promotion of myths) worldwide, thus getting people to focus on the profitable production and exchange of values that benefit ALL human life, regardless of the differences you mention.

Challenge

I'm sorry if I came off sounding so attacking with my last e-mail, but I am very angry with the suggestion that free enterprise grants freedom for all. I agree with you that freedom is something to be valued, but how exactly can the free market provide it given the history of discrimination in the marketplace?

The problem is mysticism, not freedom. Also, when I talk about "freedom", I am using Ayn Rand's context: Freedom from compulsion, not freedom from hunger or illness.

Response

I'm sorry, skyhoop, but the sad fact is that as a black person who is openly gay, the market is more willing to deny freedom, to discriminate, than to allow the pursuit of freedom.

Challenge

Is your problem with your color and orientation, or with a lack of polished interview skills? Be careful about which factors you blame for your frustrating job search. There are a multitude of straight white men who are also frustrated, but it is because of factors other than those you are stressing.

Why do you assume I am a socialist?

Response

Because, by definition, socialists (and fascists) like to see more government control of private citizens for the sake of "the common good." Their good-sounding arguments dupe people out of self-reliance.

Challenge

Where exactly do persons with different political beliefs fit into your framework?

Response

Behavior, not beliefs, is the issue. If you initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any other person or his property, you are committing a crime.

Challenge

Will they be denied their freedom of speech?

Response

Not on their own property. Of course, if you are on someone else's property, you will have to live by the owner's rules. Would you like someone to march into your own house and begin verbally abusing you?

Challenge

It is the recklessness of the marketplace with its disregard for human life, human freedom and greedy lust for profits that have led to countless violations of worker's health and safety standards, environmental degradation, ruthless "corporate downsizing" (a euphemism for screwing over labor while the CEO gets a big fat raise), and commodification of individuals.

Response

Whew! This is a huge sentence containing all sorts of presuppositions and sweeping generalizations. If initiation of force, threat of force, and fraud were made illegal and that law were enforced, how could human life, health, freedom, etc. be compromised?

Jimmy Pena (rand@starlight.ingress.com) wrote>:

In article <think1stDIqDz1.7w0@netcom.com, think1st@netcom.com (THINKfirst!) wrote>:

You start with the basics. Objectivism. You reject the notion that that's where I start. THAT is what makes our discussion impossible. I'm trying to BUILD upon those ideas, you're still arguing that I don't HOLD those ideas.

Can't get very far on THAT road.

Challenge

I'm curious now. Are you saying that we should presuppose that NT follows logically from Objectivism before we prove it? Or are you saying that we should assume that NT follows from Objectivism?

Response

What I'm saying is that Neo-Tech already accepts Objectivism as 100% valid. We are building upon it. If you find something that you think is inconsistent with Objectivism, please point it out, and I'll be happy to demonstrate how the Neo-Tech point has been arrived at by applying the Objectivist point - I'll show you the hierarchy.

Challenge

It seems that all the literature I've seen never gives me a real definition of the words. Like for example, the definition of "Neo-think" uses the word "reason." But assuming I'm a human being, why should *you* assume the meaning, or assume that I'm already an Objectivist? I think it's a valid objection that people have that NT does not start from Objectivism.

Response

I think the skepticism is valid. Neo-Tech, on first glance, certainly SEEMS mystical and contrary to Objectivism. But since we claim that it accepts Objectivism as 100% valid, the objections against our claim are unfounded -- until they have been demonstrated.

In other words, the skepticism is valid. The objection is not.

Challenge

But all that means is that you have to show how it does, instead of merely repeatedly asserting that it does.

Response

Agreed. But if I say "I accept Objectivism as 100% valid," how do you want me to show you that? By reciting what Rand wrote and saying "Yep!" after every point?

If I make a Neo-Tech claim that you find to be inconsistent with Objectivism (which we both, for the sake of argument, hold to be valid), then challenge me on it. If I cannot demonstrate that it is consistent, then you can reject my claim.

Challenge

Your sentence "I'm trying to BUILD upon those ideas, you're still arguing that I don't HOLD those ideas" sort of sounds like you are whining because we won't just shutup and accept your claim (with or without proof).

Response

Not at all! I would NEVER want you to accept Neo-Tech without proof. I WANT you to DEMAND proof.

Subject: Re: Killfiles of Neo-Tech stuff?

From: jwales@MCS.COM (Jimmy Wales)

Date: 21 Dec 1995 13:49:44 -0600

Message-ID: <4bcdoo$9h@Venus.mcs.com

Challenges

Larry Sanger asks:

I have a favor to ask -- does anyone have an efficient way to weed out all the "Neo-Tech" stuff that is posted on a.p.o (using a kill-file, I mean)? I only know how to weed out the stuff crossposted from alt.neo-tech or whatever it is. Isn't there a way to search the whole header for common Neo-Techie phrases?

In my killfile I have these lines. They do an admirable job:

/neo-rich/f:j

/think88/f:j

/think1/f:j

/smoker/f:j

/neo-tech/h:j

It is the last one that is the most important -- it gets rid of anything that contains the word "neo-tech" in the header. I think it is case insensitive...

--Jimbo

James D. Ousey (jdousey@voicenet.com) wrote>:

Since NT/ZP does not have a sound epistemological footing, the "facts" of reality offered are generally devoid of metaphysical content. This epistemological ambiguity is evident in the NT/ZP definition of context. In NT/ZP, context is the conclusion achieved by assertions. The conclusion is assumed to be fact and the assertions are given the status of fact since they support the conclusion.

Response

Hmm. How did you arrive at this conclusion? On what do you base this false assertion?

Your last line ignores reality. NT/Z has made some specific conclusions, by applying honest, rational thought to reality. These conclusions are not presupposed. They are hierarchically reached.

When a point is argued from the NT/Z perspective, the conclusions made by the whole of NT/Z are taken for granted - not because we presuppose them, but because they have been demonstrated elsewhere.

If you disagree, please cite an example of NT/Z presupposing anything. I will be able to quickly show you the chain of rational deduction that leads to the conclusion, and we can put this silly assertion out of your mind.

Challenge

So, would NT/ZP's attempt to usurp values (eg, rationality) from Objectivism count as neocheating? Of course, such usurpation does NOT go undetected by Objectivists, in much the same way that Communism did not go undetected in Soviet Russia. Both, however, are still wrong.

Response

NT/Z is usurping values from Oism? How so? NT/Z explicitly recognizes Oism as 100% valid and consistent. It builds upon the ideas. Where is the usurpation?

Challenge

Since NT "redefines" intelligence as integrated thinking, we must ask where in there validity falls. Does the NT term "integrated" imply objective validity? If not, then NT attempts to redefine intelligence as conceptual consistency, the key to which is to keep the inconsistent out. However, if that which is inconsistent with the NT "matrix" is valid, what is the NT mind to do when this is encountered? The answer is to evade. The tactics are to claim the debunking of their statements as taking them out of context, that is, out of the "matrix" and into the objectively provable by logic and proof. Or, out of the NT context of proof through consistency and into the Objectivist context of proof through truth.

Mysticism blocks the truth, either by claiming there is none (mystics of muscle), or that it is unknowable by man (mystics of spirit).

Response

Oh, for a second there, I thought you were asking a question. Seems you really just wanted to make a prejudiced conclusion without the bother of any facts of reality.

NT is consistent in its entirety with objective reality. If you want to show me where you think I'm proven wrong, please do.

Challenge b_young@cc.colorado.edu wrote:

In article <jimgmDJrLxs.9w8@netcom.com>, jimgm@netcom.com (jim miller) writes:

That's a bunch of crap. It explicitly states in the on-line book that Objectivism is "self evident." This indicates that Neo-Tech advocates the acceptance of Objectivism without studying it in depth. Objectivism doesn't give a philosophical understanding of everything in the universe, but it does give an individual a superlative way of approaching ideas. If one applies the principles of Objectivism to Neo-Tech, it becomes clear how mystic Neo-Tech really is. Nothing is "self evident" and nothing is guaranteed, especially prosperity, and any mode of thought advocating this is not objective. You are abdicating a principle of Objectivism that requires volitional actions to acquire understanding of the world, not faith in something that is "self evident."

Response

Tell me what I have accepted as self-evident, you seem to know more about me than I do! More sweeping generalizations. By the way, I don't consider myself an Objectivist, just an individual studying the writings of Rand (of course an Objectivist would tell you that they came to agree with the axiom through application of reason, but when it comes down to defending their axiom in the light of alternate viewpoints, the response is often an indignant statement about the obviousness and irrefutability of the axiom...it has to be, to the believer, to be a foundation for such unshaken self-assuredness in the cult core).

Challenge

Since NT is supposedly based on Objectivism your above statement would apply to yourself as well. The following statement is exactly what happens when I encounter a NTer who might not agree with something I have said, "But when it comes down to defending their axiom in the light of alternate viewpoints, the response is often an indignant statement about the obviousness and irrefutability of the axiom...it has to be, to the believer, to be a foundation for such unshaken self-assuredness in the cult core." Kudos for such introspection.

Response

Do remember how much fun it was when you were a little kid? I don't know if you had a happy childhood, but I did, and I remember how great and self-evident life was. Then, without realizing at the time, I became corrupted with doubts, uncertainties, eventually emotionalisms, dishonesties, etc. like everyone else. All you must realize now, is that everything is knowable, one can and should solve all life's problems to grow forever into the future through value production and reflection, which brings eternal happiness , excitement, and love. The obstacles: irrationality, laziness, mysticism, dishonesty.

That is NT in a nutshell. NT is a completely different animal than Objectivism. I have never studied objectivism, but I have skimmed one of Ayn Rand's comprehensive books. I will never need to study objectivism. Its so completely apparent to me, so natural, and it makes me laugh how many people really miss the point. I am sick of hearing NT and Objectivism in the same sentence though. As far as NT goes, one does not have to study objectivism, but has to think with process of integration and honesty, which mandates being objective.

This process of being objective requires reading NOTHING by Ayn Rand or anyone else. If you really understand what being fully honest with yourself is, then you also understand how this is only accomplished by *being* completely objective. Whatever the situation is, you know what the honest choice is; whether you make it or rationalize the dishonest choice is irrelevant. The point is that anyone can clearly steer their way to a life of paradise, and no explicit "philosophizing" must be done.

Yeah it's funny, but totally natural and expected. As NT moves throughout cyberspace, specialized, elitist Objectivists (who wish to keep Oism specialized and as complex as possible in order to gain false, self-importance and inflated egos from demonstrating their mastery of it) will develop very sophisticated killfiles so that they'll never have to face the light of Fully Integrated Honesty coming at them from all directions.

John Flint predicted months ago that the Objectivists would increasingly develop into closed circles of specialized groups. This certainly demonstrates he was right (as usual). Neo-Tech is continually delivering increased values to wider audiences and is becoming more open to eventually capture everything knowable.

This is a sign that it won't be long until these ersatz Objectivists will be completely preserved in a cocoon of their own making, generating increasingly useless realms of non-integrated, specialized philosophizing rather than increasingly competitive values integrated with life's essence.

Nicholas Rich

Subject: Re: NeoTech?

From: nickrich@netcom.com (Nicholas Rich)

Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 23:20:51 GMT

Message-ID: <4bkn8j$qg_001@netcom.com>

In article <4bessl$aue@starlight.ingress.com>, rand@starlight.ingress.com (Jimmy Pena) wrote:

Challenge

It sounds like what your are saying is that some people with Neo-Tech worked hard, did the integrations, conceptualized perceptual data or other concepts, and give them to us to use, without having to understand its origins. All I need is an active mind, and we can use the principles of NT without each individual having to re-conceptualize them individually. Is that correct?

Response

Each individual will reconceptualize as much as they feel necessary. This could differ from person to person. Each can use NT without having to derive everything, every reason, etc. If this is what you mean, then yes.

Challenge

Yes, that is what I mean. At first glance, that sounds like I don't have to work if I don't want to, that other people can do work and I can hang off their work. Of course, it could mean that everyone does as much work as they want to, and those who don't do the work will fall behind and die, but you are going to hand me the stuff without any effort on my part, so I don't think the latter is the case. I think the former, that I can be a parasite on the knowledge and effort of others, is the case. These are the only conclusions I can derive from the idea that I don't have to expend effort to reduce concepts back to their referents in reality if I don't choose to. Is reducing concepts back to their referents something that NT wants us to do on our own, or do they just make it an optional thing, or what? What is the official position on reducing concepts?

Response

You're not really seeing this is the correct context. Most basically, it's about division of labor, which applies to the labor of developing ideas as much as it does to manufacturing automobiles or anything else.

And Objectivism already has those elements anyway. Each person is not required to expend the kind of effort Rand and others have expended. They can purchase the work and use it to their own benefit. Some understand it better than others, but understanding just a few essentials can work wonders.

Surely you're not saying that if everyone is not the equivalent of a professional Objectivist philosopher, then he is leaching off the work of others.

As to your final question, it doesn't really apply. If, by "NT," you mean: Neo-Tech Publishing (NTP), then they probably don't take a position. What they themselves wish to do is to put themselves out of business. They're in the business of influencing the collapse of mysticism, and hand-in-hand, the prohibition of initiatory force. As I'm sure you can readily understand, an irrational person (meaning one who does not properly identify and integrate concepts of reality) can only survive through mysticism and force.

So, the NTP essentials are much more fundamental than you appear to have attributed. On the other hand, I know you understand what I'm taking about in this sense. Wasn't it you who I saw with the tagline: "Capitalism is what people do when you leave them alone." To me, this fundamentally means: Capitalism (or Free Competition) is what happens when initiatory force is prohibited with no exceptions.

So my point is, don't worry about what individuals do with concepts. The philosophy of Objectivism gives everything one needs philosophically, and NT gives everything one needs "practically," so eliminate force (by out-competing or out-selling it in the marketplace (NTP's method)) and that which allows individuals to live irrationally, as parasites, collapses.

Challenge

Is that something that NT considers worthwhile, to *give* principles without showing their conceptual or perceptual origin? How does that work with the fact that I have to have an active, motivated mind?

Response

Yes. In fact, the ultimate evolution of NT, called Zonpower, allows anyone to reign over reality without with all the rational exuberance of a child, yet retaining the adult intellect.

Challenge

Reign over reality? Don't you mean reign over your own existence? I have heard the phrase "conscious control of existence" but it seems too vague to me. Either you mean that consciousness can control existents by thought, which is the primacy of consciousness, or you mean that after conceptualizing perceptual data and integrating it, eventually you will become so advanced in technique that you will be able to protect yourself from natural disasters and provide food and shelter and luxuries for yourself whenever you like, and in that case you would vaguely "control existence." At first glance, the phrase "conscious control of existence" implies the former (primacy of consciousness) and not the latter (conscious control of your own existence). Of course, I don't know the context in which that phrase is presented, but it doesn't look like something rational.

Response

Conscious control of existence (Zonpower) is not Primary of Consciousness, it is more like the latter, only with almost unimaginable benefits. To understand what I mean by unimaginable, consider someone living in B.C. times considering man making a trip to the moon and returning (or detonating an Atomic Bomb). Yet, even that is basic, almost nothing when one considers the potential power which comes from identifying the exact nature of existence (What is existence, at the most fundamental level? We know it is something, and not nothing, but what, precisely and physically? What is the "smallest unit of existence?"), and developing the technology to *consciously control existence* at that most *fundamental level.*

I hope I've made it clear. By your posts, you demonstrate that you have absolutely no fear of NT, unlike most of the Objectivists totally ignorant of it. So, I certainly hope we can rationally explore any of my explanations which do not meet with your expectations.

If I say something which sounds contrary to the tenets of Objectivism, chances are I've either misrepresented NT or have not sufficiently clarified myself.

Challenge

Wouldn't that conflict with the fact that you're just going to hand me some principles without explanation? It sounds like NT is presupposing that I'll think about it on my own, i.e. that I'm an Objectivist already. I've heard this from some NT advocates.

Response

I would agree with this. Not necessarily someone who has read objectivism, but someone who thinks objectively. The NT principles are explained, but NT is understood by those who think on their own...

Challenge

What about my earlier point, that an active mind is in conflict with the fact that you are going to just hand me some principles without any effort required on my part? How can I have an active mind, if there's no thought to be active about? I can have an active body, and apply your principles to action, and therefore be active, but we're talking about an active mind, not action.

Response

You appear to be erroneously building a context at this point, or else you've assumed that NTP gives people principles without backup reasoning because you've not yet received a challenge to this query on your part. I'll assume the latter.

In point of fact, NTP does no such thing. Perhaps you've missed my posts where I've stated that NTP provides principles and backs them up all the way to existence exists. Only it doesn't do it in the language of philosophers which most people can't comprehend.

Sometimes, what I think offends many Objectivists is that NTP brings the essentials down to Earth, in readily understandable form. How many times have I read Objectivists, posting to apo, lament at how complex Objectivism is and how there's no hope because most people will never understand the intricacies. Hogwash! The universe is not malevolent. Most people need to essentially know and understand only that Reality is what is, valid knowledge and proper productive action is required for survival and happiness, and the only means to knowledge is proper identification of reality. Then, use some examples to contrast objectivity/subjectivity in many different contexts.

As far as an active mind goes, have at it. What's to stop you from advancing your knowledge as far as possible? However, I would say that an in-depth, fundamental understanding of all there is to objectivism is impractical for most. A few essentials, and out-compete force through ever-increasing value production, and the natural process of reality asserting itself in a beneficial way continues.

Incidentally, I might point out that most people practice an overall objective life in spite of contradictory ideas. If that were not so, we wouldn't even be here.

Challenge

And about presupposing I'm an Objectivist, I've heard conflicting reports. First, the idea that NT presupposes that I'll be an Objectivist going into the reading of the NT book. Recently I saw someone (I think it was THINKfirst) say that the NT book is written for the simpleton (irrational), everyday type person to understand. This is presupposing that the readers are not Objectivists. Well? Which one is it folks? I thought the Objectivists were divided somewhat; it seems that NT has conflicting resulting views as well. I hope the NT principles are explained in the book. I'm going to e-mail for the details after the holidays

Response

The "front-end" Neo-Tech books (such as "Neo-Tech Discovery") presuppose only that the person can read and has a fair reading comprehension and retention.

No philosophical knowledge is presupposed whatsoever. When I first read it, I had zero knowledge of philosophy. Then, I went on to read Rand. I began with "The New Intellectual", but had great difficulty understanding much of it. However, I got to the end were the essays from Atlas Shrugged are reprinted. I understood those better, and went on to read AS. After reading that, my understanding of NT was even enhanced. Then, I went on to study all of Rand's works in depth--culminating in my several hundred hour study of the 1976 lecture course by Peikoff where I took 150 pages of notes.

I did this because it's of interest to me. However, I have relatives who've neither read NT or Rand, but have listened to a small collection of essentials I've taught them. I've managed to get all of them out of the right-wing, fundamental "born-again" churches. Most now either don't go to church, or go to the kind of almost harmless, Sunday-only, "liberal" churches. And they're all doing much better in life and are much happier.

There is a great deal of going into a good fundamental understanding of principle in some of the literature, but such an understanding is not necessary to capture the benefits of NT. I would agree completely here.

Challenge

You could say that same thing about the Libertarian party. They don't understand the Objectivist principles, but accept them, and perhaps even capture some benefits. But not the benefits of total understanding, of the entire context, of true "knowledge" in the true meaning of the word.

Response

I personally do not have much beef with the Libertarians. But this really isn't much of a comparison, for either NT or Oism. The libertarians are a political party.

Moreover, NT is mostly a great collection of wide-scope applications of Objectivism. That's it's thing. Can no one say: "here is a collection of applications and techniques which anyone can use to gain maximum benefit out of life?" Is there no value in anything which does not fully integrate every aspect of Objectivism down to basic axioms?

I don't understand your meaning of what you apparently consider valid, true knowledge. Knowledge, is, most simply, knowledge of reality. If what someone knows corresponds objectively with reality, then all of Objectivist Metaphysics and Epistemology is implicit there--regardless of how the person arrived at the knowledge. NT does not advocate acceptance on faith, in any context. It most explicitly claims that all knowledge must be judged against the final arbiter--reality. How much more basic can you get. When you state it in such essentials, there's no wiggling out, no evasion or escape. Every fact, every idea, belief, must ultimately have validity in reality. It's sooo simple.

I'm at a loss to understand why Objectivists seemingly wish to obfuscate and complicate rather than integrate, clarify, simplify, make implicit, subsumed, etc. I have an idea though. When one bases his entire life on a system of ideas, with little integration with actual value production, making Objectivism basic and simple essentially works this person out of a job and out of the "elite." I would say though, that there are at least as many who wish to see more practical application of the philosophy to everyday living. Implicitly, what they're asking for is Neo-Tech.

It's as simple as the idea of being able to lean how to operate a motor vehicle and benefit from it without first learning to be an auto mechanic.

Not bad analogy. pretty good actually.

Challenge

I think Nick's analogy is a bit misleading. Of course you don't have to learn to be an auto mechanic if you want to drive a car, but if you want to fix a car, or own it, in the literal sense of the word, then you have to know how to tune it, how to find out what's wrong with it, how it works, and why it works. That is total knowledge, knowledge of a whole. If you want to "have" a philosophy, without knowing why it works, why it is true or valid, or even *what it is*, that's fine, I couldn't care any less. But knowledge is contextual. You don't "know" Ayn Rand's philosophy if you pick up one of her books at the bookstore, open it up to a random page, pull out a single principle blindly from one of the paragraphs, and then start defending it in argument. If you don't know its context, why it is valid, why it is practical, what it is, if you know nothing except the principle, then what you have does not qualify as cognition, and therefore, is not knowledge. I'm very close to concluding that handing people principles is not knowledge but instead parroting, and that Neo-Tech is guilty of this in the third degree. Please try to point out any errors.

In article <4bq9os$99n@starlight.ingress.com>, rand@starlight.ingress.com (Jimmy Pena) wrote:

In article <4bkn8j$qg_001@netcom.com>, nickrich@netcom.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:

Surely you're not saying that if everyone is not the equivalent of a professional Objectivist philosopher, then he is leaching off the work of others.

Challenge

But that is what everyone is doing. Though I'm not going to say it's a "necessary evil" to leech off of others, but it's a fact of human nature to be able to do that. I mean, to be able to work on the body of knowledge discovered by others, and so that you won't have to rediscover everything with each generation. That, actually, is good. Mindless parroting is not. If all you give is the principles without requisite understanding, I consider that parroting. If I get the explanation, then I consider that a part of human nature, and that means that you don't give us principles that we can use without understanding them, because you would be giving an explanation along with the concepts. I have no problem with using Rand's concepts, provided I understand their origin to some degree.

Response

Agreed. But make sure to do a wide-scope accounting in any context. Rand's value production was heroic. But she didn't do it alone. Someone had to invent and produce: pens, ink, paper, publishing, printing, marketing... and philosophy...you get the idea. These are heroic values which Rand "leached" off of.

Challenge

They themselves wish to put themselves out of business?? Are you sure that's what you mean? I agree with the last sentence.

Response

Yes. This is stated explicitly in the literature. The essence of NTP, their business plan if you will, is to collapse mysticism. They wish to accomplish this, essentially, by outselling mysticism and "putting it out of business." In so doing, they put themselves out of business.

Challenge

Woah, slow down, I don't want to reach a conclusion just yet! I want to be convinced by correspondence to reality, not by an argumentum ad nauseum, y'know? Objectivism is practical, though, so what could NT give me which Objectivism does not?

Response

I don't know what NT could give you that Objectivism does not. That's a question only you can answer. Without implying any theory-practice dichotomy, I can tell you that NT provides me with many "practical, down-to-earth, business-mode values" which I have not explicitly found in objectivism. I sometimes like to think of NT as a good "user's manual" for Objectivism. Or, you know the books you can get at the computer store which tell you how to use Win95, Word, Mac, Excel, etc., to maximum benefit and which expand on the docs included with the app or which are found in the help texts? Some of them are outstanding. This is a fairly good analogy for what NT adds to Objectivism. It enhances it in a powerfully valuable way. b_young@cc.colorado.edu wrote: think1st@netcom.com (THINKfirst!) writes:

Challenge

Explain to me with inductive reasoning, meaning giving several facts and examples from reality, the concept of zonpower. Explain to me how any of NT is based on objectivism.

Response

Why are you so deadset on having one of us do it? What if our explanations are flawed or contradict the source material?

Why do you want second-hand knowledge when first-hand understanding is just a book away?

Challenge

Since reality is the ultimate arbiter in any dispute I would hope that you would be able to back up your position with your own reasoning and define your concepts in relation to reality. I will take this response as an evasion of the question. I believe you do not want to attempt to define your position from fear of being subjected to criticism that you might not be able to refute. I have looked at the on-line book, but I wanted to hear a NTer try to defend his own position with his own reasoning.

Response

You make take this response however you like, even if it is detached from reality.

Just to provide some context, I've been arguing the objectivist and Neo-Tech perspective online for a little over two years now. I started on the religion forum (atheism section) on CompuServe. After getting an Internet account, this is where I wound up. I spent a bit of time on a.p.o and started seeing people bashing Neo-Tech from an obviously ignorant perspective.

After attempting to put things in perspective for these irrational attackers, I soon became shunned by the a.p.o regulars.

Now, for the past year or so, I've seen plenty of people come onto a.p.o slamming Neo-Tech, and it's typically from a totally ignorant perspective. There have been two people who argued intelligently against Neo-Tech, but both simply disappeared after unrelenting objective honesty.

So when you come along and ask to have the whole of Neo-Tech synopsized nicely, when a very good overview is presented online for free, I don't really care to waste my time.

When I first purchased Neo-Tech and saw the integration, I thought it was my duty to preach the word to the world. When I first came onto a.p.o, I continued this line of thinking.

I eventually made another integration: You will only see the picture by looking at it yourself. No one can show it to you. As a result, my "preaching" is a waste of time. For me to spend hours and days putting it in context for you is a waste of time, because I won't do as good a job as the book, and if I do, it will take up precious hours from my life. For what?

If you are interested, you will look into it. If not, it's no skin off my back. If you want to believe that I can't present my position because I choose not to, it's no skin off my back, either.

Neo-Tech integrates Objectivism with time (among other things). Wasting an hour explaining something to you that has been explained effectively elsewhere is absurd. If you're interested, you'll look at the source.

Jeffrey Haber (haber001@gold.tc.umn.edu) wrote: vivid@terraport.net (The Vivid Group) wrote:

Challenge

I think that it's to be expected that a philosophy as radical, challenging, and moralistic as Objectivism would have many angry detractors on the net, looking for more excuses and rationalizations to convince themselves that it's not true when they know that it is. "We don't have to believe it!" Interestingly most of the anti-Objectivists on APO actually support many Objectivist positions, but not the entire philosophy. I suspect that many of them want their cake and want to eat it too, that is, I think many admire Objectivism to the extent that it provides validation for many of their viewpoints, but oppose it in on other issues. The opposition is similar to the Libertarians--they want to do what they feel and rationalize that, which often means opposing Objectivism, but at the same time they want some of it's fruits.

Response

I agree. Objectivism is so well laid-out, that it's all or nothing.

Challenge

As a result of all those who are angry with Objectivism for it's being Objectivism--angry at the good and true for being the good and true--angry at reality, it's practically impossible to have serious discussion about Objectivism here.

Response

Hmm. I've seen plenty of quality serious discussions around here. You must not be looking very closely.

Challenge

I propose that the newsgroup be moderated or regulated, and that those people who explicitly oppose Objectivism, like the Neo-kooks and skeptics, be banned from posting on it. Perhaps then some real Objectivists would read and post again. Does anyone know if it's possible to moderate or regulate an Internet newsgroup?

Response

Setting aside the error you've made about Neo-Tech, I'd like to express my repulsion at this idea.

Objectivism stands on its own feet. It needs no defenders, and it will always prove to be the accurate position. The dynamics at work here are being overlooked by Jeffrey Haber. The dynamics of objectivism and honesty and reality, is that with a simple and clear identification, REALITY can be asserted.

If someone makes a silly subjectivist or mystical notion, it is a piece of cake to simply identify it for what it is -- disproving it quickly, efficiently, and completely. Any honest, intelligent debate will always result in reality being asserted, and objectives prevailing.

Not because we believe in it or adhere strictly to it, but because it's right and demonstrable.

See, Jeffrey, this is what you don't get about Objectivism: Whether you promote it or argue against it is irrelevant. It is right and you can use it to your advantage. Those who would disagree with it are irrelevant, because it is only a matter of time until reality asserts itself and shows them the error in their position.

What is is. It doesn't matter if flamers come onto this group and make noise and cause a scene. The facts of reality remain as the facts of reality. Anyone is free to accept them or reject them. But if they reject them, they will have to face it.

Next Page | Contents | Previous Page

Index | Parent Index | Build Freedom: Archive

Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact

Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com