Reality: The Taboo Against Reality, Introduction

Previous Chapter | Next Chapter | TOC | The Binary Circumstance Blog | Contact

Reality

and The Taboo Against Truth

Introduction

The philosopher and novelist, Ayn Rand, as well as her associates have written extensively on the subjects of existence, reality, consciousness, the functioning of the human mind and many other subjects related to her philosophy, Objectivism. I owe Rand as well as all those who have expanded upon her work, whether they are of the orthodox or unorthodox variety, a great debt of gratitude. Her work and their expansions upon it have helped me to clarify my own thinking on these same issues.

Since it is impossible to think without language, it is important when trying to communicate an idea to use words and concepts in ways that are acceptable and understood by the intended audience. The problem is that, inevitably, words have different shades of meaning to each individual and too often discussions of abstract concepts degenerate into disagreements about semantics.

Rand stated that the metaphysics of her philosophy was Objective Reality.[i] But what exactly do “metaphysics,” “philosophy,” “objective,” and “reality” mean? Any definition ultimately must rely on more words which will inevitably mean different things to different people. To assume that words and concepts mean exactly the same thing to every person, implies that every mind functions in an identical fashion. Since language is the basis for thought, any attempt to force definitions or linguistic structure upon an individual will become an assault on their individuality and an attempt to control the way they think. It is also true, and paradoxically frustrating, that in order for individuals to communicate about the Universe is which they live; they need a consistent, well-defined language of concepts and symbols to talk to each other. The use of mental concepts to represent discreet entities is the basis for language it enables humans to communicate and think without having the entities that they are talking or thinking about present. If you want to describe a table, you don’t have to have the table with you to demonstrate what you’re talking about. You don’t have to point. You can create an image with words and others who know the same language will have a pretty clear idea of what you’re talking about.

The danger inherent in philosophy in general is that since it is about thinking, it must also be built on words and concepts which are abstractions prone to individual variations in meaning. Thinking is a complex process that must vary from individual to individual according to individual brain structure and chemistry. Philosophical concepts are not like concepts and words that represent physical objects. You can’t pick up a “metaphysics” or an “epistemology” and show it to somebody, although Rand’s greatest contribution was to bring us closer to that goal. When she declares that her metaphysics is “Objective Reality” she is saying that her philosophy is built upon existence, the stuff of the Universe and the laws that hold it all together, not a function of individual consciousness:

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (or any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward.[ii]

When she says that her epistemology is “reason” she tells us that knowledge is acquired in a particular way that can be described by a set of rules that derive from the structure and function of the human mind. In doing this, she grounds philosophy in a world that is accessible to all rational individuals as an extension of everyday experience. It becomes a great equalizer rather than one that divides men into those that know a truth that has been revealed only to them and those who must spend their lives trying to learn it from those who have the revelation. In the Universe created by mystics where faith rather than evidence determines the nature of existence, reverence goes to those who believe in things without proof; condemnation goes to those who tell the truth and provide evidence to support their conclusions.

The physical sciences and mathematics are more closely related to the concrete physical world. Concepts like metaphysics and epistemology as they often used are more prone to subjective shades of meaning than words such “ball” or the number “two.” I have attempted to keep my discussion on a very basic level, relying more heavily on hard physical science and mathematics than on purely philosophical exercises.

Whereas Rand uses the term Objective Reality, which emphasizes a distinction between “objective” and “subjective” views of existence, I use the term Universal Reality because it is directly related to the concept Universe, which is the sum total of all that exists. The concept Universe immediately brings to mind the vast expanse of existence as well as the long history of scientific inquiry into the functioning of the universe. It connotes a whole that acknowledges the existence of realities that exist in individual consciousnesses (subjective) and those independent of any consciousness (objective).

The terms “objective” and “subjective” imply concepts that are inherently in opposition to each other, a dualism. The implication is that it is necessary for individuals to defeat their subjectivity in order to see things from an objective viewpoint. This is not possible. Any view of objective reality will be subjective to some extent because an individual is a subjective being. His mind and his consciousness operate independently from other individuals. It is, however, possible that if a ball exists, everyone can agree that it exists; it is not possible for them all to look at it through the same set of eyes or from the same point at the same time. Each subject will have a unique relationship with the object that exists universally for all of them. I intend for the concept of Universal Reality to include all that exists, both the subjective and objective. While there is one Universe, there is a unique view of it for each consciousness that exists. Any attempt to force every subjective consciousness to see it the same way inevitably results in tyranny, and an assault on the nature of Universal Reality.

I understand what Rand was trying to convey by calling her philosophy Objectivism and do not in any way intend to disparage her efforts to explain the nature of Objective Reality and the importance of the human mind’s adherence to it. I prefer the term Universal Reality because it implies the totality of the Universe as well as a reality that can be universally perceived and understood by any rational consciousness. What matters is the quality of an individual’s relationship to Universal Reality, not whether it is subjective or objective. An individual either seeks to grasp the workings of the Universe or he does not. He accepts what exists or he rejects it. He either succeeds in his efforts to understand the Universe and his place in it or he fails in that effort. I refer to these either/or, mutually exclusive situations as “binary circumstances” throughout this text. It is a concept that I developed several years before I came in contact with Rand’s work and is largely an outgrowth of my background in biology and computer science.

Whether an individual’s reality is called subjective or objective is less important than whether or not it is consonant with Universal Reality. It is his knowledge of what exists and the acceptance and understanding of it that will ultimately destroy the dualism between subjectivity and objectivity.

The existence of subjective consciousnesses is an objective reality. Objective reality must be perceived by subjective consciousnesses. This relationship is part of the structure of the Universe; it exists. The individual mind and its subjective experience exist just as surely as the planets which are an objective reality not dependent upon any consciousness. Rand alluded to this when she said, “Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.”[iii] The consciousness belongs to the one who perceives.

I accept that existence is real and that human beings are not only part of it, but have acquired an ability to interact with it unprecedented in the history of the known Universe. I do not dispute Rand’s premise that “nature in order to be commanded must be obeyed.”[iv] I also accept that consciousness is not universal in its implementation, that every individual has a unique consciousness. I have attempted to emphasize why unique variants of consciousness are important to the survival of the human species and why freedom in social interactions is essential to preserving those variants. By implication, it will never be possible for all men to grasp the nature of the Universe to the same degree; some are better suited to the task than others. That is the basis for the evolution and the continued survival of the species.

It has been a challenging task to write this book and I do not pretend that it will provide all the answers to the great problems that face Man in this Universe. At best it will be my little drop in the bucket. My hope is that it will challenge the reader to think in new ways as Rand challenged me. Ultimately, thinking is a solitary task and no man can or should try to perform the task for another.

Without elaborating any further, it is from this point that I begin: things either exist or they do not. That is the nature of Universal Reality. As long as this basic fundamental reality is taboo, as long as children around the world are raised to confuse existence with nonexistence, then sanity, knowledge and peace will also be taboo as a consequence. As long as reality is taboo, freedom will be taboo. Most importantly, Man will never be free to live in harmony with the Universe that created him or in peace with his fellow man.

Seattle, WA