Friday 20 June 2008

No conflicts between men...?

Diana over at Noodlefood opened the comments of one of her posts for whatever wild hairs happened among the crowd.

I didn't have the most eloquent (nor most grammatically correct) comment, which could be summarized as asking the question whether conjoined twins would violate the supposedly objectivist idea that there are no conflicts between men. Burgess followed up with (my paraphrase) "watchyoutalkinboutwillis" ? With Diana's permission, I'm bringing this discussion home where it can have "top level" visibility.

Let me start by setting the record straight. OPAR pg 236, "there are no conflicts of interest between rational men". This is clearly not the same thing as the wording I used for the preceding idea: "no conflicts between men".

Having stated the semi-officially accepted view of at least one champion of objectivism, back to the original comment and why I found it interesting. Are there conflicts of interest between rational conjoined twins? (more disclosure: I am not suggesting any connection whatsoever between the Hensel twins and objectivism, nor trying to say anything about their personal, philosophical, or political beliefs -- I don't have any clue where they stand -- I did find their situation to be very thought provoking as a means of exploring the world, concepts and terminology around me).

I don't have an answer to the question, but here's my thinking so far. First some definitions / context:
  1. Assume capacity for full human rationality exists independently in each twin. "man qua man"
  2. Assume for biological system reasons the twins don't want to be or cannot be separated. (this may need to be considered independently)
  3. Recognize that even "identical" twins have differences in wants, desires, abilities and goals.

Can there be a conflict of interest between them? Depends on what you mean by "conflict of interest", maybe? Rand wrote John Galt in Atlas Shrugged "I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." By that interpretation and the prior context, for each independent conscious entity to pursue their own interests, it can be expected that the interests will not always perfectly align, it is then a question of who yields their interest. (deliberately implied conflict)

Conjoined twins have a special relationship to the world and reality, that of two independent consciousness entities and one physical entity. Those of you who will claim that I am separating the mind and the body to create a mind-body dichotomy or dualist approach should stop now for that isn't my intent -- it really is a single physical entity with two independent consciousnesses, two independent sets of sensation and perception, two independent consciousnesses (faculties of perceiving that which exists). If one head turns right and the other left, no knowledge will be shared between them of the perceptual level nor conceptual level of the scene they each see. It is not until they communicate externally that the knowledge is transmitted. It isn't quite "man qua man" instead "conjoined-twins qua conjoined twins". (I will grant exceptions for chemical processes in a shared circulatory system, but awareness of a racing heart is not knowledge of the perceptual/conceptual cause). Whisper a joke to one, and the other will not be able to repeat it.

As ct-qua-ct, it would be rational for each to realize that the best flourishing possible for the physical entity will be to use the individual skills and abilities of the independent parts to best effect. This may include an imbalance in skills utilization. It also is in the best interest to not allow any part of the physical entity (including the other consciousness) to suffer neglect or abuse -- this for the same reasons rational (non-twin) entities don't cut off fingers or toes, or neglect personal sanitation.

What would seem to be a potential for conflict between "consciousness entities" must be resolved as what is best for the physical entity and both consciousnesses as a whole. While this may entail some debate between the minds as to what constitutes "best", the overall solution, it should be possible to resolve this as a discussion of goals, not an inherent conflict in interest. (deliberately denied conflict of interest)

What about a substantially unequal distribution of skills and abilities between the twins? Let each contribute according to their ability. This is not much different than the distinction of independently physical entities. Each person does what is in their rational best interest to the best of their ability. Due to their special form, conjoined twins have a special relationship to reality that will make some of their rational decisions different than those of non-conjoined twins or other independent individuals in similar circumstances.

Ultimately, I think objectivism's view of "no conflicts of interest between rational men" is upheld. The nature of some of the definitions change ("qua man" vs "qua conjoined twin"), but the overall principle of rational egoism definitely still applies.

rootie

Sunday 15 June 2008

The human connection...

Quite by chance, I ended up watching a show on television the other night about the Hensel twins. The are conjoined twins, now roughly 18 years old. What amazed me the most is that each one controls one arm and one leg, yet they are able to ride a bike, drive a car, play softball, play piano, and type messages on a computer.

These activities aren't amazing earth shattering occurrences for most people -- you go through some awkwardness while learning, then you "just do it" (as if everything in life is easy). In their case, it represents a level of awareness, communication, and coordination that most people don't need every second of every day. They make it look easy -- but as anyone who has tried a three legged race knows, even simple activities aren't.

I have been marveling at their accomplishment, wondering how it all worked when I had an everyday event...

My wife and I were out shopping. At some point, without a word, or other gesture that I recall, she handed me something to hold, and just as wordlessly, I took it. A simple pair of actions with little or no coordination between us. It isn't typing one hand of an email, nor swinging a bat with good timing and alignment, but it is a form of well-practiced coordination; a sign that we've been married a long time, and shopping together a enough times to have developed an almost automatic situational awareness.

So I write this in celebration of the human connection -- of being alive in the world and well connected...

rootie

Monday 2 June 2008

Celebrating attention to details... (recognition of the primacy of existence)

I can just see this kid thinking "you want me to spell what????"



"That's a relief!" -- indeed!

Happy Monday!

rootie

Sunday 1 June 2008

"issues" in the media...

I am so pleased that we have intelligent unbiased news commentators carrying the banner of the first amendment in our free press. What important issues they have to cover...




Some faces in that video occur frequently enough that they probably should have been fired years ago.

I'm not shilling for Women's Media Center -- I don't know enough about them to be pro or con. I should credit them for the video highlighting the many forms of *important issues* that are covered in the media. :-O

Objectivism sees aspects of modern feminism as collectivism: treating an entire group of people as if they all have the same viewpoints, the same good and the same bad is not justice to the individual members of that group. Aspects of modern feminism are also extremely valid from an Objectivist viewpoint in that people deserve to be treated according to their skills and accomplishments, regardless of gender. Somehow, I don't think cleavage (in the context it was used) is particularly newsworthy political coverage related to skills and accomplishments.

(found via bastard.logic)

rootie