Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Tonight's discussion is a continuation of "How Force Paralyzes Thought", moderated by Tym Parsons. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are copyrighted by the channel owners: Tom Wright and myself. They may not be copied or distributed without the permission of the channel owners. And now, I'll turn the channel over to Tym. Go ahead, Tym. I want to chew Dr. Hull's idea some more... ..until everybody's fairly clear on it. If we have time we can get into comparing/contrasting it with LP and AR's account. First off... Any questions on how force paralyses thought? :) Tym: What is meant by 'paralyses'? Yeah: What is it about the nature of force that makes it incompatible with thought? Tym: In this context? Jim: prevents :) I'd like to go over that part about not being able to make new integrations under the threat of force, but I'll let you bring that up when you're ready. Subetai: go ahead. ...this is going to be pretty informal. It prevents a thought from being expressed in action and, in so doing, removes all the rational _motivation_ for thinking. Well, what distinguishes the two. Why is it possible to use previously made integrations but not make new ones, if one decides to do it? Betsy: Okay, so it works against motivation. But it doesn't prevent it, if one so decides, right? Betsy: you can't think under force even if you *want* to. I wasn't here the first discussion, but how does force prevent thought? One can think, but can't act rationally under the circumstances. I think it is important to note that under sever force, one is able to perform routine tasks (i.e. no real thinking), which some may be confusing as thought. Betsy: this is a point that LP is emphatic about. That's why in totalitarian regimes like Russia, you see a lot of alcoholism and thought expressed in areas where action isn't forbidden -- like chess. Subetai: Is it even possible to use previously made integrations under force. For example, if a law is passed outlawing any marketing that is perceived by the government as "unfair", then even your old knowledge can't be acted on. Tym: There is no mind/body dichotomy...force the body, and one forces the mind as well. Subetai: I think Tom answered yr question. Tom: but what are the mechanics? How does it prevent integration of new ideas? No, he's talking about "severe" force. We're talking about force of all degrees of severity or even the threat of force. Force leads to fear and fear short-circuits mental integration. Betsy: how? Subetai: It's all the same, except for the dgree of the interuption. Betsy: more fundamentally than that tho.. ..is that it short-circuits *integration*. Do you see that? Betsy: Many things lead to fear, but only force prevents you from acting even if you face up to the fear. Tom: In that case "paralyze" means "inhibit" rather than "prevent", in today's topic. Tom: does the degree of interruption affect the degree of thinking (or lack of?) Subetai: inhibit *is* preventing . Tym: Define "integration" for me, in this context, please. In the absence of integration, no abstractions can be performed. Subetai: No, I think it means prevent...in other words, if one is not free to act on one's thought, one can not be an integrated individual...integration is an impossible virture to practice under force. Okay. I was differentiating between not being able to do it to the best of one's capacity, versus not being able to do it at all, period. "Integration of new knowledge" is what we're talking about. Subetai: it *destroys* thought that would've occurred but now can't. It foreshortens it. Subetai: one still retains past integrations, but can't cofme up with any new ones, since one can not act according to one's thoughts. ...if you can't do yr best, some thought is being prevented. Agree? and even destroys old integrations, for the same reason. Tom: I think we need to get a bot more concrete here. Give me an example. Force cuts off the correlation between thought an action. When you point a gun at someone and say ,"Do this," what you're doing is forcing him to act--against your own judgement; against your own rational conviction. tym: Yes, *some* thought is being prevented. er, his own judgement, rather. Sean: yes! Dr. Peikoff has a good point in one of his courses I'd like to put in here ... Thinking is the key to living the human life...prevent rational action, and you prevent human living. Sean: hold on in the escape from gulag exaple used previously - aren't you creating new integrations when devising escape plans? Sean: yeah, against his own judgement, but at the point of a gun. He has to do stuff based on the other person's obviously irrational judgement. So, is it the capability to think or the capacity to think that is short circuited? SeanS: Yes, a gun man forces you to even act against the plans you had for the evening...force attacks all levels of thinking, by preventing a person from acting on one's thoughts, but instead acting according to the commands of the forcer bls: discussed that last time. That's Low-level thought. blspro: No, I don't think so...one is simply using previously integrated principles...and attempting to act on them. tom - so there are no new conceptions in such a circumstance? SeanS: What's the Point from LP you wanted to put in here? but are you not constantly thinking of ways to get away from the gun-man? Okay. HardCandy: in the short run, the capability is stopped...in the long run, even the capacity will disappear. blspro: Right. Jim: I want to save LP for later. What if reality was different? What if, by pointing a gun at someone, you could force them to accept an idea. Ie.., 2+2=5. No one would agree, right? Reminds me of THE CAPTIVE MIND by Czeslaw Milos and SELECTED ESSAYS by Vlacev Havel. Antioch: Those are new thoughts, to some dgree, but not new integrations...which is a key point in understanding this issue. er, should I continue, Tym? Also, something I'd like to clarify is that force may be directed on specific aspects of one's actions. For example, some people in the USSR did some pretty deep level thinking in areas where they were free to think, even in that system. SEanS: Let's stick to actual reality, not a rewritten reality (else we could imagine a world where force can't even hurt you.) Sean: let's hold off for now :) What are you calling force? A threat? tom: would that not depend on how elaborit a plan of escape you have? Subetai: Mostly, though, those thoughts were closer to fantasies than thoughts about existence. tom - but I have never come accros such a situation before of having to escape from a prison - I am using old ideas - like digging - but am having to use them in ways I may not have thought of before - would't I? Jim_N: I'm rewritting one aspect to show that a certain aspect is essential to this principle. npandya: the initiation of physical force. TomMiovas: I was talking about some of their scientists, specially biologists. tom - what is diff between new thoughts and new integrations? Subetai: those scientists werre free within that area to think...so the principle does not apply. Does this apply to any such action, like that of an animal attacking you? Tom: That's what I said. Subetai: even totalitarianism can't stifle all thought. ...but that doesn't invalidate the principle here. blspro: One may never have tried to excape from prison, but that is entirely different thatn trying to come up with a new law of nature to try to excape. Right. The point I made was that force can be selective. Tom: ever watch Mcguiver? Subetai: are you saying that it can be practical? Tym: No, I'm not saying that. Keep in mind that the significant thought Hull is talking about is starting with existence, and coming up with some new integration no one else has come up with. To the degree that one can self-reference, can one reduce the amount of harm being done to their conceptual abilities? Sean: they can pretend to agree. Antioch: Actually, McGiver is a good example...he always used ideas he arrived at when he was not held captive. tom - so it is the MAGNITUDE of thought that is being discussed then - low magnitude thought, as it were, is still capable of being performed - it is the higher magnitude thought that is discouraged or denied Ayn Rand wrote stories in her head while she lived in Russia, but she could not write any of them down. If a person is told to act against the procedures for work that he's learned before the force was applied, even though the knowlege of those procedures is low_level, didn't force make paralyse that thought, making the person unable to act on it? Stardust : Exactly. Then can PRETEND to agree, you cannot actually convince a person that 2+2=5. Betsy: think of the progress she could have made had she been able to! There's only so much thinking you can do without giving it external form. Force prevents that. SeanS: Right...one of the points Rand makes is that Force cannot substitute for a sylogism, i.e. substitute for evidence. Copernicus and Galileo also come to mind tom - so when saying force paralizes thought - what is really being said is - force inhibits higher magnitude thought Betsy: That ability would have been self-defeating had she not escaped...her own imagination of what could be better would have destroyed her. Sean: Meaning that you can't TEACH them that 2+2=4, or =5, if they don't already have a set for that? Hold on all blspro: On the immediate level, it stops all thought...one must act as a programmed robot. If somebody was performing a task they already knew how to do, wouldn't they be working on routine and not thought? In the long run, one simply shuts down to a level of performing routines only. Awright, everyone stop! :) Go ahead, Tym. <> Tym looks around. Good :) StarDuSt: Not necessarily. The procedure may be known, but requires attention and a range of choices that require thinking to make. I want to make sure everyone is on track here... Jim: it's still routine. TomMiovas: I didn't say otherwise, but the question was whether or not it involves thought, and my answer was yes. ...what we're discussing RIGHT NOW is the idea that force SABOTAGES integration and context. There is a scene in Les Miserables (I think) after all those years of captivity all the former prisoner can do is deal with shoes...tinkering around with shoes. Incapable of thought. It's in "A Tale of Two Cities". ONLY context and integration. Thanks Hardcandy: A good example...there is no real thought when all one has to do is do the routine (even if it is done slightly different thatn before). Wrong author....sheeeeez ..is this idea valid or not, and WHY? Tom: That routine has to be learned. Tym: Let's use simpler words than "sabotage". Tym: It sabotages integration, since integration means acting on one's thoughts. opps. Tom: All routines have to be learned. Tym: It prevent maintaining a context, since the facts of existence is precisely what the force-welder wants you to disregard. Tom: yes! tom: I.e., how did it GET to be routine? You had to think about it, integrate. Sean: but, that is not thouht in the strickest sense of the word. Tom: Some surguries are considered routine...doctors have performed them lots of time in the past, but each time, they still must think carefully while performing the task. Some things don't become so routine that they requie no thought. Tym: Valid. The entire purpose of the initiation of force is to disable man from his ability to think and act on reason. It is to impel him to act according to the thugs whim. <> Antioch has left: Automatically set away. Tym: wouldn't knowing that the context of the situation is force allow you to account for it? For example, the Church says that anyone who says there are things which orbit anything other than the earth is to be burned. Galileo can still look out of his Jim: the level of surgery in the Soviet Union was quite dismal. I think there are two levels of things here then. Doing a few things would requirw little or no thought. telescope and see the Jovian satellites and conclude otherwise HardCandy: Actually, the purpose of initiating force is to make someone act against their thoughts, i.e. to make them act against what they would voluntarily choose to do. Tym: I understand that context is sabotaged, since one has to ignore reality in the sphere where the force is being applied. When you say it sabotages integration - do you mean integration of the context? npandya: ...and all the ideas that flow from those observations. npanya: That edict came down *after* Galileo published his findings. TomMiovas: I'm not talking about surgury in the soviet union. I'm talking about whether all routine task still can require thought in order to perform it. the reason force hurts science is that it removes incentive gilles: integration, the summation of all yr knowledge to reach new conclusions. Jim: The context here is under force...not the normal job that is somewhat routinized. it doesn't stop the scientist from thinking, nothing can Antioch: incentive is secondary, as I said. Jim_N: Yes, albeit very little. Tym: Then I don't understand. How is that? Antioch: I disagree, whole point here. since you have automatized the task (i.e., walking) so well. All thought accomplished under force would be *in spite* of it, not *because of* it. Like in Anthem. Antioch: In that case, it would be invalid. Antioch: Those thoughts can not come about if the scientist is forbidden to have the freedom to perceive existence on his own. its primary for publication purposes tym Antioch: you CAN force people to stop thinking, by destroying their ability to integrate. TomMiovas: The context and question I was answering was whether routine tasks were mindless or required thought. Even under force, some procedures don't happen mindlessly. StarDust: kep in mind that "liberty" was not under force when he was making his discoveries...he snuck off all by himself. but show me how force prevents integration Stardust: yes! SeanS: Do you think there is very little thought in a routine heart operation? Tom: yes, but he did so despite of his conditions, etc. There is a tremendous amount of effort that had to go into that. Jim: Some jobs are never routine...and heart surgery is one example of that. (or one possible example) Writing a novel is another...one can not automatize the creative process. TomMiovas: They are considered routine to the surgeons that have performed them many times, but they still require thought. True, they never become automatic. What role does FEAR play? What some people consider force, others do not. People have different tolerances. Some people cave into fear easier than others. Folks, we're going to have to move on. Not everyone's going to be on the same level here, especially if they weren't at the first discussion. But we need to proceed... I want to compare/contrast Hull's account and those of LP and AR. Perhaps that will help clarify things more. So, is there a conflict with his account and LP and AR? Tym: i don't think so. Tom: why? Tym: Hull is just giving a more detailed description of what occurs. Hull showed *how* integration is destroyed. Anyone: what is LP's account in OPAR? ..it's under The Initiation of Force as a Major Vice". Tym: I think Peikoff starts with a discussion of integration, shows it requires the body acting in accordance with thought, and shows that if the body is threatened, the mind can not function in an integrated manner. Tym: LP has a few points: 1) You can't force a mind to think, i.e. thinking is a volitional act... LP basically says that force destroys the virtue of rationality. Tym: Sure, and integration is involved in rationality. "The virtue of rationality requires one to think, andhten to be guided by his conclusions in action. Force clashes with both these requirements." LP in OPAR Jim: suppose you _wanted_ to think under the threat of force. Could you? Tym: 2) LP discusses how force makes a man act _against_ this judgement. ...remember we're talking about *significant* thought. "Force used to change a man's action shoves his mind and thus its process of cognition, into the junkheap of the purposeless...LP in OPAR HC: right on. Tym: No, you could not think significant thought because the context of reality has been preemted by the forcer. So you can't think rationally in fact. I haven't read Hull's article. Does it differ from Dr. Peikoff's account? gilles: yr being asked to deny yr convictions. Subetai: that's what I'm asking :) So will someone answer? :) Who has read it? Like an unwanted "mind-body dichotomy'? Tom says there's no conflict. Anyone unsure? I am. Subetai: Yes...whereas LP's focus is on how you can't force a person to think, and if you force them to act, you are forcing them to act against their thought. So force is anti-mind. Hull is focused on the effects of force on "Significant" thinking as against low_level thinking. Subetai: We have been...remember, independence is a prime virtue, and one can not be independent under threat of force, so the whole mechanics of the mind must shut down. What is the significants of establishing *significant* thought vs. in significant thought? what is the name of it? I have yet to see the *how* A suspension of reality....undermines the necessary foundation for rational thought. Tym: Not really. I would say that your convictions are being sabotaged at their root - reality. The forcer is taking the place of reality. Sean: insignificant thought can occur under force. SeanS: I don't seen the importance of it, to validate why force is anti-mind. Tym: Not under total force, I don't think. Jim_N: You're right. It's not needed to estbalish the principle. ...that froce is anti-mind. Jim: There is *no* difference, except to show the difference between the routine and the non-routine. Tym: Not really. Not even insignificant thoughts can occur under force. If I want to see a movie tonight and a criminal kidnaps me, my low level thought is made invalid to my life. I think the level of force inflicted upon someone is directly linked to how much thought you destroy or inhibit. If you just get mugged on the street, you aren't going to retarded for life. Jim: So Peikoff says that no thought can occur under force, while Hull says that "insignificant" thought may occur. Is that the difference? Tym: I'll stop thinking about my plans for the movie and start thinking about how to escape or survive the kidnapping. I haven't read Hull's article, but by insignificant, he probably means without purpose. Tym, is that right? Sean: I think the purpose is to focus on the distinguising characteristic of thought vs. automatized action... To identify the essence of the difference, hence identifying the true damage inflicted by the init. of force. gille: no, he means _habituated_ by low level. Subetai: Not fully. Peikoff shows how force is hostile to all thought, regardless of whether it is significant or low level (he doesn't even make the disticition.) There is no such thing as insignificant thought. gilles: Significant means making new integrations based on the factgs of existence using you own mind alone to reach a conclusion. Jim: I disagree. Tym: Why? Tym: What's the distinction between "habituated" and "automatic?" Because if it's automatic, it's not thought. Sean: folding tacos? ;) Tym: Where does LP make the distinction? vs. under complete totalitarism, like the Auschiwtz, thought is prohibited greatly. Though I would ahve to say that "significant" vs "igsignificant" may be bad terminology (in that it is evidently misleading). Jim: LP says that coercion forces you to accept something other than yr perception of reality as a guide to action. oops...sorry for typos. Tym: If that's all your mind can comprehend. Tom: Hull uses "low level". Tym: Yeah, even my low level thinking is a perception of reality that I am forced to drop if the criminal interferes with my acting on them. Sean: but after you've LEARNED how to do it, no sweat, right? Well could someone please explain to me how force destroys the ability to make new integrations? Please? Please is all this simply in the context of man vs. man - or does this apply to all force - be it man or not? I think LP refers to performing automatized work while in capacity "the living dead." Tym: Try performing a routine task while a gun man tells you to do otherwise. Even the low level thoughts are stopped by force, in the sense of preventing you from acting on them. gilles: think of what a new integration requires, and you will have the answer. gilles: because you can't bring together conclusions based on previous conclusions. blspro: Force means the initation of physical force, which is a concep that only applies in a social context. So your answer is: Man vs. man. Because it is not truly life to be at the wrong end of the Glock. sean - animals can initiate force against me HC: Which page are you refering to. Page 316 A reference to WE THE LIVING Not in the sense we're talknig bout. We're talking about the realationship between rational beings. Our point is that it's evil, or bad, is it not? HC: Okay. sean - I did know that we were saying it is evil - simply that force stops thought - whatever the source of that force "he becomes the Living Dead who loses the capacity to know any longer what is being done to him or to care." Tym: That's a restatement. My question is why. What's the mechanism at work? Because I really don't understand what the point is here. did not - sorry blspro: As we can't morally judge animals, the issue of the evil of force is only relevent in judging the choices of volitional beings, i.e. humans. But animals do not have a mind to destroy, or thought--rational thought--to inhibit. jim - didn't know we were talking about it being evil - thought we were merely saying how force stops thought "To the extent that a person succeeds in this endeavor (Leo's behavior) he becomes the living dead" AR sean - their force can stop us though is my point Sure. So can a volcano. gilles: I gave a concretisation just before the discussion. HardCandy: That is relevant to this discussion...one can become "the living dead" under force, but not the living. Yes But the point is human relationship here. You cannot reason with a mountain. sean - that's all I was asking :) Tym: I'm sorry. I missed it. blspro: lots of physical things can stop thought (like falling on one's head), but the implicit context of this discussion is "why it's wrong for humans to initiate force". Can I say what I had to say, Tym? Sean: go for it :) okay ... jim - got it - just thought we were talking about the mechanics of it - no the moral implications - thought that was already agreed to :) Tym: You didn't comment on my point: Try performing a routine task while a gun man tells you to do otherwise. Even your low level thought of a routine task is paralysed by force, since you can't act on it. Jim: doesn't exhaust the possibilities :) Jim: while that is true, it is not what Hull is talking about. blspro: We were talking about the mechanics of it. You're right. If you could convince someone--that is make him BELIEVE--that 2+2=5 by pointing a gun at him, then this issue wouldn't come up. The only thing we'd have to say about force is: Use it in advocation of good ideas. gilles :) Jim: what if it's a low level task the forcer WANTS you to perform? TomMiovas: Of course not. My point is that LP never has to make the distinction between low level and significan thought, because force paralyses both in the same way. Sean: Force never advocates good ideas But by pointing a gun, you're making a person act in spite of his rational conviction. Sean: Wrong...that was the point Hull was making...you can't even force sofmeone to accept correct thoughts. Sean: even if force is used in the advocation of good ideas it is still wrong. Force causes you not to have a reason to think. The purpose of thinking is eventually some kind of action that benefits the thinker. If you can't act because of force all of your thinking toward that action is paralyzed. Yes, Stardust. Can you say why? Is there such a thing as forcing someone "for his own good"? Sean: His own good should *not* be determined by someone else, in a forceful way because The initiation of force is always evil. By definition. Tym: I could do it, sure. A person can be forced to ACT in a certain way, the issue is that he can't be forced to think a certain way, i.e. to accept as true what he can't integrate. Jim: Low level thinking (i.e. routine) is still necessitated even in a dictatorship. blspro: I think the answer is that with the rocks and the animals, that's reality and the mind deals with it as it can. When a bear is chasing you, you can only run. But normally the behavior of animals is predictable and you can learn to deal w/ it His own good should be determined by him, not you. It is not the outcome that is the problem. Right. You are overiding his judgement, which is his means of survival. Good one. Jim: slave labor in Communist countries. Making tennis shoes requires low level thought, doesn't it? Tom: of course. Total physical force can only logically end up at one end: death. Sean and StarDust: Also, you are annhialating the very concept of good by taking away choice. The concept of good depends on choice. gilles: Good point. Yes, exactly ;). Glenn: in that case good and true ideas could be imposed by force, right? Seand and Stardust: And that's true psychologically also. gilles: What do you mean by that? Right...if someone forces me to think a certain way, and somebody else gets me to think that way by explaining things, they are *not* doing the smae thing. gilles: why can't I "force you for yr own good"? Sean: Emotions proceed from evaluations. Evaluations presuppose choice. gilles: Yes ...? Tym: how is it for someone else's good if you're doing it? Sean: That's why you can't fully enjoy something when it is forced on you. StarDust: The whole point of the preceeding was that you *can not* force someone to think...it's entirely volitional. Gotta go folks...carry on! Later, Tym. Thanks. :) The point is that somebody CAN'T get you to think any way -- right or wrong. They can only make you ACT as if you think a certain way. Tym: That people can learn to do low level tasks under force is a seperate issue force paralysing thought. Because the low level thoughts for other tasks that the enslaved would otherwise have done is paralysed. force = from The positions taken here aren't clear. One can't force a person to think, no matter how greatly I threaten you you won't understand say E=mc2, it would remain meaningless gibberish Tym: I already answered that. The concept of good depends on choice and that's true emotionally also since evaluations also pressupose choice. I read an article about this in Shane's zine...he related it to getting govt. funding for AIDS cures, etc - and he said you can't force anyone to come up with a cure, no matter what because if the evidence isn't there or they aren't capable, they won't come up with it. If they can, they would have already. npandya: Hmmm, for not being clear, you got the point ;) Sean: Yes what? npandya: Nor can you force a person to believe that making shoes for a living is better than other careers. gilles: I was provoking you to continue. But you have satisfied me. Thanks :). The other point, Hull's is that if someone threatens force, one CAN'T think, which I believe is different (Or at least this is what I am getting as Hull's view from this discussion) npandya: it's not different. TomM: please clarify Sean: Did I give an incomplete answer? No. It just came in spurts, that's all. I think we're lagged or something ... yup. npandya: Thinking is entirely volitional...you must do all of it...under force, you can't because the forcer weilder is a barrior between you and existence. When you are the object of force, dealing with that force takes precedence over any other aspect of reality in your context. Sean: Continue how? gilles: Forget it. TomM: the force wielder is part of existence, how is he fundamentally different from the volcano which your village is under? Can you think in the village, but not in the totalitarian state? npandya: A volcano explodidng would put you into panic mode, which also stops thinking, but it's not the same as a force weilder. Tym Is the context we are talking about a particular instance of force stopping a certain action, and the integration that went into that action, or a more generalized force as in a dictatorship, and how it inhibits action and thus thinking. Or is it same for both. npndya: You can't think in the village. But volcano erruptions are rare. antioch: The whole discussion was about the how. So can someone please answer the how? Hillary Clintons book " it takes a collective" Tym is a great question-asker but he never answered the how. If it's not a question of motivation and purpose, then what's the deal? What was he talking about? gilles: The mechanics of thought require no one being between you and existence...the force weilder stands between you and existence. The whole conversation was so abstract. Nobody introspected on "What does force do to MY thinking?" I asked for examples. none given. gilles: I agree, it was not clear why one COULD NOT think under those circumstances. There is a difference between not being able to do your thinking and not thinking under force when somebody uses force against me.. I dont think.. I react Tom: Because he replaces reality as the context. Fine. What's so revolutionary about that? I gave one last time: Since the US Gov has outlawed private research on atomic powered automobiles,f i won't think about it. One answer given was that it takes the focus of thought away from the problem at hand to how to respond to the force.' I don't have much experience on that. Another answer was that since thinking abstractly requires that you be able to put the thought into action to some extent, to build upon it, and since that is forbidden, it makes it impossible to think abstractly. Subetai: agreed, but that occurs under any threat whether from man, beast, or volcanoes How is that any different from Dr. Peikoff's treatment of this subject? npandya: You should think about the Objectivist view of integration. Nitin: Right, except that we're talking about Force, and not volcanoes. gilles: Hull goes into more detail. TomMiovas: Gimme the details in that case. :) Betsy, force causes my thinking to be wasted and futile. I think that several things need to be mentioned. First, the degree of force can vary. And therefore, the effects, while qualitatively similar, can also vary in magnitude. Men shouldn't act like volcanoes. Gilles: good quote! Can I use it? TomM: So US govt. will forbid research on atomic powered vehicles. Are you saying you CANNOT think about them? gilles: difficult to do in this short space...but basically Hull shows the mental process of sofmeone threatened with force, and how his thoughts are stopped each time the "thinker" comes close to going against the force weilder. Glenn: Force causes me to get very concrete-bound. StaRDuSt: :) npandya: Think of what it would require...sure, I can get some of the abstract principles lined up, but the first time I try to get plutonium (or others) to experiment with, i'm in the klink!@ Even if you could somehow illegal produce it, there'd be no pratical use for the idea, as you couldn't market it, etc... I never found Gary Hull's distinction to be partiicularly enlightening. I think Rand and Peikoff made all the really inportant points. Sean: yes...so why bother? Exactly. Betsy: What was the distinction? Betsy: Well, Hull wasn't coming up with a new idea, just showing th process in the details. Gilles: no, I'm serious! The distinction between significant and low level thinking. <> megsi was aboard an Los angels class fast attack nuclear powered sub once.. it was neato mosquito! StaRDuSt: Well of course you can use it. :) Be my guest. cool neato *mucho* mosquito! What's low level thinking? From what I understand, it's using abstractions you've already made to perform mechanical tasks. *grunt* hmmm me tie shoes *grunt* I had a guided tour of the torpedo bay :) Well, back to work for me. My professor said he would kill me if I didn't solve this problem. :) gilles: use of already existing integrations Gilles: Between force stopping high-level rather than low-level thinking. Thanks gilles. Low level think is, I think, thought (or perhaps tasks) that you have automatized, i.e., your times tables (5x5=25, 5x6=30, counting by 5s, 2s, etc...) Betsy: What would be an example of those two? +ing Gilles: Low level= concrete-bound. High level=more abstract and well-integrated. I need to get back to work. Later, all. Betsy: I mean can you give some examples of force not affecting low-level thought. gilles: Think of all that stuff made in China. Betsy: Don't you think it's contexual? I mean, if you do "higher-level" thinking every day, those tasks get more and more automatized ... Tom: So is Gary Hull talking about force as a general social principle? At some point, multiplication is the "higher level" and addition is the "lower level" no? sean: ytou can not automatize getting new integrations. Gilles: I'll leave that to Gary Hull to do since I'm not convinced that the level of abstraction matters when it comes to force.