How to Get a Self-Published Book Reviewed

antique art business equipment

Photo by Min An on Pexels.com

When I self-published my first two books I had a hard time getting them read and reviewed. I found that I was not alone in this predicament. In fact, there are millions of self-published authors who are writing and self-publishing millions of books each year (literally). Obviously, these books vary in quality. Some frankly, do not deserve to be read and reviewed. But many of them do. I suspect there are many self-published authors like myself, who put a lot of time, effort and some amount of money into getting their books into final form and available for public consumption.

The general wisdom holds that a written review on Amazon or some other platform will make it more likely a book will sell. I am not sure how valid this wisdom is. But even if the dream of making a little money from a book is dead, a written review from another person who has read the book can provide the author with a small degree of validation for the work he or she put into it. That is something.

Of course, it is no small task for someone to read and review a book. Doing so requires hours of reading and some amount of time thinking about what they have read and additional time actually writing a review. On the other hand, there is a population of millions of self-published authors who want their books read and reviewed. In other words, they are motivated to get their books reviewed.

My question is, why not get this population of self-published authors to read and review each other’s books? The obvious problem is that when two people read and review each other’s books there will be pressure to provide a falsely positive review. However, what if there were a way for this population to get together to read and review each other’s books in a non-binary way?

This is why I created the 100% Free website www.binderreview.com

Basically, what Binderreview is designed to do is match authors together in a non-reciprocal manner. Author A will review Author B and Author B will review Author C, etc. This way there is no undue pressure to write a review that is not 100% honest.

To be honest, I am not sure that this service can work. I hired a web developer to create this website for me. I am not sure they fully understood my concept and I am not 100% satisfied with the job they did. It is live now but I have not yet been able to get many people to use it. This is why it is free. I would like to have people use it and give me feedback on their experience and how it can be made better. I also want to build up a critical mass of users necessary for it to function the way it was designed. Maybe I will keep it free forever. I’m not sure – this is all new to me.

So please, any self-published author who is looking to get his or her book reviewed (and is willing to read and review someone else’s book) please try www.binderreview.com. It is completely free and you have nothing to loose monetarily speaking. I only ask that you give me feedback on your experience.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Writing / Self-Publishing

An Analysis of “Think and Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill: Part III, Chapter Three – Faith

FAITH AND WEALTH

In this chapter Hill asserts that Faith (or belief) can be used to manifest wealth. When a person has faith or belief that he will be wealthy then he is convinced of the truth of this reality. If a person lacks the faith in the outcome of wealth then the outcome will not manifest itself. Therefore, having the faith that one will be wealthy is (according to Hill) an essential hurdle to overcome in order for one to be wealthy.

Hill describes the mechanics as to how this plays out. He explains that a person’s conscious mind is the entity that must have faith or hold the belief that the person will be wealthy. This faith is what communicates to the subconscious mind to take action in order to bring this about. The subconscious mind seems to be responsible for generating ideas which it then feeds back to the conscious mind in the form of plans for achieving this wealth. The subconscious mind also communicates with Infinite Intelligence in order to create the plan to achieve the desired wealth.

When FAITH is blended with the vibration of thought, the subconscious mind instantly picks up the vibration, translates it into its spiritual equivalent, and transmits it to Infinite Intelligence…

The term “Infinite Intelligence” seems to be Hill’s conception of God. Hill does not get very specific as to what this God’s nature is and whether it is consistent with the Christian conception of God. However, Hill does speak positively about Christianity in “Think and Grow Rich.” For example, in this chapter he states:

Christianity is the greatest single force which influences the minds of men. The basis of Christianity is FAITH, no matter how many people may have perverted, or misinterpreted the meaning of this great force, and no matter how many dogmas and creed have been created in its name, which do not reflect its tenets.

For this reason, it seems likely that Hill’s idea of Infinite Intelligence, although perhaps broader conceptually than a personal god, is not ultimately in conflict with the Christian notion of a personal god.

CREATING FAITH

If a person does not initially possess the faith necessary to achieve his goal of attaining wealth he must create this faith. Hill suggests the technique called auto-suggestion for this purpose. Essentially, auto-suggestion is the conscious mind making the decision and causing the body to act on this decision to repeat a phrase (or mantra) stating that the faith exists over and over until the mind (both conscious and subconscious) comes to believe the truth of this phrase.

FAITH is a state of mind which may be induced, or created, by affirmation or repeated instructions to the subconscious mind, through the principle of auto-suggestion.

Hill seems to have great confidence in the power of mantra to instill an actual belief in a person’s mind. From personal experience I have not found mantra repetition to instill actual belief. Often when repeating a mantra or affirmation I observe a secondary thought process which works to undermine the belief being affirmed. Perhaps I simply have not repeated any specific mantra enough times in order to create the belief. My mental jury is still out as to this assertion.

[Y]ou may CONVINCE the subconscious mind that you believe you will receive that for which you ask, and it will act upon that belief, which your subconscious mind passes back to you in the form of “FAITH,” followed by definite plans for procuring that which you desire.

In a sense what Hill is describing is the conscious mind attempting to fool the subconscious mind in order to cause the subconscious mind to communicate with Infinite Intelligence for the purposes of achieving a desired result. The implication is that the belief does not originally exist but rather is created through a misdirection. The question that comes to mind is whether this is an ethical process. Convincing the subconscious mind to act on a belief that does not exist seems to be an act of self-deception. I presume the person who commits this act of self-deception must be ethically on board with this act in order for it to be effective. Hill does not address this issue, however.

MIXING EMOTION WITH THOUGHT

Hill also asserts that thoughts which are mixed with emotion are made more powerful by these emotions for the purpose of manifesting desired outcomes. Moreover, the three most powerful emotions for this purpose are faith, love and sex.

ALL THOUGHTS WHICH HAVE BEEN EMOTIONALIZED, (given feeling) AND MIXED WITH FAITH begin immediately to translate themselves into their physical equivalent… The emotions of Faith, Love and Sex, when mixed with any thought impulse give it greater action than any of these emotions can do singly.

ALIGNING BELIEF WITH GOALS AND ACTIONS

It seems to me that Hill’s conception of faith in the process of manifesting wealth is overly complicated. Let us put aside the obvious questions as to how Hill could possibly state with authority the process whereby the conscious mind communicates with the subconscious mind, and how the subconscious mind in turn communicates with Infinite Intelligence. Perhaps Hill thought the act of conceptualizing the process would make it easier to believe in  the function of belief.

In my opinion what is important here is that when a person is trying to obtain wealth his beliefs must be in alignment with his goals and actions. When the mind is working at cross purposes it will naturally undermine its own efficacy. Put another way, if a person holds two inconsistent beliefs (e.g., he believes he desires wealth but also believes he does not deserve wealth) the act of trying to reconcile these beliefs will siphon off energy that could otherwise be put to use in obtaining that wealth.

I have found that developing a personal mission statement (as advocated by Stephen Covey in The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People) is a very effective technique to ensure one’s beliefs, goals and actions are aligned. Without a mission statement a person is left to make decisions on a case by case basis. Whereas, a mission statement can always be referenced to determine whether a decision is in alignment with one’s beliefs, goals and actions. Of course creating a mission statement requires a person to first contemplate his goals and beliefs.

CONCLUSION

I found this chapter to be muddled and overly complicated. Personally, I think it would be far more effective to say that a person’s beliefs must be aligned with their goals. Repeating a mantra to create a belief that is not aligned with other concurrently held contrary beliefs will be either not possible in the first place or will create opposing internal forces that will fight each other. This will leave the person feeling conflicted and will make him ultimately ineffective. By contrast, creating a mission statement that outlines a person’s goals and beliefs will work to clarify what a person actually wants. He will then be in a better position to discard those beliefs that are not aligned with his goals thus making him more likely to achieve them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Psychology

An Analysis of “Think and Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill: Part II, Chapter Two – Desire

Wishing will not bring riches. But desiring riches with a state of mind that becomes an obsession, then planning definite ways and means to acquire riches, and backing those plans with persistence which does not recognize failure, will bring riches.

Napoleon Hill states with authority in Chapter Two of “Think and Grow Rich” that desiring riches obsessively is a necessary component to acquiring riches. This can be a difficult obstacle to overcome for some people who have been conditioned to think that desiring riches obsessively is an unhealthy or sinful psychology to adopt. The phrases “money can’t buy happiness” and “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God” (MT. 19:24) come to mind. Even the the Buddhist Four Noble Truths teach that the cause of suffering is desire or craving. Accordingly, if one wishes to adopt Hill’s philosophy and he or she is a practicing Christian or Buddhist (or an adherent to a similar philosophy or theology) he or she must then either ignore these moral teachings or come up with a way to explain the conflict. Either solution puts the person at a disadvantage regarding successfully implementing Hill’s strategy relative to a person who does not possess these moral hang ups regarding desire.

At the same time, Hill infers himself to be a practicing Christian in this very chapter, where he says:

Christianity is the greatest potential power in the world today, because its founder was an intense dreamer who had the vision and the imagination to see realities in their mental and spiritual form before they had been transmuted into physical form.

Hill does not specifically address the seeming conflict between his thought that Jesus actually put the principles outlined in “Think and Grow Rich” to work and that Jesus seemed also to preach against pursuing wealth as an obsessive desire. One must assume that Hill had some sort of justification for his philosophy in order to make it align with Christianity. Or perhaps he just ignored the discrepancy.

At any rate, in this chapter Hill articulates a six point plan to acquire riches in this manner:

First. Fix in your mind the exact amount of money you desire. It is not sufficient merely to say “I want plenty of money.” Be definite as to the amount. (There is a psychological reason for definite-ness which will be described in a subsequent chapter).

Second. Determine exactly what you intend to give in return for the money you desire. (There is no such reality as “something for nothing.”)

Third. Establish a definite date when you intend to possess the money you desire.

Fourth. Create a definite plan for carrying out your desire, and begin at once, whether you are ready or not, to put this plan into action.

Fifth. Write out a clear, concise statement of the amount of money you intend to acquire, name the time limit for its acquisition, state what you intend to give in return for the money, and describe clearly the plan through which you intend to accumulate it.

Sixth. Read your written statement aloud, twice daily, once just before retiring at night, and once after arising in the morning. AS YOU READ, SEE AND FEEL AND BELIEVE YOURSELF ALREADY IN POSSESSION OF THE MONEY.

Through the repetition of this practice (asserts Hill with authority) a person will acquire riches. Yes, there is a degree of agency involved on the part of the practitioner. He must formulate a goal, formulate a plan to reach that goal and begin to act on that plan. But there is also the inference that the power of the universe will super-naturally assist the person who embarks on this course of action. Perhaps it is merely the case that acting on a specific plan of action is enough for most people to succeed without super-natural aid. But perhaps the thought of super-natural aid somehow works to aid in the motivation behind executing this plan. Or perhaps there is truth to the super-natural assistance which compliments the natural efforts of the practitioner. It seems that Hill made no attempt to explore this question. This resonates with the theme discussed in the previous post that thinking too much about this process will somehow rob it of its efficacy. As such, it is better not over analyze the strategy if one wants to successfully employ it to achieve the desired goal.

Instead he focuses on the mysterious aspects of the universe which he sees guided by Infinite Intelligence. It is not clear whether this “Infinite Intelligence” is the same thing as the Christian God. Perhaps Hill just wanted this book to appeal to Christians and non-Christians alike.

Strange and varied are the ways of life, and stranger still are the ways of Infinite Intelligence, through which men are sometimes forced to undergo all sorts of punishment before discovering their own brains, and their own capacity to create useful ideas through imagination.

By contrast, I suppose men possess finite intelligence. But this finite intelligence seems to be connected to or has its origin in the Infinite Intelligence which is both a resource and an independent actor which helps the people who meet it half way.

Strange and imponderable is the power of the human mind! We do not understand the method by which it uses every circumstance, every individual, every physical thing within its reach, as a means of transmuting DESIRE into its physical counterpart. Perhaps science will uncover this secret.

According to Hill, the human mind has a power that the person possessing the mind generally is not aware of. This is a strange thought because it is not entirely clear how a person can be separate from his or her mind. This is why the whole endeavor of willing a desire into being is a mysterious process. It may also be a clue as to why desire and riches are thought to cause suffering and to create an obstacle on one’s way to heaven.

15 Comments

Filed under Psychology

An Analysis of “Think and Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill: Part I, Chapter One – Introduction

CONTEXT

I recently started my own web based business. Around the same time, I heard through multiple sources that I should read a curious book entitled “Think and Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill. This book surprised me in that it described in unique detail how the psychology and physics of wealth and success function and interact according to the author. He claims to have arrived at this understanding by interviewing 500 people who climbed from nothing to great wealth. There is some controversy about the veracity of this claim. But enough sources recommended this book to overcome this controversy.

Hill first published the book in 1937 during the tail end of the Great Depression which he attributed to a generalized lack of confidence in the economic systems around the world. Obviously, this time period predates our current politically correct mindsets as is demonstrated by some of the examples he cites in his introduction including a “colored child who deliberately master[ed] an adult white person” demanding, “MY MAMMY’S GOTTA HAVE THAT FIFTY CENTS!” and the “Oriental” who described what he perceived to be the “queer slant” of an American’s eyes. For those easily offended persons take note. At the risk of being taken out of context and branded a racist, I actually found it refreshing to read the writing of a person who’s context and psychology is so different than the typical modern perspective.

The following series of blog posts will be an analysis of Hill’s book. I will also try to connect this material to other writings and ideas I have been exposed to recently as they all seem to relate in an interesting way.

THE NATURE OF THOUGHTS

[W]e are the Masters of our Fate, the Captains of out Souls, because we have the power to control our thoughts. 

Hill bases his philosophy on the premise that people have the power to control their own thoughts. Ironically, if I do  not think about it too hard, this basic premise seems to be true. However, if I do think about it, it is not at all clear that this premise is true. To wit, I do not actually know where my thoughts come from. As I experience thoughts, they materialize “in my head” and I feel justified to take credit for them as if my mind manufactured the thoughts in some intentional way as an architect would plan out the construction of a house. But as far as I am aware, thoughts simply appear from nothing. It is just as likely that I created them as it would be that they are produced somewhere else and then transmitted into my head.

Then again, it is not clear how that thought would have been created by a third party and then transmitted to me. That third party would have had to create the thought themselves and that presumably would have taken some planning (i.e., other thoughts). As such, it does not seem possible that a thought could be created because to create requires forethought which itself is a thought. Perhaps thoughts exist independent of the people who think them as a cloud floating in the air that is encountered by the thinker. Perhaps what I can do is make myself more or less open to these thoughts by adopting a mindset. Although I am not certain of that because a mind set might be no different than a thought in the final analysis.

Alternatively, it seems as if I can genuinely influence my mindset through an act of will. If I am in a negative mood, I can recognize this mental state and then take steps to change it. There seems to be agency to this process. But perhaps this agency is merely the implantation of agency from a third party. It does not feel that way but I cannot be certain about that.

Obviously, this line of reasoning can lead down a rabbit hole. For example, if I am not the creator of my thoughts then what exactly am I? I seem to be the one who experiences my thoughts. That is, I am the consciousness that experiences the thoughts I think. Sam Harris in his book “Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion” made the point that there is no “I” but rather consciousness and the content of consciousness. The perception that there is an I who is conscious is an illusion generated by the fact that consciousness seems to take place inside our heads where the brain is located. The nature of consciousness, however, is beyond the scope of “Think and Grow Rich”.  The point is, that thinking is a complicated phenomenon and this complexity is worth considering because the premise of the book is about thinking. In fact it is the first word in the title. However, meta-thinking is probably counteractive to thinking and growing rich in the manner Hill describes.

Accordingly, (I suppose) in order to properly use the book one must assume that the I of consciousness exists and that it (to some extent) controls the thoughts that pop up within it. Let us proceed with that assumption.

USING THE POWER TO CONTROL THOUGHTS

TRULY, “thoughts are things,” and powerful things at that, when they are mixed with definiteness of purpose, persistence, and a BURNING DESIRE for their translation into riches, or other material objects. 

Regardless of where thoughts come from and how they are created (and if they are created) they are things that exist. Of this we can be as certain as we can about anything. Hill states with authority that when thoughts are combined with definiteness of purpose, persistence and desire the result will be the achievement or manifestation of what is desired. The more recent book written ostensibly to appeal to Stage Green, new aged women, “The Secret” made this claim as well. Implicit in this strategy is that the universe will supernaturally cooperate with the thinker as long as the thinker thinks in a specific manner. Indeed, Hill says exactly that.

[T]he ether is filled with a form of universal power which ADAPTS itself to the nature of the thoughts we hold in our minds; and INFLUENCES us, in natural ways, to transmute our thoughts into their physical equivalent [and] this power makes no attempt to discriminate between destructive thoughts and constructive thoughts… 

That is, people with negative mindsets sabotage themselves and the universe they live in through their negative thinking. In the introduction, Hill illustrates this principle with three stories. The first is the story of Edwin Barnes who had no money but through his will and persistence became a business partner with Thomas Edison. The second is the story of R. U. Darby a gold prospector who mined gold but quit when the seam ran out only to later find out that the seam continued three feet away. Subsequently, he became a millionaire by selling life insurance using this lesson of persistence. The third is Henry Ford who seemingly willed the V8 engine into existence when everyone else told him it was impossible.

The supernatural quality of the universe cooperating with a person who possesses the correct mental state is a central premise of this book. Certainly, it seems logical that a person who is motivated and confident to achieve a goal is more likely to achieve that goal than is a person who is lazy and lacks confidence. What seems less likely or unproven is that the universe works to manifest the thoughts that exist in the minds of people. However, as stated earlier, I do not understand how thoughts are created and if they are truly my own. As such, perhaps thoughts are more connected to the external physical universe than I know.

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under Psychology

Spiral Dynamics

Over the past two months Leo Gura of Actualized.org has been creating videos explaining the theory of Spiral Dynamics developed by Don Edward Beck and Clare Graves. Spiral Dynamics is a developmental, psychological model designed to map the historical evolution of both people and the societies of which the people are constituent parts.

There are eight stages to the spiral, each with its own set of characteristics. The first and most primitive stage is Beige characterized primarily through individual survival with little to no cooperation with other people. Modern homeless people are an example of the stage Beige mindset. The second stage is Purple characterized by primitive cooperation among people typically at the family or clan level. Cavemen are an example. The third stage is Red where stronger individuals within the relatively egalitarian Purple start to assert their dominance over the weaker members. Viking civilization and tribal societies are examples. The forth stage is Blue where we see authoritarian, communal societal structures begin to assert themselves in order to reign in the excesses of stage Red. The Roman Empire and Medieval Europe are examples of the stage Blue mindset. The fifth stage is Orange characterized by a rejection of the stiff Blue societal structures with a greater emphasis on individual achievement, science and materialism. Modern, liberal, capitalistic societies are examples. The sixth stage is Green characterized by a rejection of the excesses of Orange and a return to spirituality and communal responsibilities. Modern hippies and left-liberals are examples. The seventh stage is Yellow characterized by a rejection of the excesses and Green’s failure to solve societal problems with an emphasis on systems thinking and individual achievement. Albert Einstein is considered to be an example of a stage Yellow thinker. The final stage is Turquoise characterized by a shift from the individual Yellow to a more holistic world view. Very few people and certainly no societies have achieved stage Turquoise at present.

One important observation the spiral articulates is that humans and the societies they create evolve alternating from an emphasis on the individual to an emphasis on the community in a cyclical manner. From individualistic Beige to communal Purple to individualistic Red to communal Blue and so on. In a sense (according to this model), the development of mankind’s psychology is based on the confrontation between these two opposing forces. When one is taken to an extreme the other rises to counterbalance it.

Of interest to this blog is how well the system of Spiral Dynamics describes stage Blue. Specifically, the Orthosphere and Zippy Catholic (two blogs that I have been reading over the past couple of years) come to mind as two good articulations of the Stage Blue mindset. As described by the Spiral Dynamics Integral website, the general characteristics of Stage Blue thought are:

  • Values and norms, discipline, duty, regularity, and feelings of honor and guilt
  • WE versus They Thinking
  • Searching for meaning, order, routine and security
  • Self-control, discipline and loyalty to the doctrine and the rules
  • Absolute, literal and definite
  • Morality
  • Hierarchy, obedience and willing to sacrifice to a greater cause
  • Control and structures of authorities
  • Obedience based on a sense of duty and a sense of guilt
  • Organize, manage, concretize and structure
  • Values effort and responsibility and shows discipline
  • Rules, rights and duties are significant

This description seems to describe almost perfectly the mode of thought expressed on these blogs both by their contributors and the people who comment there. I suspect these people would reject the notion of Spiral Dynamics entirely. This would fit perfectly within the model. Because (according to the model) they see the world in essentialist terms and by definition reject nominalism they cannot see the world as evolving purposefully or in a healthy way. I suspect they would dismiss Spiral Dynamics without much consideration as a “liberal” idea. If the world is changing it must be for the worse because stage Blue (not that they would embrace the term “Stage Blue”) was the best possible stage. Anything, departing from stage Blue is ugly and it is appropriate to judge those who question stage Blue sensibilities and enforce stage Blue sensibilities through shame and guilt. This emphasis of “obedience based on a sense of duty and a sense of guilt” explains a great deal as to how my interactions with the people who comment and contribute to the Orthosphere and Zippy Catholic have played out.

164 Comments

Filed under Political Philosophy, Psychology

An Essentialist Making the Case for Nominalism

In a post entitled “‘Essentialist’ means just what I say it means…,” anti-liberal blogger Zippy Catholic described the terms “Essentialist” and “Nominalist”:

[A]n antiessentialist (or nominalist) will view a word like “liberalism” the way Humpty Dumpty views it. The word refers not to an objective external essence but to whatever internal state of his mind that Humpty chooses it to refer to; nothing more, nothing less, and always subject to Humpty’s will. Nobody else can impute an implication that Humpty does not agree to, because there is no essence to the referent other than just what Humpty wills. If Humpty is a liberal, it is only because Humpty agrees in every particular with what liberal means and implies, and further agrees that he is one. “Liberal”, if it applies legitimately as a label to Humpty, does so only because he chooses for it to apply and chooses all that it entails.

An essentialist understands a word to refer to some real essence that is external to and independent of the person who utters it. A speaker[‘s] … words refer to objective things and have objective implications about which he may be completely ignorant or mistaken. Humpty is a liberal if Humpty is in fact loyal to liberalism, which is an objective thing independent of Humpty.

In another blog post entitled “Definition of liberalism,” Zippy defines liberalism as:

Liberalism is the political doctrine that securing individual freedom and equal rights is a primary legitimate purpose of government.

More recently, in the comment section of a recent blog post on the Orthosphere entitled “Deplorable Gnon“, contributor Thomas F. Bertonneau stated:

Hillary’s gnashing of teeth belongs to her gnosticism, which … schemes to realize just as soon as it can derealize all those who stand in its way just by being. Like the witch-hanging Puritanism of which it is the heir, contemporary liberalism, which, as you say, is socialism, corresponds to a sacrificial cult.

Here I take Mr. Bertonneau to mean “witch-hanging Puritanism” is a form of liberalism. He repeated this point in another post entitled “What is Puritanism.” This struck me as odd given that I have been told on numerous occasions there existed broad agreement as to the definitions of liberalism among the people who contribute and comment both on the Orthosphere and its sister blogs like Zippy Catholic. To my knowledge, no puritan sect (especially not the witch-hanging sort) thought it was important to secure the freedom and equal rights of the people under its control. In fact, I would say it is obvious on its face that the contrary is true.

There are a few things I could draw from this situation. First, I think this only confirms my suspicion that those who contribute and comment within the anti-liberal community are using different definitions for “liberalism” (and probably other terms) and yet they are discussing these terms as if a common understanding was broadly understood. This makes a coherent conversation on the subject difficult in my estimation. Second, I assume based on the posts I have read written by Mr. Bertonneau, that he holds himself to be an essentialist. As an essentialist he would have to believe that a real definition of liberalism exists independent of his own mind. However, his recent writings seem to suggest that he defines liberalism not as Zippy defines it but rather as anything Mr. Bertonneau dislikes about modern Western culture. For example, in his post “What is Puritanism” he conflates Puritanism with Liberalism and asserts:

Many Catholic congregations in North America qualify as Puritanical in that they have liberalized themselves and so assimilated themselves to the Left, which is indeed a heresy of Christianity.  All humanities professors are Puritans – as are all college administrators.  Trumpskyites in North America and adherents of the Fidesz Party in Hungary are not Puritans.  Everything today describing itself as “comedy” is archly Puritanical and extremely unfunny.  It never smiles; it only smirks and scowls and uses four-letter language. Islam is ultra-Puritanical. That California, governed by an octogenarian ex-Jesuit, is the vanguard Puritan republic of the United States, the Salem Colony of its day, is in no way belied by the other fact that it is the home-state of the pornography industry.

This strikes me as a nominalist manner of thinking. In fact, it specifically reminded me of Zippy’s post on Humpty Dumpty cited above.

If one is being honest with himself, it is very difficult to take an absolutely “essentialist” world view. Because, even if one does believe there to be real definitions out in the world and independent of the mind, the mind must first make this decision to believe this truth. As such, an essentialist is really just a nominalist who believes with certainty that real definitions exist. Or perhaps asserting real definitions exist is to simply assert a state of mind. Moreover, because the essentialist believes these real definitions exist he naturally tends to believe that his beliefs are in accord with these real definitions and accordingly anyone who believes differently or expresses uncertainty must be wrong. This is not to say that I believe real definitions do not exist for some things, but as the so called “broad agreement” or lack thereof as to the definitions employed on the  Orthosphere demonstrates, one cannot be sure that his particular definitions comport with the real definitions existing external to his mind.

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Political Philosophy

Consciousness as the Basis of Reality

In a recent Actualized.Org podcast entitled “What is Consciousness” Leo makes the assertion that consciousness is the basis of reality. This is opposed to the materialist paradigm which holds that matter is the basis of physical reality. It seems that materialists can be either atheist or theist. The atheist materialists would hold that there only exists matter and the physical laws that govern its interaction and that this makes up the entirety of reality. The theist materialist would hold that there exists a spiritual realm that is separate from the material but that we humans inhabit or are in contact with primarily the material realm.

I would describe the friendly folks over at the Orthosphere as theist materialists, believing they reside within a material universe created by God who declared it to be good and therefore the goodness of the material is not to be questioned. To them there is unquestionably a spiritual realm with which those of us inhabiting the material realm (if we’re good) will choose to align ourselves. Of course, I would not presume to speak for their point of view as I have been told on numerous occasions that I lack the capacity to fully understand their wisdom. I am merely presenting my interpretation of their world view based on what I have read from their contributors. I am sure Terry Morris will correct me if I have inaccurately described their beliefs.

It is unquestioned that most people are materialists of one sort or the other. One probable reason most people believe the materialist paradigm to be the correct description of reality is because it is easier to understand. Our senses seem to readily confirm the assumption that we are each individual units of consciousness living in a physical body, in a three dimensional, physical world of other physical objects. Some of these physical objects are living creatures with varying degrees of consciousness. In this model, consciousness seems to be an emergent quality of the physical universe. That is, consciousness naturally results when matter is arranged in a specific way.

By contrast, under the paradigm where consciousness is the basis of reality, consciousness is not an emergent property of physical reality but rather the fundamental property of physical reality. That is, the universe is created from consciousness. Two  counter arguments to this assertion readily come to mind. First, consciousness as I understand it is the quality of being aware and mere awareness which has no physical properties cannot logically be used to construct a physical universe. Second, (I suspect an Orthospherian would argue that) in order for there to be awareness there must first be someone or something that is aware which in turn presupposes that materiality precedes consciousness.

Leo contends that although consciousness has no physical properties, this allows it to take on all the infinite possibilities of physical reality. In other words, consciousness is a vessel for content. One could also justify consciousness as being the basis of physical reality through a thought experiment similar to Descartes “evil demon” scenario. In this thought experiment we acknowledge that physical reality is rendered through the mind therefore there is nothing necessarily physical or material about it but merely consciousness interpreting it as such. If one were to hold the point of view that consciousness is the fundamental basis of reality then one would have to discard the notion that in order for consciousness to exist there must first be a person who is conscious. In other words, consciousness would have to be able to exist independently which I suppose is not inconcievable.

Another aspect to consciousness is that it is both aware and self-aware. So not only is consciousness a building block (so to speak) of reality but it is also by definition aware of itself. Under this model consciousness is diffused throughout everything in the universe including biological objects and non biological objects. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that everything in the universe is diffused through consciousness. Of course certain things have greater degrees of consciousness. A chimp has more consciousness than a rock for example. From this perspective it seems entirely plausible that artificial intelligence will be able to have consciousness on the level of a human or perhaps greater because it was constructed in such a way so as to allow the underlying consciousness to manifest itself.

I suppose one might reasonably ask what difference does it make whether material or consciousness is the basis of reality and how might one confirm whether this is indeed the case? Leo contends that this can in fact be confirmed through spiritual practices such as meditation and use of psychedelics. If this has been so confirmed to an individual then I assume this knowledge will change the way he or she looks at the world. I am certainly open to this perspective but I cannot say that I have yet confirmed it one way or the other.

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Religion