The Montessori Classroom Part II: Sensorial

For Part I: Practical Life, click here.

The Sensorial area focuses on the isolation and identification of essential characteristics of physical reality to increase a child’s perceptual range and introduce skills for ordering one’s thoughts in a manner conducive to supporting later explorations in mathematical reasoning and language development. It follows introduction to the Practical Life area but may be explored concurrently after the basic prerequisite skills are acquired by the student. This essay will attempt to summarize the purpose of the Sensorial curriculum area, its relevance to the curriculum, the nature and theory of the material design and sequence, the principles active in presenting the work to a child, the concept of the ‘Three Period Lesson’, and how Sensorial prepares the student for future studies in math and language.

The Sensorial area is designed to expand the range and depth of sense perceptions by a child. Percepts are composed of sensory data refined into algorithms of experience. That is to say that the creation of any perception is composed of the repetitive observation of certain sensory characteristics. When a particular sensory experience has been repeated so much that it becomes automatically identifiable, then it becomes integrated into a percept. Percepts are what we access when we perceive something. It is an awareness of a certain quality of an object as opposed to other qualities. Our perception expands as our distinctions in sensory definition become more subtle. For instance, a newborn baby most likely has access only to a very confused array of sensory impressions. As the baby gains experience in noticing differences between these sensations, the baby gains the ability to integrate certain senses into percepts. For example, length, color, size, weight, and so on. The more experience the child obtains, the more refined that child’s perceptual distinctions become. The child becomes aware of graded differentiations which aid its mind in ranking and ordering the attributes of objects in its environment. Children move through this progression naturally. There are sensitive periods that the child passes through which are like windows of opportunity for the child to acquire a wide variety and depth of skills. When a child is in the sensitive period for the development of a particular skill or perception, that child can show amazing command of concentration and repetition for mastery. As the child acquires more depth and variety of perceptions and builds their experience, the child eventually acquires the ability to integrate those perceptions into concepts. This is the child’s first foray into abstraction and opens the door to all later conceptual knowledge. As such, the ability to make unit-based discriminations with various sense perceptions would seem to stand at the very base of human knowledge.

The Sensorial area encourages the refinement of this skill by making available to the child sets of materials which isolate one sensory characteristic and requires the child to master the grading, matching, and distinction of that characteristic. For example, the Red Rods are a series of red rods of various lengths, all graded in differences of 10cm. The shortest is 10cm, the longest is 1m. Through the mastery of this material, a child will gain a refined perception of length measurement based on accepted and functional units. Repetition is built into the design and layout of the materials to encourage mastery and internalization. The Red Rods are ordered once on the rug and then returned to the same order on the shelves. Other Sensorial materials provide similar experiences with other perceptions. Children have a sensitive period for ordering their environment and the activities in Sensorial appeal directly to this predilection. The controlled practice of these skills is also intended to help children reorganize and classify information that they have already internalized. In some cases, a child may have internalized a distorted or inaccurate sense of length or size or some other perceptual faculty. Attention to organizing the materials in a carefully graded unit sequence will enhance their appreciation of perceptions in context and help them correct mistakes in percept integration and the organization of those perceptions in their mind. Furthermore, the fact that all introductory materials isolate one sense perception acts as an early warning system to alert the teacher of any potential disabilities which could impede the child’s progress. This diagnostic function makes it easier for the teacher to quickly assess the needs of the children and offer such support and intervention as would be required. Additionally, the Sensorial materials utilize a child’s need to move, develop muscular control and tactile memory, and help prepare the students for later studies in math and language through developing appreciation of 1:1 correspondences in the matching of identical sets of variegated degree. An example of the latter would be the Thermic Tablets, where the child must find the tablets of matching surface temperature. There is only one tablet of each material, there is only one answer, and the child need not be corrected by the teacher for the differences are self-evident. A more in-depth discussion of how Sensorial prepares children for math and language will follow later. However, it would first be proper to provide an explanation of what exercises are included in the Sensorial area, how are they arranged, and what is the underlying rationale for their design.

The Sensorial area is divided into sections based on each of the five senses: visual (sight), muscular-tactile (touch), auditory (sound), olfactory (smell), and gustatory (taste). The primary sensitivities of young children are to the visual and muscular-tactile senses. Because of this, the greater part of the sensorial materials focus on these two senses, and between these are predominantly based on visual discrimination. The progression of the materials follows a logical chain of building complexity which seeks to develop a series of sense perceptions focusing on just one aspect at a time.

The first materials in Sensorial are dedicated to refining a child’s visual sense of size. The Knobbed Cylinders are a series of 4 similar works. Each one is a block of wood with ten cylinders cut out. Each cylinder has a knob on top by which to be grasped. The cylinders themselves vary by one dimension (either diameter or height) and later a combination of two dimensions (diameter and height). The child practices removing and replacing the cylinders to refine their perception of these differences. These are followed by the Pink Cubes, which are stacked from largest to smallest to develop a sense of order and refine perception of size and height. Next are the Brown Quadrilateral Prisms, which are sequenced horizontally from thickest to thinnest. These refine the perception of thickness. The Red Rods, as stated previously, develop perception of length. Finally the Colored Cylinders are the twin of the Knobbed Cylinders except they are color coded, have no knobs, and have no accompanying wood blocks to serve as a control of error. These represent a step into the abstraction of the previously introduced dimensions from a highly controlled relationship into recognition in the environment—that is, where the control of error is only evident if the dimension being graded is perceived by the child. Previously, the control of error would depend on whether or not all cylinders fit flush into their holes. Once the Colored Cylinders are introduced, the child can now sequence the cylinders based on their visual perception of the graded variation in size. This concept of control of error is a critical point in the design strategy of the materials. Every set of materials must isolate one aspect of sense perception and, for each set, error must be instantly recognizable by the child as they work.

The next sequence of materials focuses on building the perception of various forms. These start with a series of works which expose the child to a broad representation of geometric shapes in two and three dimensions. These are followed by the Constructive Triangles, which are a series of boxes of triangles which are used to construct various geometric shapes from equilateral triangles to rhomboids and trapeziums. Next comes a series of three-dimensional cube-shaped puzzles. Each one focuses on developing visual awareness of an algebraic concept as a concrete spatial relationship years before it would be reintroduced in abstract mathematical form. These are followed by the Square of Pythagoras, which introduces the visual perception of the difference of squares, and the Leaf Cabinet, which introduces children to the study of more abstract geometric forms and prepares them for the study of biology.

The last sequence of materials developing visual perception focuses on defining distinctions of color, and tint. The first of the Color Boxes contains only a set of pairs of primary colors. The six tiles are simply randomized and paired up. The other boxes increase the depth of a child’s distinctions by providing greater variations of color and requiring the child to organize and match them accordingly.

After the visual works come the other four senses. First is the Muscular-Tactile sense. The Fabric Boxes and Tactile Boards develop a child’s sense of touch and texture. The Baric Tablets refine the perception of relative weight. The Thermal Tablets and Cylinders require the matching of materials based on surface temperature. The Auditory, Olfactory and Gustatory senses are refined with primarily stand-alone materials. The Sound Cylinders are used to refine the sense of hearing by requiring the child to match like pairs of cylinders which generate different sounds when shaken. The Smelling Cylinders refine the sense of smell by likewise requiring the child to match like pairs of scent. The Tasting Bottles also require the matching of like pairs based on different tastes: sweet, sour, salty, spicy, or bitter.

All the materials above follow a consistent strategy in design. All the materials involve the grading or matching of variations in a specific, isolated quality. All include a self-evident control of error. All support the development of gross motor skills by requiring the child to physically move the materials a fair distance, assemble them, and then return them to their original place and orientation. They also proceed in the necessary logical sequence of moving from concrete realizations of the perception involved to more abstract realizations. Just as with the Knobbed and Colored Cylinders, the work with geometric shapes moves from handling real objects in the Geometric Cabinet to identification of abstract representations of shape in the form of line drawings on cards. There are also certain guidelines in the presentation of the materials during a lesson which ensure that attention is drawn to the essential characteristics concerned.

First, the teacher must decide when it is appropriate to introduce a child to a given work. Has the child mastered the skills required to handle the materials? Are their fine motor skills sufficiently developed from exercises in Practical Life? Have they indicated an interest in the materials? Have they already had sufficient experience with the preceding materials? Is their maturity such that they can be entrusted with carrying large or delicate objects and treat them with respect? Have the ground rules for showing respect for their peers and the environment been properly established? If the teacher is confident that the answers to these questions are positive, then the next step is to invite the child to a lesson on the proper use of the new material.

The form of the invitation communicates an undercurrent of meaning. This meaning is highly relevant to the child’s perception of the teacher-student relationship and the social dynamic of the educational environment. If the invitation takes the form of a command, the child may interpret this as an authoritarian interaction where the teacher is trying to impose their own will upon the desires of the child. It is because of this that this step is called, “invitation”. If the student asks the child to come and learn this work, the child feels they have a choice and will be less likely to resist instruction. Also, this can serve as a check to see if the child is ready to engage the work for any number of reasons from lack of confidence to lack of normalization. Either way, even a “no” answer would be informative and direct the teacher to assess possible reasons for the hang-up or delay. Forcing the lesson would have no effect. You can put information, in any form, in front of a person’s eyes, but their mind must be actively engaged in the material to learn. The child will learn when the time is right.

When the child is ready and accepts the lesson, the teacher names the material. The names may seem arbitrary but they actually represent the distinguishing characteristic of the work to the child and expose them to the actual vocabulary that they will need in later academic pursuits. For example, “the Pink Cubes” are called the “Pink Tower” in AMI teacher programs, or they could be called the “Pink Blocks” or “Wood Blocks”. The difference is that while being pink and cube-shaped, they could still be arranged in a variety of patterns. Therefore, the name “Pink Cubes” represents more their essential defining features than “Pink Tower”. Also, the word “cube” is an academic word useful in geometry and mathematics. It is better to use these words as soon as possible and in a concrete and physical context. Early exposure to academic language helps children to adopt precise vocabulary without having to comprehend the abstract reasoning for the distinctions. Even better, such attention to precision of language allows children to mentally arrange, with clear distinctions, a variety of subtle concepts—and this without later having to untangle them from vague and imprecise terminology. An added benefit is that the use of these mysterious sounding words from the adult vocabulary will help to entice the children to be curious about the materials and give them an added sense of pride and accomplishment when they have mastered them. Imagine the glint in a child’s eye as they boast that they have mastered the quadrilateral prisms.

The next series of steps helps the child understand how best to prepare the materials for work. The teacher must clearly indicate where the materials are stored in the classroom and he should be familiar with its initial orientation. This is so the child can be successful in finding, retrieving, working on, and then returning the materials properly. Likewise, the teacher should always carry the materials in the manner that they desire the child to carry them. Children learn by watching. Also, some materials are quite large compared to a child’s frame and careful forethought about how best to hold the materials is essential to classroom harmony. Before this, however, the teacher must decide if these materials should be used on a rug or at a table. Some materials will be too large to use at most any table in an average classroom. Some may be small, but have a large number of pieces that must be laid out over a large space. The child, too, is a factor. A sufficiently normalized child who can focus on their work may be well able to handle a complex set of materials on a rug without incident. However, a less focused child may need the visual and physical order and boundaries imposed by the limits of a table and chair.

Once the material has been brought to the rug or table, the physical position of the teacher in relation to the child becomes an issue. Most material instructions assume a right-handed teacher teaching a right-handed student in a one-on-one situation. In the event of a group lesson, the teacher may want to sit opposite the group and reverse the presentation, although this runs the risk of the children reversing the procedure in their minds and doing things backwards. The teacher may be left-handed, or the student may be. Depending on the essential nature of the work it may be necessary to reverse hands or seating position so that the line of sight is not blocked by arm and hand position. Once these issues have been resolved, the lesson proper may begin.

The activity, or principal action of the presentation, must be clearly named. For example with the Red Rods, the teacher would say, “I am going to grade the red rods from longest to shortest.” The teacher should state the action before it is begun. This is closely connected with another aspect of a lesson, which is the arrangement of the materials prior to the principal action. Once again with the Red Rods, they are usually brought to the rug in a certain sequence dictated by their initial position in the classroom and then placed on the rug in a random orientation. Once this is completed, the teacher would name the principal action as stated above and then proceed to arrange the rods in the stated sequence. The random orientation is usually consistent throughout the manipulatives and thus aids in handling new materials. For instance, matching or sorting lessons usually require the materials to be laid out in a line above the work space before they are matched, sorted, or reassembled. The teacher must also decide when, how, and to what extent the child should be allowed to actively participate and to engage the materials during the progress of the lesson. It will be easier to retain the focus of some children by allowing them to touch the materials. Although some lessons will require being shown to completion before the child will be able to appreciate what must be done. The teacher must decide based on experience and familiarity with the given student. Finally, the teacher must demonstrate how to return the materials to their original condition and place in the classroom. Reversing procedures is not something which comes naturally to some children, so it is best to demonstrate the full clean-up process.

Now that the main principles for presenting the materials have been discussed, the method of actively teaching nomenclature must be addressed. The model used by Montessori is based on Seguin’s Three Period Lesson. The Three Period Lesson is presented after the child has already been introduced to a set of materials and had ample opportunity to manipulate the materials for themselves. The rationale is that the child must have had enough experience to develop the ability to perceive the essential characteristics of the materials necessary for their manipulation before they hope to attach a name to that characteristic. Learning to subsume those percepts into the concept of a word describing essential characteristics is the fundamental operation of conceptual abstraction.

In the first ‘period’, the teacher isolates two objects from the materials which differ the most. The teacher then presents those materials in juxtaposition to emphasize their essential difference. At this point the teacher names that difference. For example, with the Geometric Solids, the teacher would place the cube and sphere next to each other. They would say, “This is a cube” while pointing to the cube. Then the teacher would say, “This is a sphere” while pointing to the sphere. Depending on the level of the child, the teacher could perhaps then introduce some other forms such as cylinder, prism, pyramid and others. Generally, though, it is best to keep the first lessons as simple as possible. Also the same set of materials can sometimes be used to introduce various concepts. The Pink Cubes can, for example, be used to introduce the distinction between highest and lowest as well as largest and smallest or even ordinal numbers like “first, second, third”.

In the second period, the teacher tests the child for recognition of the vocabulary taught in the first. The teacher could use a sequence of simple commands to see if the child is properly recognizing the terms. Once again using the Geometric Solids as an example, the teacher could say, “Point to the cube.” If the child correctly executes the command, then the teacher would move on. “Put the sphere under the rug.” If the child happened to select the cylinder by mistake, the teacher would correct in a positive manner. “That is a cylinder. This is a sphere. Put the sphere under the rug.” As long as the child fails to properly recognize the commands with verbal cues only, the teacher continues with the second period. It is important to note here that the teacher never corrects sternly. The teacher must always maintain a calm and nurturing disposition. This process can continue as long as necessary and can be built on in later sessions to further develop vocabulary. Once the teacher is confident that the child can respond to verbal cues, instruction enters the third period.

In the third period, the teacher prompts the child to produce the vocabulary taught in the first two periods. To test the child’s retention of the vocabulary, the teacher makes sure to use no verbal cues. Pointing to the cube, the teacher simply asks, “What’s this?” If the child says, “It’s a cube!” then the child has successfully demonstrated their knowledge and no further guidance is necessary. If the child cannot answer, then the teacher knows that further assistance is necessary and should return to the second period.

The method of applying the Three Period Lesson after the experience of developing perceptual awareness is highly effective in preparing children for work in Mathematics and Language. That the process teaches children technical nomenclature has already been discussed. Almost more important is the series of foundational principles that work with the Sensorial materials helps children acquire. Children not only learn to name objects but to perceive subtle similarities and differences between forms. This is a critical skill in developing the ability to differentiate between written characters—a fundamental reading skill called letter recognition. This is also helpful in helping children recognize the differences between written numbers—a prerequisite skill for all formalized mathematics. Sensorial also prepares the children for comprehension of the base-10 decimal system. All graded materials such as the Pink Cubes and Colored Cylinders have ten pieces to be removed and replaced in a set sequence. They also prime the children for unit measurement because all materials differ in unit differences based on the metric system. This means that as they develop their awareness of the qualities of the materials, they develop a physical appreciation of the unit multiplication of surface area and volume. The Constructive Triangles help prime children for later explorations in formulating geometric proofs and the Knobbed Cylinders help children develop an appreciation for 1:1 correspondence, the awareness that one number corresponds to one thing. Once children realize this, it opens them up to be able to combine numbers through adding, removing them through subtraction and then on to other higher functions. The Knobbed Cylinders can also be seen as introducing the children to the concept of an empty set, or zero. The sight of the wood block with all pieces removed is a perfect visual image of a null set placeholder.

Children are also primed for studies in Language through use of the Sensorial materials. The grading and sequencing of parts is always conducted left-to-right and top to bottom. The layout of the materials on the shelves follows the same pattern. This is because it is the standard pattern for written English and most other European languages. It is interesting to note, that this sequencing and layout can be adjusted in countries where the standard layout is right to left or top to bottom. Children engage in basic problem solving skills like trying to determine logical sequencing and gradation, finding the missing piece, memorization, deconstruction and reassembly. These are fundamental skills used in reading to fill-in meaning from contextual clues, to remember sight words, and to blend together phonetic compounds. Comparing like parts to a larger whole is also integral to breaking apart compound words and longer words for easier reading and comprehension. Finally, the independent, one-on-one nature of the Sensorial materials enables children to develop a sense of self-motivation and a positive attitude towards self-correction. These are necessary for maintaining a positive and productive future attitude in the study of any academic discipline. Nonetheless, the potential for group learning and peer mentoring ensures that if the child has the inclination, they can be fully supported by friends working together to mutual advantage.

The Practical Life area prepares the children for meaningful exploration and participation in their environment and daily lives. Sensorial helps children expand the breadth and depth of their perceptual apparatus and helps prime their minds for the patterns of order and scale which form the foundation for later studies in mathematics and language. Sensorial also introduces students to technical terminology in geometry, mathematics, and biology. The hands-on, individualized paradigm introduced in Practical Life is further developed in Sensorial and helps instill a heightened sense of concentration, independence, and confidence—all skills necessary to ensuring that future explorations of academic disciplines are self-motivated and fulfilling.

John Allison - A Living Example of the Objectivist Ethics

I saw this video lecture today and I was captivated. Allison perfectly synthesizes the Objectivist ethics into a practical, matter-of-fact, and easy to understand presentation. I highly recommend this, especially if you're a new-comer to Ayn Rand's work and are having difficulties understanding what she's really all about. But I also think it would be refreshing for veterans in the philosophy as well. As always, why not check it out and decide for yourself?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twolXLHBmgQ

Searching for Fascism in Atlas Shrugged

I thought this might be of some interest to fans of Atlas Shrugged of a more academic bent. I stumbled across it in my internet wanderings. It appears to be that a linguist at the University of Birmingham did a study of Atlas Shrugged to try and objectively examine the charges of fascism that we hear so often on the net. It's more than a little dry and very heavy on the linguistic terminology but it makes for an interesting intellectual read. Here's a link to the site it's on:

Corpus Tools and the Linguistic Study of Ideology: Searching for Fascism in Atlas Shrugged

Why Do People Still Not Get It?

I received the following question that someone sent to my YouTube channel: bakukenshin, and I thought it fit in nicely with the topics on this blog.

"What do you think of people who have read Ayn Rands books but refuse to believe in or accept the philosophy of Objectivism? Are they simply refusing the ability of the mind or are they afraid of the idea of being responsible for their own decisions? Or does it just go against too much of what they have been "taught"?"

My response was as follows:

I think there are several reasons why people could read her books and not accept the entire philosophy of Objectivism.

1. Most people read a book and they pick and choose what they like about it and what they don't like. Most of the time this coincides with values that they have already decided upon. So a lot of people take Objectivism piecemeal, which results in a lot of what you can see in the Republican party. That is a lot of people who try to push for capitalism and free markets (at least when they're campaigning) but at the same time pushing to restrict civil liberties (such as with the anti-abortion movement, domestic surveillance, etc.).

2. To accept Objectivism, people need to accept three basic premises. Reality is. Existence exists. Consciousness is conscious. Unfortunately most of the gatekeepers to modern philosophy (professors, novelists, poets, scientists, etc.) have been indoctrinated in and come to believe the opposite of at least one of these. Since these are axioms, unless they realize that there is no way to disprove these premises without using them, then they cannot be expected to accept them. In order for someone to change their mind on axiomatic propositions they need to start from the standpoint that reason is the final arbiter of their viewpoints, that they cannot resist what their senses and the rules of logic tell them simply based on their feelings or a priori assertions. But, if they accept that already, then they are already half way to Objectivism anyway.

3. The philosophy of Objectivism isn't self-evident. The reaction of many new objectivists when they've decided to accept it, is to assume that because they read Ayn Rand's works and it makes sense to them, that it must therefore automatically make sense to everybody. Unfortunately, this would be a mistaken assumption. Everybody starts from a different starting point. Some people have devoted a lot of time thinking seriously about fundamental philosophical questions. Some people have not. Even among seriously committed thinkers, it took a long historical tradition starting with Aristotle leading up through the founding of America and it took Ayn Rand's genius building on all that to bring the various threads of history into sharp enough focus to formulate Objectivism. Some people just make some honest mistakes along the chain of abstraction.

4. Some people know better and are consciously malevolent enough to deny it anyway. But be very careful before jumping to conclusions about who you place in this category. Sometimes I think Objectivists need to understand their own philosophy better before they start leaping to judgments about others.

I think it's a little like teaching someone a skill at which you are highly proficient, but the person you're teaching isn't. Like your native language for instance. You don't even think about it. But try teaching it to someone who only knows Chinese. You quickly find out that you have to know things about the structure of your language at a much more detailed level than you'd ever have dreamed of having to worry about before. More importantly, the process of clarifying your thoughts, so as to better present them to others, teaches you things about your own mode of thought and helps you understand your beliefs better than before.

If you seriously teach any subject for a significant period of time, you will understand that subject in a fundamentally different way than if you had just accepted that you knew it and left it at that. I think this is true of math, English, art, and especially philosophy. If you want to truly understand why people don't get it, and understand better just what it is that makes sense to you, then try to think about how you would explain it to someone, calmly and clearly. Try to talk to people about it. Try to teach it. Through this process of discussion, through refining your arguments, through thinking about the points people raise in opposition, you will come to understand the philosophy that much better. And you will have a much clearer image of what it represents, and which people are the ones who should truly be morally condemned. But remember, in these discussions, if you find yourself losing your temper, resorting to insults or irrational tactics or agencies, then you've already lost. You need to accept that when it happens (as it inevitably will), go back and rethink it through.

Objectivism is ultimately understanding yourself. You have to start there. And it can be the hardest place to start. Especially when you're wanting to rush out and change the world. But it is central. After all, that's where everything in Ayn Rand's philosophy begins.

I hope this helps somewhat. I know it didn't exactly address the question as you stated it, but I, too, am struggling with the line between people who are mistaken and people who are consciously evading truth. So, until I reach a conclusion on that, I like to recommend caution before leaping into judgments on people. It can be tempting, and it can be difficult to see the distinction. (This by the way is the very issue that led to the split between Kelley and Peikoff and why the "The Atlas Society" and "The Ayn Rand Institute" aren't on speaking terms.) The above is my best attempt to deal with it myself. Read as much as you can on the philosophy, both the good and the bad. Don't get sidetracked on following any one person's interpretation. Remember the most important perspective is your own. Try to form it in as balanced and rational a way as possible.

--I think the only thing I can add to this right now is in this prior blog post here. I am still very interested in the opinions of other practicing objectivists. If anybody has an opinion on this matter please feel free to post your comments.

Best premises,
American Anti-theist

Why I'm an Objectivist

Well, I guess that Ayn Rand's books are experiencing a surge of interest due to the economic crisis. But amidst all the pundits weighing in on one side or the other, I'd simply like to talk about why I'm an Objectivist.

A lot of people point out that Greenspan was an Objectivist (he even wrote several of the essays in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). But the policies and decisions he pursued in his career make him anything but. How can the chief of the Fed, who sits in unilateral judgment over the arbitrary outlay of interest rates and the monetary supply, possibly be supportive of the government deregulation of the financial system? No, Greenspan isn't an Objectivist.

A lot of people get hung up on that deal with the Brandens, or with the Peikoff-Kelley split. The former is a sideshow bearing no relevance to Ayn Rand's philosophical ideas. It is akin to discrediting the Declaration of Independence because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Somebody can make mistakes in character judgment, or bad choices and still have good ideas. That's why there is a logical fallacy devoted to just such an error, ad hominem (meaning against the man). The latter focuses on a very relevant issue, the proper moral response to dissent. I'm honestly not sure which side is correct in their assessments, as I've recently stated, I'm not sure myself how to properly discern between evasion and deception and whether or not there should morally be a different response for the two, or if they deserve to be lumped together. This jury of one is still out on that subject, and until I reach a verdict, I will be hesitant to condemn either side unilaterally. After all, error is a very real occurrence. To deny the capacity for error is to assert that we are all granted a priori knowledge of the universe, an assertion closer to the philosophy of Plato than that of Rand. And I don't believe in patently accepting orthodoxy from any source if I don't fully understand the principles involved.

Some people assert that Rand has a utilitarian value, that she provides the moral justification for capitalism. Well, she does. But that isn't a reason to believe in Objectivism. The only viable reason to believe in Objectivism is this: is it true?

To ask this question of most philosophies is to encounter a Cartesian loop of circular reasoning. Most philosophies demand that you accept either a God, or social force, or some vague and inexplicable internal sense as the final arbiter of morality. Only Rand came forth to say that what is moral is based solidly in the tangible reality and tangible demands of our physical existence. The reason philosophers scoff at Objectivism is because it is fully comprehensible. The reason why it isn't taken seriously is because it does not rest on a leap of faith, a "feeling" that something is right or wrong. It rests on reason. Philosophers have spent generations arguing about whether they can know that reality exists, how they can know anything if they can't assume anything about existence, endless wormholes of uncertainty and referenceless abstractions based on clouds of air where they simply try to rationalize their own assumptions about morality by any means necessary. There is a very real reason why we tend to think of something as "deep" which is completely incomprehensible or bizarre. It is because what many of our philosophers have presented to us as deep and fundamental truths of existence have in fact been nothing more than incomprehensible or bizarre all along.

Rand was the first one in modern history to come out and say "The Emperor has no clothes...and this is why." She stated that some assumptions are necessary, that they are in fact assumed by anyone who would attempt to disprove them: Existence exists, Consciousness is conscious, A thing is itself (A is A). Her philosophical system anticipated significant developments in cognitive science (such as the embodiment of cognitive experience and the necessity for a hierarchy of concept formation for information processing) and linguistics (such as examining the concealment of agency realized by transitivity and passivization as a technique for encoding hidden ideology). Objectivism has ramifications for economics, political science, morality, law, and education. All of these fields are traditionally presented to us as decontextualized, incomprehensible forces of nature to which we must simply react, but can never hope to comprehend or to influence.

Objectivism makes explicit the underlying mechanisms of all of these processes and shows how we are the center of all of these systems, that we are not just passive receivers of some arbitrary destiny; that we have the power and indeed, the responsibility, to act upon those systems to make them better for our own sakes. And that by working to make these systems more productive objectively, that by striving to attain our own individual rational self-interest, by seeking to attain the best that life has to offer over the entire span of one's life, that the net result is an immeasurable benefit for everyone. But that the justification is not in the benefit to all but in the benefit to one's self. That we are born into this life as ourselves, that we experience only the life that we have as ourselves, and that the pursuit of happiness is not a pragmatic end, but a moral pursuit in and of itself.

Objectivism offers HAPPINESS, whereas the other varied philosophies and ideologies of our age only demand SACRIFICE. Sacrifice to what? For whose benefit? Will my children be the happier for me having sacrificed their economic well-being today? Will I truly have any greater guarantee of security by demanding that they pay for my retirement, when in fact the economic necessities of the system will mean that social security will most likely not even exist by that time? Will they be the better educated by demanding that they be constrained to the lowest common denominator of educational quality made possible by averaging the resources of the community as opposed to what I could provide for them unfettered by the economic burdens imposed by the government? No. No. No.

Opponents of Objectivism need to make an explicit stand, one that they cannot ultimately justify and thus why they always resort to ad hominem attacks or dodge the issue. Objectivism ultimately stands for the rational pursuit of your happiness over the span of your life. It holds that as a moral virtue, the highest moral goal. To say that Objectivism is evil, is to say that the pursuit of happiness is evil. To say that Objectivism is wrong, is to say that it is wrong to be happy, it is wrong to want the best for your children, it is wrong to receive greater pay for greater work, that any attempts to advance your position in life is evil and the most we can hope for in our imperfect lives is to beg for the mercy of those who hold incontrovertible power over us, whether they be thrust into that position by design or the vagaries of the political process.

I refute this view of life. I cannot accept that I was born to be the tool of others, that I was born to be used, manipulated, milked of whatever capacity I have and then to be cast aside with the fruits of my productivity to be dispensed according to the whims of a lunatic mob. I believe in the principles that America was founded upon. I believe in this nation of principles, the only nation ever founded by philosophers. What Ayn Rand represents is not a radical divergence from American values, she represents the soul of American virtue unabashedly claiming its rightful distinction as the only moral system which does not treat humanity as sacrifical animals to be slaughtered for the sake of anyone's whims, whether they be the dreams of one man, or the dreams of us all. This virtue can only be fully realized if we accept the objective basis of morality, the objective determinants of justice and just law.

And the final reason that I am an objectivist is not just because the logical arguments makes sense to me, but that I can see the principles that Objectivism makes clear in operation in every aspect of life around me. When I see the way people react to politics, or economics, or education. When I see the things that are easy to teach or are easy to learn. The more I discover about the processes of the human mind, and society. Everything that I learn from science and my experience with other human beings in society. Everything makes sense when viewed from an Objectivist perspective. Where before, there was only a chaos of competing voices all crying for power, all crying for pity, all teetering on an uncertain foundation rocking on the waves of public opinion, I have now come to see the levers which operate those systems, and to understand the motivations driving the forces in our society. When I see the accuracy with which the themes in Ayn Rand's works play out in the news around me and even in my own personal life, I cannot refute the predictive power of her model. No other philosophy I have studied has come anywhere near as close in terms of precise clarity and comprehensive explanatory power.

And that is why I am an Objectivist. If I were to find a proof, whether it be logical or practical which invalidated the propositions of Objectivism, I would surrender the title of Objectivist and set about constructing a revised philosophy incorporating that proof. But I haven't yet. Despite all the ranting on the internet. Despite all the spite and condemnations of Rand's work. Despite all the insults and some outright lies. Not a single detractor has been able to provide a significant counter-argument. So I ask openly: if you (anybody out there at all) have an objection, bring it forth. Let's talk about this here and now. If you can show me the error of my ways, then do so. But I only ask one thing in return. That if your arguments prove to be the weaker, will you be as willing to change your views? If you are, then you're probably closer to being an Objectivist than you may think.

Error, Evasion, and Deceit

I've been reading through Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (IOE) and in the interest of trying to work through some of the ideas in there, I've decided to put my thoughts into writing on this blog. Let me just say that this is not definitive Objectivist orthodoxy. This is just me working through some of the ideas presented by Objectivism. I welcome criticism from anyone, Objectivist or not, who may think there is an error in this reasoning. However, so that we don't get bogged down too much in re-explaining definitions and so that we're not arguing about misinterpretations, I would like to ask anyone who would like to contest the points I'm making to have at least read the book first. Then, we'll know where we stand and can move on with discussion from there.

In IOE Ayn Rand presents the basics of her epistemology, or how we know that we know things and what it is we know. Rand says that consciousness starts at the perceptual level. Initially, we are born with sensory apparatus that just wheels blindly sending a stream of undifferentiated information into our brains. That is, of course, within the parameters set by our biological hardware. Sensations are instantaneous responses to external stimuli but have relatively little longevity. It isn't until we have acquired enough exposure to a certain sensation that it becomes integrated into a percept. For example, we may be exposed to a whole variety of things but we are unable to focus on any one quality or any one object until a percept has been formed. Then we can be said to perceive something. This is where consciousness begins--where we begin to integrate our multitudinous simultaneous sensations into perceivable somethings, differentiations in the chaos. It is only later, after we have developed the capacity to conceptualize and abstract, that we can analyze our perceptions and reduce them to their component sensations.

Similarly, after we acquire a sufficient level of perceptions we can integrate them into concepts, integrate concepts into abstractions and integrate abstractions into higher-level abstractions. I don't intend to go into the whole process here in detail, I just mention this as a starting point for the discussion. Basically what this model of knowledge says is that anything we know is ultimately founded on concrete existents in an objective reality. Even our highest level abstractions, to be valid, must be based on a chain of conceptualization that is ultimately reducible to the concretes from which it has been derived. This of course holds true for inductive as well as deductive reasoning. If there is a break in the conceptual chain, then the following concepts and abstractions and any actions based on them must be in error. A break in the conceptual chain must essentially be a contradiction, some point at which the linking ideas are not truly linkable, where definitions have been mismatched, where reality and proposition do not coincide.

Consciousness is simply a fact. That there is something that is thinking is implied by the act of thought. As such, the concept of self is implicit in consciousness. Our concept of consciousness is the integration of numerous perceived mental actions, or "actions of consciousness". An action of consciousness consists of the concepts under consideration and the conclusion drawn in regards to those concepts. Our internal, or introspective knowledge is based on the integration of our first level extrospective, or external, concepts (not unlike prototypical lexis) and awareness of the difference between consciousness and tangible existence. That is to say, it is the integration between our conceptualization of objects and our evaluation of them. The combination of our prototypical conceptualizations and our first concepts of values form the base of our introspective knowledge.

So, for either objective or conceptual existents, the same rules apply. Higher abstractions must be connected in a chain of conceptualization down to the first root concepts that are perceivable in reality. Breaks in the chain must invariably be contradictions, links which represent the combination of two ideas which cannot possibly both be true at the same time. As such, morality is ultimately reducible to concrete existents, or more properly, it is derivable from them. For a more thorough derivation of such, I would recommend Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness in which she details the Objectivist ethics. However, the main gist is this: Every is implies an ought. Every fact of existence indicates some choice that humans must make in order to either enhance their survival or undermine it. Everything moral is ultimately reducible to life and death, because without life, moral judgments have no meaning. The ultimate basis of morality is an individual life. There is no such thing as a mass life, or social entity. These concepts are merely approximate aggregations of the cumulative effect of millions of individual decisions. They represent a sociological calculus of abstracting mass trends, but have no relevance to a moral argument. The moral argument must always start from the concrete and move towards abstraction, not the other way around. SOCIETY is a rather vague concept, what is denoted by it varies depending on what you're trying to prove. A "society" goes on, it changes, but the notion of life or death doesn't have much relevance to it. However, life and death are of paramount importance to it's constituent members. Any social system which ignores the life and death ramifications of it's moral prescriptions is bound to succeed only through misery, privation, and bloodshed visited on the individuals which constitute it.

Now, things like morality, justice, virtue, etc. are complex concepts understood only through a long chain of conceptualization and abstraction. At any point in the process, there is the potential for something to go wrong. I can see only three potential ways in which someone may integrate a contradiction into their conceptual system leading them to sanction or participate actively in evil: error, evasion, and deceit.

ERROR is simply when someone has made an honest mistake. Understanding the minutiae of these conceptual chains requires a painstaking combination of introspection, validation, verification, argumentation, etc. This is primarily what professional philosophers should be doing--walking along the chains of our abstraction and verifying their veracity. Now when a mistake is encountered, an honest person would try to fix this mistake.

A mind cannot hold two opposing propositions to be true at the same time, provided that the mind recognizes the opposition. So, how can the mind not recognize the opposition?

One possibility is that the opposition stems from a place deep in the conceptual chain and having been subsumed and automated are not consciously apparent as being in conflict: ERROR. The solution for ERROR would seem to be to examine the conceptual chain until the contradiction is revealed, resolve the conflict and then reconstruct the conceptual chain in accordance with the corrected premises. Correcting these errors would seem to be the proper mandate of psychology. Preventing these errors would seem to be the proper mandate of education.

The next two possibilities, EVASION and DECEIT are difficult to distinguish from each other, but are distinguishable by a very subtle difference. Whereas ERROR can be distinguished by the situation where a person has simply just not thought of something in a certain way, or has not sufficiently examined their ideas, evasion and deceit both imply an avoidance of recognizing error. However, determining what is evasion and what is deceit is ultimately a very subtle difficulty.

If a contradiction is ignored by one's mind, how is this accomplished? The mind cannot consciously hold a contradiction as true. So the only alternative is not to consciously hold it. This is what Ayn Rand calls the "blank-out". In other words, a "blank-out" is the avoidance and/or repression of a point of conflict between one's premises. To willfully ignore a contradiction is a form of deceit. So for evasion, as such, to be distinguishable from deceit, then evasion must be an automated process, where the person is no longer aware of the fact that they are evading. Their psyche has been programmed, so to speak, to actively evade the contradiction--to avoid focusing on the point of conflict at all costs. It actively works to keep them unaware of the fact. I think it is safe to say that evil men don't think of themselves as evil. They think they are doing the right thing. They think they are misunderstood. But the truth is that they are active participants in their own failure to realize the contradictions which lead to their evil.

Now, I reject unilaterally the idea of things like memes, which would imply that ideas just happen to infect our consciousness and spread like a virus. No, once one has reached an age where one's conceptual apparatus is fully matured, we concsciously process what we choose to believe and integrate into our lives, and reject that which we don't. The only time when a belief, a contradiction could be integrated without being subject to our conscious filtering is if that idea is integrated before that conceptual apparatus is fully formed. In short, if, when a person is still vulnerable and formative, a person's mind is conditioned to ignore contradictions, then they will develop the ability to evade points where contradictions are in conflict. This conditioning can come from either inside or outside, I think. From outside, it would be realized by what I call cognitive abuse.

Cognitive abuse would be the systematic disorientation of concepts in young people before they have achieved the ability to integrate and revise their own conceptual system. In effect, it would be a systematic training in a conceptual model of the universe which embraces contradiction and does not support the growth of coherent chains of logical correspondence. I happen to think that an awareness of cognitive abuse and its ramifications would inspire drastic reforms in modern educational methodology.

The internal source would be an active choice made to actively maintain opposites in pursuit of a hypothetically and arbitrarily ascertained "greater value". A commitment to religion, altruism, collectivism, nationalism, etc. are all predicated on the existence of a "greater good" and that this overrides any considerations of individual perspective or welfare. The conditioned or conscious adoption of this principle would have the effect of programming one's mind to reject objections in favor of this over-riding principle. In short, believing in a greater good, overrides ones ability to be aware of their own evasions, it shorts out one's decision routines.

But, a conscious decision to override one's mind and to actively embrace contradictions effectively entails responsibility. An adult with a fully-formed conceptual apparatus who decides to evade contradictions in their mental processes, is effectively consciously choosing falsehood over truth, good over evil. An active choice to avoid contradictions in one's thought processes is a conscious deception, a conscious evil. This would place voluntary evasion in the category of DECEIT. The distinction being that one is aware on some level of the fact that they are lying, even to themselves, that they are aware of the contradiction but have made a choice not to acknowledge it. Involuntary evasion, or EVASION proper, is the result of cognitive abuse where a person has been conditioned in their pre-cognitive stages of development to undermine their own cognitive operations, to turn their conceptual system against itself by means of an implicit decision rule smuggled into their social orientation as they grow into adults. Evasion is only possible to children who have been systematically indoctrinated to evade through cognitive abuse. Deceit is an active choice to evade, or an active conscious choice to pretend there is no contradiction in spite of the knowledge that there is.

The distinction is subtle, but important. Someone who is guilty of involuntary evasion can be viewed as being afflicted with a psychological disorder. Someone who is guilty of deceit is guilty of a intentional moral transgression.

Error is discoverable. If two people disagree, they present their opposing arguments, working back through the chain of their reasoning until they arrive at an error. If both people are honestly seeking the truth then the resolution of this error should mandate that one or both of the parties must change their standpoint when all contradictions have been resolved.

Evasion is discoverable. Since the evader can not allow themselves to be aware of their own evasion, they cannot monitor themselves to keep from exposing it. Therefore, they will straight-forwardly state what they believe. Their errors will then be apparent. It may be possible to force a catharsis by bringing the object of evasion into concrete terms and forcing a resolution, but it is more likely than not that the subject would just blank-out/repress the potential cathartic influence/demonstration. It would also not be surprising if persistent exposure to the conflict point would elicit rage and or violence. The underlying principle is that to be successful at evasion, the evader cannot bring the conflicting points into their mind simultaneously, otherwise they would have to acknowledge the impossibility of their stance, if only in the confines of their own mind. From that point on, they would either have to realign their stance to resolve the contradiction, or actively choose to pretend that they never realized the impossibility of their view, leading them into deceit.

Deceit is trickier. I'm not really sure how to determine the difference in symptoms between deceit and either evasion or error. Once again, they will act as though there is a contradiction in their conceptual systems, by advocating conflicting propositions. Even upon having that contradiction brought into focus, they may refuse to acknowledge it, thus emulating evasion. The place where they can be caught out is if they were to actually acknowledge the contradiction and continue to advocate it anyway. This is clearly deceitful and a sure sign of intellectual malignance. But I also think this is rare. A liar will generally try to slip away from the responsibility of their lie, by covering it as error or evasion. The question of how to determine intentional deceit is still one with which I have some trouble. But I think it can be dealt with in the same manner as either of the other two.

I think the method for overcoming error, evasion, and deceit is fairly similar. Present your views in as concise, rational, and clear a manner as possible. Ask opponents to do the same with their views. If they don't even attempt to describe their reasoning, if they flee from the issue, or just resort to bullying or taunting strategies, then it will be clear to anyone else involved that they have the lesser justification for their views. In this way, it can serve to educate others in the logical wormholes which can suck people in if they're not careful. Educational reform in general, with an emphasis on developing critical thinking skills, of refining young people's "art of non-contradictory identification", and helping to foster the development of fully integrated epistemology are also long-term approaches to correcting or preventing cognitive error.

Evasion can only be treated by exstensive therapy and then probably only when someone is aware that there is something wrong with themselves and they want to change it. Of course the depth and severity of the breach would warrant a proportionately greater necessity for counseling. The form of such counseling should be targeted so as to help a patient to uncover the break-downs in their conceptual system which are causing disturbances. More scientifically defining cognitive abuse, defining it's systems, causes, and of course scientifically validating whether or not there is in fact such a thing possible are tasks for cognitive scientists as the field matures. Once a more concrete model has been developed, methods for treatment and prevention can be better ascertained.

As far as I know, the line between evasion and deceit can only be made as a personal judgmnet call based on a long span of interactions, or a healthy volume of evidence. Consciously maintaining any lie takes a certain amount of conscious effort. Eventually, deception makes itself known. All it takes is for someone to let down their guard and admit it. But until that happens, if it happens, may be a very long time. As such, those who we suspect of evasion/deceit should be dealt with cautiously until we're in a better position to judge their motivations. If they cannot be helped or dissuaded, then the only civilized response is that they should be ignored as much as possible. In any event, whether it be error, evasion, or deceit, those who for whatever reason are supportive of evil should not be sanctioned. Their activities should not be supported except where they don't create a conflict with one's own values. If possible one should try to help them, to explain to them the root of their error, if they are so amenable. If not, then one can only walk away. At least that's the best I've been able to come up with.

There are not very many Objectivists that I know personally, but from what I've seen on the web and read of the Objectivist canon, this seems to be the best way of dealing with problems between people in today's society that I can come up with. I'd be very interested in what others may have to say about this. So please feel free to comment on this posting as you like.

Ayn Rand vs. Philosophy in the Flesh: Part 1 Metaphysical Realism and the Correspondence Theory of Truth

I've just started reading a 1999 book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson entitled "Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought". The reviews claim that it "radically changes the tenets of traditional western philosophy." Needless to say, this caught my eye. Given the plague of contradictions in most contemporary philosophy, anything which claims to challenge them warrants examination.

This isn't my first foray into Lakoff and Johnson. I had to write a paper on the use of figurative language in translation for my MA in Applied Linguistics. As part of my research on the nature of metaphor I came across the earlier work by Lakoff & Johnson, "Metaphors We Live By". I had to say that the concept was interesting, the idea that metaphors are primarily derived from biological experience, e.g. that Descartes dualism was bunk and that our minds and bodies are an integrated unit. However, I found some of the later conclusions they drew from this argument to be rather sloppy. I ended up using more of Kovesces' work in the final write-up.

What tickled my interest though was the concept of the embodied mind. This is something which Ayn Rand was villified for by the philosophers of her day, embodied objectivism. So, I find it interesting that cognitive science is now producing ideas which seem to echo theories suggested by Rand. As the authors of this volume claim that their "embodied" philosophy "offers radically new and detailed understandings of what a person is", I was interested to see how much these understandings differ from those of Rand. Unfortunately they left her out of their list of philosophies to criticize. So, I've decided that, as time allows, I will analyze their arguments from an Objectivist point of view and see where they're the same, where they're different, and which is left standing.

PART ONE: Metaphysical Realism and the Correspondence Theory of Truth

Well, I hadn't hit page 26 before I found myself hitting the Ayn Rand Lexicon and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to double-check definitions.

I don't think L&J's definitions of cognition or the cognitive unconscious are too problematic. Instead they seem highly compatible with Rand's assertion that concepts are subsumed into the unconscious and guide our thought automatically at a certain level of operation. Until a concept has been integrated into one's consciousness, that concept will only appear in the conscious mind. However, once it has been integrated into one's value system, it becomes a part of one's functional unconscious.

Where we start to see some conflict is when they start to take on two issues, metaphysical realism and the correspondence theory of truth. Now, I realize that they didn't have Objectivism in mind when they were writing their book, but if Objectivism has answers to their problems, then they haven't succeeded in doing away with these fundamental philosophical concepts.
Metaphysical realism, by the way, is basically the assertion that the world is as it is independent of our minds. That is to say, that it doesn't matter what I may feel about the matter, that either there is a puppy licking my feet or there isn't. Period. I may be crazy. There may not be a puppy licking my feet. But if there isn't then there are ways of testing reality to determine whether or not there is, indeed, a puppy there. Reality is. Existence exists. The assumption of a common reality is primary to any attempt to use language. Teaching language would be impossible without it. Just imagine trying to explain "tree" to someone who doesn't know English and has never seen one before. You would probably have to resort to showing a picture, exotic gestures, or perhaps driving them out to a forest. You couldn't explain "tree" disconnected from a common experience of reality.

Nevertheless, this is the first concept that L&J attempt to take on. So, let's look at what they offer.

Their first offering is the color problem. They suggest that "human concepts are not just reflections of an external reality, but they are crucially shaped by our bodies and brains, especially by our sensorimotor system."

Intitially they offer nothing new: that color does not exist as such beyond wavelengths of light at various frequencies, or "electromagnetic radiation" for a more technical term. What we call "color" is how our brains interpret these wavelengths. They further argue that if our concepts of color are directly derived from our interpretation of the properties of light reflected from surfaces then our categorizations of color concepts would reflect the categories of reflectance. They proceed to point out that our concept of color has an internal structure in that some colors are focal. (That is to say that what we consider really really red, would be the central red, and more derivative forms of red may be thinks that are purplish red or orange red, etc.) The problem is that the actual categories of reflectance do not mirror this structure, so this means that our concept of color is "inextricably tied to our embodiment".

Rephrasing, they say that "color concepts are "interactional"; they arise from the interactions of our bodies, our brains, the reflective properties of objects, and electromagnetic radiation."

So far so good, I think. Rand says, "Sensations are the primary material of consciousness and, therefore, cannot be communicated by means of the material which is derived from them. The existential causes of sensations can be described and defined in conceptual terms (e.g., the wavelengths of light and the structure of the human eye, which produce the sensations of color), but one cannot communicate what color is like, to a person who is born blind. To define the meaning of the concept "blue", for instance, one must point to some blue objects to signify, in effect: "I mean this." (Intro to Objectivist Epistemology 52).

L&J then think they have struck gold when they declare that colors are not objective (that colors do not exist independently of the observer) and that they are not purely subjective (colors are not hallucinations). From this they claim that metaphysical realism fails, that color only makes sense in terms of an "embodied realism".

There are a couple problems here. First, colors are not objective, because they are not objects. Metaphysical realism, at least that as maintained by Objectivism does not claim that colors are objective, divorced from a human body.

"You are an indivisible entitiy of matter and consciousness. Renounce your consciousness and you become a brute. Renounce your body and you become a fake. Renounce the material world and you surrender it to evil." (For The New Intellectual, 142).

On the contrary, Rand singles out color as a sensation. Sensations can only ever be defined ostensibly. Taste would fit in this category as well. If you doubt this, simply ask a Japanese person to try and explain "shibui" to you. You can't possibly understand until you've experienced it. But even then, taste in and of itself is not an object in reality. It is a sensation generated by our brains in response to the operations of an object's properties upon our sensorimotor system. L&J claim the sky is not reflective, because it is not an object. No, but it is an array of objects which have a cumulative effect. The calculus of their objective properties invoke the stimulus which triggers our brains to recognize the day-time sky as blue. That "blueness" is only a function of how our brains perceive that stimulus does nothing to undermine the objective existence of that stimulus. Thus I think that metaphysical realism is nicely in tact. (One hopes that this isn't too terribly fundamental to L&J's argument, else it's already undone on page 25.)

Uh, oh! Turn the page and all of a sudden they're demanding that we give up the correspondence theory of truth. They state that if color isn't a metaphysical "primary quality" as defined by Locke, then we must give up on the idea that "truth lies in the relationship between words and the metaphysically and objectively real world external to any perceiver." This is an addition of L&J's and a misstep of many philosophers. Truth does not lie in the relationship between words and reality. "Truth is the identification of a fact of reality" (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 150.)

They states that a sentence like "Blood is red" cannot be true if red doesn't have objective truth value. But the statement does have objective truth value...in a given context. Context is everything. Blood is not red, unless exposed to air. But in that case it is. What they ignore here is that we have an understanding of what it means for something to be red, even if it is an embodied reaction to sensory stimulus. We have a knowledge of what blood is. Blood is an objective existent. It is an object and has certain properties specific to it. Some of these properties have the effect of triggering a response in our brains that assigns to it the color red. These are all facts encapsulated in the statement "Blood is red". And there is no denying them. But once again, it depends on context.

Isolated sentences never appear in nature, they are the province of philosophers. Especially those who like to take advantage of disassociated context to manipulate the natural ambiguity of language. However, this ambiguity disappears when attention is paid to the context of an utterance within a stream of discourse. Discourse contextualizes utterances so that it is possible for them to have a truth value. Every utterance does have a specific meaning in a given context. It is only by creating unnatural representations of language that the truth value of any given statement can be called into question. Context is everything.

Well, that's all I have for now, but I look forward to seeing if they have anything more convincing to come. I hope so, or else I sure wasted my money on this one.