Reasoning behind the Diagram’s list: misintegrating categorization

These are the five misintegrating categories of the Diagram, starting with Ayn Rand.


Ayn Rand

Pro: Her theory of concepts, independently verified by the Model, involves the greatest epistemological scope of all idealist philosophies but, coinciding with these philosophies, with the conceptual position looking down from above.

Con: Her conflicts with the quantum theories cast doubt on a contemporary standing within the lower levels.

Leonard Peikoff

Pro: His DIM Hypothesis is a fundamental source for the terms of my Complete Reality Hypothesis, thus coinciding with the Objectivist vision.

Con: Inaccuracies of his evaluations of modern physics show that he is incompetent on the lower levels.


Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Pro 1: Religion “is an existence that is preserved in thinking, and also something thought that is objectively present to it” (Hegel, 1977, para. 684, my emphasis). Hegel begins with religion (lev. 15) and ends in thought (lev. 6).

Pro 2: In a more poetic language, Hegel describes his philosophy as: “This simple infinity, or the absolute Notion, may be called the simple essence of life, the soul of the world, the universal blood, whose omnipresence is neither disturbed nor interrupted by any difference, but rather is itself every difference, as also their supersession; it pulsates within itself but does not move, inwardly vibrates, yet is at rest” (Hegel, 1977, para. 162).

Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of Spirit. A. V. Miller (Trans.). Oxford University Press.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Pro 1: “Every universal truth which we express in words, implies or supposes every other truth. […] It is like a great circle on a sphere, comprising all possible circles; which, however, may be drawn and comprise it in like manner. Every such truth is the absolute Ens [Being] seen from one side. But it has innumerable sides” (Nature, Ch. 5).

Pro 2: “The true philosopher and the true poet are one, and a beauty, which is truth, and a truth, which is beauty, is the aim of both” (Nature, Ch. 6).

Pro 3: There is Hegelianism in Emerson, when the latter spoke that things “change, and reappear a new and higher fact, another yet the same” (Harvey, 2013, p. 92).

Harvey, S. (2013). Transatlantic Transcendentalism: Coleridge, Emerson, and Nature. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Emerson, R. W. (2000). The essential writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. [EPUB file]. B. Atkinson (Ed.). New York: The Modern Library.

Henry David Thoreau

Pro 1: “I see the sandy bottom and detect how shallow it is. Its thin current slides away, but eternity remains. I would drink deeper; fish in the sky, whose bottom is pebbly with stars” (Thoreau, 2003, Ch. 2)

Pro 2: “Or sometimes I watched a pair of hen-hawks circling high in the sky, alternatively soaring and descending, approaching and leaving one another, as if they were the imbodiment [sic] of my own thoughts” (ibid., Ch. 7).

Pro 3: “I am its stony shore,/ And the breeze that passes o’er;/ In the hollow of my hand/ Are its water and its sand,/ And its deepest resort/ Lies high in my thought” (ibid., Ch. 9).

Pro 4: Thoreau’s “difference from Kant […] is that these a priori conditions are not themselves knowable a priori, but are to be discovered experimentally; historically, Hegel had said” (Cavell, 1972, pp. 93-4, original emphases).

Cavell, S. (1972). The senses of Walden. New York: The Viking Press.

Thoreau, H. D. (2003). Walden and Civil Disobedience [EPUB file]. New York: Barnes & Noble Classics.

Vladimir Solovyov

Pro: the deep understanding of religion in his essay “Понятие о Боге (В защиту философии Спинозы)” (1897) (The Concept of God [In Defense of Spinoza’s Philosophy]).

Jean Jaurès

Pros: “[T]hought and reality are the same,” and there is “the progressive realization of the Absolute, the rational movement towards final harmony” (Kołakowski, 1978, V. 2, p. 121).

Kołakowski, L. (1978). Main currents of marxism (3 volumes). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sabina Spielrein

Pros: Her will to unite Jung and Freud through her mystical philosophy (cf. Sex Versus Survival: The Life and Ideas of Sabina Spielrein, Ch. 13). And her film depiction.



Pro: “Ptolemy was a wholehearted Platonist” (Koestler, 1959, p. 74).

Koestler, A. (1959). The sleepwalkers: a history of man’s changing vision of the Universe. New York: The Macmillan Company.

George Berkley

Pros: “Berkeley’s philosophy … [was used] as a framework for his own American Practical Idealism school of philosophy… [and] over half of the contributors to the Declaration of Independence were connected to it” (wiki). Berkeley was a subjective idealist and a relativist like Leibniz.

George Washington

Pro 1: “…an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter” (Washington’s “Farewell Address,” 1796; cf. Emerson’s “The American Scholar”).

Pro 2: “I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position” (ibid.)

Pro 3: “I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils [from my defects]” (ibid.) Compare this to Leo Tolstoy’s humbleness.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck

Pro 1: His opposition to Lavoisier.

Pro 2: His ideas of alchemical forces, with whose guidance evolution proceeded from simple to complex, appearing in a “steady-state” generation of simple forms.

Victor Hugo

Pro 1: “The need of the immaterial is the most deeply rooted of all needs. One must have bread; but before bread, one must have the ideal” (quote).

Pro 2: “God manifests himself to us in the first degree through the life of the universe, and in the second degree through the thought of man. The second manifestation is not less holy than the first. The first is named Nature, the second is named Art” (ibid.).

Pro 3: His last will: “Je crois en Dieu” (I believe in God.) (wiki).

Charles Dickens

Pro: “Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoyevsky referred to Dickens as ‘that great Christian writer’” (wiki).

Max Planck

Pro 1: “There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter” (quote).

Pro 2: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness” (ibid.).

Pro 3: “New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment” (ibid.).

Pro 4: “[Parallel with Einstein:] Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination” (ibid.).

Pro 5: “Long and tedious reflection cannot enable us to shape our decisions and attitudes properly; only that definite and clear instruction which we gain can form a direct inner link to God” (ibid.).

Mahatma Gandhi

Pro: “If I exist, God exists” (quote). He lived for his principles with the level 15 worldview.

Joseph Stalin

Pro 1: “[My] principles triumph; they do not ‘compromise'” (quote). Objective idealism of Plato. Like Plato, “he could say things in a plain way … [and with] pedantic habits of repetition” (Kołakowski, 1978, V. 3, p. 17).

Pro 2: “Ivan the Terrible would execute someone and then spend a long time repenting and praying. He let God get in his way in this matter. He ought to have been more decisive!” (quote). Within the category of Ivan the Terrible, whose culture was imposed on communists, as told by Lenin (Kołakowski, 1978, V. 2, p. 527).

Pro 3: The personality cult of Stalin was alien (чуждый) to Marxism-Leninism and a mistake and distortion (извращение) of the Party doctrine (Lenin, 1967, V. 22, p. 560). Stalin also didn’t align with Lenin’s ideology: “Unlike most of the front-rank Bolsheviks he [Stalin] had no ‘intellectual’ leanings, which Lenin could not endure” (Kołakowski, 1978, V. 3, p. 17).

Pro 4: “Marxism under Stalin cannot be defined by any collection of statements, ideas, or concepts: it was not a question of propositions as such but of the fact that there existed an all-powerful authority competent to declare at any given moment what Marxism was and what it was not. ‘Marxism’ meant nothing more or less than the current pronouncement of the authority in question, i.e. Stalin himself [an individual rather than a collective]” (Kołakowski, 1978, V. 3, p. 4).

Pro 5: His idealization of ‘Marxism-Leninism’ comparable with that by György Lukács.

Pro 6: Stalin was not a Marxist because he tried to destroy loyalty and links to Marxist ideology by means of his purges (Kołakowski, 1978, V. 3, pp. 85 ff.), thus emptying the ideology of its substance (ibid., p. 91).

Con: His view that we think only in words is similar to Rand’s and to Kant’s.

Kołakowski, L. (1978). Main currents of marxism (3 volumes). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Lenin, V. I. (1967). Polnoye Sobraniye Sochineniy [Complete Works] (5th ed.; 55 Vols.). Moscow: Political Literature Publishing House.

Albert Einstein

Pro 1: He was going against QM, in particular Niels Bohr.

Pro 2: He was thinking of beauty before facts (mathematical beauty).

Pro 3: Connecting to Plato through Berkeley and Ernst Mach.

Pro 4: “A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.” This is Platonic idealism, as directed to the past.

Erich Maria Remarque

Pro: His alter ego in The Black Obelisk in contrast to Almodóvar’s in Talk to Her (2002).

Werner Heisenberg

Pro 1: “Bohr and Heisenberg were totally at odds. Not only Bohr and Einstein, but also Bohr and Heisenberg” (Barad, 2012).

Pro 2: “modern physics takes a definite stand against the materialism of Democritus and for Plato and the Pythagoreans” (quote).

Pro 3: “Heisenberg was raised and lived as a Lutheran Christian, publishing and giving several talks reconciling science with his faith” (wiki).

Barad, K. (2012). “Matter feels, converses, suffers, desires, yearns and remembers”: Interview with Karen Barad. In R. Dolphijn and I. van der Tuin (Eds.), New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies. DOI:

George Orwell

Pro 1: “Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life” (quote).

Pro 2: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better” (quote).

Arthur M. Young

Pro 1: “In this drama man is at a critical point. He is more than the beasts in that he is in a different kingdom, but in this kingdom he is still not very far along. He is, in fact, at its midpoint, at a stage corresponding to that of the clam in the animal kingdom. Like the clam, he is buried in the sand with only a dim consciousness of the worlds beyond. Yet potentially he can evolve far beyond his present state; his destiny is unlimited” (Young, 2015, “Preface”). He is in Platonic reality.

Pro 2: “…our story has a moral: the world of fundamental particles is quite different from that of predictable billiard balls. From the point of view of predictability, it is like that of human beings. Its creatures have a life of their own. Predictability here is similar to that of insurance tables, Gallup polls, and market surveys: it does not apply to individuals. The individual particle does not obey laws” (ibid., Ch. 1, his emphasis). The top-down view.

Young, A. M. (2015). The reflexive universe: Evolution of consciousness [Kindle edition]. Retrieved from

Willard Van Orman Quine

Pro 1: “As an empiricist I continue to think […] [p]hysical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries — not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. [… However, t]he myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience” (Quine, 1951, p. 41).

Pro 2: “I suggest that experience is analogous to the rational numbers and that the physical objects, in analogy to the irrational numbers. […] Science is a continuation of common sense, and it continues the common-sense expedient of swelling ontology to simplify theory. […] The edge of the system must be kept squared with experience; the rest, with all its elaborate myths or fictions, has as its objective the simplicity of laws” (Quine, 1951, p. 42).

Quine, W. V. (1951). Two Dogmas of Empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60(1), pp. 20-43.

Nora Gal

Pro: The advice she gives and the reasoning in her book Words Living and Words Dead (Слово живое и мёртвое).

Alan Turing

Pro: Turing’s conflict with Wittgenstein (wiki).

Stanley Kubrick

Pro: Not for the benefit of perverse sumptuousness, there is prevalence of the centeredness on morality of faithfulness in his last film, Eyes Wide Shut (1999).

Alberto Rivera

Pro: “I was doctorate in logic too, but Christ freed me from that too, Christ’s name” (sermon).

J. Michael Straczynski

Pro 1: All idealist characters in Babylon 5.

Pro 2: A variation of an eye for an eye with a qualitative extension from Babylon 5 and Changeling (2008): “Never start a fight, but always finish it.”

James Cameron

Pro 1: “People call me a perfectionist, but I’m not. I’m a rightist. I do something until it’s right.”

Pro 2: “Imagination is a force that can actually manifest a reality” (quote).

Fyodor Bondarchuk

Pro 1: “Чистота и порядок – моя страсть” (Cleanliness and order are my passions) (quote). Like a Russian Cameron.

Pro 2: “Он положительный. Однозначно положительный. Ведь он свято верит в торжество справедливости!” (He is positive. Definitely positive. Because he has faith in the triumph of justice!) (ibid.).

Con: Not generally known to write his own movie scripts.

David Harriman

Pro: “…the bridge from observation to generalization is not one premise, or even a hundred premises, but the total of one’s knowledge properly integrated” (The Logical Leap, Ch. 1). This is an overgeneralization.


Peter Ramus

Pros: accepted Plato, attacked Aristotle, used spacial dialectical logic without bridging logical gaps, reduced rhetoric to style. Some pertinent discussions are in Ong, J. W. (2004). Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue, Chicago: Chicago UP. pp. 9, 194, 315.

Rene Descartes

Pros: reduced our understanding of “soul” to God-inspired “mind,” perpetuated the mind/body dichotomy.

Richard Avenarius

Pro: concentration on biological brain and economic thinking (cf. Kołakowski, 1978, V. 2, p. 429).

Kołakowski, L. (1978). Main currents of marxism (3 volumes). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Paul Dirac

Pros: Thinking of beauty before facts (mathematical beauty) and without connecting to facts by interpretation of QM: hence the schism between his idealism and materialism.

Deepak Chopra

Pros: (subjectively) transcending matter (of Copenhagen “quantum mysticism”) with mind and indivisible thoughts.


Machiventa Melchizedek

Pro: Melchizedek, The King of Righteousness, is known as the ‘prototype’ of Christ in most Abrahamic religions.

Con: Very little is known of him to the utmost accuracy, especially requiring belief in the content of religious texts.

Jesus Christ

Pro 1: Following The Urantia Book, among many others, he is described as a very down-to-earth and humanly individual, mystically teaching the gospel of ‘love’ and idealistically hating sin as during the cleansing of the Temple.

Pro 2: His idealization of God as The Father.

Con: This is a difficult categorization, considering the mystery and the importance of this figure in our history and the amount of interpretations it has.

Drunvalo Melchizedek

Pro: “The heart contains the place where everything that we see in our reality, all of the stars, the planets, and everything else like that, there is a place in there where all those things were created, and it is the same place in everybody’s heart…” (video). The emotional connection between the heart and the cosmos but from an idealist’s point of view.

Con: Is he really the being he says he is?


26 thoughts on “Reasoning behind the Diagram’s list: misintegrating categorization

      • I’m not giving you th right to choose what you do and don’t like in my replies. For that, you need to join the editorial staff of either Pravda or a randoid site.

        So you either agree to publish without censorship whatsoever, or I don’t read & respond. Furthermore, if you do censor me in the future, I’ll block your posts & not receive them.


      • Let me clarify. When I said your responses may impact these pages, I only meant my blog posts, not your actual comments. I thought you were saying whether your comments would impact my replies.


      • Bill, I never censored, never censor, and never will censor anything you wrote, write, or will write! Why do you get these ideas? Why don’t you trust me? Oh, I know, because you don’t trust Rand, and you think of me as a RANDOID. Please quit your childish games. The only instance when I would delete your comment is when you by accident make a double comment. It will look bad, so I delete it from stylistic reasons only. I never edit anything anyone writes – that thought I never even had. I believe in absolute freedom, not tyranny or censorship. That’s just bullshit.


      • In the past, you’ve clearly refused to permit my writings to appear automatically. In any other world other than that of the old USSR, Putin, or Rand, that’s called ‘censorship’.


      • First, I did not edit or modify your comments in any way. Second, I was clear that I banned you, and afterwards you didn’t add anything of value, as you well know. You kept writing “testing” all the time, but your comments were already blacklisted, so the system automatically deleted them. I only added your information to the blacklist, but now it’s removed. I need you to critique the Diagram’s list. Please.


      • Oh, I see–you didn’t ‘censor’ me, but rather ‘blacklisted’. With distinctions such as that, I wonder if you work for the KGB.

        Otherwise, okay, I’ll offer a few comments tonight. But the next time my writing fails to appear, I’m blocking you for good.


      • I believe that you need to be more expilicit as to how these people relate to your categories.

        Otherwise, The Dirac Equation is a means of measuring facts called the position of the electron.


      • They relate through the Model. You can observe facts from above, too. Understanding how to position a person within the Model and how to match his areas of interest or research to his direction is crucial to making sense of the Diagram.


      • You need to be far more explicit as to how each of these relate to your model. You should moreover begin by explicitly offering up the model, and placing these individual within it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s