The classical philosophic hierarchy that Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is built upon – metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics – provides an almost ideal framework for properly educating people. I say “almost,” because what’s missing is spirituality. Add that, and you’ll have the whole enchilada, so to speak.
Metaphysics (or ontology) is the branch of philosophy that studies existence, the nature of the universe as a whole. And if one injects spirituality into this branch, one would also “study” the Being, or unmanifest Existent, from Whom existence stems. Once one adds Being (Siva-Shakti or Sat-Cit-Ananda) to the equation, then spirituality, the practice of communing/identifying with this Being, becomes the 6th branch of the hierarchy. The way to “study” Being is to literally be it by communing/coinciding with It. This meditative practice of Divine communing/coinciding can be termed “onto-logic.” Logic, according to Rand, is non-contradictory identification of reality (meaning phenomenal reality). And what I call onto-logic, is ontical, or yogic, or spiritual, identification with Ultimate Reality, which Rand, unfortunately, didn’t have a clue about. Students would also study the foremost mystical philosophies that elaborate on Being and the practice of communing/identifying with It.
If students are taught both logic – namely Aristotelian logic and Rand’s Objectivist epistemology – and onto-logic, they will have the tools to determine and understand right ethics, right politics, and right aesthetics. And they will have the right basis or framework in which to study and consider all other subjects as well.
Young children, of course, will not be ready to grasp logic and onto-logic and its implications. They should be taught basic reading, writing, and arithmetic, and play skills involving games, sports, music, art, etc. But even young children should be taught hatha yoga postures and meditation exercises that will help them to develop discipline and concentration, which will prepare them for onto-logic.
In short, if we are going to build an integral and En-Light-ened world, the key is right education for everyone.
I’d Love to Change the World, Part 3
Previous post: I’d Love to Change the World, Part 2
Next post: Not the Buddha’s Dharma
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Dear Mr. Gardner, I must correct you. Ayn Rand’s definition of humility came from the level of the mind and her whole view on life makes it clear for me she was not Self-realized. The same applies to Adi Da aka Franklin Jones. That you belive they are puts into doubt all that you write about. I am only offering my two cents 😉
Oh, I forget to mention. You have it all….”as” backwards
M.K. Sha, I never said that Ayn Rand was Self-realized, and I hardly agree with everything that Adi Da wrote or did. I’m just smart enough not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Plenty of people, such as yourself, love to attack Rand and Da, but hardly anyone can deconstruct their teachings. If you want my respect, impress me by undermining their Dharmas.
Sir, I don’t need your respect…but thanks anyway.
M.K. Sha, if you are a sincere Truth-seeker, you owe it to yourself to be able to deconstruct Dharmas that you disagree with.
That is ABSOLUTELY false! I owe it to myself to only follow my own dharma as it is clear to me. You confuse “intellectual debate” with “sadhana”… and it shows!
M.K. Sha, just out of curiosity, what Dharma are you into? And by the way, you might appreciate my series of articles on Adi Da, entitled “Dissing the Da Avatar.” You’ll see that I hardly view Da entirely in positive light. I’m interested in Truth and truth, not in blindly following or praising anybody.