By John Yokela and Brishon Martin
There is a Fundamental Distinction in the Mental Operations of Identification vs. Evaluation
The Nature of Identification
Identification is fundamentally a grouping process that operates horizontally across similar entities. When we identify, we mentally abstract from our sensations and perceptions to group things based on their shared characteristics. For example, when forming the concept “chair,” we observe various objects used for sitting and recognize common features like legs, seats, and backrests. Through this process, we integrate characteristics that are similar into a single mental unit that distinguishes chairs from non-chairs.
The Nature of Evaluation
In contrast, evaluation operates vertically as a ranking process. Rather than grouping things by similarities, evaluation involves ranking alternatives using general standards according to their differences. For instance, when tasting ice cream flavors, we typically rank them according to the standard of our metaphysically given taste buds. These rankings form values which typically guide our choices and actions. This vertical ranking process is also at the foundation of morality, when we make moral judgements we are ranking different alternative means to some end according to moral standards to form moral values that guide our choices and actions.
Distinctly Different Mental Operations: Epistemological vs. Ethical
Identification and Evaluation differ fundamentally in their:
Purpose
- Identification aims to form concepts by grouping similar entities
- Evaluation aims to rank different alternatives toward achieving specific ends
Method
- Identification creates horizontal groupings based on similarities
- Evaluation creates vertical hierarchies of values, or rankings, of different things based on standards
Practical Implications
The distinction becomes clear in practical applications. Consider a collection of beads: identification would involve grouping them by color, size, or material, while evaluation would involve ranking them by value or desirability according to some standard.This fundamental difference between these mental processes has important implications for how we:
- Form concepts through identification
- Make value judgments through evaluation
- Develop moral standards through their integration
Integration in Moral Evaluation
While distinct, identification and evaluation work together in moral evaluation. We first identify relevant context and alternative means to some end, then evaluate them according to a moral standard. This integration allows us to form both our understanding of the world and our judgments about it, contributing to our cognitive development and moral decision-making capabilities and the satisfaction of our moral values. The recognition of this fundamental distinction, between identification of concepts vs. evaluation of values, helps clarify how we process both facts and values; while shedding light on the different but complementary roles these mental processes play in human cognition and moral evaluations.
In a future article, we will discuss more on why Ayn Rand’s work in Epistemology is NOT the foundation for ethics as Leonard Peikoff asserts around minute 1:47:00 in this version (there are two) of his Q&A on his talk “Certainty and Happiness”:
PEIKOFF: “The key to what happened historically and to the world, lies in epistemology not in metaphysics… In my view, the whole trouble in the history of philosophy lies in the theory of concepts… What would be the fate of Objectivism if there had only been “Galt’s Speech” and no “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”? In other words, if we had all the philosophy that’s in “Atlas Shrugged” but no Objectivist theory of concepts. In that case, Objectivism would stand no chance — if that LACUNA had not been filled by somebody else… That [Rand’s theory of concepts] is really the foundation of it all… Every other thing in Objectivism — politics, ethics, epistemology — everything flows from concept formation… That is the essence of Objectivism and the root… It’s the theory of concepts that made me DISAGREE with Ayn Rand in her own identification of herself. We always would [discuss] what would be her place in history… I would insist that she was like Plato or Aristotle and she [Ayn Rand] would say:
PEIKOFF REPORTING ON RAND: “No, I’m just like Socrates. I need to find the ‘Plato’ [known as the first systemizing Philosopher] who will make a total philosophy out of my interesting ideas.”
PEIKOFF: She [Rand] and I argued that several times… In my mind, [Rand’s] theory of concepts…that’s what made her Plato rather than Socrates because that was now the complete total, final synthesized philosophy resting on its root… Absolutely nothing stands without that [Rand’s theory of concepts] and the whole rest of Objectivism is getting into and getting out of that [Rand’s theory of concepts].
Link to Peikoff’s statements quoted above (which were in meandering response to Brishon’s original question asked for her by her then husband) (starts around min. 1:43:00):
Brishon's Blog 
…
And finally, since I made this boringly long off-topic anyway – a kind of attack on your blog (but you yourself are to blame for leaving links to your site left and right) – if you ask me about my general assumption about this organized triumphant return of the “conservative” vision of the future” (which comes after four years of “transition in the liberal desert for the conservative tribe” and at least two years of diligent warm-up with “moral and traditional Christian values” by warm-up Russian band with frontman Vladimir Vladimirovich in the role of Mikhail in a battle with the demonocratic dragon with, about the big orange conservative concert)..
I think that the elite wants for the highest positions in the future system (mainly the future) generations of those who resist it the most – the most useful, historically proven to be the smartest and most capable (which is not equal to the “most moral”, even in some respects on the contrary) “human capital” – conservative Europeans (including in North America). They must be integrated into the new system, which is so strange and frightening, so far beyond the boundaries of tradition and normality, that it can only be imposed on them as a Salvation from an extreme and ugly immediate threat (“the left-liberal agenda” and, above all, the horror of its future unfolding, which is very similar to the Christian end times).
Thus, the planned new technological order, including certain genetic modifications and a new comunication reality with brain implants, must be joined (in the consciousness of the target herd) and go hand in hand with “high moral, traditional, patriotic, Christian” and so on. But in peacetime, without the ultimate threat of extreme leftist evil, this cannot be done, it is difficult.
This undoubtedly applies to Russia, where Putin in particular is unstoppable – for example (just one example, there are more). I’m sure you understand. And this – at least in my opinion – is likely to become the model for the future of the West (apart from China, Russia also is a test for the future model of the West, but it is not only a test – they are also building their reality there; it is not only the West that is important).
You can see that in my forecast the target group is the conservative generations, not the conservatives today, so they, today’s, who will give generations, must be convinced not to interfere too much and to help build the future of their generations.
And I’m not talking about “forced chipping” and so on, on the contrary – voluntary, for good, as something very good and related to good things, to the good world with the system of voluntariness, freedom, and not the dark totalitarian nightmare of the UN/WEF, etc. – it serves as a tramline of the target group to the “good future”. Because of the big difference in productivity – and in the future this productivity will be related to mental productivity in direct interaction between the brain and the computer and the collectives of brains – in the totalitarian model and in the freer model, of the selected (according to its usefulness) group of people whose love of freedom is more developed, perhaps in some way encoded (genetically or otherwise). It’s possible that I’m exaggerating, I don’t know.
I call it: the “Chip for Good” scheme. 🙂
Something like that, in short.
Come on, Brishon, bye (forgive me if I overdid it; it’s clear that I overdid :)) (Just disapprove the comments, or delete them if they don’t go into moderation; this is your website.)
At least the links are useful, in my opinion, at least.
Picture with translation for bye.
Thanks for your email. I’m in a lot of agreement with your model of reality. If you’d like to get deeper into my model then I suggest Whitney’s work on the push to destroy the mosque at Temple Mount. She has several articles on this topic — which relates to WW3 under Trump in my view — here: https://www.unz.com/author/whitney-webb/page/2/?__cf_chl_tk=5GPXpNc0QMJYP4KIwshff8NxI2.HAALgNiscdSz7k_8-1731546760-1.0.1.1-VwZnD5dszRGvyoK3vE_wQMz5wPrgNBCPn3sK2L_6ebY
Thank you so much for your hospitality, Brishon. And about the links too (I’ll review them when I find time). Of course I’m interested in your opinion on the matter and I even read one of your posts here from the beginning of the plandemic (but I did a quick review, I’ll come back for a slower reading; it was very interesting, especially the connections with the Catholic mafia).
In the meantime, the forum has been removed and – in case you are interested, since it is not available anywhere else – some good person has saved an archive here (in all three links in the first comment), unfortunately without the last 3 summary pages. 🙂