@David B
“The way you answer my questions, and others here seems to be related to some fundamental dissonance in the way certain concepts are understood.”
Yes, but possibly because we are too often not speaking the same language. I frequently have to reach for a translation of what you are trying to say. For example, while “dissonance” indicates some conflict, it is way to imprecise for a discussion like this … do you mean disagreement, contradiction, or what? Or, what does this mean:
"So reality does it’s thing, and one side effect is that it produces intentional systems. "
What are “intentional systems.” Who is the intender? Certainly not reality. I also lose you every time you say things like “IS statements” and “IS construction” … what are you trying to say with this all caps IS. If these phrases are meaningless in lower case, what does capitalizing them add?
I think it would help you immensely in dealing with Rand’s ideas if you would use her terminology, and her concise, razor sharp definitions. If you disagree with one, that can be discussed. But at least use the definitions you agree with to discuss the ideas. You can always review her formulations on The Ayn Rand Lexicon.
“It seems to me, and has since I first started looking at these issues that the disconnect is one of what we mean when we say reality, and where we see purpose originating and secondarily if the existence of purposeful behavior itself is some kind of binding contract between the mind and reality, or some type of binding relationship between the mind and itself. I don’t think anyone disputes that man is purposeful, uses reason, cannot avoid pursuing some purpose in life, ultimately must remain alive in order to continue pursuing any other goal. But I guess the difference is in how each of us individually understands what that last statement means.”
Reality is what is—everything. There is nothing “outside of” reality. Don’t try to make more of it than that simple fact.
The behavior of man is purposeful, because purpose is the value of one’s capacity to apply reason to action in the production and trade of that which maximizes one’s life:
“Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work—pride is the result.” (The Virtue of Selfishness, 25)
"The reason man acts is to create a future reality better than the one he imagines will happen without his action. I have always interpreted Rand’s statement, as an interpretation of this in terms of a final end, fullest expression of life.
The problem I always have with what Rand says is that self-sacrifice is necessarily the abdication of this ultimate value."
Look. “sacrifice” is defined by a simple principle. Your musings might help you to get all your ducks in a row, but ultimately you will still have to address the principle in order to settle the question of what is or is not “sacrifice.” To wit:
The values that comprise one’s code of values are not all uniform in their contribution to one’s life in all instances at all times. A code of values is necessarily hierarchical. The same is true of the concrete evaluations one makes in accordance with that code. Therefore, every alternative one faces in life will be between something that makes a greater contribution to your life—a higher value—and something that makes a lesser contribution—a lower value. It should be obvious that in the pursuit of one’s life that is the standard against which all values are measured, one should always opt for the higher value over a lower one.
The act of opting for a lower value to your life over a higher one would be to sacrifice the good of your life to its detriment, it would be a violation of the standard you established by making the fundamental choice to pursue your life, i.e. it would be immoral.