Plan for OTI work and economic analysis

I've been working on my plan for how this OTI work is to proceed. Recall that it is aimed not just at understanding Objectivism but of thoroughly digesting objectivity itself and applying this to economic science.

Also, there is one more topic in metaphysics I have to cover before I move on, so I edited OTI post 006 to remove the relevant side-comment in the opening words.


Here is the overview leading to economics:

- Axioms, corollaries, and further related issues
- Consciousness as a physical faculty
- Concept-formation
- Propositions
- Objectivity and laws of thought
- Induction
- Deduction
- Mathematics
- The faculty of reason psychologically considered
- Reasoning method
- Scientific method in general
- Life, action, and value
- Man, his values and his actions
- Society and civilisation
- Scientific method in the social sciences
- Politics and government
- The context of economics
- The method of economic science

Within each of these there will be a number of different posts, though each individual post wont necessarily be in the precise order as above. For the immediate future I will just be following the same outline as presented in OPAR, unless I find reason to depart from that (which may be either a change in order or addition of more topics or leaving of secondary topics aside for future discussion). This is subject to change, but here is the plan for the next several posts:

- Primacy of existence
- Consciousness as possessing identity
- Validity of the senses
- Volition
- Primacy of the perceptual level
- Man's power of abstraction
- Abstraction as mathematical in nature
- First-level concepts
- Higher-level concepts
- Definitions
- The metaphysically given versus the man-made
- Rejecting materialism and idealism
- The four causes

I don't know if I really need to explore the validity of qualia for economics, nor the categories of being, though I may end up doing those topics too at some point anyway. The problem is that they are both Akston-level topics rather than Rearden-level, but they may yet be necessary even for Rearden-level investigation. I hope I don't have to wade into the Direct vs Indirect Realism debate, for instance, except perhaps in passing. We shall see.

JJM