Interesting how objectivist see meaning. It is pretty clear that one could not derive meaning, (and one need not necessarily do so), unless one Understands. Once one understands, one can relate to that understanding via a metaphor and that metaphor can help someone else understand.
(We speak of concepts, functions or how things work here or why say, A+B = C.

Now the meaning of words, terms or philosophical concepts have to be specific in order to derive understanding in it's context.

Metaphors enhance meaning and understanding. Everyone seems to respond to different metaphors based upon our different experiences and level of compartmentalized information. (specific neurons in the brain)

I am only half way through the pdf, amongst many distractions tonight but one error I spotted underscores the problem. My correction will be bracketed.

"To know is to represent accurately in one's head, [mind] what is outside [inside] the mind, [head]

Understanding can only occur in the mind, then and only then can a specific neuron be created in the brain that represents that understanding.
Let's take 2 neurons in the brain, one A and one B, but the answer to a problem is AB...that information is not represented, only through mistake, experimentation or learning can one know and hopefully understand AB, once known and or understood can a neuron AB be constructed representing the answer.

Demonstrated in the brief to my recollection, I knew the formula and could use it successfully "but I really didn't know what was going on".
That demonstrates compartmentalized information. His understanding came upon an insight...which could only occur in the mind.
(Nothing in the head has been found that can do that)

I may, after finishing, offer more.

Notice: written while tired and distracted, (may scrap and rewrite)...good night.

Julian Jaynes seemed to think so too, historically between the Iliad and the Odyssey as an observation that conscious introspection and unicameralism had occurred during that time.

Since you seem to see metaphor as somehow (at least I see that in you) objectively important, here is an article you might like,"Reification as the Birth of Metaphor", about meaning and understanding from the viewpoints of the Objectivists (meaning those who have a concept of objective reality) and those who believe that consciousness creates reality.

http://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/tdb/fu...

A cells own interest is a metaphor for it capacity/ function, to survive and adapt when needed and No concepts were stolen, just common language and metaphoric references to aid understanding.

All life is "Aware" of it's environment but NOT aware that it is aware.
The traditional definition of "Consciousness" is: aware of one's own awareness.

A better definition is Self Introspection...and there is nothing in the human head that has been identified to do that. [observe, inspect nor control one's own behavior, thoughts, desires or temptations beyond it's instinctive
survival needs]

Sure a lot of stolen concepts there. "Their own interest" and "responsible" are concepts which presuppose a self which presuppose consciousness. Please define your "celfish". Seems to have no roots in any contemporary language.
Since cellular level activity is not conscious activity, it acts regardless of consciousness. There is some evidence that a conscious awareness is preceded by the physical - chemical processes which begin an awareness in the subconscious brain. The physical body acts purely physically, i.e., structurally - chemically. Even acts might be too much of a stretch. It just is a chemical system made of proteins with structures for intakes and outlets for chemicals such as hormones, enzymes , and nutrients. There is no acting for survival, it just survives or not depending upon its environment and whether it has enough structure and needed energy producing substances from its environment to decrease its entropy to be a living thing.
A conscious person need not be propagandized or coerced to live contrary to his body's needs. It seems quite easy for a person to convince himself to act contrary to his body's needs. The body may even do so should it be unwell or get the wrong nutrients or environment.

Beck going YouTube for the only way to comment was really stupid. I just quit reading it at all.

Cells do not need to be conscious to function in their own interest. Every cell is functionally responsible for it's own survival. DNA in the cell provides all the instructions it needs to do so. Every living organism is structured that way.

So, with a body built with celfish cells, the body and brain of the whole would function celfishly and just like the individual cells, once it's needs are met, the value/resources are passed on.

A conscious human body in good mental health would act similarly if not propagandized or coerced into doing differently.

Just posted a piece on: The Spring of Nations 1848, which gets into the yellow jackets all over Europe now.

O'Reilly is a pro gunner...laughing. He does have a low tolerance for bull crapers...come to think of it...so do I.

And with every resource they use to discredit him he has ten scientific, Physiological and biological pier review studies to refute them.
The boy has his head on straight and is under attack just any of us that use objective reason.

I should have been more concise in my comment. By “straight shooter”, I actually meant he says what he is really thinking, as opposed to carefully crafting his words to deceive. I did not mean that he is accepting of anything everyone says, but that he tells you where HE IS AT.
I would have said Maxine waters is a straight shooter in the same way- one knows where she is at because she just says it plainly. I disagree with 99% of what she says, but at least she tells me straight up

Examples of persons who are not straight shooters are Obama, Pelosi, bush#2, Schumer, and Hillary. One has to disregard what they say and reformulate it based on what they do in order to determine what they were actually thunking

Paris riots: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

"...self interest is built in to the cells in our bodies, DNA and biological function...otherwise we could not reason nor think!"
Carl, cells are not conscious and so cannot
have an interest, let alone a self interest. Perhaps you believe Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene", which is a metaphor reified into a fantasy world.

I appreciate hearing about it and will certainly follow it -- though I suspect I'll still be able to do it for free through podcasts (I'm already subscribed to Bongino, Beck, and Shapiro).

But I also follow several personalities who are on podcasts but will probably never be on cable. Lauren Southern, Sargon of Akkad, Scott Adams, and libertarian Tom Woods are in that category.

I'm surprised I'm not seeing any posts here about the yellow-vest protesters in France. They are right to protest but they have very wrong ideas about who is to blame and what to do about their problems -- delusions eerily similar to some people in Nuremberg 95 years ago.

Straight shooter my foot. Like most lefties, O'Reilly claims to be tolerant and objective, but just put someone he disagrees with -- say a pro-gunner -- on his show and O'Reilly will talk over him and shout him down. O'Reilly taught grade school and conducts himself as if he still does.

There's now a good book debunking JP as a fraud: Jordanetics by Vox Day.

That is not the science of evolution. Conservative creationism and "Glenn Beck's and Mark Levin's guests" are not the standard.

Read the posts to discover "Who".

Evolution with in a species is self evident throughout history but there is not evolution between different species. [one cannot turn into another].

Who are what you call "most"? So what if militant conservatives like them. That isn't the standard. Do you oppose evolution too?

Apparently anyone could, but Peterson is a philosophically superficial traditionalist guru with nothing in common with Ayn Rand.

There are no "unconscious" humans and no one "operates only with the left side of their brain". "Studying" this nonsense for "more than 10 years" does not make it anything but the nonsense you started with. It has nothing to do with Ayn Rand.

"Human Beings" do not "follow their nature based in their biology at the cellular level." Proper choices are not automatic. Being born with the capacity for rational thought does not determine the degree to which it is used or the standards adopted for making choices. Morality is about formulating principles and acting on them, based on the standard for making choices in accordance with requirements for life -- not self interest "built into the cells in our bodies". Your assertions have nothing to do with Ayn Rand and show no understanding of her ideas.

You have a right to that opinion but most here would disagree about Glenn's and Levin's guests.

Listen to Jordan Peterson, he explains that better than I can at this point.

Again, missing the big picture. Only Conscious Humans can use their minds. Those not conscious, those psychopathic/Schizophrenic cannot use their minds...they operate only with the left side of their brain-[Humanoids].

And, I may be explaining it differently but Rand Did reference mans nature, self interest is built in to the cells in our bodies, DNA and biological function...otherwise we could not reason nor think!

This is my Work, I've studied these things for more than 10 years.
I am Not going to have this argument again.

His guests are very mixed, and often boring. One of the best was Netanyahu; one of the worst was Berlinsky attacking evolution, which Levin supported.