S:C

There is no objective person or objective judgement of any person as long as they still are caught captive in the subject-object duality. (= Assertion that might happily be refuted with further arguments.) With this I retreat and hope to learn with a vow of future silence in this thread. Thanks.

Impossible for humans that still function via their sense doors and mind machine interpreting them. (= Assertion that should (in my opinion) happily be refuted and debated!) Alright, maybe now I can try to think this whole thing through. T hanks, @Maddie. However I would be curious if that is the definition Mr. @HumanElectric was thinking about, too, when he wrote the above assertion?

The majority is always right? Disappointing, however understandable opinion.

Brother, thanks. But the specific definitions and expectations of concepts do matter... not everyone feels or perceives or knows the same world or consensual reality. I am confused, that you cannot see the point of a clear definition. If you might cite a definition by an author of some authority or even your own and not a mere example of an inductive reasoning (going from a specific example to a generalization - it just isn't able to claim truth for each and everyone around you. - Regarding your example of the stove: there is a neurological disorder ... some people just don't feel the pain - but why are you so sure that something is wrong with them? Who or what gives you the right to define the norm?

(I really better leave this place. Thanks and bye.)

Hypothesis of impossible (but hypothetically interesting) conditions in the dimension I live in. Interesting thought concept, thank you. But still I do disagree or am lacking an understanding. In my belief it does differ who does the measuring. (But with this I do retreat unless someone can offer a valid counter argument. Still - no definition of objectivity. (I am sorry to all parties involved for hypothetical stepping on your toes; it must be something wrong with the way I conceptualize this.)

I respectfully disagree. Why should the feeling be the same? How could you be so sure about this? I for once cannot claim to know this. (And I did not speak about hypnosis, so no generalizations here please.)

I did not bring a counter argument, I am sorry you feel this way. This is in fact a personal problem of conceptualization of the meaning objective. All I was doing was asking for your definition and/or conceptualization of the meaning "objective". (I am really very indifferent to the concrete question and very sorry to ask this personal question in an innocent thread, but the matter just came up.)

(I really shouldn't be posting anymore, but thanks, @Maddie. But I respectfully disagree: your example might work if all people are in the same spot at the same time, but that is a mere hypothesis, an ideal that cannot be fulfilled, - whatever you measure it is still limited to space and time and the conditions and circumstances at that present moment. .... However what people seem to be discussing here is more a thing of personal - that means subjective experience, - in my definition of these words. It might even be a sum of people in accordance, agreed, but that doesn't make it objective in my very humble and very limited opinion. Maybe Mr. @HumanElectric would be keen to help me with my wrong conceptualization of 'objective'... I would be very much obliged and hope to stay out of further discussions ... today... and just be a noninvolved observer...)

Why on earth should any experience of an individual or a group be able to claim "objectivity" for themselves?! What exactly is your definition of "objectivity", if I may ask? (I don't confirm or deny any other claims on this thread.)

I was quite amazed when I had heard about Simon Magus in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 8:9-24). And I do suppose, there were many more stories, that aren’t told anymore today. Most of the gems either seem lost or vanished or censored. Someone here was at times discussing the gospel of Thomas, but I forgot who did. It was quite an enjoyable conversation.

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Angelus_Silesius just stumbled about this guy, and realized that there isn’t even (my mistake; actually there is, I just couldn’t find it before?) an english wikipedia article about him, but maybe someone might find this useful or soothing to answer questions of (christian) mysticism or other more abstract synonyms for that.

What is unhealthy scepticism, then?

What is evidence? Sense data? Interpreted by mind?

I like the question.

Christian Mysticism, if there is any resource and thoughts on the gospel of Thomas would be of interest for me. But I can continue to read what is posted elsewhere about this, so I am indifferent whether there is a subforum or not. (Whatever was Leonard Cohens belief I’d be curious too…)

(I like the topic title, it seems so grandioso and powerful!) Journaling every once in a while, but rather arts and work… daily life in progress, some actions I guess I do out of gratitude, and I do try to express it, if I do feel it from the heart.

„My ignorance amuses me.“ - Lara Croft: Tomb Raider 2001

In my head a whole symphony orchestra plays a serenade to the quote author out of this felt resonance today. Internally I applaud, but am baffled why this feels so true. Magnificent.

The bolded and italicized parts of this text from dhammatalks are only interpretational source and not primary canonical source? Else, the question would be: who is doing the weighing / inducing / inferring / judging / considering of appropriation on the matters at hand? It would be a personal discourse about an impersonal discourse matter, no? Meaning can only be inferred in the personal language? So the interpreter did believe that the Buddha accepted personal valuations in the impersonal discourse? Else how could something be ‘wrong’ or ‘inappropriate’ in the impersonal discourse? Did the Buddha believe that objective valuations exist, was he a metaethical cognitivist? Or did his ‘state’ transcend personality in that way that his statements are interpreted (by his followers) as impersonal still, even though uttered and evaluated through his process of sense features (non-being, as not grasping, but still physically alive). How can it be decidedly known if the first or second monk really did use an impersonal interpretation of a personal statement. Where does the objectivity come from suddenly? Who is doing the evaluation? Does anyone else see the contradiction (of the interpretation), or am I missing something? Should I reformulate for more clarity? - I’d like to invite @Taoist Texts , @stirling and @Mark Foote and whoever else feels concerned, @Apech (because the weighing of the feather in the Khonsu Mes thread by Ma’at comes to mind?)

It is not possible to live ideologically free, is it?

[How did I lose the ability to split quotes? Is this no longer desired?] Right after I posted the above answer, I felt quite sad, exhausted and resignated and like I will get a cold. Now I am confused again, but my headache is gone. This is not relevant, no. I might be tired though and thus unusually slow to get ‚it‘. Your own questions seem to suggest that it is a reflexive circle. However I don’t get the video metaphor, was this a cinnamon muffin (perfect wisdom) and he couldn’t swallow it so he needs milk (right view)?

I see. Right view (in the Buddhist sense) means familiarity with the (Buddhist) Way. Thanks.

From another thread: Gautama wasn’t teaching ontology, too?! But how then could he teach morals? Isn’t ontology a step before? (Genuine interest, I am seriously startled at this statement.) Isn’t it possible to deduct what his metaethical and ontological perspective was through the canonical texts? Is there anyone I could ask this who has a well rounded knowledge on this subject/matter? [I am still trying to find answers on the questions of the first posters, it all seems bit of like an avalanche, sorry for the timely delay, might need a few days vacation to write that all out.]

This reminded me of artists sayings that they have to step aside to let the artwork perform itself or explain itself. [I am not denying, it is hard to grasp with conventional two fold Aristotelian logic. However am not educated enough to express words or sentences in any other way.] It does maybe have a connection to the metaphor of the ‚little man inside the brain‘, you and kakapo were discussing. The difficulty happens because what we are talking about is very close to the baseline of perception and formation of concepts - in my opinion.