Is anything really objective?

[Marblehead]

Hi All,

 

There was a new thread recently started by Vmarco titled "Honest" in the "General Discussion" forum and I thought that this is a fair topic for a discussion fron a Taoist perspective.

 

Informer said:

 

After the senses are transposed through the mind, is what you think objective?

 

Not only that, when again articulated, does the articulation become objective from the subjectivity?

 

Is anything really objective?

 

Let's look at a definition of "objective".

 

objective \eb-jek-tiv\ adj 2 : existing outside and independent of the mind 4 : treating or dealing with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices

 

Objects have existed on this planet from the birth of the "ten thousand things". Long before man evolved into what we are now. Objects have existed all the while man has been on the planet.

 

In Taoism we have an understanding that there is an objective world. I often speak to this realm as the Manifest.

 

Everything was fine until man developed his/her capacity to imagine. We imagine that reality does not exist. How, for the life of me, anyone can imagine such a thing when it is they who are doing the imagining I have no idea.

 

The objective world is what it is. It is the brain of man, which itself is an objective thing, that imagines the objective world is not what it honestly is.

 

Shall we be honest? Every correspondence on this internet board is conducted with objective things. The member, their computer, the internet itself, the board software, and the respective things that are reading what has been presented.

 

The only thing that is subjective is what is being said by the posting member, plus the possibility of the member doing the reading in their understanding.

 

There is a real world out there. Trees are growing and birds are nesting - all without man's subjectivity. How we each view the tree and the birds and the nest iw where the subjectivity enters the picture. If we just accept 'what is' then we are beyond subjectivity. If we place our personal values on these things then we are stuck in the subjective world and not in the 'real' world. And furthermore, we are not being honest to these things nor to the processes of nature and all things.

 

So there!

[Marblehead]

Request to move to 'General Discussion.' Thanks.

 

Hehehe. But this is intended to be a discussion of a Taoist concept. That being, the reality of the Manifest physical world. It is also intended to discuss clear-mindedness and clear-sightedness.

 

But sure, we can talk about Taoism in the "General Discussion" forum so it really doesn't matter.

[doc benway]

So Marbles took the opportunity of the Taoist thread to post his materialistic ideas where the Buddhists can't find him!?!?!

 

JK, JK

 

In fact, we can also look at the foundation of Daoist cosmology - Wu Ji, which gives rise to (one can also say resides within or is another aspect of or lies behind...) Tai Ji, and so forth. So to me, this is similar to the Buddhist concept of emptiness and Tai Ji is analogous in many ways to dependent origination. Sorry to bring the B-word into this but I think it offers a useful illustrative example to an alternative position to yours.

 

The other aspect of subjectivism that I have come to appreciate comes from examining what experience is. Everything I experience occurs in my brain from a neurophysiological point of view. Sight occurs in the visual cortex, hearing in the auditory cortex, etc... What you are seeing is not something outside of you, you are seeing an electrical pattern in the neurons inside your skull. Same with every sense. I'm not saying there is nothing out there, just that no human being alive can every really know whether there is or not. Because everything you (and everyone else) experience occurs inside your head.

 

The other piece of the puzzle boils down to "Who Am I?"

Am I a subject and everything that happens to reside outside of my bag of skin is object?

I contend that this is purely an illusion created by our sensory apparatus, particularly sight and touch.

I, in fact, don't end at my skin.

I am the whole works, come self aware by virtue of the multitude of sentient creatures that comprise me.

So at this level there is no me and you, no subject and object, there just is this.

So this is utterly and totally subjective because it is non-dual.

 

But at a relative level, your Ying to my Ying, we can certainly say there is objectivity.

2+2= 4 as long as we all agree to accept certain ground rules.

If those rules are flexible, it no longer works....

[Samuel]

I agree that there is an objective reality, but until people begin "treating or dealing with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices" (From your definition of objective...and by 'people' I include myself), doesn't that mean that they will only be able to experience a subjective reality? It's like have the blinds down when it's light out. You might know it's light out, but until you can lift the blinds, you can't actually see that it's light out. So how do we get the blinds up? Is it by consciously choosing to be objective in every instant, (a mammoth task perhaps), or is that what meditation was designed to do, by promoting mindfulness and awareness of the moment? Allowing ourselves to experience the objective moment, rather than sitting in the subjective one, caught up in the names, memories and feelings that get stirred up when we see things/people/places?

[Marblehead]

Hi Steve. You gave me a chuckle. That's two in one day from this board.

 

I'm going to break your post down as I feel it is worthy of a fair response.

 

So Marbles took the opportunity of the Taoist thread to post his materialistic ideas where the Buddhists can't find him!?!?!

 

JK, JK

 

Hehehe. That wasn't the intention but I was restricted in responding in that other thread so I thought I would talk about the subject from a Philosophical Taoist point of view.

 

Yes, most of my posts are very materialistic oriented. Mostly this is because I see a need for harmony here. There is, in my opinion, way too much 'pie in the sky', cloud nine talk here so I just try to get people to look at the physical world and deal with it.

 

In fact, we can also look at the foundation of Daoist cosmology - Wu Ji, which gives rise to (one can also say resides within or is another aspect of or lies behind...) Tai Ji, and so forth. So to me, this is similar to the Buddhist concept of emptiness and Tai Ji is analogous in many ways to dependent origination. Sorry to bring the B-word into this but I think it offers a useful illustrative example to an alternative position to yours.

 

I have nothing against Buddhism. I have a problem with denial, illusionary thinking and delusionary speech. To me, the emptiness you speak of is, in Taoism, fullness. And, of course, I generally speak of the fullness of physical reality.

 

I know that there are many alternative points of view opposed to mine. I have no problem with that. I think it is important that we question the honesty of what is being said to people though. To suggest that nothing exists objectively is hog-wash.

 

The other aspect of subjectivism that I have come to appreciate comes from examining what experience is. Everything I experience occurs in my brain from a neurophysiological point of view. Sight occurs in the visual cortex, hearing in the auditory cortex, etc... What you are seeing is not something outside of you, you are seeing an electrical pattern in the neurons inside your skull. Same with every sense. I'm not saying there is nothing out there, just that no human being alive can every really know whether there is or not. Because everything you (and everyone else) experience occurs inside your head.

 

Remember, in my initial post I kicked human subjectivity out of the discussion. Human subjectivity is such, in many cases, a dishonest thing. If we are clear-sighted and have clarity of hearing we will not distort what exists objectively. Of course, this requires having a clear mind as well.

 

I disagree with you regarding ever really knowing of the objective reality. With a clear mind and clarity of our senses we can feel 100% certain of many things in the objective reality. Sure, we don't know many things. So what?

 

Back to my birds nesting in the tree. They do not need man's observation in order to do what they do. They have been doing it far longer than man has been on Earth.

 

If I imagine my cigarette lighter and I want to light a cigar (don't smoke ciragettes) I will pick up what I know is my cigarette lighter, I will hold it in a proper way, this way I have learned to know through experience, and perform the proper movements, again, these movements I have learned, and light my cigar. Very regular real life experience for me. And I even get to inhale the tar that is clogging up my lungs and smell the smoke from the burning tobacco.

 

The other piece of the puzzle boils down to "Who Am I?"

Am I a subject and everything that happens to reside outside of my bag of skin is object?

I contend that this is purely an illusion created by our sensory apparatus, particularly sight and touch.

I, in fact, don't end at my skin.

I am the whole works, come self aware by virtue of the multitude of sentient creatures that comprise me.

So at this level there is no me and you, no subject and object, there just is this.

So this is utterly and totally subjective because it is non-dual.

 

Doesn't matter who I am when we are talking about objective reality. The tree in my neighbor's yard will likely still be growing after I am no more.

 

But, to speak to what you have said, I am an object of the Manifest. Aspects of what I am are subject to subjective valuations by others.

 

Was there a "me" before I was born? No. Will there be a "me" after I die? No. That is because everything that makes up me did not exist in this body before "I" was born and after "I" die the parts will go their merry way.

 

I agree that you do not end at your skin. Anything we touch, anyone we effect also becomes a part of us. But that's another story.

 

Well, I will agree that there 'just is', but I also suggest that there is a you and there is a me objectively and also subjectively.

 

Yes, a non-dual perspective is that what is 'just is'. But when we say it 'just is' we are supporting the concept that it 'is'.

 

But at a relative level, your Ying to my Ying, we can certainly say there is objectivity.

2+2= 4 as long as we all agree to accept certain ground rules.

If those rules are flexible, it no longer works....

 

The Manifest must first be viewed from the realm of the Manifest. You know, first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

 

The problem many people have is that they get stuck at the first level or the second level and never reach beyond what causes them to feel comfort. We need to reach out and touch someone!

 

Yes, there are ground rules for discussions of anything. Otherwise you might be talking about oranges and how to grow them but I totally disagree with you because I want to talk about apples and how to grow them.

 

Anyhow, I think the dinosaurs did pretty well without all our subjectivity and as far as I know none of them were ever dishonest. T-Rex said he was going to eat you and then he ate you. Totally objective. (Actually, I don't think T-Rex acquired much of a speech capability so he probably didn't say he was going to eat you.)

 

And before I stop talking I want to state that everything I have said is based in Taoist philosophy in regard to the Manifest.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

This is a slippery slope. I don't want the Taoist stronghold to get compromised here, but in trying to reclaim objective reality, I'll say that any dismissal of objective reality also dismisses it's impossibility, since if nothing existed then there would be no such thing as non-existence. Lol, there can't be non-existence without something to not exist. End of story. Biff, pam, pow, kerplunk!!!

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aNaqUm26hY

 

[Marblehead]

This is a slippery slope. I don't want the Taoist stronghold to get compromised here, but in trying to reclaim objective reality, I'll say that any dismissal of objective reality also dismisses it's impossibility, since if nothing existed then there would be no such thing as non-existence. Lol, there can't be non-existence without something to not exist. End of story. Biff, pam, pow, kerplunk!!!

 

Okay. That's three chuckles for the day.

 

You wanna' talk about Mystery?

 

Well, you'll have to find someone else to talk with you about that because my experiences of it are impossible to put into words. In this case all I could say is "I don't know."

 

Yes, it is a slippery slope because I am speaking to only one aspect of "All".

 

But if nothing existed we would not be having this conversation, would we? There are so very many "real" things involved in the process of our being able to communicate or miscommunicate.

 

And you cannot have non-existance without having some thing to compare it to.

 

Yes, Mystery is kinda' like non-existance except its not. Hehehe. That's because Mystery is potential. Yes, Mystery is full of potential. I can fly to Italy any time I want to. But my physical body is still right here.

 

No, no. The end of story is never attained. That is because the end of one thing is the beginning of another. We cannot stop the cycles and you cannot end the story. Hehehe.

 

If you really want a slippery slope perhaps Stig will join the discussion. That will make these Taoist concepts really slippery.

 

And so Mr. Emptiness, let me know when you are ready to experience Fullness. (Sorry, the devil made me do that.)

[doc benway]

Hi Steve. You gave me a chuckle. That's two in one day from this board.

 

I'm going to break your post down as I feel it is worthy of a fair response.

 

 

 

Hehehe. That wasn't the intention but I was restricted in responding in that other thread so I thought I would talk about the subject from a Philosophical Taoist point of view.

 

Yes, most of my posts are very materialistic oriented. Mostly this is because I see a need for harmony here. There is, in my opinion, way too much 'pie in the sky', cloud nine talk here so I just try to get people to look at the physical world and deal with it.

 

 

 

I have nothing against Buddhism. I have a problem with denial, illusionary thinking and delusionary speech. To me, the emptiness you speak of is, in Taoism, fullness. And, of course, I generally speak of the fullness of physical reality.

 

I know that there are many alternative points of view opposed to mine. I have no problem with that. I think it is important that we question the honesty of what is being said to people though. To suggest that nothing exists objectively is hog-wash.

 

 

 

Remember, in my initial post I kicked human subjectivity out of the discussion. Human subjectivity is such, in many cases, a dishonest thing. If we are clear-sighted and have clarity of hearing we will not distort what exists objectively. Of course, this requires having a clear mind as well.

 

I disagree with you regarding ever really knowing of the objective reality. With a clear mind and clarity of our senses we can feel 100% certain of many things in the objective reality. Sure, we don't know many things. So what?

 

Back to my birds nesting in the tree. They do not need man's observation in order to do what they do. They have been doing it far longer than man has been on Earth.

 

If I imagine my cigarette lighter and I want to light a cigar (don't smoke ciragettes) I will pick up what I know is my cigarette lighter, I will hold it in a proper way, this way I have learned to know through experience, and perform the proper movements, again, these movements I have learned, and light my cigar. Very regular real life experience for me. And I even get to inhale the tar that is clogging up my lungs and smell the smoke from the burning tobacco.

 

 

 

Doesn't matter who I am when we are talking about objective reality. The tree in my neighbor's yard will likely still be growing after I am no more.

 

But, to speak to what you have said, I am an object of the Manifest. Aspects of what I am are subject to subjective valuations by others.

 

Was there a "me" before I was born? No. Will there be a "me" after I die? No. That is because everything that makes up me did not exist in this body before "I" was born and after "I" die the parts will go their merry way.

 

I agree that you do not end at your skin. Anything we touch, anyone we effect also becomes a part of us. But that's another story.

 

Well, I will agree that there 'just is', but I also suggest that there is a you and there is a me objectively and also subjectively.

 

Yes, a non-dual perspective is that what is 'just is'. But when we say it 'just is' we are supporting the concept that it 'is'.

 

 

 

The Manifest must first be viewed from the realm of the Manifest. You know, first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

 

The problem many people have is that they get stuck at the first level or the second level and never reach beyond what causes them to feel comfort. We need to reach out and touch someone!

 

Yes, there are ground rules for discussions of anything. Otherwise you might be talking about oranges and how to grow them but I totally disagree with you because I want to talk about apples and how to grow them.

 

Anyhow, I think the dinosaurs did pretty well without all our subjectivity and as far as I know none of them were ever dishonest. T-Rex said he was going to eat you and then he ate you. Totally objective. (Actually, I don't think T-Rex acquired much of a speech capability so he probably didn't say he was going to eat you.)

 

And before I stop talking I want to state that everything I have said is based in Taoist philosophy in regard to the Manifest.

Thanks for the reply, I have some different perspectives from you on a lot of this stuff and that is the variety that is the spice of life!

 

In particular, it's important to recognize that there is no such thing as solid matter or substance. This has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by physicists. This is analogous to what some say amounts to the fact that nothing exists. What appears as matter is nothing other than energy (or perhaps strings) but there is absolutely nothing solid in the universe. It feels solid and looks solid because that is our brain's interpretation. If it were not for cerebral pattern recognition, all that would be out there is incomprehensible patterns of energy of a variety of wavelengths and frequencies.

 

In fact, there is also another entire universe of experience that humans have no comprehension of whatsoever because our sensory apparatus is not tuned to notice it - things like ultrasonic sound, light on either end of the visible spectrum, and things that we have no idea how to even measure. So you are welcome to feel secure in the knowledge of the objective universe but it is more slippery than you think.

 

Finally, who/what exactly are you that is born and dies?

Are the cells that currently make up the body you feel is you the same cells you were born with?

Did the elements that make up the proteins that comprise "you" begin when you were born and end when you die?

You are a whirlpool, a current in the ocean, that exists at the time and space that "you" currently inhabit.

And you've been blessed with a mechanism that creates this "I" experience.

This thought that separates itself from all the others and claims ownership, claims control.

But it is nothing more than a thought with a specific and unique marker, like memories or dreams have a certain marker that makes them feel different than "regular" thoughts. The only difference is this "I" thought has the "I" marker so it feels different.

But if you look at it closely for long enough it evaporates and this may open a whole different perspective.

If that happens, the universe doesn't disappear or change in any way but "I" relate to it and experience it and understand it differently.

 

And it's just as likely to be just a pigment in my imagination!

 

 

PS I didn't mean to comment on your posts being materialistic, just this one...

PSS I think this is a critical part of looking at Daoism. After all what are they telling us but to see through our "objective" reality and become one with it... completely merged.... completely subjective....

[Stigweard]

If you really want a slippery slope perhaps Stig will join the discussion. That will make these Taoist concepts really slippery.

 

Huh, wha??

 

Nah ... sorry ... got nothing for ya.

 

Heheheh

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

You wanna' talk about Mystery?

 

Well, you'll have to find someone else to talk with you about that because my experiences of it are impossible to put into words. In this case all I could say is "I don't know."

 

 

Yeah, I sense there's something to all those pores in the Marble

[Marblehead]

Thanks for the reply, I have some different perspectives from you on a lot of this stuff and that is the variety that is the spice of life!

 

But Steve, we already knew that, didn't we? Hehehe. And afterall, I think it would be a disaster if I thought like VJ does. Hehehe. Gotta' pick on my friend VJ whenever I get the chance.

 

In particular, it's important to recognize that there is no such thing as solid matter or substance. This has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by physicists. This is analogous to what some say amounts to the fact that nothing exists. What appears as matter is nothing other than energy (or perhaps strings) but there is absolutely nothing solid in the universe. It feels solid and looks solid because that is our brain's interpretation. If it were not for cerebral pattern recognition, all that would be out there is incomprehensible patterns of energy of a variety of wavelengths and frequencies.

 

Getting scientific on me, are you? Well, I've heard it all before. But I'll be damned that I can't find a way to walk through the door instead of have to stop, open the door, walk through the threshhold, and close the door behind me. Life would be so much easier if I could just walk through it if it really doesn't exist.

 

Yes, everything is made up of matter and atoms. All matter can be reduced to energy. But you know what? I am still sitting on my freakin' chair. Hehehe. And believe it or not, all that empty space between the particles of matter supports my weight just fine.

 

And I assure you, for all practicle purposes my chair is solid. It even rolls around on the floor while I am sitting in it and apply a little energy and it also swivels. I can go 'round and 'round if I so desire.

 

Yeah, those string theory guys lose me every time when I watch one of the programs. They say they are just a bunch of strings but I have never heard any pretty music come out of their mouth. Just crazy stuff like we are not what we appear to be.

 

In fact, there is also another entire universe of experience that humans have no comprehension of whatsoever because our sensory apparatus is not tuned to notice it - things like ultrasonic sound, light on either end of the visible spectrum, and things that we have no idea how to even measure. So you are welcome to feel secure in the knowledge of the objective universe but it is more slippery than you think.

 

No arguement there. Have you ever peed on an electrified fence? That will put you into another universe!

 

Finally, who/what exactly are you that is born and dies?

Are the cells that currently make up the body you feel is you the same cells you were born with?

Did the elements that make up the proteins that comprise "you" begin when you were born and end when you die?

You are a whirlpool, a current in the ocean, that exists at the time and space that "you" currently inhabit.

And you've been blessed with a mechanism that creates this "I" experience.

This thought that separates itself from all the others and claims ownership, claims control.

But it is nothing more than a thought with a specific and unique marker, like memories or dreams have a certain marker that makes them feel different than "regular" thoughts. The only difference is this "I" thought has the "I" marker so it feels different.

But if you look at it closely for long enough it evaporates and this may open a whole different perspective.

If that happens, the universe doesn't disappear or change in any way but "I" relate to it and experience it and understand it differently.

 

Oh, I have told this story before. I am an accumulation of some many countless things and events that I would be unable to even get close to describing who/what I am. I know one thing, I am what I am. But then considering that everything in the Manifest is constantly undergoing change what I was a minute ago is different from what I am now even though it would be nearly impossible to define the differences between one moment to the next. Yeah, talk about years, we can do a little better at defining the differences.

 

Methinks I have stated before: "Every thing that is, is, always has been, and always will be. Things just take different form (and I will include non-form this time) over time.

 

Nothing is permanent. Nothing lasts forever. Doesn't matter if it was made in China or the US.

 

To the best of my knowledge I have never evaporated yet. Perhaps if I get lost in one of the drier deserts somewhere on this planet I will evaporate.

 

And it is true, the world will just keep on turning if I do evaporate. And perhaps some of the liquid that was once me will rain down on your head. WoW!, what a thought! Much of the moisture in the air was once upon a time part of some living, breathing human! That's aweful close to getting pissed on!

 

And it's just as likely to be just a pigment in my imagination!

 

 

Yeah, you got some pigment. Hehehe. We all have imagination to some degree. I have spoke about my illusions and delusions when I am home before. Yeah, I am pretty biased too. Have you noticed? Not very Taoish. Good thing I have never claimed to be a master of reality.

 

PS I didn't mean to comment on your posts being materialistic, just this one...

PSS I think this is a critical part of looking at Daoism. After all what are they telling us but to see through our "objective" reality and become one with it... completely merged.... completely subjective....

 

Well, shit, many of my posts are materialistically based. I have selected to be this way on this board. Oh!, how I love my freedom of choice!!!!!

 

Yes, what I speak to is an important part of Taoism. However, it is not the only part and it may not even be the most important part. Gotta have some 'wu' with our 'yo'.

 

I have been completely merged only once. I know how it feels. I have no doubt that when I die I will again have that experience, maybe before I die. Who knows?

 

No, I don't ever want to be completely subjective. I need to have an objective reality as well. Without it I would not be "complete".

 

Yin and Yang go 'round and 'round is sweet harmony. I love harmony but can't sing worth a darn. (I have a monotoned voice. Had trouble with that when I was an instructor in the Army. I put the guys to sleep! Hehehe.)

[Marblehead]

 

Huh, wha??

 

Nah ... sorry ... got nothing for ya.

 

Heheheh

 

Hehehe. Just checking to see if you were reading the thread. I actually miss your conversations. I hope you are doing something constructive with the time you could be using to talk with us.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, I sense there's something to all those pores in the Marble

 

Yeah, but you can't see any empty spaces in this Marble. Hehehe.

[Stigweard]

Hehehe. Just checking to see if you were reading the thread. I actually miss your conversations. I hope you are doing something constructive with the time you could be using to talk with us.

Doing some of my own objective argumentation ... you mean you didn't notice??

 

[Harmonious Emptiness]

And so Mr. Emptiness, let me know when you are ready to experience Fullness. (Sorry, the devil made me do that.)

 

Actually the reason I self-appointed myself that name is partially due to one of my favourite Taoist quotes: "Calm spaciousness is the house of Spiritual Light."

 

Also harmony is something I feel very connected to, since at some level of musicianship you need to feel the harmony within in order for it to manifest without. Within the spaciousness is a harmony which provides a vivid fullness..

[Apech]

Questions that come to mind:

 

Do Taoists have a concept of 'objective' as such?

 

(in English 'objective' from 'object' comes from roots meaning something like 'thrown against' (see note below from online etymological dictionary).)

 

object (n.) late 14c., "tangible thing, something perceived or presented to the senses," from M.L. objectum "thing put before" (the mind or sight), neut. of L. objectus, pp. of obicere "to present, oppose, cast in the way of," from ob "against" (see ob-) + jacere "to throw" (see jet). Sense of "thing aimed at" is late 14c. No object "not a thing regarded as important" is from 1782. As an adjective, "presented to the senses," from late 14c. Object lesson "instruction conveyed by examination of a material object" is from 1831.

Interesting that this 'jacere' = 'to throw' is there in 'subject' and hence 'subjective' also. So one is thrown 'against' or perhaps 'out' and the other is thrown 'in' or 'under' = sub.

 

So in English anyway both have the sense of something projected. So both the idea of a an objective reality and a subjective reality are thrown or projected by arising from a reality which is neither 'ob' or 'sub'. The sense of an ultimately real objective (and hence physical) reality ... which is totally dependable, i.e. will always remain to be itself ... is as much a projection or 'pie in the earth' as opposed to the 'pie in the sky' of imagined totally subjectivity.

 

BUT what is important here in Taoist Discussion is what exactly does Taoist philosophy say about this question.

[Marblehead]

Also harmony is something I feel very connected to, since at some level of musicianship you need to feel the harmony within in order for it to manifest without. Within the spaciousness is a harmony which provides a vivid fullness..

 

Yes, harmony. We all know I like that term.

 

What you spoke to here I normally refer to as 'soul'. I have heard many artists where their music, although technically correct, lacked soul.

 

And then, kinda' ironic for an Atheist, but there is some Blues and Bluegrass religious music that I really enjoy listening to because it has soul. And I agree, if you have it within it will radiate outward.

[Marblehead]

BUT what is important here in Taoist Discussion is what exactly does Taoist philosophy say about this question.

 

Fair question. Perhaps this from Chuang Tzu (Burton Watson's translation) speaks to the question:

 

Hui Tzu said to Chuang Tzu, "I have a big tree of the kind men call shu. Its trunk is too gnarled and bumpy to apply a measuring line to, its branches too bent and twisty to match up to a compass or square. You could stand it by the road and no carpenter would look at it twice. Your words, too, are big and useless, and so everyone alike spurns them!"

 

Chuang Tzu said, "Maybe you've never seen a wildcat or a weasel. It crouches down and hides, watching for something to come along. It leaps and races east and west, not hesitating to go high or low-until it falls into the trap and dies in the net. Then again there's the yak, big as a cloud covering the sky. It certainly knows how to be big, though it doesn't know how to catch rats. Now you have this big tree and you're distressed because it's useless. Why don't you plant it in Not-Even-Anything Village, or the field of Broad-and-Boundless, relax and do nothing by its side, or lie down for a free and easy sleep under it? Axes will never shorten its life; nothing can ever harm it. If there's no use for it, how can it come to grief or pain?"

 

The subjective is in the mind of Hui Tzu, the objective is in the mind of Chuang Tzu.

[Apech]

 

....

 

The subjective is in the mind of Hui Tzu, the objective is in the mind of Chuang Tzu.

 

That's interesting. You seem to be using a particular application of the terms subjective and objective ... as in 'subject to judgement' and 'not subject to judgement' i.e. is this thing useful or not ... being a subject value placed upon the thing. Whereas Chungtzu accepts the thing-as-it-is and looks for whatever value to has in itself. The other theme of that story is that that which appears to be useless endures (i.e. is not cut down and converted into furniture or whatever).

 

That which endures, is constant or eternal is the Tao and we know that the Tao cannot be given a name ... cannot be spoken. If this is what is fundamentally real then can we apply a phrase like 'objective reality' to it????? No I don't think so. But we can say, I think that the Tao is real and as a consequence that the 10k things are real also ... I'm not going to mention the B (ism) word ... but this is different to it.

[Marblehead]

That's interesting. You seem to be using a particular application of the terms subjective and objective ... as in 'subject to judgement' and 'not subject to judgement' i.e. is this thing useful or not ... being a subject value placed upon the thing. Whereas Chungtzu accepts the thing-as-it-is and looks for whatever value to has in itself. The other theme of that story is that that which appears to be useless endures (i.e. is not cut down and converted into furniture or whatever).

 

That which endures, is constant or eternal is the Tao and we know that the Tao cannot be given a name ... cannot be spoken. If this is what is fundamentally real then can we apply a phrase like 'objective reality' to it????? No I don't think so. But we can say, I think that the Tao is real and as a consequence that the 10k things are real also ... I'm not going to mention the B (ism) word ... but this is different to it.

 

Yes, nearly all other belief systems promise 'real' reality after you die. In Taoist philosophy we already have what is real. We have the fullness of everything. We don't speak about after we die because we don't know.

 

But no, I don't look at Tao as the true objective reality but I think that objective reality lies within Tao - it is an aspect of Tao but it is not the totality of Tao.

 

Yes, the tree, one person thought it useless because it could't be used for anything else when taken apart whereas Chuang Tzu recognized its usefulness without taking it apart.

 

And this is why I get a little irritated when there is a conversation about 'self' and who or what we are. When we start taking the person apart we no longer have a thing that is useful. Better to look at the entire person, accept it for what it is, a living, breathing human being, and yes, define its usefulness to us. A friend perhaps. Maybe a lover. But we have to accept the whole person without trying to change it (unless it wants to change and asks for help).

 

Acceptance of what is. The physical manifest is the objective reality. We cannot change that fact. All we can do is apply our subjectivity to it. But why create illusions and delusions? Accept it for what it is, enjoy it, live it, and then die.

[Informer]

The point being is that the chair is agreed upon as being a chair, regardless of how it is actually percieved.

 

The chair to a large man is a "Small chair" to a small man it is a "Large chair"

 

Is it objectively large or small?

 

We can measure it and get the exact dimensions and consider this to be the objective charactaristics of the chair, but on closer inspection, when the mind is interpreting what is considered to be objective, it become subject to subjectivity.

 

Like how we can all agree that a color is "red" but how do we know that what you see as red is what is not what I see as green? We have been taught that the color we are seeing has a name and that name is red.

 

The same goes with measurements, sure we can agree that the chairs leg is 1 foot in length, but is that one foot the same one foot that you see? My one foot could look 2 inches longer than your one foot.

[Marblehead]

The point being is that the chair is agreed upon as being a chair, regardless of how it is actually percieved.

 

The chair to a large man is a "Small chair" to a small man it is a "Large chair"

 

Is it objectively large or small?

 

We can measure it and get the exact dimensions and consider this to be the objective charactaristics of the chair, but on closer inspection, when the mind is interpreting what is considered to be objective, it become subject to subjectivity.

 

Like how we can all agree that a color is "red" but how do we know that what you see as red is what is not what I see as green? We have been taught that the color we are seeing has a name and that name is red.

 

The same goes with measurements, sure we can agree that the chairs leg is 1 foot in length, but is that one foot the same one foot that you see? My one foot could look 2 inches longer than your one foot.

 

Yep. Seems you understand what I was pointing at. The chair is a chair. How we individuals define it is the subjective part. Now, were someone to call the chair an automobile there would be a problem with that individuals perception, understanding or, perhaps their honesty.

 

Same with the color 'red'. It is the refraction of light off the object that causes it to appear red. Most will see it as red. People with color vision problems may see it as a different color. But then, if we go about discussing the shade of red the color is there will be much disagreement. We may even use different words to define the shade of red the item is.

 

And even with our instruments of measurement there is oftentimes disagreement because of how we intrepret the data from the instruments.

 

The human mind can oftentimes make living life a lot more difficult than it really is. The mind can add things to life that really don't exist and we spen our entire life looking for something that cannot be found.

[Informer]

It is interesting to note the percieved time works in the same manner.

 

Say I hold my breath for 100 seconds by the clock, if I weren't holding my breath and simply counting the clicks of the clock it would seem to be a lot longer of a timespan than when holding the breath.

 

Has anyone noticed anything similar to this? Like when you become fully englufed in something time seems to accelerate or decelerate?

[Informer]

To experience now you simply go to the source, without the subjective articulation of the mind.

 

When people try to articulate this and think that is true and only true, they forget that whatever interpretation is being exclaimed is inherently filtered through subjectivity.

[Marblehead]

To experience now you simply go to the source, without the subjective articulation of the mind.

 

Good responses. I did want to highlight this though because of the truth it holds. That's what life is all about, really, experiencing the 'now'. The past is gone and the future isn't here yet. All we have is the 'now'. And even that, I will agree, is mostly already in the past too by the time our senses pick up that whatever, our brain conceptualizes it, and we react to it.

 

But this is not to say that we cannot also experience the 'now' moment without conceptualizing these experiences.