Objective Vs Subjective - How we can be more honest with ourselves, and then others

[iain]

Can you explain what you mean by this?

When the objective nature is diminished or somewhat removed; then a flow starts to occur as one no longer needs to plan or structure speech as it is based in well founded knowledge and drive by a sakti. An experience of saktipata gives exactly this; it often brings with it knowledge; the aspirant may then also experience anugraha.

If not well versed, this can be devastating.

 

Cognition based in objectivity is cognition without experience of this. Rather like a bee discussing its own hive with no knowledge of neuro epiginetics.

Edited October 31, 2014 by iain

[iain]

Similarly, I'm trying to decode this...

 

First part ok, but where does this "knowledge of subjectivity" come from, in your mind? The objective, or "3rd state"?

 

I don't see how one is "burnt in transition". I could understand someone that is not honest, being "burnt" in subjectivity though.

 

I can only assume that your argument is based on some "3rd state", or higher state of consciousness being the ultimate, collective of the two?

 

When we are blessed with states of consciousness other than the perceived norm; if the yogi is not formed in rajayoga; He or She will often either be killed by others; kill them selves, or be driven quite mad; that is in eyes of the objective consensus of the general public.

 

All of humanities Jems are forged in this press under extreme heat; Ignorance of this is often found and propagated in objectivity, arguably the cause of objectivity.

 

It is to find our original state and nature ...

Edited October 31, 2014 by iain

[soaring crane]

It just occured to me that there's nothing more subjective than an objective. Curious.

[iain]

Hello soaring crane,

It just occured to me that there's nothing more subjective than an objective. Curious.

Becoming most a most curious phenomenon when applied to a flock or herd ...

 

Edited October 31, 2014 by iain

[Marblehead]

Subjective is the word of one idiot.

Objective is the word of many idiots.

I can't buy that. Sure, it sounds cute, but it's not valid.

[Marblehead]

I dont believe in objectivity at all, as I have not, nor can ever experience it.

That is actually a pretty valid consideration. I have taken that position in discussion before but I didn't feel comfortable doing it.

 

Yes, all our experiences are processed by our brain. The results sill determine how we become "aware" of those experiences.

[Marblehead]

It just occured to me that there's nothing more subjective than an objective. Curious.

What were you smoking at the time?

[Marblehead]

And BTW, the objective needs nothing in order for it to be what it is. The subjective always requires a subject. A tree doesn't need man to tell it what it is. It already is what it is.

[iain]

Hello Rara,

I thought I should perhaps answer each question individually here, after rereading your post.

Similarly, I'm trying to decode this...

First part ok, but where does this "knowledge of subjectivity" come from, in your mind? The objective, or "3rd state"?

By bowing, through humility.

I don't see how one is "burnt in transition". I could understand someone that is not honest, being "burnt" in subjectivity though.

Psychosis and its consequences +ve and -ve.

I can only assume that your argument is based on some "3rd state", or higher state of consciousness being the ultimate, collective of the two?

Yes, a state of flux between the oneness of infinity and the duality required for anything to exist within an infinity; like a potential difference, created by infinity purely for its own self amusement. Consciousness is knowledge of self; or self recognition so in order to be objective about anything at all one must first know the self; not the inverse.

I like to think of the universe folding back upon its self to check to see if it really exists, this being the only thing that makes it exist. So in conclusion, the universe will fold back upon its self to consciously pinch its own arm, so as to see if it is awake or not; once settled in the knowledge that it knows its awake; it promptly goes back to sleep again; We are little loops of consciousness, a small part of space time in a rather insignificant biological bundle.

The model that I use for Jyotish, is based in 3 guna and a 4th state called turya. But basically the same principles using different mathmatical modles.

[iain]

Hello Marblehead,

And BTW, the objective needs nothing in order for it to be what it is. The subjective always requires a subject. A tree doesn't need man to tell it what it is. It already is what it is.

The tree is already humble it does not need to learn to bow. Linguistics having never been a trees strong point, seldom get him into trouble ...
I never saw a tree rally up and raise an army for example. Thus the potential for entrapment through karma is greatly reduced.
That said, some trees must suffer human stupidity for any thing up to a thousand years!

[Marblehead]

Hello Marblehead,

The tree is already humble it does not need to learn to bow. Linguistics having never been a trees strong point, seldom get him into trouble ...

I never saw a tree rally up and raise an army for example. Thus the potential for entrapment through karma is greatly reduced.

That said, some trees must suffer human stupidity for any thing up to a thousand years!

Aside from the mystic aspects of this post I agree with you and those are good observations.

[iain]

Aside from the mystic aspects of this post I agree with you and those are good observations.

Thank you Marblehead, please let me clarify a little further my statement and I am assuming that by "mystic" you are referring to my use of the word karma ?

I shall continue to explain: I will freely admit to having never examined the kundali of a tree myself; As such, that I am also very uncertain in that which pertains to the functioning of karma (space-time relativity) in relation to the deeds, events and health of trees.

 

That said; the Jupitarian cycle is plainly visible in tree rings; should we chose to partake in dendrochronology.

 

 

Edited October 31, 2014 by iain

[iain]

Hello Marblehead

... I can't buy that.

That is a curious choice of words; I wonder, where are you from?

Let me divine ... The Land of the Free?

Edited October 31, 2014 by iain

[Marblehead]

Hello Marblehead

That is a curious choice of words; I wonder, where are you from?

 

Let me divine ... The Land of the Free?

And the home of the brave.

[Marblehead]

Thank you Marblehead, please let me clarify a little further my statement and I am assuming that by "mystic" you are referring to my use of the word karma ?

I shall continue to explain: I will freely admit to having never examined the kundali of a tree myself; As such, that I am also very uncertain in that which pertains to the functioning of karma (space-time relativity) in relation to the deeds, events and health of trees.

 

That said; the Jupitarian cycle is plainly visible in tree rings; should we chose to partake in dendrochronology.

 

 

You done good.

 

Yes, to think we know those things that are unknowable is going just a little too far for me.

 

We can study a tree and see what it is throughout its entire lifetime but to infer anything about it prior to the seed germinating is going too far, I think. And while it is true that we can study it after it has died we will see only certain aspects of what it becomes after death, that is, only the physically observable aspects such as food for other organisms. But those aspects are no longer the tree but become aspects of what has eaten it.

[dust]

I will not be talking about Atheism vs religion in this thread so don't be expecting any responses from me. I will, however, continue to post in the Atheism as a Religion thread.

 

Yeah... my intention was to use it as an example of the subjectivity at play in personal definitions of words...though I realize it turned quite quickly back into a discussion of that topic itself. Sorry everyone.

 

To sum up my view as succinctly as I can: the majority of disagreements among people are not caused by general subjective perceptions, but more specifically subjective (individual) definitions -- people's attachment to certain words, and inability/unwillingness to see beyond the fairly limiting language that we have at our disposal.

 

For example,

 

A: I'm not a big fan of sandwiches

B: But you love burgers

A: Well, I like some burgers, but anyway a burger's not a sandwich

B: A burger is just a round sandwich with ketchup

A: A burger doesn't require ketchup! And a sandwich may still contain ketchup!

B: [blah blah blah arguing about the definitions of sandwiches & burgers...............]

 

If what we want to argue about is whether or not a sandwich is a burger, that's OK. But we shouldn't confuse defining these things with the original point: [A] likes certain foods, and not certain others. His perception of whether or not he likes a particular dish might even be coloured by what that dish is named. He is so hung up on words that flavours become irrelevant.

Edited October 31, 2014 by dustybeijing

[soaring crane]

And BTW, the objective needs nothing in order for it to be what it is. The subjective always requires a subject. A tree doesn't need man to tell it what it is. It already is what it is.

 

uh, no. I was writing about (n)objective, a noun indicating something we strive for or want to acheive, aka a goal or aim.

 

There's no such thing as an objective objective, that's what I was getting at. "Our objective today is to be as objective as possible" is a self-cancelling statement. If I have an objective, I'm acting subjectively by default. And unless I can stop time, I'll always have objectives at some level or other.

[soaring crane]

Hello Marblehead

That is a curious choice of words; I wonder, where are you from?

 

Let me divine ... The Land of the Free?

 

haha, good one!

 

Free is when you don't have to pay for nothing or do nothing, we want to be free! -- Frank Zappa

[Brian]

 

haha, good one!

 

Free is when you don't have to pay for nothing or do nothing, we want to be free! -- Frank Zappa

"Nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-J7mLyD3yc[\i]

 

[Marblehead]

That was already done over 2500 years ago but few believed the results.

 

Good post though and I am in agreement.

[Brian]

People often reject verifiable observations which cause them cognitive dissonance.

[Infinity]

Just received and opened the book 'Ego and Archetype' by Edward F. Edinger and on the first page of book (page three) its says:

 

'The Self is the ordering and unifying centre of the total psyche (conscious and unconscious) just as the ego is the centre of the conscious personality. Or, put in other words, the ego is the seat of subjective identity while the self is the seat of objective identity. The Self is thus the supreme psychic authority and subordinates the ego to it'.

 

Quite thought provoking I thought. Read it this morning then saw this thread and thought I would share.

 

Enjoy

 

P.S.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Infinity

[Stosh]

Just received and opened the book 'Ego and Archetype' by Edward F. Edinger and on the first page of book (page three) its says:

 

'The Self is the ordering and unifying centre of the total psyche (conscious and unconscious) just as the ego is the centre of the conscious personality. Or, put in other words, the ego is the seat of subjective identity while the self is the seat of objective identity. The Self is thus the supreme psychic authority and subordinates the ego to it'.

 

Quite thought provoking I thought. Read it this morning then saw this thread and thought I would share.

 

Enjoy

 

P.S.

Even if lines one and true are true line three isn't necessarily "thus" true.

Data is mostly objective , but that conclusion in line three, is subjective or speculative. ( A tail may indeed wag a dog,.. ex: a govt -relatively small- may move a people, or my brain may direct my relatively larger body.)

Though I don't know if he makes a larger argument than posted however.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Stosh

[Infinity]

I dont believe in objectivity at all, as I have not, nor can ever experience it.

 

I believe in subjective, and intersubjective.

 

Subjective is all the personal sensations, ideas, perceptions and so on that are not shared with others.

 

Intersubjective is all the shared phenomena in the world. So if we take a tree as an example, people might say "look, we all can see it, its 'real' and 'objective'!" Wrong! Each person will only ever have their subjective personal experience of the tree.

 

There might be an actual objective tree underneath all our sub/intersubjective perceptions but no one anywhere will ever see it. Even the tree within its own plant kind of awareness will only ever have a subjective experience of itself.

 

So for me Objectivity is an utterly useless and subjective construct, and a very very dangerous one at that.

 

I can see where your coming from but... Is this not subjective based on your concepts and ideas about 'persons', 'trees', what they see and who is looking?

 

Please note this is only my subjective opinion. :-)

[Infinity]

Even if lines one and true are true line three isn't necessarily "thus" true.

Data is mostly objective , but that conclusion in line three, is subjective or speculative. ( A tail may indeed wag a dog,.. ex: a govt -relatively small- may move a people, or my brain may direct my relatively larger body.)

Though I don't know if he makes a larger argument than posted however.

This is not aimed at you Stosh but this springs to mind. "Talk sense to a fool and he will think your foolish". From this my question is how would a subjective person (someone who describes a version of the world to themselves) know if something was not subjective because it would be subjective in their mind!?

 

Still getting my head around it. For something to be subjective we need to have thoughts about it a little 'i' ego mind. And I think for something to be objective we need thoughts about it too and a little 'i' ego mind. When we don't have the 'i' thoughts are there any objects or subjects or is it all illusions?

 

How can we be more honest with ourselves? Is the opening question. I guess stop being subjective and objective or at least know the subjective and objective worlds are not facts!?

 

Thanks Rara for a nice thread.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Infinity