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

[Seth Ananda]

While I agree, by and large, with your ideas about this, I'm also very aware that people don't tend to give up ideas, or perhaps more accurately behaviours, that have been around for the better part of recorded history. It is, imo, a futile hope that one might convince people that they are not seeing things objectively.

It takes decades...

Even if it were possible to convince people of your theory of intersubjectivity, and we all started using that term instead, eventually intersubjective would come to mean the same as objective does now... I reckons..

That depends on how long it takes for people to gain 'understanding' of the word.

[Seth Ananda]

@Seth

 

If objective is scrapped how would we separate the self from the universal Self; if universal conciousness exists?

Well, since you mentioned Kashmir Shaivism earlier, ParamaShiva is called the supreme subjectivity, while everything else is hmm, just subjective?

 

Infact the subjective and intersubjective perception is inherently relational in nature, yet does not blur into homogenization as it is utterly diverse.

Mystical experiences, regardless of whether it describes an accurate map of the universe {everything floating in one big superconsciousness for instance} is more easily achieved and integrated, as the ego softens and gains more flexibility

 

To my mind and from my Jyotish practise, it would seem that it does so I am using a capital S to denote universal conciousness and to separate the subjective self from the universally connected self. The subjective self being the part of us that is aware of interconectivity at this level.

I don't really see that way. The experience mystics describe is still subjective. As is any foundational consciousness. One might argue that a 'supreme consciousness' could be objective if it literally was everything, and was experiencing everything from every possible point of view, but to me that still seems subjective

 

Those who are completely emerged in their objective experience, illusory as it is; it would serve to call this lower state of awareness objective, don't you think?

No one has ever been emerged in objective experience, and no, believing in objectivity causes only pain, separation from our inner beings, distance from nature and environmental destruction. It does not have a single redeeming or positive feature.

[Marblehead]

Yep. We have different understanding regarding a few concepts. That's okay though. Our individual brain can work only how it can work.

 

In fact I believe that what really causes us to inflate our value and self worth so extraordinarily above everything else, is this persistent mind virus called 'objectivity' or supreme truth. Having that 'truth' makes us feel above everything, and moves us out of interconnected relationship with nature, or the 'whole'...

But in real life we must assume we know certain things about the nature of the universe, Making these assumptions will keep us out of a lot of trouble. But then, when we think we know the unknowable aspects of the universe we will get ourselves into a lot of trouble. To worry about things that cannot b known is a waste of time. And it causes confusion and stress.

 

And we all have our "truths". Some are based on facts and others are based on trash we have been taught throughout our life and others are simply silly. But that's the way the life of man has always been and I don't expect it to be changing much any time soon.

[iain]

Hello Seth Ananda, it is a pleasure to meet you.

Well, since you mentioned Kashmir Shaivism earlier, ParamaShiva is called the supreme subjectivity, while everything else is hmm, just subjective?

parāmaśiva's will to experience his own nature is achieved by way of sakti or I-ness; for this he must be objective. If only one dimension exists, subjectively a dot or bindu, then time will not manifest. where as visarga implies an inherent need for duality.
Rather like the polarity of a battery.

Infact the subjective and intersubjective perception is inherently relational in nature, yet does not blur into homogenization as it is utterly diverse.
Mystical experiences, regardless of whether it describes an accurate map of the universe {everything floating in one big superconsciousness for instance} is more easily achieved and integrated, as the ego softens and gains more flexibility

I do agree fully but though from a state of ignorance or darkness, it will tend to happen spontaneously often violently.

I don't really see that way. The experience mystics describe is still subjective. As is any foundational consciousness. One might argue that a 'supreme consciousness' could be objective if it literally was everything, and was experiencing everything from every possible point of view, but to me that still seems subjective

Perhaps you feel more drawn to the advaita philosophy, rather than Kashmir shavite; We all have our own perspectives of that I have no doubt.

No one has ever been emerged in objective experience, and no, believing in objectivity causes only pain, separation from our inner beings, distance from nature and environmental destruction. It does not have a single redeeming or positive feature.

You are quite right, I meant immersed not emerged, in kashmir shavism this is the tattva or sheath known as māyā it is a śakti of parāmaśiva, thus my previous reference to objectivity it is an "apparent" objectivity in the illusion of individuality.

māyā tattva is one of six coverings or sheaths. The illusion of individuality fed by the five tattva that are organs of cognition.

oh I love these philosophies!

Edited November 2, 2014 by iain

[Seth Ananda]

Hello Seth Ananda, it is a pleasure to meet you.

Likewise!

 

 

parāmaśiva's will to experience his own nature is achieved by way of sakti or I-ness; for this he must be objective. If only one dimension exists, subjectively a dot or bindu, then time will not manifest. where as visarga implies an inherent need for duality.

Rather like the polarity of a battery.

 

Youve got it backwards. at least by Kashmir Shaivite standards. He is called the 'supreme subjectivity' because he is the knower not the known. The KS folk would more happily call the world objective, because it is known. But Also the world is Shakti which is energy and change, so to me, that is still pretty 'subjective'

Page 115-116 in Mishra's KS work, second paragraph in chapter 'Siva is subject-consciousness': Consciousness always remains the subject, or the knower, and never becomes the object, or the known.

 

I do agree fully but though from a state of ignorance or darkness, it will tend to happen spontaneously often violently.

 

 

Perhaps you feel more drawn to the advaita philosophy, rather than Kashmir shavite; We all have our own perspectives of that I have no doubt.

 

hell no, I studied KS for nearly 20 years, and while Its no longer my tradition, I still have a great Love for it.

 

You are quite right, I meant immersed not emerged, in kashmir shavism this is the tattva or sheath known as māyā it is a śakti of parāmaśiva, thus my previous reference to objectivity it is an "apparent" objectivity in the illusion of individuality.

 

māyā tattva is one of six coverings or sheaths. The illusion of individuality fed by the five tattva that are organs of cognition.

 

oh I love these philosophies!

 

Tattvas are a top down model. The organs of cognition do not feed 'Maya' they are a result of her...

hmm you have a strange approach to the teachings or am I misunderstanding your meaning?

May I ask where you study?

[iain]

Likewise!

 

Youve got it backwards. at least by Kashmir Shaivite standards. He is called the 'supreme subjectivity' because he is the knower not the known. The KS folk would more happily call the world objective, because it is known. But Also the world is Shakti which is energy and change, so to me, that is still pretty 'subjective'

 

 

That was not a Kashmire Shavite view and I'm not strictly śavite; that perspective was of another principle which recognises the need for duality to exist for Narayana to be universal, the principle is "shabda brahman".

Rather like a Klein bottle if you are fond of topology.

 

 

Page 115-116 in Mishra's KS work, second paragraph in chapter 'Siva is subject-consciousness': Consciousness always remains the subject, or the knower, and never becomes the object, or the known.

hell no, I studied KS for nearly 20 years, and while Its no longer my tradition, I still have a great Love for it.

 

 

I have been studying the shavite text for 2 or 3 years, but my understanding is based in direct experiences of Śaktipāta. Which have happens now twice over a 20 year period, first at 19.

Only last night I have learnt of the meaning of an Aghora mantra that was particularly dear to swami Lakshman Ju:

 

aparā - inferiour - ghoratarī energies.

parāparā - medium - ghora energies.

parā - supream - aghora energies.

 

These energies are the cause of the them of this thread.

 

Which explain the 3 states of sivas energy in trika shavism; Swami Ji clearly states that sattvic practise should be maintained so as to ease the transition when one is lifted by aghora energies. I can confirm this from experiance; though rather than easing, I would stress that it saves your life in the worst case and your sanity and lifes path in the rest ...

I am blessed to be sattvic naturally (very rajasic it times but then aghora is rajasic in nature) which has saved my life.

 

Refer to ch 11 of the BG for further explanation. We should have no fear of this, but if it occurs with out master a then it can be devastating.

 

 

Tattvas are a top down model. The organs of cognition do not feed 'Maya' they are a result of her...

hmm you have a strange approach to the teachings or am I misunderstanding your meaning?

May I ask where you study?

 

 

The real world is very real, else śiva is not.

The teachings I am in accordance with are those of swami lakshman jū, I am particularly impressed by his explanation of the śiva sutra's.

 

Are aware that kundalini can be perceived in different ways?

I study in Bhim Tal in India. Though not Kashmir Shavism their I study Vedanga Jyotish which starts with the abc; I do not like to limit my studies to one school although my experience with God conciousness in the universe give me a very strong affinity with the philosophy.

 

Yes it is a beautiful philosophy, I am glad that you have found such harmony there; do you sing any of the mantras after such long study?

Edited November 3, 2014 by iain

[Rara]

This was taught to me in a religious yeshiva. The way around this is beating the 'I, We, Them' game. This is psychological game we play when things 'I' do are considered in the best light, ie, running a yellow light, 'I' am brave. Seeing a friend (a 'We') do it and it he is foolhardy. When we see a stranger do it we think 'They' are dangerous idiots.

 

In other words we reframe our own actions in the best light, give a slight benefit of the doubt to our friends/group and judge others harshly, especially others the further out of our circle. The way around this, I was told, was to have clear definitions and not let yourself off the hook. This can be positive or negative depending on how you define things, but you have to mentally consider 'Them' as 'I' or at least 'We'.

 

Done enough it tends to show how prejudiced flashes through our minds daily.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

[Rara]

Apologies for late responses, I've been away and working wifi has been hard to come by!

 

I will add more responses gradually.

[Rara]

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.

Interesting. Do you see objectivity as a product of the subjective? A bias in itself?

 

It can be argued that the plea to think objectively is in fact a product of a subjective mind...

[Rara]

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

Possibly what Seth was describing? That, I do recognise, but I will say more on this a bit later.

[Rara]

Hello Rara,

 

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

 

 

By bowing, through humility.

 

 

Psychosis and its consequences +ve and -ve.

 

 

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.

 

Then I will answer to this one.

 

And thanks for elaboraring on specifics throughout this thread, it's helped me grasp what you are saying.

 

Ideally, yes, and this is something I am on board with and from Taoist readings, also, a way I like to think.

 

It's been a pleasure sharing ideas, regardless of a few differences!

[Rara]

 

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.

Lol. I can't stand it when people nit-pick like this with me.

 

I don't like hard cheese. Melted, I love.

 

This confuses people..."it's still cheese"

 

No. No it isn't.

[Rara]

 

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.

Woops, sorry. Misunderstood you myself!

[Rara]

Though I would be weary still of someone that claims to see auras.

 

But yes, good explanation!

[Stosh]

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.

Well Its my opinion that a person comes to understand his circumstances based on some speculations which cannot be "proven" , like there existing a reality , and persons , and so forth. The Matrix movie revolves around that idea.

Beyond these fundamental assumptions , the principles are self confirming. These second level assumptions get described as objective or subjective in character.

So yes there is a level at which the entire world is illusory speculative and theoretical.

And there is also the practical rational framework which allows us to make reasoned decisions for action.

One can prove where their keys are, that pain exists , that they have learned math etc, because we share a common physical environment. But we cant prove,beyond appealing to anothers personal perspective , things like sentiments and morality judgements. ( because we do not share a common mental environment).

[Rara]

 

All scientific results are subjective, as they are subject to the tool and measurement systems used to measure them.

 

No one anywhere has ever had the slightest experience of objectivity.

 

Subjective/'Objective' is an utterly false duality which has lurked within our thinking for far too long, and something I suspect may be rooted in Judeo/christian thought.

This Idea of 'One True God' which has so damaged our world, is reinterpreted with scientism, the new priestcraft, into the belief in 'Objectivity' or one sole 'Truth' and continues to damage the world.

 

Let me stop you there.

 

While most objective outcomes are very difficult to come by, they have to exist.

 

Universal truths, like happiness. It could be said that saying "everyone likes to be happy" is a subjective thought or opinion.

 

But it is universal truth, and measured too by sciences...

[Rara]

I would say we can only debate with our personal biases surely? But we should remember they are subjective views and be open to rationality and logic. And hopefully by debating them we will come to understand that truth and not take our conceptual world too seriously? :-)

 

 

But how can the dogmatic super conceptual egomaniac who believes he is totally right be more true?

 

 

Someone said you become what you hate. If true then I guess you get to see both sides of the argument and see its subjective?

Perhaps but I am also arguing that objectivity is not associated with egomania. Objectivity allows one to leave their own shoes and watch from various viewpoints.

 

Being careful not to go to extremes. Like I said before, it's probably useful to not be objective when discussing with you partner/spouse who the prettiest lady in the world is.

[Rara]

 

Any conclusions arrived via any method are subject to the measurement system used.

 

 

Precisely.

 

Mathematics is a universal language that we can mesure thing. Without measurement and understanding, we won't survive as species for very long.

[iain]

I like to think of Subjectivity, objectivity as different types of people; some with in wards pointing personalities; some with outwards pointing personalities.

Rather like belly buttons if you will humour me that. Dictionaries are detrimental to understanding this as they are all written by outies!

[dust]

Very good point about definitions.

 

 

 

a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a

c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective 4c

d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>

 

 

I think that, if one denies the possibility of objectivity, one is denying definition : that there is anything we can know for sure independent of the mind.

 

 

edit: to contrast with "subjective"

 

a

:

characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind

:

phenomenal

— compare

objective

1b

b

:

relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states

_______________________________

 

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

 

Using this definition, clearly there are commonly-experienced phenomena -- numbers, feelings, objects that we can see and touch, etc -- but they are, to us, only experienced in the mind, and we can only describe them using human language, which is itself necessarily subjective (based on or influenced by the personal feelings, tastes, or opinions of those who create and use it).

 

So, in order to decide whether or not we can not be influenced by personal feelings or opinions in representing facts, we have to decide:

- can we remove ourselves from opinion?

- are there any "facts"?

Edited November 3, 2014 by dustybeijing

[iain]

Ok so I will have to resort to Sanskrit; English is far to linear a language for this to make any sense what so ever ...

How to know if all parties can even differentiate all of the sounds?

The musicians will do fine, but the others well, they will have to skip the bits that they don't understand ...

 

 

Rember its a aural tradition and language, it loses something when written down; rather like a pastry recipe. I can almost smell the butter cooking; it's an old family secret.

 

Objective enough for you?

[iain]

Highlighting the importance of understanding the transcendental nature of knowledge; how words change over time so does understanding. The very language and alphabet that we use, effects the way that we perceive the world.
Our conciousness is inevitably structured by our language; to more or less of a degree.
Visual thinkers perhaps less so than grammarians.

Edited November 3, 2014 by iain

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

[Marblehead]

But both are already valid.

 

It's just that some people just don't like to stop thinking so for them everything is subjective.

[dust]

Not sure what you mean. The concepts both exist, but, as Rara said in the OP, "everyone seems to have an opinion about something". The point being that what people believe is objective is really often subjective, or somewhere on a scale of subjectivity.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2014/apr/08/seven-worlds-favourite-number-online-survey

 

... as a maths communicator, I am always asked for my favourite number. Whenever I give talks – in schools, universities, festivals and corporate events – it's guaranteed this question will come up.

 

What we want in a favourite number is a "sticky" number – a number that stands out, that feels exceptional.

 

http://pages.bloomsbury.com/favouritenumber/3

 

It’s curly, but not pretentious curly like eight

(about the number 3)

 

I have absolutely no idea, other than it’s even and the sum of two evens, and it’s a comforting blue-brown swirl colour

(about the number 4)

 

 

In China, 4 is unlucky, as it sounds like death. In the West, some people don't like 13 or 666, for whatever reasons. In Cantonese, apparently, 3 sounds like "alive". In Japan, 8 is supposedly lucky.

 

People can have feelings/opinions about numbers, assigning them colours and emotions. So...we can be subjective about pretty much anything.

Edited November 3, 2014 by dustybeijing