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

[Stosh]

Subjectivity does not need nor does it imply personification; there lays the crux of the difference between our understanding; I think cause of the circular nature of this conversation; we are defining the meaning of English words based upon an interpretation itself dependant upon an entire philosophical system or model.

 

I wonder do you know the original words for subjectivity and objectivity in the language of Tao; any other meanings that they may also have? Usage is often different between languages due to interpretation.

There's an overlap in the discussion between objective-reality , and objective-opinion.

Either revolves around whether there actually exists a reality of "material fact" which differs from ones sentiment or personal perspective.

( which is why I was including the test of provability from one person to another as helping to make the distinction..

Dictionary definitions can help to gain a common footing about what a word is intended to describe, but those definitions are really just attempts to standardize and communicate ideas which are independent of the validation provided by editors of the dictionary. )

 

personification - is a decision made as to whether a thing embodies the character which one is already holding in mind, thats not the issue at hand.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Stosh

[Arda]

Hello everyone. thought I'd share my perspective on the topic.

 

The lives of things are reliant on particular set patterns found in the universe, from this we define objectivity. We define objectivity from their (apparent) permanence.

 

As you all know, objectivity and subjectivity are inseparable as they are two ends of 'Being'. Things can be objectively subjective or subjectively objective, it of course depends on who's doing the perceiving... really, the experiencing.

 

In the grand drama of life, all things are subjective beneath the "Ultimate Reality;" being God, the Tao, the Truth, or whatever you want to call it.

 

I think, and this may be a stretch, that there are degrees of objectivity in descending order from the Ultimate Reality's emanations.

 

We define something as objective, by how much of it is able to be subjected by, well, subjectivity. Mutability and Immutability. In some instances, things can be exceedingly subjective, or exceedingly objective, to the point where human minds *must* confess to it's objectivity or subjectivity. This too, depends on the perception of the experiencer.

[Stosh]

Object permanence isn't really a great dividing line between objective reality and subjective sentiment. IMO

Yes its considered a lesson in developmental psychology , but that doesn't mean that its a valid point even though you have that "apparent" in there as a qualifier. Are sounds permanent? where is heat ? the ebb and flow of seasons?

Everything one can point to as material will change, and does change, you change with every breath.

One has emotions and thinks they exist as individuals , this never changes does it? or is it supposed to be that ones emotion or self - may be changeable like waves on the sea ,isnt it ones perception of himself that he has been existing over time?

Even if one says it seems for a moment the chair is unchanging , it may likewise seem that ones sorrow has not changed at the loss of a loved one -for perhaps a lifetime.

A thing immaterial such as the idea of a number , does that ever change? No not really , but then , is a number,, or theoretical conceptry the total fabric of objectivity ??

I just cant see how object permanence is in any way a determiner of objective reality .. but you can see it how you like.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Stosh

[Arda]

Object permanence isn't really a great dividing line between objective reality and subjective sentiment.

 

That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

 

What makes objective reality objective? What makes sentiment subjective? There are people that say we create reality as we go along by virtue of our conscious experiencing and perceiving. There are people who say the universe is mechanistic and that we are plopped here in this vast and static universe that ignores any human feeling or opinion. Who is right?

Aren't there things that are so potent in their objectivity/subjectivity that they illicit an overwhelmingly common subjective or objective reaction in human beings?

 

How much of a mountain are we able to subjectify? Can we say "this mountain isn't really there, it's simply hard and dense and that is why we feel it." How much of a mountain's 'nature' so to speak are we able to make subjective? To make mutable by personal opinion and sentiment? The hardness of the mountain is an objective reality we cannot control (except through eventual mastery of the material through science and whatnot).

 

We know as intelligent beings that all is ultimately impermanent. Everything is constantly changing form. Some things transform slowly over the course of centuries, others, over the course of a human life. That being said, are we in any position to defy the truth of the mountain; that it is a hard and impassable thing and we will break our bodies against it if we attack it?

 

No. My point is there are things that we can make subjective by way of sentiment and personal perception, that we can change and generate meaning to within ourselves, that can be made different by collective human consent, and there are things that have meaning beyond our ability to make subjective. The things that create or posses their own meaning and are beyond our scope to change.

 

...I think. Bahahaha. Excellent thread.

 

edit: small typo

Edited November 6, 2014 by Arda

[PLB]

Subjectivity does not need nor does it imply personification; there lays the crux of the difference between our understanding; I think cause of the circular nature of this conversation; we are defining the meaning of English words based upon an interpretation itself dependant upon an entire philosophical system or model.

 

I wonder do you know the original words for subjectivity and objectivity in the language of Tao; any other meanings that they may also have? Usage is often different between languages due to interpretation.

 

In Zhuangzi, the biggest difference made seems to be the space between two different kinds of objective reality: Heaven and Man. The description of the Man part is exquisitely objective in its expression:

 

 

The seeds (of things) are multitudinous and minute. On the surface of the water they form a membranous texture. When they reach to where the land and water join they become the (lichens which we call the) clothes of frogs and oysters. Coming to life on mounds and heights, they become the plantain; and, receiving manure, appear as crows' feet. The roots of the crow's foot become grubs, and its leaves, butterflies. This butterfly, known by the name of xu, is changed into an insect, and comes to life under a furnace. Then it has the form of a moth, and is named the Qu-duo. The Qu-duo after a thousand days becomes a bird, called the gan -yu-gu. Its saliva becomes the si-mi, and this again the shi-xi (or pickle-eater). The yi-lu is produced from the pickle-eater; the huang-kuang from the jiu-you; the mou-rui from the fu-quan. The yang-xi uniting with a bamboo, which has long ceased to put forth sprouts, produces the qing-ning; the qing-ning, the panther; the panther, the horse; and the horse, the man. Man then again enters into the great Machinery (of Evolution), from which all things come forth (at birth), and which they enter at death.

 

Zhuangzi (2011-08-03). Zhuangzi: Essential Writings (Kindle Locations 2574-2582). . Kindle Edition.

 

The Heaven component is also very objective in the context of it providing us the energy to be born and live for some portion of time.

 

"Solipsism" may not even be a possible thought from this point of view.

Edited November 6, 2014 by PLB

[iain]

Thank you PLB, for your considered reply.

It sounds as though Zhuangzi is referencing reincarnation, and perhaps asking himself where the future lays?

Solipsism is not how I would define my own belief at all, that everything emanates from subjectivity is not a reference to self nihilism, for an example of this, I believe that times opens as a lotus and that the two are similar because of an underlying internal pattern that is very subjective indeed, and that this is a big part of how nature balances its self; in a cycle of destruction and growth.
If we live in one universe of an multiversity, then that universe is its self subjective, this subjectivity runs as a key thread through objects irrespective of space.

Interesting that Heaven is a concept used, is this speaking of another place or dimension after death, or is this perhaps reference to the future?

Edited November 6, 2014 by iain

[iain]

 

No, no, no, no, no.

 

You are confusing the concepts. The objective are the Taoist "Ten Thousand Things". Seeing something as beautiful and another as ugly are the subjective.

...

What are the Taoist "Ten Thousand Things"? I'm not good at memorising lists .

Edited November 6, 2014 by iain

[Marblehead]

What are the Taoist "Ten Thousand Things"? I'm not good at memorising lists .

Hehehe. There are actually more than ten thousand things. They are the objects of the universe. Note the word "objects".

 

The Ten Thousand Things are what they are. No "beautiful, no "ugly". They just are.

[Stosh]

That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

 

What makes objective reality objective? What makes sentiment subjective?

Before object permanence - early on we conclude that there are things which are independent of us.

We do not control the baby bottle , or breast , we want them- but these things do not appear at our own whim, we don't generate them- they are unresponsive . They aren't part of the tactile map we formulate about our bodies. They are something else, rather than ourself.

Object permanence is a habitual assumption that these other things persist.

This is the basis for the conceptual basis of an "objective reality".

At some point we conclude that others who are like ourselves and at least seem somewhat responsive, are also 'apart' from the baby bottle, the pillow , the ceiling.

These others in their actions confirm that they too know about the " other objects' proving the existence of the bottle which is later considered real.

I think thats the basis for objective reality as existing conceptually.

 

I admit though , Thats all just my opinion ,or supposition , mind you

Does that get you any closer ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PLB]

Thank you PLB, for your considered reply.

 

It sounds as though Zhuangzi is referencing reincarnation, and perhaps asking himself where the future lays?

 

Solipsism is not how I would define my own belief at all, that everything emanates from subjectivity is not a reference to self nihilism, for an example of this, I believe that times opens as a lotus and that the two are similar because of an underlying internal pattern that is very subjective indeed, and that this is a big part of how nature balances its self; in a cycle of destruction and growth.

If we live in one universe of an multiversity, then that universe is its self subjective, this subjectivity runs as a key thread through objects irrespective of space.

 

Interesting that Heaven is a concept used, is this speaking of another place or dimension after death, or is this perhaps reference to the future?

 

To my mind, the words of Zhuangzi point to the opposite of any kind of reincarnation that involves any particular creature. We have our time and then our time is done.

 

I did not mean to characterize your point of view as solipsistic. I was just trying to say that the ideas expressed do not give much of a toe hold for the idea of self as the source of consciousness. We can know and do things but close examination reveals that both are transformations that are part of the natural order of growth and decay. We can live nearer or further away from the source. The will to get near makes a difference. We can regain more or less of what was given to us in the beginning. But that is not like an aquistion by a self. The contrast is often made through the idea of a Thief. What can be given cannot be taken. We do not hold our lives.

 

"Heaven" is not a place. There is Heaven and Earth, yang and yin, through which all is created. We are the place, while the place lasts. (Apologies to TS Eliot.)

[Brian]

What I perceive is objective, what you perceive is subjective.

What I think is fact, what you think is fantasy.

What I believe is true, what you believe is delusion.

 

See the pattern?

 

 

OK, so somewhat tongue-in-check...

 

 

My current personal subjective belief is that there is an objective reality but that we are fundamentally abstracted from it such that all we interact with are the filters of subjectivity. It is sort of like watching an out-of-focus movie in a crowded and noisy theater -- if the projectionist adjusts the focus and if people stop shuffling around in front of you and if the fools around you stop talking, your perception of the movie improves substantially. The movie is still not real-life, though, regardless of how improved the experience might become.

 

As to the question of trees and mountains and their "objectivity," such things are a matter of perspective. That is not to say they are not "real" but that the concept of "real" is a construct. For those who say "reality is just in your head," I say yes but walk outside barefoot and kick the biggest rock you can find -- hard. For those who say the tree is "real," I say yes but zoom out a million miles or in to the subatomic scale and look again. For those who say the mountain is "real," I say yes but I suggest asking the earthworm who lives under the roots of a tree on the side of that mountain.

 

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

 

Cue Donovan:

 

 

 

Some people never get past the "first there is a mountain," some get stuck in the "then there is no mountain" phase, and some move on to the "then there is" stage. I would suggest the next step is to recognize that they are all correct and all incorrect at the same time, to differing degrees depending on perspective and situation. This step comes from turning the light around.

 

EDIT: Aded a couple of "yes but"s...

Edited November 6, 2014 by Brian

[C T]

 

Some people never get past the "first there is a mountain," some get stuck in the "then there is no mountain" phase, and some move on to the "then there is" stage. I would suggest the next step is to recognize that they are all correct and all incorrect at the same time, to differing degrees depending on perspective and situation. This step comes from turning the light around.

In Vajrayana Buddhism it is alleged that only buddhas have the ability to abide in the 3rd phase permanently; because of this, they are able to traverse thru the first and second phases at will, without being distracted or imprisoned by/in any of them due to the mind being fully embedded in Prajnaparamita without the slightest leakage.

Edited November 6, 2014 by C T

[Brian]

In Vajrayana Buddhism it is alleged that only buddhas have the ability to abide in the 3rd phase permanently; because of this, they are able to traverse thru the first and second phases at will, without being distracted or imprisoned by/in any of them due to the mind being fully embedded in Prajnaparamita without the slightest leakage.

I like this. Joining with the Light is in part a nonintellectual realization that the filters are optional. We still chained to the mundane sometimes flirt with that realization.

[Rara]

After looking more into "intersubjectivity", it is clear that this is far different from objectivity.

 

All three have definitions of their own.

 

In relation to the OP, no, intersubjectivity won't necesaarily allow us to be honest with ourselves.

 

At a funeral, people experience intersubjectivity due to shared emotion of grief. An objective observer can be detached from this.

[Brian]

In Vajrayana Buddhism it is alleged that only buddhas have the ability to abide in the 3rd phase permanently; because of this, they are able to traverse thru the first and second phases at will, without being distracted or imprisoned by/in any of them due to the mind being fully embedded in Prajnaparamita without the slightest leakage.

I like this. Joining with the Light is in part a nonintellectual realization that the filters are optional. We still chained to the mundane sometimes flirt with that realization.

I would say, though, that I think the Buddha state is permanently residing in that fourth state I try to describe in which the nature of the other three becomes apparent. Being trapped in the third state would be little different than being trapped in the first except a level up on the spiral. Many physicists and philosophers reach that third state (coming to grips with quantum electrodynamics or Schrödinger's cat box paradox, for instance) but don't release from it to transcend to Buddhahood. I definitely see what you are saying, though, in that these same physicists and philosophers (myself included) don't reside there in ALL aspects of their "being."

 

I speak here from the perspective on one who has been graced with the merest glimpses of that next state (but I suspect there are more beyond it which I cannot yet imagine).

Edited November 6, 2014 by Brian

[Marblehead]

Well, let's try to be objective here, Okay?

 

I will lay money on the fact that Schrodinger never once opened the box and found the cat to be alive and dead at the same time.

 

And my next state is Georgia and I'm not moving there.

[Stosh]

Stosh's catbox paradox tries to determine who is in charge, when the box is being used.

[iain]

I shall consult the oracle,and advise as to when to open the box for any given desired result ...
I will need to know the date of birth of the cat though; obviously.

Objective enough for you?

Edited November 6, 2014 by iain

[iain]

To my mind, the words of Zhuangzi point to the opposite of any kind of reincarnation that involves any particular creature. We have our time and then our time is done.

 

I did not mean to characterize your point of view as solipsistic. I was just trying to say that the ideas expressed do not give much of a toe hold for the idea of self as the source of consciousness. We can know and do things but close examination reveals that both are transformations that are part of the natural order of growth and decay. We can live nearer or further away from the source. The will to get near makes a difference. We can regain more or less of what was given to us in the beginning. But that is not like an aquistion by a self. The contrast is often made through the idea of a Thief. What can be given cannot be taken. We do not hold our lives.

 

"Heaven" is not a place. There is Heaven and Earth, yang and yin, through which all is created. We are the place, while the place lasts. (Apologies to TS Eliot.)

I think you may misunderstand my use of the word reincarnation, I mean rebirth and under no circumstances do I mean of the ego when referring to inter lives. The birth and death of the ego happens in this life. I mark a very big distinction between these two cycles; though they may mirror each other.

 

Yes I see, Perhaps Heaven as the sky and as the stars at night ...

Edited November 6, 2014 by iain

[zerostao]

"the mind is a metaphor of the world of objects which is itself but an endless circle of mutually reflecting metaphors"

[Marblehead]

"the mind is a metaphor of the world of objects which is itself but an endless circle of mutually reflecting metaphors"

Oh!, that sounds so Buddhist!

[Yasjua]

I'm new to this forum, and didn't read through all eleven pages, but I'd like to chime in with a few words.

 

From what I've read, there appears to be a deep underlying consensus between all the participants. I'm not sure if the participants see this or not, but there are no differences in opinion here. Reflecting on this anomaly, I recognize that every perspective I've read through here has previously been my own, and now all perspectives are my own, with none opposing another. All perspectives are leaky vessels and argumentation is the system by which we exploit the holes in thought. This does not invalidate thinking. On the contrary, all of your thoughts express a fundamental movement toward truth. None are straying from truth. The terrain of the mountain is infinitely diverse.

[Marblehead]

 

I'm new to this forum, and didn't read through all eleven pages, but I'd like to chime in with a few words.

 

 

Yep. You jumped right in, didn't you?

 

Welcome to TTB.

 

Good thoughts from you.

[thewhitetiger]

OMG I am in Love with the Paradoxes of this entire discussion!

I have ...nothing to add...I'm still spinning from some of the great

questions you have all provided.

[Marblehead]

Yep. I can do paradoxes. Some people notice, most don't.