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

[Seth Ananda]

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. :-)

Of course it is!

 

I am saying there is literally no possibility of objectivity, at least of a kind that can be experienced, perceived, known, interacted with, measured, recorded ect...

 

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.

Scientists feeling superior with and justified by their, part holding and part pursuit 'The One Truth' continue to do hideous, un-relational things.

 

'Objectivity' is a disgusting poison within the mind.

 

Subjectivity and intersubjectivity on the other hand, are relational in nature and accept the diversity of existence.

Also naturally they are not anti science, nor do they result in woo woo science.

Science is a wonderful tool to explore our intersubjective world, and empirical data is totally useful, not for 'objective proof' or the one supreme truth, but for 'the best understandings we have found, with the tools we have available at this time'

Edited October 31, 2014 by Seth Ananda

[Seth Ananda]

Belief in objectivity hardens people. They become obsessed with 'facts' in a rather sad way. A 'conversation' with them is a legal battle, and they justify their hard headed bluntness with a sense of righteousness over being 'Truth' seekers.

 

These people also become more and more out of touch with their own subjective world of emotions, relationships, and blissful body sensations. The richness of life gets steam trained over as they rush to their next battle to prove their intellectual superiority, to demonstrate their mastery and ownership of 'Truth' or to come that bit closer to it.

 

 

Maybe I should just say, when I have the Truth, I am justified in everything that I do.

[Infinity]

So I wish to express the importance, and hopefully convince you that we should not be debating with our own personal biases. If we do, we find ourselves desparate to look out for ourselves in situations that require a neutral and practical solution. There is no harm in having our own preferences in life, depending on what they are of course, but an open mind to logic and evidence should not be discarded for dogma that could be likened to sheer imagination.

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?

Edited October 31, 2014 by Infinity

[Infinity]

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

I am thinking that soaring crane nailed 'objectivity' with the quote above.

 

Subjectivity is personal but objectivity is subjectivity but it's general subjectivity for socially accepted 'things' but without personal biases and feelings, yes it's maybe seems cold.

 

Are not objects merely subjective things that have been agreed upon and solidified so to speak and accepted as reality?

 

Still thinking on this...

 

Not sure if objectivity is a bad thing? Possibly a necessary thing for survival?

Edited October 31, 2014 by Infinity

[Infinity]

Subject v object

Mind v matter

Energy v physical

 

Can we have one without the other?

[dust]

Belief in objectivity hardens people. They become obsessed with 'facts' in a rather sad way. A 'conversation' with them is a legal battle, and they justify their hard headed bluntness with a sense of righteousness over being 'Truth' seekers.

 

Yes.

 

Of course, I have struggled, and still struggle, with this myself. I think that it's something many, if not most of us humans, naturally lean toward: searching for some objective, supreme, good fact, as if "the truth" is anything but what we perceive (subjectively).

 

As I recall, Descartes was on the right track: the fallibility of our perception precludes even our concept of knowledge from being infallible.

 

To look at the other side for a moment, there are some concepts that are, by virtue of how we define them, self-evident "truths"

For example: 1 = 1; a square has 4 sides; blue is not orange; something exists.

But these “truths” are only expressible/recognizable through language, and are of no more real value than saying "people who like cookies like cookies" or "honest pigs don't tell lies"

[Infinity]

'Objectivity' is a disgusting poison within the mind.

So is subjectivity is it not?

 

Objectivity concerns the physical, commonly accepted reality (or at least our 'concrete' ideas about it). Subjectivity concerns the mind.

 

One question? Does the physical/energetic achievements of science prove objects are real?

 

 

But these truths are only expressible/recognizable through language, and are of no more real value than saying "people who like cookies like cookies" or "honest pigs don't tell lies"

Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know.

 

It's all ok :-)

Edited October 31, 2014 by Infinity

[Seth Ananda]

To look at the other side for a moment, there are some concepts that are, by virtue of how we define them, self-evident "truths"

For example: 1 = 1; a square has 4 sides; blue is not orange; something exists.

Intersubjective, and based on our current measurement systems.

But these “truths” are only expressible/recognizable through language, and are of no more real value than saying "people who like cookies like cookies" or "honest pigs don't tell lies"

Yes.

[dust]

Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know.

 

I guess we're all clueless

[Seth Ananda]

So is subjectivity is it not?

Subjectivity is wonderful.

 

Objectivity concerns the physical, commonly accepted reality (or at least our 'concrete' ideas about it). Subjectivity concerns the mind.

Objectivity concerns nothing, anywhere, ever.

 

Intersubjective concerns physical, commonly accepted reality.

 

One question? Does the physical/energetic achievements of science prove objects are real?

They dont need to be 'proved' to be real. There is no objective ultimate truth. But with our current measurement tools and systems, the certainly 'seem' to be real...

 

Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know.

From an old holy book full of words. Ironic huh?

[Infinity]

I guess we're all clueless

 

 

I can only speak for myself I can categorically say that I only know what I don't know and I am not even sure of that!

 

And that I guess is why I am here and getting more perplexed!

 

[Infinity]

Subjectivity is wonderful.

Objectivity concerns nothing, anywhere, ever.

 

Intersubjective concerns physical, commonly accepted reality.

 

They dont need to be 'proved' to be real. There is no objective ultimate truth. But with our current measurement tools and systems, the certainly 'seem' to be real...

 

From an old holy book full of words. Ironic huh?

 

 

 

IMHO:

 

"Subjectivity is wonderful."

 

To me subjective is a personal narrative derived from conditioning and is an illusion?

 

 

"Objectivity concerns nothing, anywhere, ever."

 

Objective concerns here and there, this and that and in that way concern's the thinking 'i' mind and is more illusion if a person could loose there self description / idea of objective self semi-permanetly or permanently.

 

 

"Intersubjective concerns physical, commonly accepted reality."

 

Not sure what you mean (probably my ignorance, sorry will look it up but have to sleep soon...)

 

 

"They dont need to be 'proved' to be real."

 

Agreed they don't 'need to be proved' unless you have a needy enquiring mind.

 

 

"Ironic huh"

 

Agreed

 

Its just past 12 here in the UK so I am turning in.

 

Thanks,

 

P.S.

[Seth Ananda]

To me subjective is a personal narrative derived from conditioning and is an illusion?

Everything is subjective. Its really easy to see when you look. Point to anything you think is not subjective, and ask what frameworks were used to arrive at an 'objective' conclusion? Right there is your answer.

 

There is not a single thing in existence that can be shown to be objective.

Maths, perception, 'Knowing', experience, philosophy, sensing, abstract thought, computer calculations ect...

 

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

 

Objective concerns here and there,

No. Objective can not be found anywhere, especially not here or there

 

Not sure what you mean (probably my ignorance, sorry will look it up but have to sleep soon...)

Intersubjective is all our shared experienced phenomena. All the things that can be fairly well understood within a collective but still subjective framework.

 

Agreed they don't 'need to be proved' unless you have a needy enquiring mind.

Yes. nothing wrong with an enquiring mind though.

 

Science has done wonderful things for us, and will stop doing much of the nasty stuff it does, when it free's itself from the shackles of believing in 'Objectivity' which is just as irrational as believing in a One True God.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Seth Ananda

[PLB]

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

 

Some of those systems do a better job of approaching what is being measured than others. It doesn't require reifying the "object" to accept that there are differences of that kind. Otherwise we might as well stop talking altogether. Talking happens as a result of an outburst in the assumption of some kind of objectivity.

 

The problem with dissolving all attempts to separate the real from illusion into a goo of subjective whimsy is that it wars against the essential desire to separate truth from bullshit.

[Seth Ananda]

Some of those systems do a better job of approaching what is being measured than others.

Yes, thats called good science. Accepting the sub/intersubjective nature of existence doesn't mean science and logic fly out the window. Nor does existence descend into solipsism. We have shared experience, a multi perceived universe to learn about and enjoy.

There can still be correct data and incorrect conclusions within any data measurement system, except the 'correct' data looses its hard edge of Absolute Authority, and is understood to be our best set of conclusions with current tools and models we have available.

 

Otherwise we might as well stop talking altogether. Talking happens as a result of an outburst in the assumption of some kind of objectivity.

This is incorrect. Subjectivity is actually more relational and less preachy as it embraces and allows for bridges of understanding between diverse perspectives.

No one needs the illusion of 'objectivity' to communicate.

 

The problem with dissolving all attempts to separate the real from illusion into a goo of subjective whimsy is that it wars against the essential desire to separate truth from bullshit.

 

What I am describing is in no way a decent into subjective whimsy, as it includes the intersubjective.

 

There are still subjective truths within their appropriate frameworks. Objectivity itself however is actually untrue and bullshit.

[Seth Ananda]

Another consideration I have however is whether the desire for 'Truth' above all else, is actually part of a sick and twisted worldview?

Say its a pathological side effect of being told (the Lie) that there is an Objective final capital T Truth out there? Its a meme infection or virus within the mind that causes us to abstract further and further away from reality, causes us to become less and less relational, with each other and nature?

 

So many of the worlds famous philosophers and thinkers were hard nosed assholes. Impatient with their wives, mean to their kids, impatient with the ramblings of lesser minds, willing to ignore their families and the world in favour of the supremely important quest for Truth!

 

They basically betrayed their family and friends and world, to live a dry intellectual life for an Idea. Objectivity. An Idea that can not be seen, touched, experienced, or proven in any way!

 

 

Say we are here to relate and be relational, not to discover 'Truth'? What if living relationally is actually Living the 'Truth'?

Edited November 1, 2014 by Seth Ananda

[Marblehead]

I am saying there is literally no possibility of objectivity, at least of a kind that can be experienced, perceived, known, interacted with, measured, recorded ect...

Apparently you have never walked into a tree, a wall, or closed door.

 

Doing so is an objective experience. No subjectivity is needed.

[Seth Ananda]

Apparently you have never walked into a tree, a wall, or closed door.

 

Doing so is an objective experience. No subjectivity is needed.

break it down for me, what is the objective part of the overall experience?

 

Is my experience of walking into a tree Objective? Thats all I can talk about.

 

Is someone elses experience of walking into a tree exactly the same as my experience?

[Seth Ananda]

Apparently you have never walked into a tree, a wall, or closed door.

Hehe, I have ski'd into a tree, and fallen out of a few...

 

Doing so is an objective experience. No subjectivity is needed.

I think its entirely intersubjective. Interaction is happening, but anything I could say about it is all coming through my own sensory capabilities, my own interpretive mechanisms, and is entirely subjective.

 

I said earlier on, there could be an objective reality underneath our experience, but not one that can ever be known, as our very experience is subjective in nature.

[Marblehead]

Hehe, I have ski'd into a tree, and fallen out of a few...

Welcome to the club.

 

I think its entirely intersubjective. Interaction is happening, but anything I could say about it is all coming through my own sensory capabilities, my own interpretive mechanisms, and is entirely subjective.

Yes, this is what kept me from posting anything earlier. I was trying to grasp what you were speaking of with the word "intersubjective".

 

Let's say I just walked into a closed door. This was two objects interacting. Now, I'm not suggesting that there wasn't subjectivity after the fact; I am speaking to only the interaction itself. (Later I call myself a dumb ass. That's the subjective part.)

 

I said earlier on, there could be an objective reality underneath our experience, but not one that can ever be known, as our very experience is subjective in nature.

Okay. This is the hard part and in the end I will be in agreement with you. Our senses have evolved so that they are useful to us during our everyday lives. How do they say it? The human body is made up of many atoms with a lot of empty space between them.

 

But really, what use would there be in seeing only atoms and empty space? That really wouldn't help us out in our everyday life. So no, we are not seeing reality in its most basic form. But we are seeing it in a useful form.

 

However, I can still look at a tree and see a tree without placing any subjective judgement upon the tree. This is what I speak to when I speak of being aware of the objective universe. And it is useful that I see the tree so that I don't walk into it.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Marblehead

[Seth Ananda]

Welcome to the club.

 

Yes, this is what kept me from posting anything earlier. I was trying to grasp what you were speaking of with the word "intersubjective".

 

Let's say I just walked into a closed door. This was two objects interacting. Now, I'm not suggesting that there wasn't subjectivity after the fact; I am speaking to only the interaction itself. (Later I call myself a dumb ass. That's the subjective part.)

 

Okay. This is the hard part and in the end I will be in agreement with you. Our senses have evolved so that they are useful to us during our everyday lives. How do they say it? The human body is made up of many atoms with a lot of empty space between them.

 

But really, what use would there be in seeing only atoms and empty space? That really wouldn't help us out in our everyday life. So no, we are not seeing reality in its most basic form.

Awesome response

 

But we are seeing it in a useful form.

Id never argue against useful!

 

However, I can still look at a tree and see a tree without placing any subjective judgement upon the tree.

I agree, but I see the act of seeing itself as already being entirely subjective. To then add a judgement would be just another layer of subjectivity.

 

This is what I speak to when I speak of being aware of the objective universe. And it is useful that I see the tree so that I don't walk into it.

My argument is that 'intersubjective' is a better more accurate understanding, that allows for the same practical useful side that one gets from thinking they are seeing the 'real' world, but it also exclude all the extra baggage and massive negatives that come from believing in 'objectivity'...

 

As there is nothing to support it, I think we need to scrap the term 'objective' entirely, and let it go the way of the flat earth theories. {to dingy back corners of the internet}

[Marblehead]

I agree, but I see the act of seeing itself as already being entirely subjective. To then add a judgement would be just another layer of subjectivity.

Hehehe. That reminded me of some of the discussions I have had with Vmarco. No right or wrong, just different.

 

My argument is that 'intersubjective' is a better more accurate understanding, that allows for the same practical useful side that one gets from thinking they are seeing the 'real' world, but it also exclude all the extra baggage and massive negatives that come from believing in 'objectivity'...

Okay. But then, if we just experience without thinking we won't be placing subjectivity upon what we are experiencing.

 

As there is nothing to support it, I think we need to scrap the term 'objective' entirely, and let it go the way of the flat earth theories. {to dingy back corners of the internet}

Nope. Hehehe. The objective universe existed for 13.6 billion years before man started thinking about it and placing value judgements upon what he saw and thought about it. Life has existed on this planet for about 3.5 billion years. Man has been here for at maximum 4 million years.

 

Man isn't really all that important in the total process. What we think matters for nothing, really. I think we should not put man on a higher level than (s)he deserves.

[dust]

As there is nothing to support it, I think we need to scrap the term 'objective' entirely, and let it go the way of the flat earth theories. {to dingy back corners of the internet}

 

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.

 

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..

[iain]

@Seth

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

[Seth Ananda]

Hehehe. That reminded me of some of the discussions I have had with Vmarco. No right or wrong, just different.

We will probably agree to see things differently then.

 

Okay. But then, if we just experience without thinking we won't be placing subjectivity upon what we are experiencing.

I get your meaning, but to me as I already stated, 'experiencing' is just as subjective as thinking.

 

Nope. Hehehe. The objective universe existed for 13.6 billion years before man started thinking about it and placing value judgements upon what he saw and thought about it. Life has existed on this planet for about 3.5 billion years. Man has been here for at maximum 4 million years.

Really, how do you know?

I still contend that there 'may' be some kind of objective foundation underneath our shared experiences, but I cant 'know' that, because nothing sentient or aware has ever experienced it in any manner.

 

Man isn't really all that important in the total process.

Sure.

 

What we think matters for nothing, really.

It matters to us and our world here.

Believing that one is truly objective, and thus truly right {in relationship to everyone elses wrong} is a basic prerequisite for a sociopathic mind. They are often quite certain that they are the only ones who 'see' clearly. In an emotionless non relational manner.

 

I think we should not put man on a higher level than (s)he deserves.

I agree.

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'...