Objective reality

[Nikolai1]

Oh dear - you really are in a terrible trap but I don't know what to say. One moment you say all is reality, then you subscribe to all sort so of fixed views about reality, and then you say that your fixed views are your reality. It's the same trap that you saw in Seth Ananda. Like the trap of emptiness, it's the trap of form. You have no creative freedom whichever way you look.

[Karl]

Oh dear - you really are in a terrible trap but I don't know what to say. One moment you say all is reality, then you subscribe to all sort so of fixed views about reality, and then you say that your fixed views are your reality. It's the same trap that you saw in Seth Ananda. Like the trap of emptiness, it's the trap of form. You have no creative freedom whichever way you look.

 

Well you see bars of a cage, but you don't know on what side of the bars you are.

 

All IS reality. Even the subjective. You have creative entrapment. Creativity is our nature. All action comes from it. It is impossible not to be creative.

 

Emptiness is just another conceptual subjective error. When do you consciously know emptiness ? Have you ever known it to be true-conscious emptiness ? yet you imagine it for Ananda. Then you pull up another subjective conceptual error by implying solidity of mind-motionless mind, fixed mind ? How would I even write these words Nickolai ? How would I read your words ?

 

Where does this pendulum you always mention arise ? Emptiness-Solidity. Subjective-objective. This is what your mind is attempting to fathom. You read the words this way and that way, half a pendulum swing. Half wisdom. The mid-point in your subjective view. Seems like balance doesn't it ? Halfway between solid and empty. This is the logical fallacy of the false mean. It even has a name. ;-)

 

 

[Seth Ananda]

It is an absolute objective reality that you believe what you have just written is it not ?

How can it be? Its a belief for one, and any attempt I take to measure or observe it is subject to the system of measurement or observation that I use, and therefore still subjective.  Objectivity is found nowhere.

If it isn't then what can you believe?

Whatever seems valuable based on the best scientific/philosophical/psychological/social/spiritual data that is currently available.

You are lost in a subjective world and you are not free. Occasionally to see this is both saddening and maddening. It's like watching an alcoholic drink their way to oblivion.

Not lost, in fact it is the most freeing observation possible.

One only becomes lost and unfree when they think they have absolute truth, ie objectivity. 

As soon as one thinks they have absolute truth, freedom ends. There can be no adjustment, no advancement and no flexibility. There is only a rigid adherence to ones own, automatically right view, and the ossification and slow fossilization of ones entire mental and psychological outlook.

 

 

I do find it strange however that you did not challenge any actual points that I made. Instead you retreated immediatly into unclear speculation about my state of freedom or lack of. What's with that?

Edited July 30, 2015 by Seth Ananda

[Bud Jetsun]

I'm pleased to see that you are also an advocate of logic and agree in totality that it is the only way to establish truth.

 

 

Logic is a type of game humans constructed as a rule book for arrangements of word-constructs.  The practice of playing the game, nor the output of the game can ever be Truth or Reality.  

 

Very often the human mind chooses to sustain a delusion that confuses logic with the nature of reality.  Logic is a byproduct human delusion construct played with game-pieces of construct delusion words, and even when you make the finest rule book to play the game, and use the biggest pool of gave pieces to play with, it's still a human construct game not reality. 

Edited July 30, 2015 by Bud Jetsun

[Karl]

How can it be? Its a belief for one, and any attempt I take to measure or observe it is subject to the system of measurement or observation that I use, and therefore still subjective.  Objectivity is found nowhere.

 

Whatever seems valuable based on the best scientific/philosophical/psychological/social/spiritual data that is currently available.

 

Not lost, in fact it is the most freeing observation possible.

One only becomes lost and unfree when they think they have absolute truth, ie objectivity. 

As soon as one thinks they have absolute truth, freedom ends. There can be no adjustment, no advancement and no flexibility. There is only a rigid adherence to ones own, automatically right view, and the ossification and slow fossilization of ones entire mental and psychological outlook.

I do find it strange however that you did not challenge any actual points that I made. Instead you retreated immediatly into unclear speculation about my state of freedom or lack of. What's with that?

 

How can I answer your points, they are based entirely on subjectivity ?

 

I can say only, yes that's what you think, yes and that's what you think and yes to that as well.

 

We have no objective plain on which to begin discussion. I cannot disenfranchise you of your right to think whatever you might want to think. I cannot challenge anything in your subjective constructions. They are yours to think and your alone. I respect the objective reality of you having those thoughts. I accept the objective reality of you being as you are-although it pains me somewhat that you are so prepared to dismiss what you are ( reality does not impinge on emotion ).

[Kubba]

Not 'different realities' but different perceptual differences for certain. Colour blind people don't see the same colours as those who are not colourblind, there are also cross perceptions where some see colours in music for instance. Reality remains. Not sure what you mean by 'no dimensions' ? Do you mean absolute dimensions ? A tree for instance is growing and so into shape and dimensions change. Heat applied to an object will reduce its weight and increase its volume. This doesn't indicate different realities, these things are part of that reality, we can specify these things. If we at sea level then water boils at 100 then we go up a mountain and the water boils at a lower temperature so we specify those things in a definition if necessary. Same with relativity, we just state the law if necessary.

So if reality is observed through subjectiv senses, then how you can say what the actual reality is? And whos version is more real?

The temperature for one person can be cold, for other okay, they both can say that there is 10 degree.

Their minds, of which the question about the temperature and reality rised are made of the matter that they try to figure out, and functioning of the mind is related to temperature too. Seems imposible to catch it. As if a hummer tried to figure out what the wood is. The Answer can be only theoretical, and will vary depanding on the personality of you who answer. Haha.

I would say that this question is more neurotic than you can imagine.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Kubba

[Marblehead]

While what you said is true Bud, we still try to do the best we can with the tools we have.  Objectivity, truth, really; these are what we wish to understand.  We observe with the tools we have and form mental concepts of the observed.  Already we have strayed from the truth.  But it is likely that this is as close as we can get.  Then, as soon as we consider these concepts we have entered the world of dualities as we have defined "this" and "that".

 

But I still think that we can get pretty close if we try to understand what we see and the processes of these "things".

Edited July 30, 2015 by Marblehead

[Karl]

Logic is a type of game humans constructed as a rule book for arrangements of word-constructs.  The practice of playing the game, nor the output of the game can ever be Truth or Reality.  

 

Very often the human mind chooses to sustain a delusion that confuses logic with the nature of reality.  Logic is a byproduct human delusion construct played with game-pieces of construct delusion words, and even when you make the finest rule book to play the game, and use the biggest pool of gave pieces to play with, it's still a human construct game not reality. 

 

You are making an assumption that logic is somehow unnatural. Yet you use it every day. Should I say to you that your emotions are a game constructed with rules that define sadness, guilt, happiness, joy ?

 

Formal logic is like the gym for the reasoning muscles. If you don't work them, then it becomes flabby and useless. If you prefer to work on your subjective emotional muscle it is easier. We were born crying. Have you ever wondered why so many people today are addicted to entertainment and have such short attention spans they struggle to get through the words of an advert. They just want to know that this will make the 'feel' better in some way. More attractive, happier, fitter, healthier.

 

If I say "living wage" then what do you hear ? What subjective emotions and feelings does it stir.

If I tell you it means "compulsory unemployment" then that is not what you want to hear, even though it means exactly that. You will reject the unpleasant and cling to the subjective. A living wage sounds a nice thing to have and what can be wrong with nice things ?

[Karl]

So if reality is observed through subjectiv senses, then how you can say what the actual reality is? And whos version is more real?

The temperature for one person can be cold, for other okay, they both can say that there is 10 degree.

Their minds, of which the question about the temperature rised are made of the matter that they try to figure out, and functioning of the mind is related to temperature too. Seems imposible to catch it.

I would say that this question is more neurotic than you can imagine.

 

Senses are senses, consciousness is consciousness.

 

How can you NOT know what reality is ? That is precisely the point.

 

You are talking about subjective interpretations of reality, how you 'feel' about reality, reality is existent despite what feelings you have about it.

 

If we go down a street together and I point to a car and say 'blue' and you say "no, it's red" and then we keep on down the street of cars pointing to various colours and disagreeing then we shall see at the end of the street that we just have different names for the same colours. Your blue is my red, green is pink, etc. in no sense do we disagree with reality and neither do we really disagree on anything but the formal naming of colours.

 

 

 

[Seth Ananda]

How can I answer your points, they are based entirely on subjectivity ? I can say only, yes that's what you think, yes and that's what you think and yes to that as well. We have no objective plain on which to begin discussion.

The intersubjective {as I and some phenomonologists use it} describes the same thing that most people use the word objective to describe. (just without the unnecessary baggage and ossification risks)

 

Something being Intersubjective does not mean all the laws of science suddenly just fly out the window. It does not mean 'everything is suddenly equally true' and nothing is false if someone believes it.  Also Intersubjective does not mean 'highly subjective', like our personal inner worlds.

 

All it means is that 'truths' that get discovered, are grabbed just a little less tightly, and with slightly more willingness to continue to explore other options as or if they arise.

 

I cannot disenfranchise you of your right to think whatever you might want to think. I cannot challenge anything in your subjective constructions. They are yours to think and your alone.

Of course you can. Demonstrate in someway that there is an 'objectivity' that is not subject to the tools of measurement that perceive it.

Until then I stand by seeing the concept as an outdated imprecise and highly dangerous virus of the mind.

I respect the objective reality of you having those thoughts. I accept the objective reality of you being as you are-although it pains me somewhat that you are so prepared to dismiss what you are ( reality does not impinge on emotion ).

 

'objectivity' as real, is a flawed perspective and it is simply an recent idea, one which has no scientific evidence to back itself up whatsoever, and thus seriously needs to be dropped being a principle that is as vague as 'God'.

 

As for me missing what I am, I want to post a face palm meme but I can't be bothered. 

Intersubjectivity and all our personal inner subjectivity you could say are many many windows into the what is and what we are. 

 

You might believe that 'what is' is the objective reality, yet how do you see it? how do you think about it? How do you approach it?   Only ever by subjective data producing methods!

You may as well not talk about it because you will never experience it or know it in any way, as the 'it' will always be subject to the tools used to measure it. Subjective tools, subjective results. 

 

But outside of the impossibility of objectivity, things and self can be known via multiple inter-subjective avenues. 

 

I have a deep awareness of my selves, I have my ideas of myself, I have my feelings towards myself, I have the various relationships between these levels and themselves and the other levels. Its wonderful, rich and complex.

The understandings of myself has only grown and been nurtured by my shedding off of the objectivity virus. 

 

I could grunt and say "I just am what I am, and that is objective!"   But that is a lie. Its bullshit, and its a nasty brutal statement by someone who has almost no inner life and barely any self awareness.

 

Which self would even make that statement? Which lens or approach to the self gets to makes it either?

 

Which selves get left aside to be disowned, pushed down, devalued and raped?  

All so one rigid, terrified self that wants center stage, and the safety that certainty and moral absolutism give that comes from always being right?

 

 

 

Belief in objectivity leads to a disgusting state of affairs both internally and externally, and the sooner we are rid of it the better.   

When you believe in objectivity, and believe that you have it, then you are right and true. Just like that. All else becomes secondary. It moves us away from relationality. It moves us away from our bodies into our minds. We can at the very least be 'short' with other less objective people. Or we are justified in belittling them, not listening to them, or worse or far far worse.

 

Because we are right, and they are wrong. 

 

Men are justified in thinking women are less in this worldview because of a social belief that women are emotional and men are rational.  The crap this causes is appalling. Women in this view end up just being seen as 'things' that are meant to be pleasing to us in our lofty 'objective' thrones.

 

Specialists act superior to everyone around them because they 'know' and others dont. I saw a doctor arguing against a theory because it was coming from a layperson. That layperson had to show the doctor the medical journal it came from. That same doctor does not listen to his patients and is a condescending prick to the nurses. Because he is right and they are less.

 

Nature is dominated and fucked over repeatedly because we are objective and know what is best. We are better than Nature.

 

 

Inter-subjectivity cures a degree of this sickness that is at the root of our worlds psyche, because subjectivity and inter-subjectivity are inherently relational.

 

Unfortunately objectivity is inherently rapey as it creates an un-relational black and white power dynamic of write and wrong.

If something has a subjective element {and don't worry, everything does} then there is always another perspective, somewhere, and diversity is valued as the fabric of existence itself.

[Seth Ananda]

Senses are senses, consciousness is consciousness. How can you NOT know what reality is ? That is precisely the point. You are talking about subjective interpretations of reality, how you 'feel' about reality, reality is existent despite what feelings you have about it.

And the data received by the senses is subject to the tools used to measure them in the first place. Your next example is perfect to use:

If we go down a street together and I point to a car and say 'blue' and you say "no, it's red" and then we keep on down the street of cars pointing to various colours and disagreeing then we shall see at the end of the street that we just have different names for the same colours. Your blue is my red, green is pink, etc. in no sense do we disagree with reality and neither do we really disagree on anything but the formal naming of colours.

Say I am color blind?  Then I may quite literally not be seeing the same color as you.

Say I just had an operation to give me a mantis shrimps eyeball? Then I am seeing a whole host of colors that you will never see? Red tends to be red but we can not allways be absolutely certain about that.

The senses give inter-subjective data only.  

[Karl]

And the data received by the senses is subject to the tools used to measure them in the first place. Your next example is perfect to use:

 

Say I am color blind?  Then I may quite literally not be seeing the same color as you.

Say I just had an operation to give me a mantis shrimps eyeball? Then I am seeing a whole host of colors that you will never see? Red tends to be red but we can not allways be absolutely certain about that.

The senses give inter-subjective data only.  

 

How are you arguing Ananda ? What are you using to produce your arguments ? Haven't you used reason to establish what you think is real ? Aren't these concepts which you hold through reason as concrete realities. Can you have subjective subjectivism ?

You are arguing with me right now that this is reality for you, if it were not, then you would hold nothing as true.

 

The sensory data has to be checked for reality. It doesn't matter if you see red, blue or ultra violet. Reality still exists, because it exists despite your consciousness. Is the chair you are sitting on any less than a real chair if you suddenly discover yourself blinded ? Does it matter if you think it's soft, hard, comfortable, or uncomfortable, warm, cold, blue or black ? No.

 

You are trying to discover reality through subjectives. This is why the guru says " the sweetness of the Apple is not in the apple". Be the apple sweet or sour to one or the other, this is not the apple, this is your subjective perception of its taste. You don't go around an orchard pointing at apples and randomly describing them as sweet or sour. The apples exist, then you bite and taste one.

[Brian]

It is not that I don't comprehend your point of view here, Karl. Quite the contrary, it quite honestly took me more than four decades to extricate myself from the mind's sticky web. I am quite abashed by some of my earliest rants on the merits of logic and science when I first came here and I am thankful for the patient and caring souls here who helped me recognize some things I already knew. I am particularly thankful for having met an old friend.

 

Many here who are not accepting your view do so not out of ignorance but out of experience. You mistake a hand offered to help you out of quicksand to be one seeking to push you under.

[Karl]

It is not that I don't comprehend your point of view here, Karl. Quite the contrary, it quite honestly took me more than four decades to extricate myself from the mind's sticky web. I am quite abashed by some of my earliest rants on the merits of logic and science when I first came here and I am thankful for the patient and caring souls here who helped me recognize some things I already knew. I am particularly thankful for having met an old friend.

Many here who are not accepting your view do so not out of ignorance but out of experience. You mistake a hand offered to help you out of quicksand to be one seeking to push you under.

 

I do not doubt that those hands are offered genuinely. I thank those who offer them.

 

You say 'rants' on logic and science. The very word 'rant' is entirely descriptive of subjectivity. You had the feeling science/logic was right. I do not have any such feelings. I do not see logic as an appendage, it is just human reason. It is hard to debate 'science' as this is a methodology. It can be equally in error as poor science, as can poor logic. I'm only an adequate logician. Adequate in the sense that it is sufficient. I'm not interested in solving complex logic puzzles. I am not a scientist, so I'm not seeking to solve the many riddles of nature-fascinating though they are.

 

How can you 'extricate yourself' from yourself ? Find that one. Science and logic you have used impropriterly. You had made them a part of your false ego, the coat of personality that wraps around the bearer. I have no false ego, I have no use for one, I love reality, direct and naked. Logic is my shield, truth is my sword.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nikolai1]

http://beginnerszen.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/on-black-swans-that-old-canard.html

[Karl]

http://beginnerszen.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/on-black-swans-that-old-canard.html]http://beginnerszen.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/on-black-swans-that-old-canard.html[/url]

Incorrect. You change your definitions as you gain more understanding and experience. At the beginning of life you define a human as a child paints one. Salt might be first described as the thing added to dinner to improve the taste, then salts are bases and acids, then chemically defined compositions. A swan might at first be white, then it's seen as black. This does not alter the swan as an existent and a genus of bird, genus of animals, genus of living organism. We can define all things as living organisms if you wish, then out to all things existent in the universe and so a swan becomes one of those things.

 

People who don't grasp logic think that logic is rigid. If a swan is defined X then logic has failed when some variant arrives. They assume this must be subjective logic.

 

However, this is really further up the tree. You must use logic reasoning to make or hold any concept. It is as necessary as consciousness is. Subjectivity on tells you what you feel about a certain object, not what the object is.

 

Reason and logic are just better tools than subjective emotion for grasping the universe.

 

So, now, one for you. Please define entirely subjectively a swan.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Karl

[Stosh]

And the data received by the senses is subject to the tools used to measure them in the first place. Your next example is perfect to use:

Say I am color blind?  Then I may quite literally not be seeing the same color as you.

Say I just had an operation to give me a mantis shrimps eyeball? Then I am seeing a whole host of colors that you will never see? Red tends to be red but we can not allways be absolutely certain about that.

The senses give inter-subjective data only.  

Would you say,  or be OK with ' objective reality may be confidently inferred to exist based on inter-subjective data.'  Or would you say or be more OK with , 'there are no things which we receive inter-subjective data about ,and so there is no objective reality'? 

[Stosh]

http://beginnerszen.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/on-black-swans-that-old-canard.html

We both write the definition ,and check to see that a particular thing is in conformance relative to, the rules we set forth.

Its very clear to a taxonomist that things like species, populations, and races are somewhat arbitrarily defined. 

There's no logical flaw in this. 

Edited July 30, 2015 by Stosh

[Apech]

...

 

So, now, one for you. Please define entirely subjectively a swan.

 

Singing bird spirit.

[Karl]

Singing bird spirit.

 

Singing and bird are objective realities, I can point to bird and instances of singing. That leaves spirit.

 

Define spirit.

[Apech]

Singing and bird are objective realities, I can point to bird and instances of singing. That leaves spirit. Define spirit.

 

 

mid-13c., "animating or vital principle in man and animals," from Anglo-French spirit, Old French espirit "spirit, soul" (12c., Modern French esprit) and directly from Latin spiritus "a breathing (respiration, and of the wind), breath; breath of a god," hence "inspiration; breath of life," hence "life;" also "disposition, character; high spirit, vigor, courage; pride, arrogance," related to spirare "to breathe," from PIE *(s)peis- "to blow" (cognates: Old Church Slavonic pisto "to play on the flute"). 

 

Is pointing to things important to you?  What about ideas can you point to them?

[Karl]

Is pointing to things important to you?  What about ideas can you point to them?

 

Why would I try and point to ideas ? Ideas are objective realities to the person that has them, but they aren't objective realities to anyone else.

 

While we are at it, you just used an objective encyclopaedia with objective definitions. What Im looking for is a completely subjective description. One that contains no objects. As words are also objective, you now have a further task.

 

The conclusion is that it's impossible. It's impossible to hold any concept, discuss any concept. All you have is an indistinct feeling inside which may or may not represent a swan, because that feeling itself is subjective. It cannot be conceptualised. Even I have a feeling cannot be adequately treated.

 

 

 

 

[Apech]

Why would I try and point to ideas ? Ideas are objective realities to the person that has them, but they aren't objective realities to anyone else. While we are at it, you just used an objective encyclopaedia with objective definitions. What Im looking for is a completely subjective description. One that contains no objects. As words are also objective, you now have a further task. The conclusion is that it's impossible. It's impossible to hold any concept, discuss any concept. All you have is an indistinct feeling inside which may or may not represent a swan, because that feeling itself is subjective. It cannot be conceptualised. Even I have a feeling cannot be adequately treated.

 

 

Well I came in a little late on this conversation so I may have understood the purpose of your demand.  I think the problem may be in 'subjective description' since description implies the use of language and thus the juxtaposition of objective terms.  I'm not in agreement that it is impossible to hold a concept since we all do hold concepts all the time and since concept only means an idea which holds other ideas together - then we hold ideas also.  In communicating with each other - an intelligent person may say something which makes you say 'oh yes!' - a light goes on - what they said has sparked a conceptual understanding in you.  Now you could fall back on the unprovability of knowing that what you just realised and what they had in their mind are 'the same' - but that seems incredibly universal doubtist by which I mean it takes doubt to the absurd - though perhaps preferable to some.

[Karl]

Well I came in a little late on this conversation so I may have understood the purpose of your demand.  I think the problem may be in 'subjective description' since description implies the use of language and thus the juxtaposition of objective terms.  I'm not in agreement that it is impossible to hold a concept since we all do hold concepts all the time and since concept only means an idea which holds other ideas together - then we hold ideas also.  In communicating with each other - an intelligent person may say something which makes you say 'oh yes!' - a light goes on - what they said has sparked a conceptual understanding in you.  Now you could fall back on the unprovability of knowing that what you just realised and what they had in their mind are 'the same' - but that seems incredibly universal doubtist by which I mean it takes doubt to the absurd - though perhaps preferable to some.

 

I was trying-impossible though it is-to illustrate why objective reality is a necessity and not some adage. I don't believe you can hold a concrete concept if the ground on which the concept must be laid is in constant liquidity. It's like trying to build a house directly on a river, absolutely nothing holds up.

 

Subjectivist begin moving to a half way house at some stage because even morals are-for them-highly liquid. There can be no notion of it being wrong to steal or murder. It's all just produced out of the aether of consciousness anyway so nothing can be held as solid.

 

For my own part I can't see much point in continuing to add anything further. Subjectivist will simply see anyone showing them objective reality as being in their subjective conscious creation. I would make more progress talking to a rock :-)

[Nikolai1]

You've done good Karl - gracious, patient and generous with your word and time!