General quick discussion on Subjectivity Vs. Objectivity with a focus on Phenomenology and Ontology as the catalysts to how each person interprets their exposure and percepts within the world. Which forms an internal projection of the world around us (subjective reality), even in places around the world that we have only read about, but never had actual exposure.
Any claim of objectivity always comes from a 1st person perspective or a collection of 1st person perspectives. 10 people seeing the same event could come out of it with different interpretations or internalization's of it's significance, how something can have sentimental value to one person but not an other . It partly depends on peoples prior knowledge related the event and the way they interpret and make sense of perceptions in general. This definitely can differ from person to person, given the different ways people cope with life or events and deal with thought processes vs others. It's also something that understandably can develop overtime in different ways, how we analyze or deal with thoughts, events and our intentionality in the world. I would say there is an Absolute State - that exists regardless of peoples subjective realities, like for instance the presence of dopamine in the brain - was there before human discovered it, it just wasn't part of humans realities prior to it's discovery. The absolute state also consists of all the entities in the world and the mental states/realities of each person, which influences how they interpret things or act in the world. However, each person's relation to "reality" and the belief they have on what it means - happens through subjective experience. We give meaning to the world and events around us - which is what reality is. Theoretically reality wouldn't exists if there were no humans or no consciousness - things like Chairs wouldn't exists. There could be a rock that someone could sit on, but if there were no conscious life forms to sit there or have a use for it - there wouldn't be a word for it, or even a situation where it could be used.
As such, it's impossible to have true objectivity, what we have is Subjective-Objectivity. Systems that show the same results every time we retest it - however the results of all our systems in science are limited to it's current technology and illuminations on significance of the cause and effect between what we are looking at. Objectivity becomes what can be experimentally repeated over and over the same, but nothing can claim what it doesn't know or what hasn't been discovered yet. This is why science can have new breakthroughs or new discoveries at all - the understanding of the bigger picture reveals new insights and results into whats going on. Like new technological developments that can look at smaller particles that we couldn't pick up previously. Those change the way the studies look for results and can render old beliefs incorrect or updated to account for a great complexity, previously under our radar - so to speak.
A good example would be prior to the discovery of Ultra-Violent light spectrum's, you could run 1,000's of experiment monitoring the available light-spectrum ranges and each time they would come to the same conclusion, until they reached the technology that showing ultra-violent ranges and were able to expand our understanding of the world around us, which is our reality. The same reason you may ask a friend what they did over the weekend (if you couldn't guess) and they would have to give you exposure to it in order for it to become part of your reality. This is why censorship in the media works so well, it hides exposure and creates blind spots in peoples realities, by blocking specific perceptions. We each build our own internal realities based on what we are exposed to and the way we mold it into a tangible reality which can differ person to person. Although mass communication and propaganda by definition attempt to stamp the same stimuli and analysis on many people in the same way at once. People still come to different conclusions within what they watch though, it's what allows you to have an argument or debate with someone, you each have different internal realities =)
I would pose that what we deem "reality" is the projection of each persons subjective phenomenology. In other words, each person opens up an internal take on what is reality based on the experiences they had or didn't, the people/books and other types of exposure that influenced how they envisioned the world or how to act or think in different situations. We are world dis-closers, based on how we interpret what we see when we experience the world around us, obviously psychedelics can open up deeper perspectives, remove automatic filters that block different perspectives and also distort the stimuli that we interpret as reality. Think of the saying, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound, I think a good reflection on this is, if we don't have exposure to something from our 1st person perspective, is it part of our reality? If I had 1 tree in my backyard that fell down while I was on vacation, I wouldn't know it fell until I came back and saw what happened, or if someone else informed me. But even though I didn't see the tree fall when it happened, it's not that it didn't take place - its just it wasn't part of my reality until I was exposed to what happened (disclosure). I would say that the true Objective state is the interactions of all entities in the world overtime, that is the influences that lead to why people come to certain beliefs vs others - how it leads to their thought processes, intentionality and actions in life. Although, in order to understand the full Objective state (The Absolute) we would have to be everywhere at once and also have full contextual understanding from the eyes of each person in the world. Because the way each person interprets something as well as what they never see influences their analytical process and leads to real actions in the world which effects the history of mankind.
The objective state is the complexities of the interactions overtime, regardless of whether or not people are exposed or correctly interpret the significance of all the interactions - this is how things that were held as scientific fact, can later be proven inaccurate after new discoveries. Humans and sciences claim to what is objective or fact always comes from the 1st person perspective and is subject to all the possible distortions that can take place in human subjectivity or results made prior to new discoveries. Again, two people can share the same stimuli and same space/time experience and come away with different interpretations, like looking at a piece of art or political event. We each have a mental lens (Ontology) The significance that we can make from stimuli in the world. For instance a doctor might be able to detect more significance of an illness than someone who was never trained with a familiarity of what to look for, or what means what. Or a computer techie vs the person's computer they are fixing. They have different systems of making sense or dealing with objects/concepts in their world. That is part of how their subjective reality reveals their life experiences.
But ultimately we are all trapped in our subjective realities, that may be made up from a collection of other peoples subjective realities. But even science, finds new discoveries that expands the bigger picture. Like molecules for example, prior to discovering Dopamine - did that mean it didn't exists in our brains? Or that it was still there, just not part of our reality yet - because the primacy of reality relies on a 1st person perception overtime.
I've been on the verge of a psychotic break but as long as you stay rational, it's hard to actually break. Except benzos... can't stay rational on them XD
