The world is not objective

[L2R]

^indeed, but what in the case of mass delusion?

 

[yougene]

The experience itself still exists beyond any one subject.

Take the hypothetical that a group of people have a shared hallucination of a spider. The perspective is beyond any given subject. The question is, in what way do you derive knowledge from this situation? Do you then assume that the spider has an independent existence of you and may bite you? Do you assume that the perspective in which the spider is arising has an independent existence from you? Neither or both?

Being delusional involves having your reasoning capabilities seriously whacked out. But if this delusion is a shared phenomenological space it has an objective existence. How that space lines up with all the other objective phenomenological spaces decided in a more inclusive perspective.

 

[robhr]

There are 6.7 billion people on the planet, and every last one perceives things subjectively. Where's the evidence for an objective world? Objectivity itself is a subjectively-created and perceived idea .

that would be.. 'cause we're not there yet.

The universe does not revolve around us, just our understanding of it.

i love it! and yes we are insignificant!

I consider something to be objective if it is in a state that is unaltered by the mind. This perhaps implies that nothing can exist objectively because anything that exists has to be recognized by an observer. Things that we experience, understand, and communicate are products of our consciousness and, thus, are considered to be subjective. While I acknowledge this, I do not consider objectivity's value as a concept to be in determining things to be 'purely objective'. I consider its value to be in determining a thing to be more or less objective or as significantly objective or not.

That being said, I do believe there has to be something that is purely objective even if it cannot not be known or observed in any manner. After all, we recognize a universe that preceded life, humanity, and perception. Furthermore, we understand that life emerged as part of and in dependence on this preceding existence. This existence was not manifested by a mind yet we know it exist because it enabled life. It was only because life evolved the neural capacity characteristic of the self-aware mind that we know existence to be subjective. Yet the producer of subjective reality remains dependent on an objective reality. So I have to acknowledge an existence that was objective though, at the same time, is entirely unknowable, unobservable, and not understandable. And also I realize that the mind remains rooted in that objective existence through its dependence on it. So I have to acknowledge an objective existence continues to be even though it cannot be known to me.

I have to admit - that last paragraph has very little practical value. As I had initially stated, the value of the concepts lies in determining the objective/subjective significance of something in relevance to your needs. However, subjective/objective are really the same exact thing. Nothing can be known to be objective without a subjective observer. Nothing can be known as subjective without an objective reality. Thus, subjective/objective fail to accurately describe anything. Things are neither and both at the same time. And that really doesn't help you truly understand anything.

it did in fact all start with a mind, but other wise i'm at a yup.

 

[L2R]

The experience itself still exists beyond any one subject.

Take the hypothetical that a group of people have a shared hallucination of a spider. The perspective is beyond any given subject. The question is, in what way do you derive knowledge from this situation? Do you then assume that the spider has an independent existence of you and may bite you? Do you assume that the perspective in which the spider is arising has an independent existence from you? Neither or both?

Being delusional involves having your reasoning capabilities seriously whacked out. But if this delusion is a shared phenomenological space it has an objective existence. How that space lines up with all the other objective phenomenological spaces decided in a more inclusive perspective.

It is interesting differentiating between objective and factual. I think it would be a common mistake to confuse the two.

 

[yougene]

It is interesting differentiating between objective and factual. I think it would be a common mistake to confuse the two.

Yeah, I think the configuration is confusing in general. Knowledge of one perspective can be looked at as an objective experience itself from a more inclusive perspective. It's a differentiation that is filled with gradations of gray.

Looking at factual statements of a perspective isn't the only way to judge the degree of truth it contains. For example, take the shift from pre-operational to concrete-operational cognitive stage, or the correlate tribal to traditional belief system. pre-operational is filled with animism and concrete-operational is filled with dogmatism. They both seem non-sensical in terms of the statements they produce. Yet the belief systems of concrete-operational are the product of a consciousness that has a completely differentiated ego, whereas the pre-operational consciousness is not. That is the concrete-operational consciousness takes into account the perspectives of others as seperate beings, whereas pre-operational does not have this conception fully formed. Clearly the concrete-operational is a more inclusive perspective despite the fact that it's factual statements do not hold up to the leading edge of human development.

 

[Edvard Munch]

Is anyone else sick of the objective/subjective debate?

 

[ebola?]

Yup...I tried to undo it back there (never works ).

ebola

 

[satricion]

Well I mean the dichotomy is built in to the project of modernity. So no matter how much we try to avoid it, it's easy to slip back into thinking about subject and object as different things. And different ways of understanding human nature typically emphasise one or the other.

So yeah I mean it's tedious and the best theorists are working to overcome it but there's a reason it keeps coming back up and it's not because people are idiots.

 

[Shakti]

Well I mean the dichotomy is built in to the project of modernity. So no matter how much we try to avoid it, it's easy to slip back into thinking about subject and object as different things. And different ways of understanding human nature typically emphasise one or the other.

So yeah I mean it's tedious and the best theorists are working to overcome it but there's a reason it keeps coming back up and it's not because people are idiots.

I don't think it's a bad thing to think of things as subjects and objects. Sure its not the whole truth, but it's a very useful perspective. I think it's intrinsic to the nature of mind to separate the two even when we are simultaneously directly experiencing the ins and the outs of subjects and objects. It's a fine tool to use even once we understand the inherent illusion it produces.

 

[DrGonzo899]

Damn right OP. I'm there, here in the NOW, life is all about the interpretation of perception.

 

[Heresy]

Objectity in its purest form and I guess in a sense divine is not a presentable actuality. I feel like re-affirming the objective is one of those false problems with false solutions, the agreement only qualifies itself through affectives we shoot at eachother (good feelings and bad).

 

[Roger&Me]

This is a very complex issue, but it becomes pretty simple when you look at it from a new perspective: subject and object are not separate and mutually exclusive concepts, in actuality they imply each other and are two facets of the same thing.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ And indeed, I think there are a lot fewer situations where it pays to look at things ONLY subjectively or objectively, than a liberal arts education might have you think!

 

[Shakti]

yeah, I agree completely with these last two statements.

 

[BurnOneDown]

it did in fact all start with a mind, but other wise i'm at a yup.

I don't think that it all started with the mind. It seems obvious that existence is created by the mind. And it would be absurd to suggest that anything could exist without the mind. However, it would be equally absurd to suggest that nothing preceded the existence of the mind or that nothing is without the mind. The mind exists because something that preceded it provided conditions that enabled the evolution of life. Therefore, varied conditions and information existed before the mind and independently of it. That which preceded the mind might be considered to be completely objective. However, it is only objective because it is acknowledged retrospectively with the subjective approach of a mind. Therefore, it does not objectively exist without the mind. Nevertheless, to say that "it did in fact all start with a mind" seems erroneous because the mind did not emerge in and of itself. The existence of the mind is a testament to the significance of that which preceded it, and, although it cannot be known to the mind, certainly existed in some way without it.

Ultimately, establishing the rational of a preceding existence will be reduced to a familiar philosophical question; If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If no one exists to perceive information, does it exist? A sound only exists if vibrations constitute a frequency that can be perceived as an audible sensation that is acknowledged by the mind. So that tree certainly produces vibrations, but it did not make a sound because no one is around to hear it. Likewise, a preceding existence certainly would not have made a sound because no one would perceive it. Nevertheless, life could not evolve out of nothing. There must have been vibrations that - an existence that was not experienced. It may as well not have existed without subject/object distinction. Except for the fact that it enabled evolution. And when a mind searches for its origin the significance of a preceding existence is acknowledged.


-------------------------------------

But an existence that preceded the mind can not be accurately described as an existence. What exists without subject and object? Subject and object are existence. They cannot exist independent of one another. That is why, as other users have pointed out, this debate is absolutely ridiculous. Its conflict is based upon determining which concept is of greater value. However, such a conflict is fundamentally flawed because the disputed value can not exist if these concepts are isolated. Subjective/objective approaches are only meaningful in reference to the subject/object relationship. As isolated concepts, the frame of reference is undermined, and each approach is rendered illogical. Therefore, objectivity and subjectivity are better understood as two inseparable aspects of one concept.

 

[ebola?]

As I see it:

The world sans perception is somehow a nebulous and blurry constellation of possibilities...for objects, events, etc. THIS world is somehow incomplete, its form partially indeterminate. As the subject enters into and acts on 'the world' (perception functions as a type of action here), distinct objects, events, etc. emerge, and 'the world' crystallizes(if temporarily) into something more distinct, more fully formed, more actual rather than possible.

But it is a bit silly to deem the world sans an observer 'objective', I think.
I instead treat objectivity as a particular perspective: it is a useful myth through which the we engage the world AS IF we were external to it, our observations leaving the world 'as such' unaffected.

ebola

 

[Shakti]

But it is a bit silly to deem the world sans an observer 'objective', I think.

I think what inJest meant by this is simply that outside of our perception there is Form and a manifest reality we cannot directly perceive. It is simply creation/the universe just as it is. We could call that absolute object. Of course part of that absolute object (it seems) is subjects that participate within its progression, but that in no way undermines the point. Perhaps 'objective' is a silly term to use for it, but the point stands that because of this recognition we can assume there is some 'objective' reality that is true for all of us, a context we all are subject to.

I instead treat objectivity as a particular perspective: it is a useful myth through which the we engage the world AS IF we were external to it, our observations leaving the world 'as such' unaffected.

I think this is right on. Science and objectivity is useful and true enough to be valuable, nothing more. The same can be said for subjectivity.

 

[Z Y G G Y]

-there is a world out there in which we live (obviously)
-we were given tools to perceive it (sense of touch, hearing, smell etc)
-our perception might not be exactly the same as how the world outside is
-we perceive what we need in order to survive
-we all have a mind which is the center of that perception ability
-each mind might be a little different at how it perceives that outside world (subjectivity)
-we can never be sure thou to what extent the outside world is as we perceive it cuz all we have is our -individual perceptions and the cumulative perceptions which we can compare
-one of the ways we know that we live in the same world is that we can compare our subjective experiences and they are quite similar (when I see a chair, you see it also unless u are blind)
- so the least we know is that we all live in the same kind of a world, whether its only in our minds or whether it really exists, because we all share the same experiences when we interact with the outside world (you can not tell me that is not true because we all see the same physical entities, out feelings about things might be different, but feelings are internal and not part of the outside world)

This is my take on this, if its incorrect I'd like a coherent argument against it

 

[Shakti]

I only have one minor objection to your post zyggy. The rest is quite agreeable to me.

-we perceive what we need in order to survive

I'd like to think this is true, and it generally tends to be, it seems, but it certainly is not absolutely true. Consider all of the pollutants we have blindly released.

 

[ebola?]

-there is a world out there in which we live (obviously)
-we were given tools to perceive it (sense of touch, hearing, smell etc)
-our perception might not be exactly the same as how the world outside is
-we perceive what we need in order to survive
-we all have a mind which is the center of that perception ability
-each mind might be a little different at how it perceives that outside world (subjectivity)
-we can never be sure thou to what extent the outside world is as we perceive it cuz all we have is our -individual perceptions and the cumulative perceptions which we can compare
-one of the ways we know that we live in the same world is that we can compare our subjective experiences and they are quite similar (when I see a chair, you see it also unless u are blind)
- so the least we know is that we all live in the same kind of a world, whether its only in our minds or whether it really exists, because we all share the same experiences when we interact with the outside world (you can not tell me that is not true because we all see the same physical entities, out feelings about things might be different, but feelings are internal and not part of the outside world

One serious objection:
most of these tenants assume a world without subjects as part of it, dynamic parts who change the world, even gazing upon it. For example, you assume objects AS SUCH prior to their discovery/creation. I don't think that this view is tenable, but it's again a useful fiction/partial truth
.
You put forth a good description of intersubjectivity though.