09-29-2012, 10:47 PM
Very confuddled on the matter of objectivity and subjectivity.
As of Friday, August 5th, 2022, the Bring4th forums on this page have been converted to a permanent read-only archive. If you would like to continue your journey with Bring4th, the new forums are now at https://discourse.bring4th.org.
You are invited to enjoy many years worth of forum messages brought forth by our community of seekers. The site search feature remains available to discover topics of interest. (July 22, 2022)
x
09-29-2012, 10:47 PM
Very confuddled on the matter of objectivity and subjectivity.
09-30-2012, 02:09 AM
Small things are big
Huge things are small Tiny acts have huge effects Nothings lost everything counts
09-30-2012, 03:02 AM
09-30-2012, 03:44 AM
(09-30-2012, 01:41 AM)xise Wrote: Facts are subjective, concepts are objective. I always thought of it in reverse, with facts being objective but sort of unreachable and the concepts we form about those fact being rachable but "away from" the facts, that is to say, our subjective view on what facts are is not what facts are. And that all except "we come from a single point" and "we go to a single point" are subjective (less than whole truth) any ideas how these two could co-exist?
09-30-2012, 07:39 AM
Subjective = a matter of subjection to subject
Objective= a set course or goal to attain, a quest for a particular point That which is subjective is that to which we are subjected as a first hand experiencing of it. That which is objective is anything that we consider possible experience, or a matter that we seek to realize first hand, should we encounter it. In short, subjective is realized experience. Objective is unrealized potential.
09-30-2012, 02:26 PM
(09-30-2012, 03:44 AM)Cyan Wrote:(09-30-2012, 01:41 AM)xise Wrote: Facts are subjective, concepts are objective. People may have different names for certain concepts, but I believe in that some concepts are universal ala Jung, such as the concept of truth, unity, love or the archetypes. I do think things to get tricky when you apply concepts to factual situations, however.
09-30-2012, 03:53 PM
I liked what Q'uo said about it once: "In a world where everything is, in a clichéd way, relative, you can easily and comfortably accept the proposition that your experience is subjective. You may strive all your life to achieve objectivity, but you see, my friends, you are there. You are a witness, and that which you observe is observed according to your perceptions. The truth lies beyond perception."
_____________________________
The only frontier that has ever existed is the self.
09-30-2012, 04:54 PM
(09-29-2012, 10:47 PM)Avocado Wrote: Very confuddled on the matter of objectivity and subjectivity. This is a very traditional philosophical question- one of the big epistemic questions. It is useful to understand how we come to know things. How may we know, and what can we know? Are there boundaries to knowledge? Is knowledge always explicit, or may it be tacit? The common view is that rational, scientific inquiry may yield an 'objective' view of the world. Although the scientific community knows there is no such thing as objectivity anymore, they instead reach for the term 'inter-subjective', in which reality is a shared set of agreements upon observed phenomenological experiences. No matter what you study today, in any seriousness, will most people claim that there is a complete objective truth (the exceptions being positivists, and objectivists who have heavily modified their theories in order to 'survive' this criticism.) Knowing is dependent upon the body in which we inhabit. There is a particular paradigm that humans rely upon to come to understand the world. Let's take, for example, the viewing of a person's face. You may know this person's face as your friend, or family member. You can point out the particulars of their face, i.e. their nose type, their lips, shape of face, hair color etc. Do any of these particulars 'make up' this person? No, they are simply a part of the whole, of which we integrate all particulars into a meaningful 'object', in this case a human being. It's clear that we can identify a person by integrating these particulars into a meaningful whole, but we are at a loss to name each particular that belongs to the whole. How is it that we may look at many faces, even if they are similar, and almost instantly pick out the one we know? This type of knowing is clearly tacit. It is a realm of knowledge that is unspoken because it cannot be said, but it can be known by our body. Similarly, we may ask, how do you ride a bike? How do you do a backflip? While these actions can be 'broken' into particulars, one must integrate these particulars ('sets of rules') into a whole. You do not teach by telling someone to do something, but rather, by letting them doing it. They come to 'dwell' within that experience and integrate the particulars into a meaningful whole. It's not simply the mind that knows, but the body has a way of knowing too. This can be said not only of bodily knowing (physionomic), but of abstract knowing as well. These relate on different 'orders'. Our physical order experiences is the base-level of our knowing. e. g. we pull away from a fire due to our body 'knowing' that it is harmful to us, this 'knowing' is chemical-physical. Our awareness is the basis for knowing questions such as 'how' or 'why'- the philosophical order proper. It allows us to reflect upon the lived-experience, the 'world out there'. Our consciousness is a particular type of self-awareness. It allows us to reflect upon our own awareness. It relies upon the physical order to lay a 'foundation' for it's existence in this particular manner. That is to say, the physical order 'constrains' but also 'opens up' the possibilities for consciousness. Our awareness further refines this order, by holding all of our memories, thoughts, integrations of such experiences. It constrains us to this particular type of physical body, that of a human being, but that also opens up the infinite possibilities to act upon this body in anyway we wish. The order of self-awareness operates on a different set of rules, but the foundation of which is awareness, and further below the physical order. (A simpler example is as follows: A piece of writing has a 'style', this style is composed of grammar, the grammar upon the words, the words upon the alphabet, the alphabet upon utterances. Each of these 'orders' or 'levels' operate upon the level below it, but their realities are separate. That is to say, utilizing proper grammar is not a matter of knowing the rules for spelling a word, or knowing how to say it (although that is part of it), but the realm of grammar has it's own set of 'rules'. In the same way, style has it's own set of 'rules' which rely upon grammar, but knowing the rules of grammar does not give us insight into how to have a style, nor how to begin understanding it. It is on another 'order' or 'level' of understanding.) So we can see that there are 'orders' of systems of tacit knowing in which create the 'background knowledge' we rely upon every day when we experience and analyze the world. Meaning is 'upward facing', i.e. the rules and skills of lower level orders determine that which is above it, but we cannot understand the world 'looking down' the chain of meaning. We cannot understand the rules that apply 'above' a particular order, although we may have 'hints' of meaning. It's precisely these 'hints' that come from lower-level orders that allow us to understand another 'level' of meaning. In this sense, all of our understanding of the world comes from these hints of lower-level orders of experience. We understand consciousness by exploring the physical order (neuroscience, biology, psychology etc.) but this cannot yield an account of consciousness in full, because the rules that govern it are not made explicit in the lower-levels, it operates on it's own level. In the same sense, objectivity and subjectivity is a matter of how we come to know the world. We know it through our body, through the memories in which compose our 'background knowledge', the hints and intuitions we find through focusing on the particulars of the level right 'below' what we seek to understand. This has particularly interesting meanings for the culture of science- all science and knowing is permeated by personal experience, by our human condition, and of the our history as a race. It's therefore a very biased, culturally conditioned way of thinking that can only yield an understanding of the levels of which it finds. Science can only find that which belongs to the order of the rational, and even then, what it finds is what we seek to find through it. In the same way, all ways of knowing gives us hints in particular ways, in particular orders. There is no 'objective' or 'subjective' reality, there are many layers of realities that are ever emerging and converging through particular sets of rules. Crossing these realities is a skill of knowing, of knowledge of their operating orders, of their boundaries, of their functions. Obtaining this skill allows us to access certain realities, and share them with others, but this sharing must be shown. Just as one has to learn how to ride a bike through trial and error (experience), all other forms of knowing are the same. We may show the way, but it is up to you to 'open the door' so to speak. Perhaps that gives you food for thought on the nature of objectivity/subjectivity.
09-30-2012, 08:09 PM
(09-30-2012, 03:02 AM)zenmaster Wrote: What are your thoughts.Difficult to say. The confusion is more of a feeling than a mental state though. (09-30-2012, 04:54 PM)SomaticDreams Wrote: Perhaps that gives you food for thought on the nature of objectivity/subjectivity. Yes it does, thank you. I just needed a little food for my mind to get the gears turning. "There is no 'objective' or 'subjective' reality, there are many layers of realities that are ever emerging and converging through particular sets of rules." I understand this. I definitely can't show my work though. I just see it in my mind and can sort of point to it within my consciousness.
09-30-2012, 08:50 PM
(09-30-2012, 08:09 PM)Avocado Wrote:That in itself would be interesting to explore. Martin Buber had a great deal to say about it in "I and Thou". I personally think the question of viewpoints naturally arises as one considers the nature of free will. And if there is free will built into creation, it must apply to first density, at least in some analogous form, as well.(09-30-2012, 03:02 AM)zenmaster Wrote: What are your thoughts.Difficult to say. The confusion is more of a feeling than a mental state though.
10-01-2012, 01:04 AM
(09-30-2012, 04:54 PM)SomaticDreams Wrote:(09-29-2012, 10:47 PM)Avocado Wrote: Very confuddled on the matter of objectivity and subjectivity. Interesting, what you say of the orders/levels. I perceive from what you've stated that we, as the conscience, pierce only 1 level of the knowledge we focus on, though we can pierce many by being aware of the operation of the orders. If you, or anybody, has seen a video on YouTube titled Fourth Spatial Dimension 101, I am compelled to share the belief that a 4th dimensional entity is open to all dimensions of the knowledges. This would be theory, based on the information you've provided and the video. Anyways, I digress.
10-01-2012, 11:37 AM
Is everything subjective? Depends on the perspective!
But seriously- let's look at this in the context of the Law of One. In a nutshell, the Law of One says- there is only one of us here. There is only one consciousness, of which we each partake. Another way of saying this is: Everything is connected. This is an objective truth. It is not relevant to any other thing, and it does not require us to perceive it in order for it to be true. There are many who believe to their core that they are singular entities, living in a material world, and fundamentally disconnected from all other beings. Though their perception of the world indeed conforms to their belief, thus reinforcing it, their belief does not in fact change what is so. Everything remains connected. IMO- that is the essence of subjectivity/objectivity.
10-01-2012, 11:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-01-2012, 11:50 AM by AnthroHeart.)
No matter how much I read and try to understand the Law of One, and have the understanding that there is only one of us here, feeling that is another matter. I still feel a separation from other things. Is that the fate of 3D? Are we supposed to feel separate here, even if we had awoken? Or is that a path that I have chosen? Is it a rare thing to actually feel and experience the oneness with everything?
Even in the amazing dream I had last night with an anthro I was cuddling with, and feeling very connected, I didn't feel as if I were one with him. Perhaps that required an indigo ray transfer. I wonder if oneness is one big indigo ray energy exchange.
10-01-2012, 11:57 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-01-2012, 12:00 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
(10-01-2012, 11:48 AM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: Is it a rare thing to actually feel and experience the oneness with everything? Yes, I think so, GW. According to my read of the material, one of the big "points" of this density is to learn to "act as if" we are all connected, even though we do not directly perceive it. This is the foundation of the quality known as faith. Also- have you considered- the more you "try" to perceive Oneness, the further you push yourself away from the actual experience?
10-04-2012, 09:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2012, 09:28 PM by SomaticDreams.)
(10-01-2012, 01:04 AM)unir 1 Wrote: Interesting, what you say of the orders/levels. I perceive from what you've stated that we, as the conscience, pierce only 1 level of the knowledge we focus on, though we can pierce many by being aware of the operation of the orders. If you, or anybody, has seen a video on YouTube titled Fourth Spatial Dimension 101, I am compelled to share the belief that a 4th dimensional entity is open to all dimensions of the knowledges. This would be theory, based on the information you've provided and the video. Anyways, I digress. I should state that this 'accessing' of other reality is the emergence of novel realities created by human beings. As 'creators', we are able to create new realities. This emergence of higher level orders of meanings is our creation. Reality and meaning are therefore infinite. They reproduce themselves through infinite semiosis. There is no other 'higher order' of realities to reach but the ones we create. This seems constraining, but it actually means there are many, many realities in which to access, or infinite possibilities into one we wish to create. That is to say, higher orders of being (4D and plus) are not 'set realities' (they are sub-logos). Reality is not 'out there' ever, but it has been created by the experience and meaning making of all that is consciousness. These individuated bits of consciousnesses have created these worlds to experience consciousness in infinite ways. So there is a definitive order and pattern to the sub-logos in which we exist, being revealed through rational thought. Although this rationality has a limit to phenomena that is able to be experienced- the next density is one of understanding. Whatever the case may be, subjective and objective are just referred to as the experiential catalyst within the nexus of symbolic orders created by higher order beings to be experienced. That is to say, we are experiencing a particular ordered set of reality conditions, and our subjective experience is simply one 'reflection' of experiencing (and creating within) this order. Would it not be beneficial to explore an entire logos within many perspectives to learn the lessons it has to offer, rather than as a collective (which we see in part in 4D and more so as we graduate upwards?)
There is also something called intersubjectivity. I think we as a society try to be objective (thanks to the materialist philosophy that influences our "knowing") and sometimes gets a little subjective. The other piece is - intersubjective.
Intersubjectivity is how you and I share an understanding of a phenomenon. We agree on how we perceive something. We may not agree on every detail of some experience we shared together, but there is general consensus. Perception is the way in which you interpret the information captured by your senses (hear, see, etc). This interpretation is based on your "distortions" such as your learning, beliefs, experiences, etc. The human mind is a tricky one. Just because a person is a thinks that Jesus called him on the phone for a chat, does not mean he is delusional, although society would label him one. It is not subjective because he really believes he is experiencing it. It's not objective because we can't prove it. It's not intersubjective because we cannot share this experience or agree that the experience happened. He perceives things differently. Maybe he's "perceiving" from another level in his 3D reality and is getting confused. Maybe his brain functioning needs to heal. Maybe he is speaking to Jesus. Lucky him! Some of us believe that reality is constructed - that's the catch in this veil. We construct a mask of who we think we are based on the mythology that we create about ourselves because we have no remembrance. Our society, family, teachers, religion, or friends help us to form an approximate picture of who we are. We create our mythology based on our experiences and other distortions. This is maybe one of the "cards" that we are dealt with in this "game." We are indoctrinated and constructed in a way that makes it difficult to remember who we really are. To understand something subjectively, objectively or intersubjectivity... it's fine, it's a part of the 3D human function. To understand the truth of it is up to your heart . The brain is easily manipulated to interpret something in a way that is positive/negative. This is not your reality. It's just a ride... as Bill Hicks said lol. http://youtu.be/iMUiwTubYu0
10-05-2012, 02:53 PM
Wow. Intersubjectivity. That's such a useful way of looking at it.
It's just a ride. That's my favorite quote ever! Thanks all for contributing to this thread. I actually think some of the confusion is subsiding.
Glad it helped
I think when this ride is completed and we get to 4D, we may be able to have more harmony and compassion because we will be able to see things through the eyes of love. Subjectivity and objectivity will be the thing of the past. Our heart center will shine and we are able to see things more clearly... because a heart is our other brain. Or maybe this is my wishful thinking lol. We shall see when we get there!
10-05-2012, 09:38 PM
10-05-2012, 10:46 PM
Excellent point, zenmaster.
Could co-creating be considered intersubjective? (10-05-2012, 10:46 PM)rie Wrote: Excellent point, zenmaster.Sure. When I think of intersubjectivity, I think of mutual awareness of something held in common. Like being on the same page, but everything that continues to be subjected to consciousness is also simultaneously shared. Also, you are aware of the other being aware of that which you are aware. However, because they are using their unique experience to perceive the shared subject/object, they will have a somewhat different interpretation. But still, you absolutely know they are right there with you co-translating the emerging perception. During this shared-mind experience, each may also be verbally articulating a description of perception. And there is, quite effortlessly and transparently, a mutual awareness of thought processes attempting to evaluate.
10-06-2012, 12:27 AM
There is no other being. That's why "thoughts" come into mass consciousness.
10-06-2012, 12:39 AM
10-06-2012, 03:39 AM
10-06-2012, 08:33 AM
There is a lot of intersubjectivity on this planet at this time/space.
10-06-2012, 09:00 AM
(10-06-2012, 08:33 AM)Patrick Wrote: There is a lot of intersubjectivity on this planet at this time/space. http://www.gillespieclan.com/wp-content/...00x500.jpg I find this to be humerous and good use of catalyst
If there is no intersubjectivity we would have a challenging time I think. With the 3rd density limitation, intersubjectivity is an approximate explanation of what we are experiencing. It's how we try to explain things like empathy.
I just can't wait to get out of this density and have telepathy lol
10-06-2012, 02:48 PM
(10-06-2012, 01:43 PM)rie Wrote: I just can't wait to get out of this density and have telepathy lolA lot of people either want to leave this density or to have something, like and 'alien', come to this density. Meanwhile, they haven't bothered in the least to take advantage of the very catalyst which would enable the acceptance which fundamentally obviates such desires. This lack of work would seem to be unfair to oneself and otherself and is, ironically, the chief source of complaints about local life here in this density. |
|