Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Objective <> Subjective

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Objective <> Subjective Fri Nov 21, 2014 9:38 am

Objective


---Objective = World
The world preexists the emergence of a consciousnesses that then might develop a subjective relationship with it.
The quality of this subjectivity determines if it will survive and develop further into more precise, sophisticated forms of interpretation of the objective world.
The subject's survival depends on its level of objectivity.  

---The world, or reality, is (inter)active, dynamic, requiring constant reaffirmation and adjustment to it.
It demands adaptation and constant vigilance.

---Reality, and/or world = the sum of all (inter)actions.
Because the sensual method and the processing of the stimuli takes time (translating them into code, neurological pulses to then be transmitted and processes in the brain, reconstructed, interpreted as abstractions), the conscious mind is always lagging behind reality - a 'looking back'.
The noumenon is always a step behind the phenomenon.

---This makes the development of imagination, and its projected methods of dealing with this lag time, a survival advantage...based no efficiency.
The organism can preempt reality, by (re)cognizing patterns in the (inter)activity, then projected in time/space as a method of preparation
Ergo symmetry, order, patterns are attractive to the organism...and we call this beauty.

---The past/nature is never escaped, because the present, the presence (appearance, the apparent) IS a manifestation of this past.
Whether the subjective mind acknowledges this or not, is irrelevant.

---Nature is the sum of all nurturing = past.
You can train (educate) a subjective mind to imitate a behavior (thinking) that may contradict this past/nature, but you cannot help it escape this past.
When the controlled environment ceases to apply, it will return to its innate behavioral predispositions.  

---The world, as dynamic (inter)activity, determines the emergence of the organism, and the development of the brain, that will then evolve apriori methods, and senses of perceiving and of interpreting it, and of dealing with it.  
Interpretation means a translation of stimuli into forms the organic brain can use.

---Subjectivity emerges in relation to the objective world, not separate from it, nor determining it.
The mind does not will itself, nor does it decide to be this or that.
Consciousness, which we call subjectivity, emerges within the world, which preexists it, and makes it possible.
The mind does not choose what world to live in, unless it is sheltered and lives within a highly controlled, artificial, environment which an other determines, and maintains, for it.

---The world preexists the emergence of brains, consciousnesses, that will then become aware of it, as consciousness preexists the self-consciousness that might become aware of self, as another object.  
Subjectivity does not preexist and does not determine the objective world.
The reverse in fact.
The only way a subjective mind can shape the objective world, by intervening, (inter)acting with it, is by first becoming aware of it, clearly, and precisely and honestly - rationally, not emotionally.
It must work for it - agon.
Only then does the possibility of it changing the world rise.
If the subjective mind refuses the existence of objectivity, independent from its subjectivity, it remains, forever, a unwilling subject to its object.
Words, minus effort/work (action), have zero effect on the world.

---Because the (inter)actions of phenomena, are ongoing, making the world dynamic and not a static thing, the world is not knowable, in an absolute way.
It remains mystifying, creating art and the need for spirituality.
The mind then tricks itself, to maintain the illusion of knowability, by projecting itself "outside" space/time" in some "beyond", or "future," from where, like a god, it looks upon the world as a thing, a whole, a singular one - uni-verse.
The one, the singularity, is absent (absent absolute) within the world but, somehow, the mind contradicts this by abstracting it using imagination, as a universe. It considers its own simplified/generalized abstraction as literally the world itself - the dynamic, active, becomes static and complete ...and absolute.

---The objective world, reality, remains indifferent to all subjective interpretations of it.
It is the subjective mind that will face the consequences of failing to be more lucid and objective as it can, so as to increase its potentials of surviving within it.
Only sheltering prevents this cost from becoming severe, thusly making subjectivity another plaything for minds disconnecting from reality.   



****************************************************


Subjective

---The organism is a part of the world, and so a part of the (inter)activity, the dynamism, that makes it possible.

---It's predispositions, tastes, needs, are shaped within the world, it then slowly becomes aware of, guided by these tastes, needs etc.

---An organism is also a psychology, developed due to inherited organ hierarchies which determine its character and the degree each need dominates its consciousness.
This organ inter-activity decides which needs become more central to its (inter)acting, and the degree of their severity, felt as suffering.  

---Divergence in taste, between two different species, represent the specific needs each organism evolved, as a byproduct of its historical (inter)activity, its past/nature.
What is also evolved, are the niche focuses, and the specialized methods used to satisfy these needs.
These differences are similar between species, since all evolved on the same planet and have a shared genetic foundation.
What diverges is the methodology and the niche conditions with which each organism develops the tools to satisfy these needs.  

---Divergence in taste, between two individuals belonging to the same species, are even less divergent than those mentioned previously.
Slight variations in taste are determined by the inherited (genetically, nature) organ hierarchies, which shape the individual's character, and the environmental conditioning (memetically, nurture), which establishes the level each potential strength/weakness reaches.
None of this is determined by choice.
Choice is what happens within what is determined.    

---Consciousness precedes self-consciousness, which makes the process towards self-awareness a gradual one, and an uncertain one.
Similarly, the objective world precedes the emergence of consciousness and the subjective interpretation of it.

---The subjective interpretation of the objective world, and its accuracy, lucidity, honesty, clarity, quality, determines the subjective mind's survival within it. Unless a sheltering environment is established to protect such a mind from its own errors and delusions, making subjectivity a fashionable escape.
Because of this natural cost to a lower quality subjective interpretation of the objective world, natural selection determines which traits are passed on and which perish...again, unless protection of weakness is present.
Using this "cruel" method of selecting higher from lower quality subjectivity the clarity, accuracy and the utility of the apriori methods are validated.
This validation is ongoing, because the world is changing, it is dynamic, forcing upon the subjective interpretation a constant adjustment, adaptation...again, unless it is protected and sheltered from the world...for other reasons.  

---The subjective mind is a forager of patterns.
It is attracted to them because it is an ordering (becoming) dependent on maintaining patterns.
Patterns can be found is almost all (inter)actions (minus chaos - randomness), and are interpreted by the subjective mind as color, taste, smell, tone, rhythm, texture...and so on
Each sensually based interpretation is an interpretation of dynamism, a rate of vibration (energy).
Different rates of (inter)activity are interpreted as different hues, tones, and so on.

---(Inter)Action produces complexity and randomness, as the byproduct of its friction. (Inter)activity produces free-radical energies, as they splinter off the interacting phenomena.
Some settle on a more subtle lower energy, more complex form, or become random, thusly increasing entropy in time/space.
This creates the temporal direction, linear time, which life, as an ordering within the disordering, is a (re)action to.

---Order, symmetry, for the organism which is itself ordering, represents potential.
The organism evaluates, values, the potential, in relation to its own already determined needs.
Therefore, the particularities of taste are shaped by this internal need, manifesting as noumenon, in relation to the perceived phenomenon.
It exposes the organisms' weakness and its desired potentials in relation to its own lack.

---The value of the phenomenon is determined by this relationship of the subjectivity's organic hierarchies, its internal relationships, manifesting as needs, and the objective world, which is engaged via an interpretation, abstraction, translating the phenomenon into a noumenon.
Value does not preexist the emergence of life, or the consciousness which will then appreciate it.  
Value is determined only by this relating of ordering, demanding constant reaffirmation, and world, remaining indifferent to subjectivity, and exhibiting its own patterns and (inter)actions.
All value is a judgment based on a comparison, requiring consciousness, in relation to need.

---Will is the focus of aggregate energies, as these have been determined by organ hierarchies, upon an object/objective.
The object/objective is a projection, of an abstraction, and/or an interpretation, abstraction of a phenomenon.

---The organism in its need to sustain itself within the (inter)activity collects energies, from perceived patterns it (re)cognizes as more similar to itself; it appropriates energies from otherness so as to correct the damage done by temporal friction, and to replenish the energies lost due to constant (inter)activity.
if it is successful and it collects, appropriates, energies in excess of what it immediately needs, it directs said energies towards growth....creativity...pro-creativity.  

---Words, numbers, are the symbols referring to noumenon that may have a greater or lesser reference to the phenomenon.
Their "logic" is self-referential, once a basic apriori abstraction is taken for granted.
This taking for granted is founded on natural selection, but may begin to disconnect from reality if the organism is placed in a sheltering environment where its noetic methods, and their quality, bear no grave repercussions.
words/Numbers are symbols referring to noumena, which are more or less in reference to phenomena - they are approximation, which strive to become more precise...bridging the distance between subject/object, or noumenon/phenomenon, thusly increasing objectivity, clarity.

---The absence of severity decreases respect...as respect is a product of anxiety/fear...of loss.
This creates the circumstances for dumbing-down, psychological retardation.
No fear, no sever cost to an error, makes any delusion, plausible, or equally harmless.
Now persepctivism can become a soothing game of escapism, where definitions, interpretations, of phenomenon, the noumenon, can be inverted, disregarded, detached from reality - a game for children.  

---The need, the anxiety/fear the subjective mind experiences in relation to this indifferent, dynamic objective world, is so great that it must find patterns to comfort itself, increasing its survivability within it.
For some the fear reaches a level where they must believe in some pattern "beyond" time/space, or in the future, or some all-explaining order, to deal with it.

---The simpler subjective mind loses itself in the particularities his needs manifest as - as in taste, preference - and never delve deeper to evaluate the common ground between favoring red rather than green, or preferring fish to chicken.
For such a mind the fashionable thicker woman, versus the more athletic type, represents a change in choice, a democratic decree. He never sees the common ground of symmetry between the bigger girl and the thinner one...the 7/10 hip to waist ration, in women, or shoulder to hip ratio in men; he does not see the proportionality of limp to torso, or the symmetry in eye to nose, to chin dimensions.
He, so desperately wishes to escape judgment, natural determinations, that he is willing to submit to the absurd, exposing how foolish and cowardly he is, than to consider something else.

---When the subjective mind, obsessed with remaining and justifying all subjectivity as equally valid, speaks of "freedom" he means freedom from an objective, indifferent, mystifying, reality.
He wishes to detach from the world so as to become self-referential, solipsistic, and indifferent to the world which is indifferent to him.
This detaching is his liberation, his sense of relief, so gratifying that he becomes obsessed with its pleasing escapism.
Of course, this practice never faces the severity it would in nature, because such minds are protected from their own delusions, so as to shape them into more productive, automatons within the system that offers them this privilege.        

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:16 am

Separation of subject from Object


The separation of observer from observed, self-consciousness from consciousness, consciousness from world, is a necessary part of the subject/object dynamic.

Because life, the organism, is an ordering (Becoming) in the disordering (unbecoming, increasing complexity, and then randomness), its relationship with the world is negative, antagonistic, reactionary...nihilistic.
The organism must cut-away, using skin, bone, from the world so as to then gain the possibility of becoming aware of it, in its continuing struggle to maintain itself within it.
To begin self-organizing it must separate from the increasing chaos.
This is the start of the Becoming towards Being, and the solipsistic process towards self-referential, isolation.

This negative relationship creates the antipathy towards the objective world and may develop into a reversal through nihilism.
Nihilism inverting the positive/negative dualism it evolved to make sense of reality, by describing the world as a negative ( a zero, a nil) and itself as the "positive" (one) - resentiment.
The positivity of the world which makes it possible, is turned into a negative which must be escaped, distanced from, completely detached from.
To accomplish this paradoxical reversal it must project, into the beyond space/time, or some immanent future, its positive, ideal, object/objective, totally detached from the presence, the world, and more so from the past/nature, whose determinations inhibit this process of detachment.
Hypocrisy and self-denial, self-deceit, are essential psychological factors to begin this process.

All concepts are inverted.
The real becomes unreal...and the unreal, real.
The positive becomes negative... and the negative, positive
Life becomes death... and death, life.
Suffering becomes pleasure... and pleasure, suffering.
Male becomes female... and female, male.

This in-versability, using words disconnecting from reality, or noumenon with no references to phenomena, creates the delusion of freedom from reality.
Now reality is a human construct; it adapts to humanity rather than humanity adapting to it.

Man-made constructs, such as justice, equality, parity, humanity with no races and sexes, transcendental morality, and so on, become the "positive" and if absent this is the "negative".  
Artificiality becomes natural, and nature is turned into the artificial.  


**********************************


The separation of subject from object, is never complete, of course, otherwise a god would be born in the ensuing absolute state of Being.
The skin remains porous, and (inter)activity causes friction between the emergent unity, organism, and the world, via some phenomenon.
This friction is what the mind interprets as need/suffering, indicating a loss of energies that require replenishing, a separation breaking down, that requires healing.
Need directs the organism towards an object/objective, promising, according to its evaluations, energies, a potential for healing, for growth...power.
This promise is always uncertain, making judgment, and its quality, crucial in determining success.

This separation manifesting as the division of noumenon and phenomenon, that is then interpreted into dualism and binary logic, is the division of subjective interpretation and objective world...both being dynamic phenomenon participating within the same world.  
Biologically speaking the division point is the neurological network...that may then evolve a central processing hub, the brain.  
Here, the primal separation integrates internal stimuli (organ hierarchies interacting) and external stimuli (external hierarchies interacting) into a combination we call sensations, in their most primitive form, and emotions when they develop into more complex sophisticated forms.
 

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:05 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:35 am

The modern avoids the truth about his own inferior subjectivity, by leveling it all down, and dismissing objectivity as the measuring standard.
Their stupidity, blindness, romanticism, weakness, can now be excuses with relativism and "eye of the beholder" crap.

Consider this...

A retard, unable to see what the healthy one can see, will and can simply say:
"It's all subjective....you see colors and I see only shades. Nobody is superior."

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:35 pm

The subjectivist takes a human fabrication, such as moral law, and justice, and turns it into an objectivist target.
He confuses the reverse of himself, in the nihilistic paradigm of left/right, good/bad, absolute chaos/absolute order, for the reality the more sane ones call objectivity.

He is trapped in his own dualism.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 am

A separation, a distancing, a gradual detachment, is necessary for the process of ascension to begin.
A muscle must tear, must stress itself to the point of detachment, if it is to grow.
Then, the body directs energies to heal its contact with the stressful other, and this appropriation of excess energies is what increases strength.
The ascetic principle.

What holds true for the body holds true for the mind, the brain, which is part of the body.

Power is measured by the degree of indifference the organism displays towards otherness – this never reaching absoluteness, because this would make it a God, a Being no longer Becoming.
To care is to display deference, need, towards what stimulates this care; caring is to express dependence.
All life cares, because all life is imperfect, weak – strength being a measure of its weakness, just as awareness is a measure of its ignorance.
All life relates to other life on this lowest-common-denominator of shared weakness, shared caring.
Weakness is the foundation for ascending towards power, with omnipotence being the idea(l) absolute.
Ignorance is the foundation for ascending towards knowledge/understanding, with omniscience being the idea(l) absolute.

Life, which all life feeds upon, is intimate to itself because of this weakness expressed as caring, ergo to understand other you must find the source and the degree of his need, his/her caring, dictating his willful (inter)acting towards an object/objective.
The object/objective is this projected destination of bridging this distance between ordering self, felt as need/suffering (existing), and the promised final satiation, gratification of the idea(l).
For life to begin, it must separate itself (skin, exoskeleton, membrane) from the tumult of fluctuating (inter)activities producing, splintering-off complexities, and randomness (chaos).
It must separate from otherness.


Order, as repeating, consistent, predictable probability, is such a separation from the increasing entropy of expanding possibilities and diminishing probabilities, tending towards absolute randomness (absence of patterns).
An organism, being self-organizing, is this process of eliminating possibilities to establish an internal structure of probabilities, governing how the separate organs (inter)act within the organisms structure.
Openness to all possibilities is death...it is obliteration, and a return to the Flux.

This restriction of possibilities, within the organism's domain of control, is what self-ordering is, and the relationships established between the separate organs determines the organism's essence (nature), and its personality (psychology) - in other words how this particular emergent unity (inter)acts with otherness.
This restriction of ordering can only be possible through distancing, separation, detachment, and the degree this is accomplished determines its self-determination (sovereignty).  

For consciousness to evolve from simple sensuality, the nervous system must set itself apart from the body, culminating in the evolution of the brain, which then produces this dualism of body/mind.

For self-consciousness to emerge it must detach itself from consciousness so as to discover self as another, beginning the process of self-knowledge, and self-understanding which may result in self-control, self-empowerment.

Because detachment is necessary completion is not attainable.
There is always a part which remains unknown.
The absolute, even in the simplification/generalization of subjectivity remain unattainable.
The eye cannot see itself, but only  via a medium, a reflective other.

Emotions become the connection bridging this separating distancing between mind/body, which is only the brain/body unity with the nervous system being the connective network.
Evaluation, appreciation of otherness is the ascent from automatic (re)actions, using primitive sensuality, to a a more sophisticated judgment which increases efficiency and as a result effectiveness, depending on the quality of the judgment and of the awareness.
Consciousness is the separation of otherness based on levels of (inter)activity, later to become categorization.

The mind, being a tool of self-ordering, can only perceive patterns, degrees of order.
It cannot perceive randomness, or order too complex for its processing brain and its sensual acuity to discriminate in the flux.
Therefore, its method of processing (abstracting) and the symbols it uses to represent these simplifications/generalizations of the Flux will exhibit an internal consistency - they will have an internal logic...which is another way of saying order.
Nothing magical and mystical about this.  

The conscious mind, perceiving patterns in the Flux, discriminates one pattern from the other(s), making appearance crucial in the evaluation of otherness.
Difference, divergence, is how the mind separates patterns; similarity is how it brings them into understanding, by connecting them to what is known (collected data, experienced patterns), what is intimate, what has been experienced.  
Once this separation is accomplished with some degree of clarity, where the separating lines are more discernible and less ambiguous, the mind can bring this otherness into focus.

This "bringing into focus" increases the perception of details in the pattern, resulting in a more profound understanding of otherness - as a consequence this also makes the appreciation, evaluation, of other, more precise.
The observer can appreciate other more precisely than (s)he can evaluate self.  

This distancing is what creates the possibility of art, and inevitably results in the nihilistic seductiveness of escape from need/suffering, which both sets-up the standard for assessing value and is the sensation of existing as a constantly self-maintaining emergent unity within an indifferent, dynamic world.
Distance, or detachment, is this objectivity the subjective mind gains by detaching itself from its own emotions (automatic reactions to stimuli, based on needs), attaining clarity, or awareness uncorrupted by personal interests and emotional effects - pure sensuality of the artistic eye, mind with no body.
The sense of godliness, which at other times is mistaken for an external consciousness.
A return to sensuality can be approached with a heightened understanding, and, therefore, a deeper appreciation of sensuality and emotions.

The mind having attained the willfulness to detach and reattach gains choice, and by gaining choice (s)he gains power over self.
This is accompanied by an increase in indifference, a reduction of care.
This can only happen by turning knowledge of self, into understanding of self, where sensual stimuli and the emotions, automatic (re)actions it stimulates are made clear - they are brought into focus.
This detachment is what the division of subjective and objective is all about, the subjective conscious mind, separating from the world which now becomes an other, a thing, an object, for it to explore.

Anxiety/Fear is the primary emotion because of this relationship of subject/object as the observe to the unknown, uncertain, observed.
Understanding reduces this anxiety/fear by bringing the object closer to the subjective mind's experiences, finding similarities, it can relate to, in the differences already present in perceiving.

Objectification of self is this making of self into an object where no understanding is present.
The subjective mind perceives self as object, and because it has little understanding, and self-knowledge, it uses others to discern itself.
The other is the reflecting surface through which it appreciates itself.

This is where the other can offer a standard of appreciation which can shape identity.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:56 am

'What is', is different from 'what ought to be'.

The first is realism, the second idealism.
The first is focused on the Objective, the second on the Subjective.
The Modern is only interested in the second, because the first is what (s)he denies, rejects, fears, wants to "correct" with social engineering, which he calls "education", and "civility".

With the subjective approach, disinterested in exploring the indifferent objective world, the Modern can introduce emotional appeals, and self-interests, and personal motives as effective arguments.



_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:15 am

For the Modern, Subjectivity is about spreading a particular form of it - a meme, as I call it.
This training, education, civility, as they refer to it, is the absolution, the saving idea(l).
The particular Subjective viewpoint must be made into a popular one for it to gain a foothold in the real.

They are against "social engineering" and "eugenics" while proposing them as "objective morality", or "ontological value", or emotional reasoning or by using words with no meaning outside the human brain, such as: justice, good, fair, right, truth, God etc.
They believe that if you convince enough, if you seduce as many as possible, into this Subjectivity, this particular nihilistic perspective, the world, and they as a consequence, will be saved from an indifferent, Objective reality.

The rejection of Objectivity, in reference to a world that remains indifferent to human perspectives of it, is meant to cleans away the disrupting factor, so as to then appeal to emotion, and to establish their nihilistic Subjective (Modern) perspective, as a universal truth.
The world, objectively perceived, stands in their way.
It is the negative because it negates, contradicts, their unreal subjectivity, their detached from reality 'reality'.
They need words to refer back only to abstractions, and to emotions, for their goal to be achieved.
These, then, become their "positive" their one.

Philosophy, for them, is a debate over which Subjective perspective has the greatest emotional appeal; which one can become the most popular - reality by vote, by communal decree, where the world remains on the outside.

This is why they can only comprehend a challenge, an objective evaluation of lust/love, the central theme of their nihilism, as being the product of another emotion...hate.
The debate must be made one about love (eros), cleansed from lust, contra hate (thymos), full of anger.
Feminine vs. Masculine.
This is the only way they feeeeel they can gain an advantage.  

Nihilism, begins, by severing this connection between the noumenon and the phenomenon, so as to purify the noetic, and the word used to symbolize it, to the point where it becomes unreal, surreal, supra-real, hyper-real...a simulation.
Once this detachment has reached a certain level the appeal to emotion replaces the appeal to reason, and words refer back to human artifices, now dominated by emotion and sensuality void of a reference point.
It is this cocooning that makes the simulation virile and erotically seductive - pleasure being its reward.

Feminization

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:20 am

Within this particular nihilistic meme, this present Modern paradigm, not only is exploitation an evil, but the only "chosen to suffer" and become the face of human tragedy, will not relinquish center stage to any other victims.

10+ millions in he Congo, 20+ in Russia, and only the 6- stand-out.
Need/Suffering has a face.
It is a monopoly.
All forms of suffering are now to be compared to this singular historical event, that claimed its victims before a war was fought.
When identity is built around victimhood, then all must be assimilated into this meme by identifying with victims.

Innocence becomes the absolution from personal accountability, or from a world that cares not for human needs.

And so, Paternalism is torn down, the family crumbles, women are left on their own (independent now), children become fatherless, coming on-line or going into the ghettos to find an idea(l) to identify with...and what happens?

Women cry for help...again they are victims of their own declarations of freedom.
Who will protect them now that men have been turned into women, and pater is no longer around - she has left his authoritarian home, because she's declared herself liberated?
Who would dare rape a woman when they were under a family's care?  

Women want liberty without the risks and costs.
Like a child who leaves his father's home, because he feels oppressed, only to cry when those outside this house treat him like a product to be used and abused.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:14 pm

Dismissing past is part of the Subjective mind's required repertoire. Then it can redefine the past, or narrate it in a way that supports its present delusions and/or its preferred future utopia.

All events in its personal history, in particular, are reinvented, as time goes by, to satisfy their emotional needs at any given time.
At the end the subjective mind is left clean and pristine...innocent of all wrongdoing, all responsibility, accountable for nothing...another victim of otherness, and the big bad world.

This weakness is its strength
This hypocrisy is is authenticity.
This lie is its truth.
This pretense is its identity.

But only amongst hypocrites can a lie remain unexposed.
It lingers, unseen, in the mind, but it is never spoken of.

Courtesy amongst Moderns...
That which must remain unspoken, shall never be spoken of.
Unstated social contract.

Civility....politeness amongst thieves....
Nobody shall take from another thief.
Amongst the pretentious...
Nobody shall expose the other's lie.
Nobody shall tear-off the other's mask.

Subjectivity can remain unchallenged, as the shared agreement amongst fools and charlatans.

The unfortunate, for them, fact about all this is that the world, as objectively indifferent to human pretenses and lies, cannot be kept outside of these human preceding for long.
If it does not intrude, shattering the atmosphere of mutual respectability, in a vulgar way then it slowly seeps through the cracks as ennui.
The participants, themselves, begin to become bored of each other and the pretentiousness.
Though the push it towards the back of their consciousness, or only feel it as a mysterious itch in the back of their mind, they know, intuitively or consciously, that all that they say and do is a lie, or dependent on a shared pretense.

Their will to power, or will to life, forces them to peek behind the curtains they've enveloped their party in.
The cave dweller cannot help but turn his head towards the cave entrance, away from the shadows on the wall, despite the firelight.
He must see, though he fears that what he sees might break his carefully constructed lies.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Nov 30, 2014 3:31 am

Satyr wrote:
'What is', is different from 'what ought to be'.

The first is realism, the second idealism.
The first is focused on the Objective, the second on the Subjective.
The Modern is only interested in the second, because the first is what (s)he denies, rejects, fears, wants to "correct" with social engineering, which he calls "education", and "civility".

With the subjective approach, disinterested in exploring the indifferent objective world, the Modern can introduce emotional appeals, and self-interests, and personal motives as effective arguments.



Because "self interests" and "personal motives" are shared.
You can generalize about members of a community and arrive at a few reasonably general common interests and motives, because members of a community have a shared culture and a similar background.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", is a good example. It follows that the community might attempt to establish access and protection to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, provided by it's members and extending to all of its members.

"What ought to be", despite being an idealism, is also focused on an objective, not in a subjective as you said.
It aims to find a common denominator between all members of a group, thus it attempts to remove all that is subjective about the individual.
For example, it is understood by all that one values the property one has put effort into developing. It is therefore understood by all that if someone violates that property, the owner will respond with anger. From that it follows that one does not violate someone else's property unless one is willing to deal with the outcome of an angry reaction. Eventually you have an unspoken/unwritten "law" in which nobody touches other people's stuff.

If a group of much stronger men come into this community and violate the property of one, all other members might opt to rise to his defense, not so much for sympathy, but because of the awareness that they might be next, and thus there is a need to combine forces to neutralize the external source of instability.

We are social animals and therefore we have developed senses that go beyond the "selfish" rule of the strong. It is so hard wired into our psychologic construct that it is enough to sometimes elicit worldwide outrage at a case taken by all to have been an "injustice".

Not doing onto others what you do not wish for yourself is more than an empty piece of christian morality. It is a human nature based policy which enables the economic and cultural thriving of a community.

So "what is": a large male comes into your house and clubs you in the head, rapes your mother, takes all your valuables and carries off your son to slave for him. You are the weaker one so tough luck. Pump more iron in the next lifetime.

"What ought to be": if not the natural common sense of respect for private property, you fucking tell me, dear Wink
Back to top Go down
apaosha
Daeva
avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1560
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 31
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Nov 30, 2014 8:23 am

Objectivity via democracy, then. Uh-huh.

If a subjectivity is shared it does not become objective. A million people can jump off a cliff believing they will reach heaven. Won't make it real.

_________________
"I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Nov 30, 2014 1:04 pm

Should they be prevented from jumping off a cliff if they wish to do so?
Back to top Go down
apaosha
Daeva
avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1560
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 31
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Nov 30, 2014 2:04 pm

"Should"?

The first sentence from your quote of Satyr's post may prove instructive.

Reality is not affected by our interpretations of it. It's natural selection, I guess.

_________________
"I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Nov 30, 2014 2:28 pm

What ought to be is the theme of the post you replied to.

Believe in a god or in gods was understood to be an objective truth by many a civilization who has since vanished along with those gods.
In europe too, a belief in the objective existence of god was such that it was the basis of rule to quite an extreme (inquisition).

Fact is agreed to by all of us in this thread that the objective world exists regardless of our capacity to make out what it is. As our knowledge progresses and our sensory tools improve, our understanding of what is objective also changes.
Back to top Go down
apaosha
Daeva
avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1560
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 31
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Nov 30, 2014 3:19 pm

You're asking me for my subjective estimation of what ought to be done about theistic lemmings.

I'm just saying that the existence of belief does not somehow create the subject of belief in reality. Their wish, their hope, their need, however strong, does not alter what is.

SPLAT!!

Subjective does not become objective in this way: reality decides.

Quote :
As our knowledge progresses and our sensory tools improve, our understanding of what is objective also changes.

Yes, our understanding, the subjective itself, as it is inaccurate and incomplete, constantly revised and corrected. Also it is relative to what it understands, the object, reality: which is constantly changing. It is an observer and must shape itself to what exists independent of it.

People who can't shape themselves to reality go splat, simply.
The main subject of this forum however is that the current system is engaged in a project to actively prevent such people from going splat.... which will have devastating long term consequences for everyone. But that's another -subject-.

_________________
"I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2025
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Nov 30, 2014 3:58 pm

phoneutria wrote:

Believe in a god or in gods was understood to be an objective truth by many a civilization who has since vanished along with those gods.


It was understood as truth by many, but I'm not convinced about the 'objective' part.
In those days 'subjective' didn't come with the accepted modern truth of, 'if it's subjective then it doesn't warrant killing anybody over it, or persecution'.
Even more so, they probably didn't even think in the way of 'subjective' versus 'objective'. You either believe in that truth or you are not part of that religious community.

Quote :
As our knowledge progresses and our sensory tools improve, our understanding of what is objective also changes.

Our understanding of 'what is' changes but about it becoming more objective...  that era is over for now, at least for the average person.
A TV set is magic for most people. They know it's based on engineering and 'science' but what and how it actually works is a big mystery for most. And if I don't understand how it works then the words 'engineering' and 'science' could also refer to some holy text.
Priests of old age held power over the population - it worked, it was real, they held power over them.

The capabilities to be more or less objective are found in the individual. And that capacity has not been selected for in a long time. A bunch of Elois can be surrounded by lots of technology and libraries filled with books on nature, all having been researched by very objective people and still they might not be capable of being very objective themselves.

'Our' knowledge... tsssk, now we are objective because we have books on stuff. If I can't look into nature and be objective to a certain degree about what I perceive then I doubt I'd be very objective when reading a book. Both can and must be interpreted - and people can even choose to ignore and slander books they don't find to be 'objective'/to their liking.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Nov 30, 2014 5:05 pm

I agree, apaosha, that believing something doesn't make it real.

To say that an absolute depiction of the objective is not possible does not equate to say that all depictions of the objective are equally good. That is the fallacy of subjectivism.

Our understanding of the world changes, improves, is uncovered, is sometimes covered back up... Different cultures come to different perceptions at different times. Better sensory tools yield better approximations. Their accuracy against the real determines their success.

How do you establish, then, what ought to be acceptable conduct within a society?
By aiming at the objective. The objective, unknown, but its approximate perception as understood by the whole of the group to be a common among them.
In matters in which there is no common ground, in other words, in matters where two or more subjective views diverge, the stance is to allow for both. Religion is an example of that. Hence, if someone wants to reach heaven by jumping off a cliff, they ought to be free to do so.

In other words, there is an objective world, and we know enough to know that we can't know exactly what it is, and thus we allow for more freedom than other cultures do.
Back to top Go down
Magnus Anderson

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 164
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : Serbia

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Nov 30, 2014 7:20 pm

Quote :
"What ought to be", despite being an idealism, is also focused on an objective, not in a subjective as you said.

Ideals are derived from the real (they belong to the real), that is true. For example, the way I should interact with people is not an arbitrary choice, it is a choice grounded in reality, since every option has a different set of consequences, consequently, different value (hence, strictly speaking, every "ought" is "is".)

His "what ought to be", however, refers to people who are pressured to shape their habits and who are, unable to do so, forced to spend all of their time deceiving themselves they can shape the world around them.

Quote :
In other words, there is an objective world, and we know enough to know that we can't know exactly what it is, and thus we allow for more freedom than other cultures do.

And the real reason people allow for more freedom is quite simply because they can't forbid anyone anything, not because that's the smarter decision (because it isn't.)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
apaosha
Daeva
avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1560
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 31
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Nov 30, 2014 8:15 pm

This forum concerns itself with an honest appraisal of reality. To see. Judgment is separate from that. Each individual brings his own motivations as to what is to be done with the information presented here.
The is is here, not the ought. The ought is commonplace. This culture concerns itself with how reality ought to be corrected, exposing how dissatisfied with itself it truly is.

Aside from that, all individual perspectives are not equal, therefore there is a hierarchy of perception based upon degree of accuracy. So creating a universal consensus subjectivity is not viable, especially given the many degenerate, deluded and/or insane fucking retards around.

No agreement necessary. Can you see what I see? That is the only relevant question.

_________________
"I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:48 am

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] = cultural war, ideological war, memetic war.
War fought using words, expressing ideas, and ideals.
Cold War.

Subjective = consciousness, awareness, sensuality, interpretation.
Static = an abstraction, a mental-model.

Objective = world, reality.
Dynamic = fluctuating (inter)actions.



The subjective is in reference to an objective otherness.
The world is always partially perceived, and unknown.

Evolution = The subjective mind (brain interactions, processes) is in various degrees of ignorance in relation to the objective world.
It inherits, via genetic code (experiences, knowledge passed on via the gene), a formula of (re)acting to this unknown, fluctuating world, which the organism, being constantly ordering, self-organizing, adds to and may, or may not, pass on these experiences to its offspring.
Natural Selection = those that cannot adapt their inherited knowledge to the current circumstances, is filtered out of the gene pool.
Culling.
If it is protected, by an other, its unfit, in relation to the current, genes are propagated.
The motive of this other should now become an issue.

In our "current" Modern circumstances this protection is a fact.
The ideological warfare is between reality and this sheltering idea(l), which adopts nihilistic methods to maintain self-cohesion.

The war is internal to this sheltering meme, because it has no reference to anything outside of it.

The evolution of the meme from religious towards secular forms is part of its adaptation to world circumstances, and part of its annulling processes.
To become worldly, viral across cultures, it must reduce its self-referential ideas, using words, to the lowest-common-denominator.

In this case numbers, as a language (math) of extreme abstraction, takes over from words, finding the lowest-common-denominator in the simplest neurological process of binary logic, resulting in linguistic dualism.

The fear of this objective, uncertain, unknown world is so great, for the subjective organism, that it first succumbs to anthropomorphizing the world so as to make it more intimate to it...and then, in our time, it presumes an underlying universal logic, a pattern that all existence follows, becomes the replacement of this previous more primitive method.
With the first the absolute is placed "outside" the world, outside time/space, whereas with this secular form the absolute is taken for granted as the world itself.
The God IS the world, and in both cases He is rational, and good.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Dec 01, 2014 4:09 pm

No safe and/or easy way bridge subjective, perspective (care), and objective, world (indifference).
Trial and error rules apply...also called natural selection, culling, but if a sheltering environment is in practice then the natural selection rules shift to social selection, or memetic filtering, where the standards of selecting are determined by the meme's idea(l)s, indicating its principle motives.

As always one begins with observation (first-hand, experience, second-hand, knowledge) to create understanding (appreciation of patterns).
This is the noetic, theoretical part of engagement.
From there we move to the application of theory to pragmatic circumstances, or the testing phase, empiricism, over time.
Theory, hypothesis is tested in time, and in different situations, using others as the target projection of self = imagination.

And finally the personal application of the conclusions derived from 1 & 2.

If there is a discrepancy between 1,2,3 then there is an error present.
A virus, like a computer ones, in your mental "software".

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Dec 01, 2014 5:33 pm

Feminine Nihilism = pure nihilism - negative nihilism
Absolute Randomness, chaos, its projected absolute, idea(l).
Surrender to the power of entropy.
Amongst the female they joy of surrendering to what no man can ever match (power with no face) - male as idealistic, nave laughed at by those who see the weakness in all organic life.
Amongst the male the acceptance of one's own weakness before the inevitable as the only thing left for him to choose.
The naive form fantasizes chaos as a sweeping away of all that keeps him emasculated; a new beginning full of new promises - Anarchy.
A cleansing away of Armageddon, and the great flood.  
   

Masculine Nihilism = duplicitous, seductive, nihilism - positive nihilism.
Self-contradicting as it negates the real and offers an alternative more real real - exposing paradoxes, such as the power of the meek gaining power through their meekness, or the victims becomes masters through their victimhood.
Absolute Order, the promise of a finality, an end to the experience of existing (need/suffering) - agon.
The salesmen present themselves as a means towards this final end, usually in the form of a God or an absolute solution to all that ails the existing.
Females and emasculated males are seduced by the promise.
Presenting self as a means, a conduit, towards this promised end, the priestly kind (power, masculinity, through association); the snake-oil salesman who avoids the average female's scorn, and her naturally born cynicism.  
The skepticism that keeps her searching for the idea(l) male.
Totalitarianism of mind and spirit is its promised state.

Beware of the one who comes to you, humbly promising the world, using easy to apply methods...usually, no more than a change of perspective, faith a suspension of doubt, a sacrifice of reason, and of sensuality, is all that is expected.
The female, thinking she is acting freely, serves as the gene/meme filtering mechanism, adapting her judgments, and tastes to the environmental conditions, believing she is making rational choices when she is intuitively adjusting to what she was raised to be.
Therefore, in more austere, challenging circumstances the more masculine is preferred, whereas in less austere, safer, environments the more effete is preferred.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:15 pm

The sensation of pleasure, being the most primal form of judging, indicates that the organism is in-tune with its past, as it manifests I the present.
An animal need not have a large cerebral cortex, and understand much, for it to feel this neurological sensation.
The nervous system being the nexus of mind/body, interprets this agreement of mind with body as pleasure - the interpretation of it.
But man, having a larger brain and the ability to project beyond the immediate, can project an object/objective which he assumes will result in this pleasure outcome, this side-effect of mind/body harmony.
The expectation of pleasure might give him/her the immediate sensation of it, since man can exist in a time/space broader than that of a simpler organism - having a deeper (longer, broader) perceptual-event-horizon.
Pleasure is not the end, but the sensation, the side-effect, the interpretation of an end being attained, an object/objective reached, which places the mind, which is projecting the object/objective as a goal, or an idea(l), with the body, which is always a manifestation of the past, in the present (an appearance).
Making pleasure an end (hedonism) is accomplished by sacrificing clarity as to how and why one experiences this side-effect, reducing "goodness", or any idea(l) to an accident, or a simple sensation with no understanding of it.

Of course pleasure can also be attained by using chemical, or artificial methods.
In this case the perceptual-even-horizon is shrunk, or its connection to reality is partially severed, to the level of an animal, making the harmony between the mind's projection, into the future, and the body's representation of the past more easy to maintain.
Dumbing-down or shrinking the mind's perceptual-event-horizon, by stunting development (retarding the organism's fulfillment of its potentials), is another way to achieve this pleasure reward.
A simpler mind (shallow perceptual-event-horizon) is easier to please, is troubled by less, cares about fewer things, and quickly forgets, being absorbed by the next promising object/objective.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:52 pm

The objective, the world, is neither good nor back, neither full nor empty, but it is only in relation to the subjective mind that it is interpreted as such.
The world just is, and by "is" one does not imply a static thing, but a dynamic (inter)acting aggregate of processes - Flux.
Some patterned and others not.

It is the subjective mind that arrests it into thingness (abstraction, singularity), and judges it, using self as the standard.
It is in elation to the organism that the world is slower or faster in fluidity; is useful or useless; is good, or bad or neutral.
It is the organism that needs, and lacks, in relation to a increasingly chaotic world.
In relation to the subjective mind's needs, to remain subjective, or judging self-organizing, emergent unity, is the world dynamism problematic, a stress upon its organizing.

The organism, cares, in that it is interested in maintaining its own organization, before it directs energies towards increasing, expanding this organization.
It is self-organizing.
It is struggling to maintain itself within the Flux, even if it is unaware of it.
It is in a state of agon = constant, unending, need, struggle, battle.
When its aggregate energies suffice it is in a comfortable state... when not it is in decline, deteriorating, in (dis)stress.
When it is stressed its perceptual-event-horizon shrinks...its need becoming increasingly immediate.
When it is comfortable it can project further in space/time, contemplating its own existence by turning this perception inward, ro back upon self.
This also increases the sources of potential (dis)stress, and, consequently, of potential pleasure.

The organism emerges, as a remnant of this near-absolute, which becomes increasingly possible as time/space expands towards infinite possibilities, or a uniformity of possibility where probability slowly diminish.
There is no willing of self, no sell-valuing, there is an slowly increasing possibility that an organization will emerge which will become self-organizing in the increasing chaos.

in relation to a organism, a consciousness, a rock is not willing, not self, not valuable in and of itself, a rock is a (inter)action of different rated of flow, fluctuations, arrested by the conscious mind as a thing, by detaching, discriminating, it away form the background.    
This is what I call simplification/generalization.
Essentially, the conscious mind cuts away dimensions so as to construct the abstraction.
The stone can be a pebble, then a granule of sand, then a particle, then a vibrating string, and it can be part of a pile of stones, a hill, a mountain, a landscape, a planet, a solar system...and so on.
The mind turns each level of perception into a thingness.    

The rock does not resist the organism, this is projecting a will, a motive where one need not be present. The stone, being made up of different rates of flow, different elements, is slower in its fluidity, compared to the observing consciousness, and so it appears, is intercepted, as solid, and as resisting the organism's will, as if it were willfully doing so.

When man shatters a rock he shatters the (inter)action, with as much force needed. the force determined by the different in rates of flow between the stone, the (inter)activity, and the observing, organism.
To shatter a homogenous element, a pure element, would require to break apart its pattern of flow; breaking its order, releasing chaos from its ordered state...some settling in lower forms of order while others remaining pure chaos, as in random.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Dec 01, 2014 7:54 pm

The mark of a truly aware subjective mind is its ability to perceive subtle patterns in what, for another, appears far too complex to make sense of.
This reduction to the simplest, the most general, is finding the lowest-common-denominator, within the particular amalgamation of processes.

But to do so without losing sight of the bigger picture, is to find that lowest-common-denominator, this most subtle of all patterns, without losing the complexity it produces by participating within it.
This is the connection of the lowest to the highest, from the bottom upwards, from the past towards the future, through the immediate present.
This (re)cognition of the most subtle pattern in the complexity of (inter)activities that make-up an organism, an organization, is the (re)cognition of its most basic behavioral pattern.

All complexity is added to it, as a byproduct of its (inter)activity, accumulating mutations, corruptions to this basic behavioral pattern.
By (re)cognizing this basic pattern and comparing it to the presence, one can discern the path the organism has taken.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:31 pm

There is no point in time/space.

The line, being a series of points, is also a human artifice that has no meaning outside the human brain.
Therefore, all geometric shapes are human constructs...the square, the triangle, the circle and its radius.

Geometry, and the units of measuring it, are all a projection of noetic artifices upon a dynamic reality that has no thing, and no static point.
Using the apriori methods evolved to simplify/generalize existence man builds, prosthetics, approximating what is most intimate to him.
He externalizes, projects, reproduces, simulates, what is known, and understood, by him.

Then he lives immersed within his own artifices - subjectivity looping back upon itself, reflecting off of its own projected constructs and object/objectives, until everything around him reflects back to him his own self.
Everywhere he looks he sees his own thoughts reflected back to him.
At this point the objective world is forgotten.

Now man begins to live in a world of his own making.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:59 pm

When I say, I AM my action,,, does this mean the structure that evolved to perform a certain function is inseparable from that function?

My eye IS the seeing?

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 2:04 am

Anfang wrote:
phoneutria wrote:

Believe in a god or in gods was understood to be an objective truth by many a civilization who has since vanished along with those gods.


It was understood as truth by many, but I'm not convinced about the 'objective' part.
In those days 'subjective' didn't come with the accepted modern truth of, 'if it's subjective then it doesn't warrant killing anybody over it, or persecution'.
Even more so, they probably didn't even think in the way of 'subjective' versus 'objective'. You either believe in that truth or you are not part of that religious community.

"You either believe this truth and profess it, or you shall die by fire, hanging, drowning, or sword" is pretty much taking that truth as objective to an absolute extreme. Accepting that some do not believe and should simply be excluded from the community was not really what happened. Crusades happened.

Quote :
Quote :
As our knowledge progresses and our sensory tools improve, our understanding of what is objective also changes.

Our understanding of 'what is' changes but about it becoming more objective...  that era is over for now, at least for the average person.
A TV set is magic for most people. They know it's based on engineering and 'science' but what and how it actually works is a big mystery for most. And if I don't understand how it works then the words 'engineering' and 'science' could also refer to some holy text.
Priests of old age held power over the population - it worked, it was real, they held power over them.

When a person is willfully ignorant of their environment even in the presence of easily accessible information, I do not think that that situation equates the times in our historic past when information was kept in monasteries and castles and the average person was not even allowed to be taught to read.

Regardless...
What I mean by become more objective is that we are able to sense more. At first all we had was our wit and our blind eyes. Then came lenses, microscopes and telescopes, enabling us to see that there is much more to matter than we were ever able to see before. Then came satellites, particle colliders, pcr amplifiers, electronic microscopes, spectrophotometers, oscilloscopes... our ability to sense is improving, and with it our knowledge, and with it our ability to sense back again, in a feedback loop. Our wit of course still is the main tool to draw meaning from sensed data.

Quote :

The capabilities to be more or less objective are found in the individual. And that capacity has not been selected for in a long time. A bunch of Elois can be surrounded by lots of technology and libraries filled with books on nature, all having been researched by very objective people and still they might not be capable of being very objective themselves

The deepening of knowledge requires specialization. In order to understand proteins for example, one must forego pursuing astrophysics, simply because there is too much to know about both, and much more to be found. Neither the biochemist nor the astrophysicis though, should forego the principles of nature which enable us to live in this world, something that a passionate scientist commonly does.
Nature will eventually sort it all out.

Quote :

'Our' knowledge... tsssk, now we are objective because we have books on stuff. If I can't look into nature and be objective to a certain degree about what I perceive then I doubt I'd be very objective when reading a book. Both can and must be interpreted - and people can even choose to ignore and slander books they don't find to be 'objective'/to their liking.

As I said, wit is still our main tool.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 2:08 am

Lyssa wrote:
When I say, I AM my action,,, does this mean the structure that evolved to perform a certain function is inseparable from that function?

My eye IS the seeing?

What purpose is there to an eye in the complete darkness?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 2:34 am

apaosha wrote:
This forum concerns itself with an honest appraisal of reality. To see. Judgment is separate from that.

Each individual brings his own motivations as to what is to be done with the information presented here.
The is is here, not the ought. The ought is commonplace. This culture concerns itself with how reality ought to be corrected, exposing how dissatisfied with itself it truly is.


Beyond an honest appraisal of reality, this website takes the extra step of stating that society's current "ought to bes" are wrong. Too bad it offers so little in terms of tentative replacements ". So we have "ought nots", but nothing in the way of new "oughts". Do you not think it is a subject worth of your precious time? What ought we to make of ourselves once we have removed all which does not align with reality as honestly appraised here?

Thus it appears to me that judgment is very much engaged in, on here. What isn't engaged in is any form of consequence resulting from these judgments.

You're wanking at the walls and waiting for the flies to do the deed.

:thumbs up:

Quote :

Aside from that, all individual perspectives are not equal, therefore there is a hierarchy of perception based upon degree of accuracy. So creating a universal consensus subjectivity is not viable, especially given the many degenerate, deluded and/or insane fucking retards around.

No agreement necessary. Can you see what I see? That is the only relevant question.

It is obvious that a perfect consensus can never exist. A common denominator, however, can.

Example #1: nothing that lives and is healthy and sane wishes to die.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:35 am

Lyssa wrote:
When I say, I AM my action,,, does this mean the structure that evolved to perform a certain function is inseparable from that function?

My eye IS the seeing?

In my mind the organ, the body is the past manifesting in the present - a presence.
The eye is the act of seeing, of sensing, manifesting, as a past in the present.
It is an extension of the nervous system.

The eye gather stimuli, and what we call seeing happens in the brain where this stimuli is processed and abstracted.

My body, in general, in this past manifesting as a presence, expressing a Becoming, a history, a past/nature.
It is acting, or (inter)activity as presence, interpreted by the observer as form, texture, color, smell etc.
It is the interpretation of all the aggregate processes, internal hierarchies and how they (inter)act, (inter)relate.
Internal in the sense that they are encased in a membrane, a skin, a skull so as to maintain them as a cohesive self-organizing.

My behavior, my actions are all these internal workings, determined by the past/nature, directed by a will, focused upon object/objective.

So, yeah, I is not acting, I IS action. Eye is not seeing, but in conjunction with the nervous system it is a part of, an extension of, it IS seeing, or sensing.
The entire nervous system is the network of sensing: stimulation via a medium, translated, interpreted, into neural pulse, transmitted to the brain where it is translated, interpreted, again, using a apriori methods into what we call sense, awareness, abstraction...later to be symbolized by geometrical shapes, words, math, sound.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2025
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:37 am

phoneutria wrote:
"You either believe this truth and profess it, or you shall die by fire, hanging, drowning, or sword" is pretty much taking that truth as objective to an absolute extreme. Accepting that some do not believe and should simply be excluded from the community was not really what happened.

Exclusion from the dominant faith meant in those days exclusion from the community - to be outlawed. But what you are doing here is making the degree of objectivity or the approach towards objective truth about social conventions.
I am saying that there was no argument about the degree of objectivity of an observation in those matters, in those days. The inquisition does not have to argue about the objectivity of their convictions. Deus vult - God wills it. God has the property of a subject - his judgement is subjective. No discussion about the 'objectivity' of this will required to murder.



* * *

Objectivity has become a word, a concept, to hide behind.
But it only works in communities which have been educated and trained in this way of appraising the world. To paraphrase - 'Magic only works if the one who is the target of the spell is familiar with the language. The invocations have to mean something to him/her.'
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:54 am

The entire confusion over symbols is explained by them being taken at times figuratively and at others literally.

For example the 1/0 binary system, if taken literally, represents the negation of reality with the singular one.
Since the organism begins by perceiving otherness, simplified/generalized, into thing, a thing, the singular 1 is the first concept to develop.
It is the dimensional separation of a phenomenon so as to turn it into a thing, an abstraction - fluid transformed, translated, into static object/objective in the brain.

To this singular thingness 0 acts as a negation, an absence of.
The neural on/off translated symbolically to 1/0 where one is positive, as in flow, and nil being no flow, as in absence.
Now world is populated by oneness, and is, itself, conceptualized as a one, a uni-verse, a single, to which its negation is the non-existence of it.

God = 1
Satan = 0

Abrahamic nihilism.

But this is a human construct based on taking man's own interpretations literally, rather than as symbols, metaphors, artistic expressions, representations, noetic approximations of phenomena.
When taken as what they are the positive/negative is reversed.
One, now, becomes the negation of the real, as it imposes a singularity upon a fluidity, a multiplicity.
The abstraction of the phenomenon into a noumenon if understood properly would be its negation: representation negating what it represents when it substitutes for it.
The simulation negates what it is simulating, if taken literally.

All human constructs, such as 'justice' 'morality', thing, one, the singularity, the static, all negate the fluidity of existence - like Being would negate Becoming.
Being would be the end of Becoming. Taken figuratively Being represents Becoming, as a singularity expressing the entire process of Becoming, by turning it into a single event in time/space - separating ti from all other becoming, and its (inter)actions with them.

Once the one is understood as a singularity that negates the fluidity of existence, it becomes a negative concept, to which nil represents its negation.

Ergo....

Satan = 1
God = 0

Both propositions remaining within the binary paradigm of either/or, or absolutes.
to both the real stands in antithesis...no absolutes but only different rates of (inter)activity, expressing the multiplicity of elements the conscious mind translates, interprets, into form, texture, sound, smell, color, taste, etc.
In the latter paradigm the metaphors of God/Satan, positive/negative, 1/0 are used as metaphors, symbols, and not taken literally as things, as singularities.

Here the absence of absolutes is not a negative but a positive, for it allows for Becoming and human willing, and creativity, and life.
The singularity of one, of thing, of God is its negation.

This is the difference between Indo-European and Judeo-Christian world views.
Hellenism contra Judaism...
The lovers of life, as it is, versus those who despise life, as it is wanting to escape it, to correct it, thinking of themselves as victims of it.
In essence to hate life and to consider yourself a victim of existence is to negate self.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:14 am

Gravity...

Space = possibility
Void, tending towards infinite possibility (expanding time/space), first by fragmenting into complexity and then randomness, as a byproduct of (inter)activity.

Order = probability
The restriction, implosion of possibility, towards a singularity.
Absolute order being the constriction of time/space to a singular possible, or an absolutely probable.

Therefore, as order accumulates it warps time/space towards its increasing probability - gravity.
If it continues accumulating, attracting order through this warping of space (possibility), the pressure transforms its core into a different state - it alters its pattern.
Time is the measure of this possibility expansion in relation to the observing organism and its neurological and biological systolic/diastolic rates.
We can think of time as the organism's relationship with this increasing entropy - mortality.
Towards the singularity time would slow, in relation to the observer, because the rate of (inter)action would decrease, as space shrunk towards the absolute probable.

An organism, of course, is not a absolute singularity, but an aggregate of processes trying to maintain itself, and so it is the balance of order/chaos as long as it can resist the increasing entropy.

An alteration in pattern releases energies as the friction of (inter)acting transforms the rate of flow, the patterns dynamic, to a quicker form, the transformation from slow, mass, to more fluid mass, changing its pattern and contributing to the increasing cosmic entropy.
(Inter)activity produces entropy, which then increases (inter)activity, until entropy increases exponentially.

We can think of order, a slower rate of Flux, as resisting entropy...and so as order decreases resistance to chaos decreases.

Man must understand by making the alien intimate, and so he ascribes to this process a will, a consciousness, calling it everything from God to self-valuing, to a number one.
This is an attempt to reduce the uncertainty, and complexity of (inter)activity, increasing in space/time, into a singular thing, a single pattern, a single concept, represented by a single word, symbolizing a single concept (abstraction).
This is part of how consciousness orders the world so as to direct itself within it.
It takes what it knows and understands, and projects it into the unknown, otherness - anthropomorphizing.

Man's own methods of simplifying/generalizing are projected as cosmic truths.Taken literally they turn to a faith, a religion founded on absolutes and the comforting sensation of understanding, of turning the uncertain, threatening, into a predictable known.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:36 am

Satyr wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
When I say, I AM my action,,, does this mean the structure that evolved to perform a certain function is inseparable from that function?

My eye IS the seeing?

In my mind the organ, the body is the past manifesting in the present - a presence.
The eye is the act of seeing, of sensing, manifesting, as a past in the present.
It is an extension of the nervous system.

The eye gather stimuli, and what we call seeing happens in the brain where this stimuli is processed and abstracted.  

My body, in general, in this past manifesting as a presence, expressing a Becoming, a history, a past/nature.
It is acting, or (inter)activity as presence, interpreted by the observer as form, texture, color, smell etc.
It is the interpretation of all the aggregate processes, internal hierarchies and how they (inter)act, (inter)relate.
Internal in the sense that they are encased in a membrane, a skin, a skull so as to maintain them as a cohesive self-organizing.

My behavior, my actions are all these internal workings, determined by the past/nature, directed by a will, focused upon object/objective.

So, yeah, I is not acting, I IS action. Eye is not seeing, but in conjunction with the nervous system it is a part of, an extension of, it IS seeing, or sensing.
The entire nervous system is the network of sensing: stimulation via a medium, translated, interpreted, into neural pulse, transmitted to the brain where it is translated, interpreted, again, using a apriori methods into what we call sense, awareness, abstraction...later to be symbolized by geometrical shapes, words, math, sound.


Thanks.

FC wrote:
"As I see it, this ordering qua numbers is 'mind' -
the minds that wish to do away with numbers, with angles, relations, quantities, powers, cycles, ratios - are the mind that wishes to kill itself."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:39 am

phoneutria wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
When I say, I AM my action,,, does this mean the structure that evolved to perform a certain function is inseparable from that function?

My eye IS the seeing?

What purpose is there to an eye in the complete darkness?


I'm contemplating a grammatological revolution...

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14608
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:03 am

Lyssa wrote:


FC wrote:
"As I see it, this ordering qua numbers is 'mind' -
the minds that wish to do away with numbers, with angles, relations, quantities, powers, cycles, ratios - are the mind that wishes to kill itself."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I, assume, you agree with him.

How is the method, and admitting what it is, the same as "killing one's self"?
Is an artist who knows the difference between what he's painted on a canvas and that which inspired him to paint it on a canvas, denying his own artistry?

I am act...understanding what act is, does not deny me action.
I use abstractions (words, numbers, symbols) to express my thoughts...how is recognizing them as what they are the same as denying them to myself?

Your affection for him is cute.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:09 am

Satyr wrote:
Lyssa wrote:


FC wrote:
"As I see it, this ordering qua numbers is 'mind' -
the minds that wish to do away with numbers, with angles, relations, quantities, powers, cycles, ratios - are the mind that wishes to kill itself."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I, assume, you agree with him.

You assumed wrong.

Quote :
Your affection for him is cute.

Because I dont question him on Apollonian terms and dissect his agenda on my terms and my pace? My intellectual travesty...

Pls. carry on.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:14 am

Anfang wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
"You either believe this truth and profess it, or you shall die by fire, hanging, drowning, or sword" is pretty much taking that truth as objective to an absolute extreme. Accepting that some do not believe and should simply be excluded from the community was not really what happened.

Exclusion from the dominant faith meant in those days exclusion from the community - to be outlawed. But what you are doing here is making the degree of objectivity or the approach towards objective truth about social conventions.
I am saying that there was no argument about the degree of objectivity of an observation in those matters, in those days. The inquisition does not have to argue about the objectivity of their convictions. Deus vult - God wills it. God has the property of a subject - his judgement is subjective. No discussion about the 'objectivity' of this will required to murder.

Sure, god may have had the property of a subject, but that is irrelevant to the purposes of this example, which is to show a subjective matter taken to be the objective truth: the existence of god.
God existing was a given, a fact, no discussions on the veracity of that fact were even allowed. God, this one in particular, and no other ones, was as solid as a physical being in the minds of the time.

Making the degree of objectivity about social conventions is to give it one of many practical applications. In this case, to determine what is objective about a person and to apply that into law making.
Knowledge is not sought for only for its own sake, but also so that we can use it to navigate the physical world.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:16 am

Satyr wrote:

Your affection for him is cute.

His for her as well. Adorable. I love to watch.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective

Back to top Go down
 
Objective <> Subjective
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 6Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Similar topics
-
» OBJECTIVE QUESTIONS & ITS ANSWERS OF Co. A/C & COST ACCOUTING
» Purpose of Retention Money
» COMPANY LAW ALL OBJECTIVES
» To Strike or...to Strike: Objective News reports

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: