Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Objective <> Subjective

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:09 am

The subjectivist mind, trapped within the linguistic paradoxes of its self-referential thinking (noumena referring to noumena) convinces itself that by "killing" the noetic connector to the phenomenon, you destroy the phenomenon it represented - conversely, if you convince/seduce/coerce other minds into your subjectivity that you "create" reality.

From this, quantitative standards usurp qualitative standards, replacing the quantities of connectors between noumenon and phenomenon (awareness), with the quantity of connectors between noumena and noumena (popularity) - inter-subjectivity.
Words become magical, when they can affect minds, manipulating emotions (cowardice - anxiety being the mother of emotions), and idiocy (ignorance - shallow perceptual-event-horizon).

The idea(l) God only dies when it no longer infects the minds with its promise, replaced with Humanity as the sum, of minds manifesting God (conviction), and the priest, once more, steps forward as the representative (icon) of this renamed idea(l), for the masses to worship.

_________________
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 Fri May 27, 2016 2:43 am

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

Hellenic balance between the two.
Let us become a bridge.


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



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

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

"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 May 31, 2016 12:56 pm

Gellner wrote:
"Plato believed that there was a correlation between the importance and dignity of a subject on the one hand, and the rigour of kind of thought appropriate to it on the other. This was a plausible supposition, and in a decent, well-managed universe, one trusts that this is how things would indeed be arranged. Trivial, humanly unimportant matters could be dealt with in a logically sloppy and slipshod manner; whereas matters which are of great or ultimate concern to us would be honoured by the highest standards of logical rigour. Thus the decencies and human self-respect would receive their due.

The world which we in fact inhabit is, alas, not at all like this. In it the inverse relationship obtains.

Rigorous techniques are available in many domains which, humanly speaking, are unimportant. Thanks to the rigour of those techniques, a consensus of experts is available in those domains which inspires the respect of onlookers. Many of these domains are rather like heavy-weight boxing: the criterion of excellence, and the manner of determining who satisfies it best, are so clear that there is relatively little room for intrigue, dispute, or disagreement.

The situation is alas quite other in the sphere of those questions that concern us most. Conflicting criteria abound, the manner of their application is obscure, movements proliferate, each of them claims to be in possession of procedures, principles, criteria, which generally re-endorse their own viewpoint and condemn that of their rivals, but which do not really have any evident authority when viewed from outside.

This situation may have multiple roots, but the ones that are specially worth highlighting are those connected not with the human condition in general, but with the special circumstances of western industrial man. Western civilization has two salient features, which have contributed to that unfortunate and humiliating inversion of the Platonic tie-up of rigour and importance. It is based on science and technology; and it is individualistic. The joint implications of these features are not always comfortable.

The individualism manifests itself in what might be called the protestant-Cartesian cognitive ethic: belief and opinion is to be judged before the bar of the individual conscience or consciousness. Assent to belief is ultimately a private and individual matter. The secrecy and loneliness of the ballot-booth only symbolizes the inherent privilege and predicament of private determination of assent or dissent. The cognitive condition of man parallels the constitutional right of the American citizen to possess arms. The reasoning also is parallel: as the firearm at the homestead was intended to be a check on tyranny, so the sovereignty of individual private judgment is meant to be a check on the dogmatism of institutions claiming to possess some kind of monopoly of truth.

As sophisticated and complex weapon systems have replaced individual small arms as the means of coercion, so a similar transformation has also occurred in our cognitive equipment. The protestant-Cartesian cognitive ethic — think for yourself, let all opinion pass before the tribunal of your private, individual consciousness — continues to receive a kind of residual lip-service, but has little inherent plausibility. The individual does not any longer have the illusion that he could possibly pass judgment on all the matters of belief which form the backcloth of his life. One is reminded of the advice given to an English poet by his father: no one can write a poem. Tradition writes it for the poet. All he can hope to do is occasionally to write a line. Thus there is a deep tension between our inherited individualism, which is still important and operative in many aspects of life, and the hard facts of our actual cognitive ecology. It is the tension between what Gaston Bachelard has called the world in which we live and the one in which we think." [The Devil in Modern philosophy]

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

"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 May 31, 2016 12:57 pm

Funny stuff.


Gellner wrote:
"The preoccupation and indeed perverse enjoyment of the uncertainty of one’s knowledge of others, similar to that found in Remembrance of Things Past, is also found for instance in an excellent recent novel by M.R.Margerit, Le Dieu Nu. The hero of this work vacillates between three women: his morally rather dubious sister; secondly, a married woman elusive and intriguing only because, as it turns out in the end, she is vacuous and indecisive; and, finally, a forthright, attractive, and intelligible young woman. Despite the obvious superiority of the last, at one stage the hero expresses his rejection of her by exclaiming that, unfortunately, he is no Cartesian: clarity and straightforwardness, however combined with attractive qualities, appeal to him far less than moral mists and ambiguities.

A more elaborate use of the awareness and, in this case, unwillingness to accept precariousness occurs in Anouilh’s Euridice, produced in London as Point of Departure. The author’s use of the Eurydice legend is this: the suggestion is that love actually entails desire for death, this being so because it involves convictions about the relationship which are too ambitious not to be falsified sooner or later, if by surviving one gives the future an opportunity of falsifying them. At the same time, for one in love, the thought of their falsification is hardly bearable. Indeed, even if one did not expect them to be falsified, they might seem tainted by the very possibility. Death is the only means of depriving the uncertain future of its power of tainting the present relationship. For Sartre, on the other hand, death in Huis Clos does not lead to certainty-at-last concerning personality. The ending of the accretion of evidence merely prevents further testing. Death thus ends inquiry without answering the question. This difference between Anouilh and Sartre is probably due to the fact that Sartre’s characters tend to be concerned with qualities such as courage, rather than with fidelity." [The Devil in modern Philosophy]

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

"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 : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:35 pm

Philoosphy



1-Objective: all is process – phenomena.
Study of (inter)active patterned (order) and non-patterned (random - chaos) energies/dynamism.
Ontology, Existence, Cosmos.
Body

2-Subjective: Study of how an organism relates to the objective/world – noumena.
Psychology, Politics, Morality, Spirituality.
Mind

Philosophy, if it is honest and courageous, begins from the first and then proceeds to the second, placing the latter within the former's contexts, implications.

3- Semiology: the study of the mode/method/medium of relating/coping/adapting.
Metaphors, Language/Words, Symbols, Art.
How Subjective, relates/connects to Objective - interpretation.      
Nervous System


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

avatar

Gender : Male Aries Posts : 232
Join date : 2013-12-10
Age : 26
Location : Praxis

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:27 am

Lyssa wrote:
Satyr wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hellenic balance between the two.
Let us become a bridge.


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



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

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:50 pm

Emotional "reasoning" of the subjective mind that rejects any standard outside its own choices, and preferences, is that with no objective world all concessions must be the product of a shared ideal, interest, or a product of coercion.
Why agree when each mind can believe in whatever it chooses?

The idea that the objective world limits subjective choices, with cost/benefit disciplining the mind, is alien to it in its sheltered existence, where all costs are reduced, or selectively so, and all benefits inflated, selectively so.
The idea that two, or more mind, existing in the same world will reach a common judgment, is alien to a mind that lives in inter-subjectivity, and all choices have minimal costs and infinite possible benefits.
Sheltering reinforces stupidity - like a child protected from the worse consequences of its actions, in time becoming convinced it is invincible and that no matter what it does it does not matter much.
only when the protective umbrella is lifted does a stunted mind realize it is raining, and that the rain may lead to its death.


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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:53 pm

A stunted, retarded psychology will judge an opinion as wise, as good, when it reveals something "positive" it had not considered - it will judge an opinion the product of evil, when it exposes it to a "negative" it prefers not to think about.

It has no other way to distinguish good from bad.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:44 pm

Natural Overrule
"Fascist" natural selection is self-correcting.
It imposes itself upon poor humans.
No words, no symbols, no argument, no duplicitous victimology, or verbal acrobatics, can fool the "forces that be", and have been responsible for life since before morons were born to cry "foul", trying to hide in word-games, to self-flatter or to reduce the other, when they have no argument to counter.
In nature there is no debate over subjective/objective, because all live by the full consequences of their own value judgments.
No system there to protect them from their mistakes, saving them from their own stupidity, and cultivating the delusion that there is no "wrong" judgment-call.

In nature each lives by the repercussions of his/hr own choices.
Cost/Benefit suffices.
If you are willing to pay the price, to risk it, then you ought to expect the fullness of the benefit, or the disappointment of a wrong assessment - be careful what you wish for.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:23 pm

Objectivity, for a realist does not mean the same thing as it does for Moderns
For the realist, the pagan, it means world, reality....
Nothing to do with morality, meaning, purpose, telos, God, or any absolute.
Objectivity is the seeking of patterns in world to adjust the subjective mind to its challenges, to direct himself within it.
Objectivity means clarity - a judgment free of emotion, ego, passion.

Objectivity means meaning, as in connection of phenomena.
Objectivity means seeing the relationship between patterns - meaning.

Though cosmos is flux, it does not change at a rate where life, and consciousness are irrelevant, impossible.
Certain ordering, certain patterns hold true for huge periods of time/space.... in relation to human lifespans they can be thought as eternal.

Pattern is the perception of behaviour that goes beyond the particular phenomenon, the particular pattern, the immediate apparent - it spans patterns, creating a web of causality across time/space - a sequence of temporality.
To be Objective is to perceive these time/pace spanning webs of (inter)activity.
Meaning is seeing this web...and it holds true for all...it is not affected by the individual's subjective, personal tastes.
You either see the patterns or you do not.
You cannot evade the consequences of not seeing the patterns - not seeing the patterns, does not make you immune to them.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:46 pm

The Modern, trapped in his nihilistic paradigm of absolutes, cannot think of anything without reducing them to the vague abstraction of an absolute.
So, when thinking of morality, or meaning, he must reduce the world to a thing, a whole, and then claim that because it is "infinite", his way of describing what he cannot understand as fluctuating, as lacking absolutes, conceives of morality and meaning as something that applies throughout time/space, which is contained and infinite at the same time.

But that is not hos a pagan thinks of time/space, and subsequently of meaning, morality, and all concepts symbolized by these words.
Meaning means relationship between patterns, which is independent no the subjective mind, and so It is not up to the subjective mind's choice.
The subjective mind wither sees it or does not - but it, most certainly, suffers the consequences of seeing or not seeing.

The "meaning" of lightning, and the connected to thunder by a chain of causality is not up to the subjective mind's tastes and whims.
The subjective mind whether makes the connections or does not, but the rain that follows in the sequence, will get him wet whether he sees or does not - he may even drown unaware of the meaning.

Relationships between patterns, placed in a temporal/spatial sequence, is what we call meaning.
This is not subjectively determined...but is independent of all consciousness.
It is consciousness which is burdened with finding these connections.
It either finds them or suffers the downpour, in total oblivion.



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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:27 pm

The [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is the symbol referring to the connection of noumenon to phenomenon or, to put it yet another way, it is the symbol connecting subject to object (subjective representation of objective apparent/present).
This is why you cannot just use any word.
The world and the dictionary limits your options.

The sequence you place the words within a sentence structure, is dictated by the particular language's grammar in relation to reality's causal chain.

None of it is arbitrary, unless you are a Modern imbecile not really interested in seeing world but rather more obsessed with jerking-off.



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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed Jun 22, 2016 8:34 am

Objective is the goal, the idea(l), inspiring a movement towards it - motivating the organism.
There are realistic idea(l)s, and Nihilistic idea(l)s or ideals rooted in world and ideals completely or partially detached from world.
The former are realizable, possible, the latter because they are detached and to the degree that they are so, are improbable, unrealistic.

If two realists share the same objective, this does not mean they are part of some spiritual movement. It means they share an appreciation for the same realistic ideals, and are motivated by the same goals.


A religion, having advanced from the stage of cult, is only possible among Nihilists, because here the ideal is non-existent, it is in their minds: an abstraction, a noumenon, with no external reference points, and so it is totally dependent on words, or symbols to exist, and to persist, and to spread.
With no external support, it is completely dependent on internal sources of validation.
What Nihilists share is anxiety, reaching the level of fear for a world that is indifferent to their needs, uncertain, and, to them, incomprehensible, beyond some simple abstractions.
they seek in one another what they cannot fin in the world, describing this absence as a "nil".
This makes them codependent, herding minds, even if their Nihilism may wear different symbols, call itself by different names.
This is a cult, which may be made, with popularity, into a religion, such as the three Abrahamic ones: Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
This may also become a secular cult, such as Marxism, and our present day Humanism, Liberalism., but under the protective umbrella of Modernity (Socialism, Democracy, Egalitarianism) it may splinter off into a multiplicity of variations, all rooted in the same noetic roots system, but expressing itself in different ways, corresponding to the different internal hierarchies (personae, personality).


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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:18 am

The inter-subjective reaction to the objective world, as it has evolved over generations of sheltering, indoctrination, exposes itself as incapable of offering a response to an objective world, as it is described by multiple sources, forcing it to resort to emotional appeals.

The typical modern cannot offer an alternative to a world described as it is, other than established mythologies, triggering automated emotional responses.
It sees no other alternative other than "suicide", to a discretion of world it cannot contradict, and when it tries it further exposes the inter-subjective foundations of its "world view".
Vilification of the source is all that is left to them, and to the "what does not kill me only serves..." it responds with a turning away back into the fold, within which all weakness, ignorance, cowardice is dissolved in multiplicity.
With no respond that will preserve the pretense of being aware, and open-minded, all that is left to it is cynicism.

It's ignorance, like the Christian God, must be proven, otherwise assumed to be present - try proving a negative, in a world where knowledge is confused for understanding, and ridicule is the preferred defence.

All is whatever they declare themselves to be... because all is subjective.This includes understanding what is then contradicted by behaviour.
Esoteric "reality" has to be "proven" wrong, or exposed as a lie, otherwise it remains a possibility, among infinite possibilities.
The external world slandered, makes of the esoteric a self-contained reality, it can only find support in other, and if no support is offered it can be accused of an ulterior motive, of hating, or a trauma preventing it from supporting the delusion of all - love thy neighbour.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Jul 10, 2016 4:04 pm

Objective Assessment of behaviour in relation to motive:

1- Evaluation of individual's traits, relative to others, in relation to the intended goal.

2- Evaluation of individual's appreciation of objective, in relation to cost/benefit potentials.

3- Evaluation of environment determining both the individual's potential and present traits, and the cost/benefit possibilities of the objective.

1} Based on juxtaposition, measuring particular organ proportions, and measuring conspicuous traits using past performance - precedent.

2} Based on individual's past behaviour, in relation to the objective.

3} Based on the promotion of objective by environmental conditions, relative to previous environments, as well as the inhibition of environment for particular objectives, relative to previous environments.
Analysis of factors contributing to the objective's desirability, relative to the organisms particular organic needs, and secondary desires, as outcrop of these organic needs.

Analysis should avoid the corruption of ego, producing hyperbole, both as a negative and as a positive assessment of self, other, and of the objective.
Best way to do this is to use multiple samples/experiences, over longer periods of time, comparing those with precedent, based on self-knowledge that can then use sameness as a starting point.
Success/Failure based on the recognition of patterns, the individual shares with another.          


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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:37 pm

It's really a simple formula, made complex by those that wish to deny it.

A man passes judgment, either of his own making, or because he has been dominated and given a formula to solve all problems.
Les us consider this judgment as patterns, recognized, in world, as (inter)activity (flux), but not yet understood, for to that term we will give the meaning of perceiving patterns within the patterns.
Let us illuminate the words by casting multiple lights, and approach it from a different direction.
Knowledge = pattern learned, and/or experienced (data, information, abstractions, stored in memory) - first-hand - called experiences, second-hand - called, plainly, knowledge.
Understanding = patterns perceived within the knowledge offering a "bigger picture", or abstractions integrated into a larger abstraction offering insight into more complex phenomena.

A judgment is an interpretation of circumstances, that may be projected, in space/time, to offer the mind an advantage, taking on the risk of such an endeavour. The longer the cast, the greater the risk.
Each circumstance is weighed against the essence of the organism - its aggregate energies, constitution, courage...
A mind grows bold with experience, confident in its own mind's pattern appreciation, or it grows timid, for the same reasons, increasingly relying on the judgments of others.
But a mind cannot be satisfied with its own experiences to build greater understanding, so it observes, taking advantage of knowledge acquired by observing others, or by their accounts.

What is being evaluated?
The cost/benefit of a option, in relation to an intended goal, an objective, perhaps becoming ideal.
there are the costs/benefits to the organism itself, but a more aware organism, such as man, can also account for costs/benefits to its entire lineage, or its potential.
Such a mind's perceptual-event-horizon, its area of care, exceeding that of an animal's, or a simpler mind's interested into in itself and its own welfare.
Changing metaphors, the ego will be concerned with a greater Self, the definition of which remains up to the individual itself, but no less independent form world.

Perspectivism simply notes the obvious: that every mind bears the costs and benefits of its own awareness, and the choices it makes based on its knowledge/understanding - its appreciation of patterns.
Subjectivity is meaningless without an Objective world to be subjective towards.

Opinion - When a man offers an opinion he offers his judgments, according to the patterns he has perceived - knows and understands.
The intent of the opinion is uncertain, for the individual itself may be unaware of his own unconscious motives.
The value of such opinions/judgments, are measured first against the all encompassing world of Flux - Reality, in short - and then against an goal, an objective an ideal - they are measured against the individuals own experiences knowledge and understanding.
Because the world is common, and no organism exists within its own reality, judgments have costs/benefits in world, measured higher/lower in accordance to individual tolerance levels (experience level), and aggregate energies.

Individuals seek guidance in minds with superior judgment, constitution, knowledge and understanding, to jump ahead of their own slow, costly, development.
This guidance will be evaluated, individually, using the outcome....measured by cost/benefit, either in the short-term or the long-term.
Guidance should never be of a commanding kind, telling the other what do to, for each has a different goal, and a different level of tolerance, and aggregate energy, but should remain as an un-covering of reality, to inexperienced eyes.
Offering knowledge, and most importantly understanding, above and beyond the students experience level, or his awareness level.
The student will then verify the validity of what it is told, on its own, adding or subtracting from it its own insights.

Some turn away from reality, pretending it is unique to each one, but they cannot, forever, escape its price.
We pay in increments or in lump sums what we can afford.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:49 pm

The world cares not for our cares, it is we who must care about world for we will suffer the consequences of seeing or remaining blind.
World, as Flux, is unconscious, unaware, unphased by human fears, demands, ideals, expressed with words.
It is words that must anxiously tremble at failing to attach to world.

If beauty were in the eye of the beholder, what worth would a peacock's tale have?
How would evolution function, if all were of equal value?

Such tricks are used by those who are forced to settle, and wish to make their settlement a matter of choice, when they had little choice at all.
Thrown into a world as a child thrown into a cold river.
We swim or we sink, dreaming of floating in air, as water pushes the last of it from our lungs.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:57 pm

There is no cause/effect where cause is followed by a pause.
Cause is in the effect, as race indicates inherited potential, part of speciation that has not concluded in a complete separation....
We forget grizzlies and polar bears, though different species can still reproduce, as can many species that are still in an intermediate stage of separation, a bit more than that indicated by race, or breed.

Presence is manifest past, revealing itself to the senses as appearance (phenomenon).
The effect exposes the cause(s) in details, that only a willful aware mind can attempt to hide.
But, for how long?


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Sat Aug 27, 2016 5:21 pm; 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 : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:59 pm

If the intent is pure, possesses integrity, and does not hide an ulterior, from other, or from mind, it clarifies using words and deeds.
If not it obscures and redirects, burying it all in language games.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Sep 06, 2016 5:24 pm

It's really quite simple....the only reason I can think of as to why some psychotics resist understanding, or cannot wrap their mind around it is because they fear the implications, wanting to preserve the idea(l) that all judgments are equally wrong - parity in weakness.

There is a circumstance, an event, a phenomenon....the mind perceives said phenomenon, event, circumstance and interprets it, making connections, which give the vent meaning, and passing value judgment, in other words evaluating the probabilities of cost/benefit to himself, or in relation to his idea(l)s, his objectives.
This is so for an individual and this is so for an institution, that constructs similar judgments collecting vaster amounts of data and making more complex connections, finding more meanings.
We call the latter authorities.
In our time science is such an institution, and so is government, and Church, each institution enjoy a higher or lower level of popular respect.

So, again, we have an event, which is a product of (inter)acting patterns, the phenomenon, the apparent - this is what is called objective reality.
How these pattern relate is called meaning.
The organism, the observer, interprets these events, and perceives the relationships to a higher or lower degree - it then evaluates....this is called subjectivity.
The observing conscious organism then acts upon the judgments it has made, evaluating the costs/benefits according to its personal, organic needs, or according to an external idea(l), an objective, a goal.

The outcome of the actions, choices made, suing these judgments, is what validates or invalidates the organisms' subjective judgments of the objective real world events.
The CONSEQUENCES expressed as costs/benefits, is what determines the organism's judgments, and the level of their quality.
Because no absolutes are possible, ever, the consequences are in degree superior or inferior than the judgments of another, and this is reflected in the balance of costs/benefits.

No God...no institution, no authority....

Over the thousands of years of human history some rules of good judgment have been produced.
Methods teaching how to judge, to evaluate as perfectly as possible...not according to ONE idea(l) but according to any idea(l).
Now, since I mentioned Idea(l), for the umpteenth time,.... the idea(l) itself is more or less realistic...or more or less objective, and the degree of its objectivity is what determines its attainability and the cost/benefit consequences.
Every choice entails a risk, and this is part of natural selection. Organisms since the dawn of life, have made judgments, according to their individual subjective perceptions and evaluation, and have acted in accordance with these judgments...and some benefited more than paid the costs, whereas the majority paid a high cost for a small or insignificant benefit....
This developed intelligence, the faculty of perceiving and judging more objectively, or in most species it evolved innate behaviors, based no trial and error, not requiring any deep judgment - choices made intuitively, actions taken instinctively.

In the specie homo sapient the more efficient method of awareness, and accurate judgment, evolved as a dominant trait.
But this does not mean all that belong to the specie human are gifted with the same quality mind, and so produce the same quality judgments.
Later in human evolution and to integrate inferior minds into more complex systems, the inferior mind was protected from the full costs of its poor judgments - the institution provided an automatic judgment all could learn and imitate, without having to understand it.
The reasons why this became what we call modernity are complex, and I have tried to explore their complexities in everything I've written.

But, if your of the quality of mind where up to this point in my description you fail to comprehend then there is no point to go further.
You ought to remain reliant on institutional judgments, and be content in your confusion.....because your inferior mind has on severity of costs...in this sheltering world in the west.
If you cannot comprehend why having a Down Syndrom child, passing no your genes in a child that will never be independent, or anything but what it is, and why this is not burdensome when an entire system provides and enforces laws preventing the exploitation of its weaknesses, and so on..if this confuses you, or you resit passing judgment then the problem is not only your quality of mind, but an absence of integrity.
No violence is proposed, no hatred is expressed only objective judgment, in the purest definition of the word.
If you still remain confused...then philosophy is not for you.
Lou are looking for a new religion, or spreading skepticism to make your own quality of mind less costly.
No amount of institutionalized sheltering, like with parental protection, can entirely prevent you from suffering the costs of an indifferent, to all judgments, world.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Sep 06, 2016 5:32 pm

Making value judgments is the heart and soul of natural selection, and Evolution Theory.
Each organism facing unforeseen circumstances reacting to them, learning form mistakes, adjusting its judgments, if it survived...developing intelligence when minds that learned to make good judgments passed on their genes...
All of it for millions of years, before there were humans, before there was a socioeconomic systems, a culture, a meme...before god and scientists and experts...before politics.
Making judgments is why the brain evolved.

Let's say you are an ultra Christian and you discover, because the doctor told you, that the baby you are carrying is missing its limbs.
Infected with christian morals you choose to carry it to term.
Does this mean that judgment is the equal of the mother who chose to abort the baby?
No....because the first mother, under the effect of Abrahamic nihilism, will be given institutional support - she will have access to a medical system, be given some kind of government support ni the form of moneys or schools or social workers...etc.
later, when the child grows up, artificial limbs will be provided for it, subsidized and manufactured for it....a social rule will prevent other kids from making fun of the child, from exploiting its deficiency...and so on.

The COSTS will be reduced by an intervening power, to the point where the mother may choose to have another deficient child, because the costs to her are not so high....her error ni judgment is protected from the full breadth of consequences.

This is how imbeciles become convinced that all perspectives are equal....or that perspectivism means that all opinions all judgment are the same.

I guarantee you if there were no such supporting, protective system, the very same mother, Christianity or not, would only make the mistake once.



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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Sep 11, 2016 9:35 am

The vast majority of (inter)actions have no perspective, no intent, no motive.
They are simply patterns (inter)acting, relating, in the only way they can with other patterned and non-patterned energies (oscillation/vibration).
All this, including organic motivated intentional (inter)activity, is what we call Flux, or objective reality.
Subjectivity enters the scene only with the emergence of life, with a motive, an intent.
There is no subjective/objective dichotomy outside this emergence.
Subjectivity is the interpretation of this preexisting (inter)activity it emerges out of, determining its success/failure, on a cost/benefit outcome.

Subjectivity is the paradox created not when organic life, awakens to world, but when the organism awakens to its own awakening - with the emergence of self-consciousness.
Consciousness, that precedes this development, is not burdened with this paradox because it is outwardly focused - it IS mind engaging, relating with other.
With the gradual emergence of consciousness of consciousness the mind is placed in a third party perspective - third level of cognition, which confuses it. It perceives itself as an otherness, among others.
Part of the mind detaching, as life also detaches with an exoskeleton, skin, from the Flux, to make self-ordering possible.
This part of consciousness now becomes the I, perceiving the other part as something other than - Bicameral Mind.
It feels fragmented.
The eye cannot see itself, but only as reflection, therefore self-consciousness perceives itself through otherness - an alienated from self ambiguity where God, soul, spirit,, or some absolute resides.
Perceiving self perceiving, is what confuses the mind is perplexed by - some falling into a loop, or in linguistic conundrum, like those expressed by Zeno, when the bicameral Mind was still stuck in the awareness of self as a voice coming from some other will.

Human awareness is still in its early developing stages, having not surpassed the 3rd or 4th cognitive level, for the average mind, and rarely attaining the 5th and 6th level.
Confusion is akin to a child still perplexed by its own reflection, or an animal who is unable to attain the 3rd level of cognition required to understand its reflection as being itself.
Exploiting this developmental stagnation is part of the paranormal, or occult, methodology.
By mystifying what confuses, and causes stress in the individual, by naming the abstract, as if it were outside the mind, manipulation of a preexisting deficiency begins to direct the mind.
This confusion is exacerbated when the higher cognitive faculties are further numbed by a chemical, a drug, either produced by the body itself, or consumed from an external source - memes are to be included in this mind-numbing externally ingested narcosis.
In a more primitive mind, stick stuck in a Bicameral condition, its transcendental experiencing of world and self within it, requires no artificial multiplier, or triggers, but in Modern times the mind can return to its primitive state, by artificially numbing the higher cognitive parts of the brain - the experience is felt as a mystical event, made more profound by the fact that the brain's neurons are randomly triggered, adding to the mystical confusion.


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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Sep 11, 2016 3:32 pm

Considered from a Theory of Relativity point of view, attraction/repulsion and the field of its effect, is the gravitational warping of space/time, where space is a warping, alteration, of possibility.

Warping space, is converting possibility into probability, as this is expressed as attraction/repulsion and in cost/benefit.
Mass = congruity of patterns, manifesting in a attraction surplus (excess, overflowing), because the congruity has already been established by a harmony of rhythms, exceeding the dis-harmonies.
Direction of probability is represented by the speed of light,as the fastest medium a human being can perceive and process - its perceptual-event-horizon.
Medium being the intervening pattern between noumenon and phenomenon: what is translated/interpreted is the (inter)action of medium (mediating phenomenon) with phenomenon.
It is this (inter)action which is perceived and evaluated.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:08 pm

Pattern is a good predictor of future...not because I say so, or someone else says so, but because that IS what pattern is = repeating, consistent, predictable...order.
Order IS the reduction of possibility and the increase of probability, where in living organism this increase in probability is motivated by a desirable goal.

Probability is another way of expressing the concept of ORDER, in relation to randomness, CHAOS which is infinite space/time.

Example...if a dog has bitten people repeatedly, it is most probably going to bite another in the present and in the future.
Behavior is another word for pattern.
The particular pattern's behavior, can only change if a severe, traumatic, strong force, in relation to it, comes in contact with it - (inter)acts with it, forcing it, to change - not willfully.
NEED/SUFFERING is the mother of invention...the crocodile has not evolved much for hundreds for thousands of years, because it did not have to - no pressure, no stress...path-of-leas-resistance.
It stagnated, in the same way Negroes stagnated when they remained in their primal environments, whereas those that evolved into Caucasians/Asians were FORCED to adapt or die, in more inhospitable environments.

Things do not just change....they change because they (inter)act with a equal or stronger pattern.
Even a willful change, is in preparation, in acknowledgment of a necessity.

If a dog bites me once, twice, thrice, then by the fourth time, I am either idealistically naive, or a moron, if I do not take into consideration its previous behavior.
If a cat licks me once, twice, thrice, then I ought not to be paranoid and expect it to bite me on the next encounter, when my own behavior towards it remains the same.  
Action counter-action...(INTER)ACTION = Flux.

If a man has been an alcoholic, is an alcoholic there is no reason to think that he will stop being an alcoholic UNLESS, a severe, traumatic event, circumstances, forces him.
No willpower, no intent, no idealism, will suffice, unless there is a severe and traumatic NEED/SUFFERING, confronting him.

PATTERN can only be disrupted by an equal or superior pattern, or congruity of patterns.
If there is no NEED, no interaction, there is no change in the pattern.
No innate self-love, no will, no ideal, can replace need/suffering.
Will is only the focus, or direction of a congruity, upon a objective/ideal, when it is FORCED.

No consciousness required, as resistance/reaction to a different pattern is not a willful response, but the essence of what the pattern IS - no judgment, choice necessary.
Judgment occurs after-the-fact, to understand what has already occurred, given that consciousness is a looking-back...and then its effect is in preparing for a future encounter, (inter)action.  

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:53 am

An idea(l), a motive, a goal, an objective (telos) only has meaning for a living organism.
outside of life, there is no goal...there is only (inter)action (attraction/repulsion) of patterns, along the paths-of-least-resistance.

The idea(l), is imagined end, and when the mind is detached from reality (infected by the memetic dis-ease of nihilism), it is fantasy - hyperbolic, determined by the degree of need/suffering.

The idea(l) and the necessities of moving towards it, determine morals, values...
The idea(l), the objective, dis the standard by which the organism, using imagination/fantasy, determines the value of its actions/behavior, and the actions of others, including life-less congruities of patterns - matter/energy.
Morality is a simplified good/bad, converted into the religious concepts of good/evil, for the masses of simpletons, that need a simple/generalized word/symbol to measure themselves and their actions by.

Good/Evil is the secular Good/Bad, referring to the previous objective, movement towards an ideal, when it comes to higher life-forms, such as man.
With simpler organisms there is good/bad, only if there is consciousness, and these dispositions refer to survival and/or reproduction, as an extension of survival.



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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:49 am

Knowledge = data, perception of patterns, stored as memory, acquired, second-hand, education.
Understanding = connection of patterns (meaning).

Understanding connects perceived patterns and compares them to a desirable objective, a goal, an idea(l), evaluating them (judgment).
Determining the path towards the idea(l), avoiding disruptive patterns, is motive - movement towards....establishing character.
Character = personae (psyche) in relating to idea(l) - movement towards idea(l) - Will.

Morality is the behavioral rules determining this movement - a prescribed method/orientation/way.
In its primitive form it is a social behavioral norm, where the objective is social integration, and coexistence increasing survival probabilities.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:32 am

Vague dividing line, like porous skin, between the esoteric, subjective, and the exoteric, objective - Mind confronted by world, or I faced with otherness.

I, becomes one.
Other becomes the unknown, the nil.

In Nihilism this "I" is distraught when it cannot find, or prove, an other reflecting its own desires - if it likes itself an other same as itself, and of it hates itself, another that compensates for its own insecurities/inadequacies.
World denying "I" this projected expectation, is called nullified; the exoteric selectively or totally denied, replaced with what is "left" - esoteric world, under the will's control.
With no natural re-balancing within controlled, sheltering systems, what is left for a mind bored with a predictable manmade world, but to assimilate others into his subjectivity, his private "world". A reaffirmation of "I" using some-other.
The other cannot be any other, but someone primed, vetted then seduced, trained,, replacing whatever "I" existed, usually self-hating, or immature, to the shared "I", now dominated by the instigator.

Either/Or, binary logic,creates the necessary psychology of 'with us' or 'against us', necessary.
No external standard intervenes.
No world outside all minds is referred, or deferred to.
It is all a battle of wills, decided by numbers: who seduces, exploits, the most minds, assimilating them to the dominant subjectivity, the "I", now hidden in "we".



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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:14 am

Scientific denial of chaos is exemplified in the insistence upon finding a mythical indivisible particle, the "fabric of the cosmos, the beginning of time/space, which has already presupposed what it seeks and will never find, and on the insistence of comprehending chaos within the rules of "logic", confusing how comprehension works, for what is incomprehensible.

Belief in "god", as the metaphor for the absent absolute, is replaced by belief in the mathematical term "one", implying its negating opposite, its Satan, the nil.
It assumes that there is a absolute, by insisting to imply that all is comprehensible.
For a mind engulfed within Abrahamic Nihilism, denial of God constitutes a "break" from the dis-ease.
The un-believer has secularized his imagery, converting his anthropomorphic iconography with more abstract forms.
For such a mind chaos is as terrifying as "evil" is in the Book.
Just as Satan must be "explained" as God's will, producing the paradox of how an absolutely "good" entity allow for such a stain, the secular Nihilists, still trapped within primordial binary thinking - the primordial sin being how the certainty of good/evil was given up, by biting into the fruit of knowledge, awareness.
Moderns define their secularized "evil" as chaos, but they cannot deal with the implications, so they place it within the comprehensible, just as "evil" was placed within the creative domain of a "loving god", and ignored as being part of god's complexity.
Chaos is also defined as complexity, and randomness as but a parts of statistical measurements.

The Creation myth implies the fact that life, and the brain manifesting as mind, is a product of order(ing).
God being the representation of absolute roder, or One, the singularity.
Any contradiction to this absolute one must be part of it, ergo chaos is no more than complexity, or what is less probable.
Probability being another word describing order, as space describes possibility.
Within this way of conceptualizing, space describes all that exists, or that can exist, therefore randomness is integrated within an ambiguous field of possibility, with probability describing what is more or less possible within this field, this singular uni-verse.
The possibility of order emerging out of randomness is paradoxical to a mind dependent on order, just as evil is paradoxical to a organism dependent on "goodness" or the moral behavior of social codependency.
All that is "good" is ordered, and reasonable, even what conflicts with "goodness", leading us to perspectivism: "One mind's 'good' is another mind's 'bad".
Polytheism.
Monotheists, being true nihilists, integrate perspectivism into the one God's infinite complexity - his paradoxical essence.
Uni-verse is this implosion of signs, symbols into a uni, one verse.
God as melody, or tempo.
That notes would pop-up, out of silence, is disturbing to our addicted to order minds.
That notes would defy integration into a melody makes us afraid of the repercussion of this dis-harmony.

Yet, out of chaos order emerges, and returns back to.
Complexity simply confuses the concept of order so as to bury chaos within its field of possibilities.
it inserts it as but a discreet form of order, only the few can perceive and report on to the "blind".
This sets-up the premise for Religion, and the magical powers of the priesthood.
Though it states a pain full truth about human intellectual disparity it also exploits it to fabricate a non-existent hierarchy.
Best lies are the ones that manipulate a truth.

The mathematical adaptation of the previous is to define randomness as a variation of order, with a statistical higher or lower level of probability.
This, also, exploits a truth.
Probability is order, therefore there are more or less probable possibilities - higher and lower forms of order. This produces the biological interpretation of order as more or less substantial - or as matter and energy.
But this is, still not chaos, or to put it in statistical from, it is not randomness.
Although it is true that order can be measured as more or less possible, this is still within the contexts of probability, in other words order.
Man, as a forager of roder, obsessed with it, dependent upon it, identifying with it, can only measure probability, within theoretical possibility.
In theory the possible is infinite, because the brain is not bound by physical laws, and it can conceptualize by converting a limit to vagueness.
The word "infinite", though part of theoretical jargon, is a meaningless term.
It exists as a ambiguous idea, represented by the paradoxes symbolism produces....like the infinite divisibility of "one".
Here, the noumenon/phenomenon contradiction is resolved with infinite regress, Zeno like paradoxes, or mystification.
In science it reaches the paradoxical theory of Quantum Physics.

[quote="Feynman, Richard"] If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics[/quote
Echoing the mystical sentiments of Abrahamics who "explain" their God as inexplicable.

How can the mind understand what it cannot conceptualize?
How can it conceptualize chaos, when this is an ordering?
At this point art must take over. Metaphors are linguistics pushed to their natural end of artistic representation.
Humans simply forget the essence of language, when they use it, living in its abstracted absoluteness.
If all is already ordering, then why would an organism emerge as an ordering?
Ordering of what?
What is already ordered?
We're back to Abrahamic paradoxes. They resolve it by claiming, using human motives, that this is all an illusion, a test.
Those who are taken by it are the unfaithful, the sinners.
They enjoy the primordial sin, far too much, and will pay for it in the day of reckoning.

For there to be ordering, there must be disordering.
In fact, our observations of the real world exposes a expanding, darkening, cooling, movement.
Black is how the brain interprets what it cannot find patterns within, and yet we know the uni-verse is full of background radiation, activity.
We assume that what is dark is comprehensible. It can be perceived and understood.
This is the Alexandrian mindset - what I define as "positive" Nihilism.
Abrahamism names its absolute, or alludes to it, leaving it nameless so as to be any word.
The known is made known, simply by being given a name - symbolized with a word, or, like the Muslims refusing to symbolize their absolute because this diminished it.
It is any word, at any time.
But the cosmos does not adhere to our expectations.
It defies out human "logic", our Newtonian Laws.

Chaos, or randomness is what lacks order.
Existence, defined as what is (inter)active, does not contradict randomness.
Possibility of nil probability, to put it statistically.
This does not contradict the definition of existence.
Space, as field of possibility, within which matter/energy emerge as probability.
Background radiation is this field of possibility.
(Inter)active but lacking all order.
Pattern being the human intuitive conception of probability.
Patterns interpreted in accordance with each organism's evolved methods - a priori.
Interpreted sensually, as colour, form, sound, tone, smell, texture, via a medium - electromagnetism, atmosphere.



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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:29 am

Exists = (inter)action. The state of dynamism. To have energy/force.
Since perception occurs via a medium, the phenomenon must (inter)act with the intervening medium, also a phenomenon, which then (inter)acts with the organism, or its sense organs evolved to collects, and processes such stimuli.
Processing means interpreting the stimuli into a form the nervous system can use....basing it on the nervous systems apirori methods, evolved through trial and error - natural selection.

In more evolved organism these stimulation are transmitted to the brain, which is nothing more than a hub evolved to aid the nervous system n processing stimuli.
A centralized processing organ for sensual stimulation.
The translated into neural pulses stimulation are then abstracted....first in a very rudimentary, primitive form:sensation, later as emotion, which is a more sophisticated, or a complexity, a congruity, of sensations.

Fear, for example is attraction/repulsion combined.
Anxiety, towards other, couples with desire towards self.
It is the desired repulsed by an unknown other.

If we keep in mind that life is a congruity of patterns, repulsing/attracting one another, finding balance, then we understand it these repulsing/attracting relationship with an excess of attraction - otherwise the organism would fall apart.
What is in excess in the congruity of patterns is internal attraction, resulting in a movement inward - implosive - projecting its repulsive energies outward.
First boundary - electromagnetic. This will later evolve a exoskeleton, in the form of a pliable membrane.
Electromagnetic repulsion solidifying.
The energy of repulsion, exhibited in a simple amoeba coming in contact with other, as retraction.
Attraction, or movement toward, following this initial automatic reaction.
We ought to keep in mind two factors...
One is that we are thrown into world - we move whether we choose to or not - we change whether we want to or not.
Revolution is resisting change, not change itself.
Change does not require our agreement to happen.
Conservation is the real act of rebellion, if we think of it within human political contexts.
What people means, whether they know it or not, by their desire for change, is that they are dissatisfied with the present attempt to order. Their desire for change means change the hierarchies being developed.
Reshuffle the deck, because they feel they were dealt a bad hand.

In the realm of physics, it is order that is rare and revolutionary.
Not chaos. Chaos is expanding, increasing.
Chaos increases continuously, effortlessly, due to the (inter)activities of the existent.
One does not have to will chaos, it happens whether we like it or not.
The paradox of the human condition, relating to Nietzsche's overman: to become aware of the necessity of chaos/randomness, while at the same time fearing it, repelling it, contradicting it.
Randomness both makes life possible and destroys it, condemns it to an ephemeral state, full of need/suffering - resistance to flux.
Order emerges out of chaos and then returns to it.

Attraction/repulsion, in this context, becomes a drive toward and away from chaos.
Attraction requires a certain degree of order to be present.
This is why love and lust are so central in an organism becoming aware of itself.

Attraction is pattern/vibration finding congruence with another - harmony.
Harmony is always imperfect, partial.



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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Nov 11, 2016 1:37 pm

With the pretext of "synthesis", the modern harmonizes, with vagueness, two, or more, in-congruent noetic concepts.
Meant to represent the noetic limit in interpreting phenomena - the implied distance of the apparent from the source, the noumenon can only deduce using presence, itself a noetic interpretation of world, it now serves as a excuse to cover inconsistencies, and merge them within a singular concept, represented by a word.
The word becomes the theoretical presentation of contrary concepts.

Word as Trojan Horse, to sneak in a threatening lie, within the pleasing representation.
With the concept of "synthesis" every noetic construct can be harmonized, explaining away contradictions with an implication.
Moderns use it to fabricate complex, inane, concepts, using the pleasing, flattering, covering of an icon, inserting within this covering a threatening, nonsensical concept.
Power in association.
Once meant to deal with the limits and inadequacy of mind, faced with reality, it has become a symbol of mind imposing itself upon world from the safe distance of a skull (exoskeleton), only feeling pain as lack, from the body, and with the body also placed within a protective institutional, shield - humanity as crab.
The only discomfort the mind can feel is that of accumulating energies needing release - a libidinal, sexual, desire, to expunge.
With minimal experience with lack (nature's frugality - efficiency) mind is relieved by the independence from its primary role - leisure.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:06 am

Subjective refers to a relationship of conscious, emerging organism , to fluctuating world - noumenon interpreting/representing phenomenon.
Neither is absolute, in that neither is static, whole, perfect, non-contingent, immutable, indivisible, one.
What subjective interprets is patterns, it then uses to direct its own actions/choices.
Noumena produce actions/behaviours, applications, which then result is success and/or failure, determined by the accuracy of the interpretation.
Given that no absolutes are possible, as absolute would negate reality, what we are dealing with here is degree of accurate - or superior-inferior interactions of a fluctuating world of (inter)active patterns, and non-patterned energies.
The degree of accuracy is measured by cost/benefit.
The costs/benefits affecting organism as a consequence of its applied interpretations, and their accurate understanding, or evaluation of their meaning.  
Cost/Benefits in the primal sense, are always self-preservation based.
A simple organism, like a amoeba, or a dog, does not have any other motive other than survival, which it does not experience as a idea(l), but as need/suffering.
This is why reproduction had to evolve methods of coercion, that contradict this primary need.

In higher life-forms, such as humans, the motive can be an idea(l), other than survival.
It can place a motive outside its physical needs, experienced as pain/pleasure, and independent from its individual desires, such as sexual gratification and survival, for the sake of gratification and survival.
These ideals can be rooted in the world of cost/benefit, but this time the ideal itself suffer the costs and benefits through the individual using them as a orientation metaphor: to focus and direct its aggregate energies - will.  
The individual uses himself as a sounding-board, of his advance and loyalty to his desired goal, and judged this unattainable to attainable goal through its affect on him.
Survival, self-interest, become secondary means toward an end outside the individuals' primal condition.
This is called Nobility, if the ideal aspired is in line with the individuals past/nature, as an advancement, a growth out of the same root system, and it is Nihilistic when it contradicts, to whatever degree it does and can, this past/nature.


The outcome of the subjective interpretation of the objective, indifferent to all interpretation world, determines its superiority or inferiority, if no other mitigating force intervenes to alter the balance of cost/benefit.    

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:26 am

Both subjective, interpreting-self, and objective, interpreted-world, are fluctuating - in Flux.
Objectivity simply indicates an interpretation of world not corrupted by emotion, need, desire, or an approach to the objective, not a total harmonization with it, because organism is ordering and cosmos is dis-ordering, producing conflict the subjective mind interprets as need/suffering, or as paradox - the disparity between ideal and real.
In other words objecticvity means the subjective interpretations harmony with the world indifferent, non-absolute, amoral interactivity.

Good/bad need not be a moral evaluation of cost/benefit, because it does not incorporate the ought to, or the universally desired.

Flux is constant (inter)action of patterned and non-patterned energies/vibrations, the mind interests/translates, if patterned, as appearance/presence.
Form, colour, taste, smell, texture, tone, rhythms, are all apriori methods of interpretation, of translating the (inter)active flux into abstractions/noumena.  

The minds sensitivity, its sophistication determines how much and how accurately it perceives.
Cost/Benefit is the primordial consequence of this judgment upon the organism - one not requiring a conscious awareness and appreciation.
A plant acts and the costs/benefits, of its actions, as these (inter)act in world, affect it, whether it knows it, or not.  
Basic fact of Evolution Theory not requiring higher cognitive awareness, and judgment - cause/effect.
These actions automatically follow the path-of-least-resistance, and only evolve the ability to divert towards paths-of-more-resistance, as a evolved method of outperforming and out-competing other organisms struggling for the same resources, or towards the same gratifications of needs.
No large brains required to abstract, and then to idealize the goal - to consciously move towards a desired destination: motive.
There is no possibility for an organism, on this level of awareness, to choose an ideal other than the gratification of its own needs - it need not know that its own automatic behaviours are due to its own survival goals, no more than a rat needs to know why it is taken over, once a year, with a desire to copulate - it need not see the meaning, the connection, of its actions to the outcome.
It's brain need not understand its own behaviour - it is ingrained, with centuries of evolved trial and error, as an automatic impulse, governed by hormones, genetic dispositions, and environmental conditions.        


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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:50 am

Understanding how a judgment can be subjective and the meaning, success/failure, of the application of the judgment can be independent from the judgment itself, seems to be beyond the intellectual capacity of the average Modern.

Trapped in the absolutist Nihilistic paradigm, of primitive thinking, the idea that strength can be a measure of weakness, and gnosis a measure of ignorance, cannot escape the absolute either/or poles of Nihilism.
It requires an artistic mind, most Moderns are too dull to cultivate.


In their 'thinking' the difference between subjective and objective is that of absolute Self, relative to Absolute truth, most Moderns showing an affinity for the absolute Self, as a replacement of God, as an externalized Self.
Their ego is gratified when it is placed within the concept of an absolute Self, as opposed to being a subjugated part of a Self outside itself.

For them it is an empowering leap to accept the demise of God, as an authority they must submit to, adopting the Self as a god-like authority of "I say so", as opposed to "He/God says so".
This is why they relate to natural order, as an objective limiting rule, as a child relates to a domineering parent - a fascistic, totalitarian rule, that can only be conscious.
Domineering consciousness of a god transferred to a limiting rule no less wilful and conscious.

The idea o an indifferent, natural order, restricting/limiting choices, actions, or imposing a heavy cost to wrong choices and actions, is impossible for them to fully grasp.
As it relates to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Their understanding remains within Nihilistic paradigm, insisting that any conflict between their subjective interpretations and the interactive world (objective reality), must be a conflict of wills, with motives.
They equate all order as living organization, using ego, and what it knows and understands of Self, as the standard projected outward.
World adapted to their organic processes, and not their processes forced to adapt to the world.
For them, whether they know it or not, all order is a will-full, consciousness, therefore their own consciousness must liberate itself from this authority and create its own reality.

The idea of a fluctuating subjectivity, relating to an indifferent fluctuating objective world, is unbearable to them.
The idea that order can be indifferent, or that randomness can lack all order, are concepts they cannot fully integrate into their subjectivity.
For most, the barrier is purely genetic, organic...they simply have inferior genes.
For some the barrier is psychological, tolerance, they have inferior courage or constitutions.
For both the issue is one of survival.
If they could understand most would go mad, or lose the principles that make existence bearable to them.


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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:24 am

Objective = world, reality.
Fluctuating, (inter)acting processes, some ordered, some random - patterns and non-patterns.
Flux = interactivity.
Interactivity = attraction/repulsion, harmony/disharmony.
Unity = congruence of patterns finding ephemeral balance of attraction/repulsion

Subjective = emerging awareness of the objective world.
Interpretation, determining cost/benefit, or success/failure, or life/death.

Subjectivity can be divided into two groups.
One adjusting self, the subjective, to the fluctuating world, seeking patterns with the patterns (understanding) to compensate for this continuous flux.

The other imposing self, the subjective, upon a fluctuating world - intervening, noetically, to impose upon world one's own subjective needs, producing ideas/ideals, abstractions based on a reaction to it.
The interpretation forced upon world - or projected into it to help the subjective mind cope - Nihilism.

Nihilism divided into two psychological types.

One, presuming that all interpretations, all reactions, all subjectivity are uniformly false - underlying chaos to everything.
Order is a myth all must agree on, lend credence to, sacrifice their subjectivity towards - a shared lie.
Pure nihilists, authentic - chaos worshipers.
Anarchist of spirit - all is absolutely nil.

Second, that all randomness is a myth, founded on a hidden order, God in the machine.
A secret order, complexity, only a few initiated, the few are worthy of knowing and appreciating.
Totalitarians of spirit - all is absolute order, determinism, absolute one.

These two poles of Nihilism created the Nihilistic paradigm, politically divided as left/right, or philosophically as monism, and spirituality as God/Satan.
Discourse remains within this context, this dualism, this binary logic = 1/0.
Illusion of freedom, when both sides presume a different variant of the absolute.

Linear thinking.
The two extremes both beginning and ends - alpha and omega, creation destruction.

Paganism is outside this nihilistic paradigm.
It may be simplified, for the common man, into metaphorical dualism, delivered with symbolic representations but it does not believe in absolutes.
Circularity = no beginning and no end, symbolizing ordering.
Randomness making the process forever incomplete, continuous.
The cycle is never exactly the same - determinism evaded.
There is a symbolic flaw in the symbolic, noetic, order, as there is a flaw in randomness.
Yin/Yang
Pagan gods are flawed.
They, too, are struggling with man to create and maintain order.

Natural order produces manmade order.
Genes emerge from natural processes then extending into memetic reactions to this genetic emergence, reflecting natural order.
Order is not manmade, but manmade order either is in harmony, or contrary to natural order.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:17 pm

Ideal Sign
The idea(l) is not attained.
It is approached.
The ideal directs and focuses the organism upon a goal; it orients it.
The ideal is the noumenon, relating to a world of (inter)active phenomena.
The ideal is the objective, against which subjective consciousness measures itself, and others, to determine its progress towards the desired.

If it makes itself the ideal, it comforts itself with an objective already attained, and excuses all mistakes and inadequacies as part of its perfection – narcissism.
If it places the ideal outside the real, it condemns itself to a lifetime of failure, and making amends for its inability to approach what is outside the real, sacrificing the real to a noetic fabrication – Paradise.
If it constructs its ideal by selectively combining past memories, genetic or memetic, it creates an ideal that is improbable, and an objective that inspires with its vagueness, placing fulfillment in some immanent future Utopia that has nothing to do with the experienced and with any past, but only with a promise, expressing need.
If it constructs it by gathering past, and choosing what parts it wishes to return to, it places itself on a path of alignment of past-presence-future.

In all cases the ideal shapes the movement towards it, and though it is never attained, it determines the character of the one using it as an orienting objective.        

Nihilists announce the self as their ideal, ensuring a lifetime of running around their own shadow; seeing self everywhere; settling with the sensation of preserving and satisfying it.
A realist places the ideal outside self; ensuring a lifetime of humble striving; judging all as he judges himself; settling for nothing less than the sensation of striving.

Symbols that link, or that loop.
Words, as tools to connect the climber to the cliff-face; to hammer in and chisel through the hardness, ascending higher and higher towards a summit that never comes.
Words, as toys, to disconnect mind from the hard climb; thrown about like harmless plastic; hands thrown up in joy, as the child runs round and around itself, before it falls, dizzy with its own spin.


_________________
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 Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:43 am

Truth for its own sake [Harris' Xt. will to truth/enlightenment rationalism] is as low grade as Truth for survival [Peterson's Utilitarian pleasure/pain consequentialist rationalism].

Harris on the Heideggerian [beyond human] path, Peterson on the Randian [immersed human] path.




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

"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 : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:43 am

All organisms, what e call life, is subjective, in that it relates to the world.
This 'relating' is how its memories (stored experiences, nurturing) interacts with the ongoing flux.
The subjective simply refers to this relationship.

Man is the only species, we know of, where this relating is converted to abstractions that can be symbolized and articulated.
It is the organism that can relate to world ideologically. It can give logos to its ideas.

All humans are ideologues, if they give logos to their abstractions - ideas.
This is the only difference between the human species and all other, known, species.
Man can articulate his mental models - he can convert them to memetic code and share them, whereas all other species can only relate to world subjectively, as reaction, based on precedent - trial and error mechanisms established as automatic reactions to stimuli.
An animal a plant, is also subjective, in that it reacts, and acts, in accordance to its private interpretation and evaluation of ongoing interactions = circumstances.
All subjective interpretations are expressions of how the particular organism relates to world, and how it relates is determined by what preceded its emergence and was established as automatic reactions.
Only man can relate to his own automatic recreations (genetics), and convert them into codes (memes) that can be shared, and/or articulated.
This articulation is the giving logos to an idea(l)....where idea refers to mental models, abstractions, and ideals means a judgment on what is a positive, to the organism, idea, projected as a desirable goal, a guiding objective.

The objective can be anything.
The objective of survival, is the most primitive and therefore the most popular, as it is automatic.
But other ideals can usurp it, such as the ideal of awareness, despite its detrimental effect on personal survival, or the ideals constructed as synthesis of ideas, some as inversions of what is experienced (nihilistic) and other as surpassing the immediate, or placing the ideal outside personal interests.
This does not mean all objectives are equally relevant, or plausible, or successful, as all objectives are projections of a fallible mind.
Here trial and errors, cost/benefit, differentiates the superior judgment, from the inferior one.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:50 pm

Idealism, the modern believes, is always positive.
It believes in absolute terms: one, whole, truth, final.
It believes that it has broken out of this paradigm when it negates it all, absolutely, replacing the absolute one, with absolute nil: truth/untruth, whole/emptiness, final conclusion/forever elusive conclusion.

This is part of what I described as the Nihilistic paradigm: 'positive' nihilism, the projection of noumenon, of abstractions, into a world that lacks absolutes; pure nihilism, the rejection of all idea(l)s, all abstractions, as irrelevant, as equally nothing.
The very utility of abstraction is rejected, replaced with a suicidal negation of all, and/or the obsessive seeking of comfort, escape, a reason not to kill self (negate self), in others.
What is absent in world is replaced with undeniable sensation (hedonism), and emotion.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon May 01, 2017 9:36 am

We, all, hold others, and ourselves accountable in relation to an idea(l).
For the subjectivist it is his own opinion, for the hedonist, it is his own pleasure, for the pure Nihilist it is the nil, for the positive Nihilist, it is the idea of God, or idealized Humanity, or a concept that has no existence outside his own mind.

Whatever the idea(l), the noetic construct is, it is a guiding, orienting, symbol, and a means towards something used to evaluate all choices, actions, ideas/ideals.
The idea(l) is rarely doubted.
It is always self, or other that fails to live-up to its direction.

That is not to say that the evaluation is wrong.
The hedonist may correctly judge someone as not able to contribute to his pleasure, the christian correctly judges another as sinner, in relation to his Christian ideals, a subjectivist, having made himself the standard, correctly judges others in relation to it.
What is missing is an evaluation of the ideal, against which self, and all others are to be evaluated.
The idea(l) cannot be measured against itself but only against other idea(l)s, and all against an indifferent world, where all ideals emerge as interpretations and motives, and objectives.  

Accepting the hedonist's evaluation of you as one unable to add to his pleasure ideal, or a christian's judgment of you as a sinner, in relation to his Christian dogma, is not a sign of low self-esteem, unless you adopt the ideal as your own standard.
Self-esteem being the evaluation of self ion relation to a particular idea(l), and not in relation to all ideals.
To value self in relation to a particular objective, creating a relationship of self with other, and with world/existence.
This presupposes awareness but also self-awareness, to produce the juxtaposition of judgment.

Primitive awareness, such as that of plants, or less sophisticated organisms, lacking awareness of self, this juxtaposition is not of self in relation to other, but other in relation to other, where self is need, determining the judgment itself.
Self is the sensation of need/desire.

In more sophisticated organisms where self-awareness has reached the level of self-awareness, self is more than need/desire, it is idea(l), relating to the real.
Self, as idea(l), can now be juxtaposed to other, as idea(l), or to pure idea(l) - self and other measured in relation to it, or one's own understanding of it.


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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14429
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:27 pm

One more time, because morons are multiplying like rabbits...

Objective is not an absolute, static state, but a measure of subjectivity.
Just as strength is not omnipotence, but a measure of weakness, and gnosis is not omniscience but a measure of ignorance.
No absolutes means that all is a measure in degree; a fluid, constantly altering in degree.

Objective, in the context of perceiving reality means an approach to what is ongoing and altering.
Therefore subjectivity is always falling behind, and adjusting, to a constantly fluctuating reality.
Objectivity signifies the world, as flux, being the objective for a subjectivity's interest, its goal - a near-perfect congruity of perspective and reality...which is impossible, of course, because there are no absolutes and all is fluid (fluctuating due to interactivity)...so reality is changing.

So, how does the mind compensate for this, to gain an advantage over other minds?
It perceives patterns, within the interaction of patterns....details, subtlety, in-sight.
All is changing but patterns persist over long periods of time, otherwise all knowledge would be impossible....otherwise there would be no matter, no energy and no life.

We call this perception of patterns within patterns "understanding".
One can know, like a computer holds data....and not understand.  
Another way of expressing the same concept is, finding understanding through knowledge - how patterns relate, and (inter)act.
How they connect in webs of causality.
Understanding makes preemption, prediction, preparation possible...and this gives an advantage to the mind, because it can focus its aggregate energies and overpower a far more powerful entity, congruity of energies.
Focus concentrates energies, so that none are wasted in other pursuits, concerns, possibilities.
Focus multiplies synergy.
This is the organic advantage of understanding.

Again....how does one test one's understanding?

Three ways, placed in succession of importance and effectiveness, from superior to inferior:

1- Application
The simplest, most base, primal, and the most effective - simple trial and error - natural selection.
It is what governs all life - evolution.
Cost/Benefit is the direct consequence of an action, a choice, an application of judgment.
Cost/Benefit judged in relation to intent, objective.
This method is used by all organic life...it is the most primal form of testing judgments.
This is how natural selection works: an organism judges (subjectively), it acts upon its judgment, and then it faces the consequences (cost/benefit).
If the expected, or not, costs exceed the expected, or not, benefits, the organism suffers a loss equal to the different in expectation.
If the difference is large it may perish, excluding its poor judgment from the gene pool.


2- Empathy
Not to be confused with sympathy.
Here an agency, a proxy, is used to evaluate one's understanding - using a specimen.
The agent acts, applies understanding, and the observer studies and learns from the outcome - evaluates the understanding's accuracy from the consequences.
Again...cost/benefit become the measure of accuracy.
This method is used by more advanced life, a way of avoiding the high risk of the first - psychology.
This method involved getting into the mind of another, and learning through his/her choices, in relation to his/her expectations concerning potential costs & benefits.
The more agencies used, over time, the stronger the possible validation of judgment, to deal with chance and performance issues.  


3- Theory
The most difficult and weakest form of evaluating understanding, because it can be corrupted by emotions, prejudices, feelings, self-interests, vanity etc.
To compensate dialectics have been invented, over the centuries.
Two individuals offer a theory on any subject, and both theories are compared to each other and, more importantly, to world, empirically, sensually perceived.
Both noetic constructs are compared to one another, and how well they explain commonly perceived phenomena, and then, if possible, they are both compared, directly to the sensually perceived phenomena, over a sufficient period of time - the length of time determining the degree of certainty that one theory is superior to the other.
predictability being another factor, how each theory explains immediate phenomena and can predict future phenomena.
Precedent is a third. How much time, in past, has one theory been validated in comparison to the other.
The theory can be considered a map, a model, placed over real phenomena, a real world....and then how well this map, this noetic model, harmonizes with the perceived world, over time (past,present, and future - precedent/empiricism/prediction) decides which subjective theory is most likely closest to the objective world.
An easier way to start is to evaluate how many words/symbols used by either theory correspond to observable, testable, perceived phenomena, and how many remain pure noetic constructs.  
The third is the most advanced method because it avoids the risk of the first, circumvents the necessity for direct observation, and makes the judgment testable abstractly, using reason, and experience of the shared world - philosophy.

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




PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective

Back to top Go down
 
Objective <> Subjective
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 5 of 6Go to page : Previous  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: