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
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:34 pm

Objectivity does not mean absolute truth.
Paradoxically it is our subjectivity that must translate the fluid real into static abstractions which we then mistakenly being are absolutes, and think they exist outside our minds.

These subjective absolutes can be positive, as in ONE TRUTH, or negative as in NIL TRUTH.
Primitive minds cannot conceptualize further than their own subjectivity, affected by anxieties, existential issues, emotion, self-interests, vanity, arrogance, psychosis, narcissism. They are trapped in their own subjectivity unable or unwilling to place the standard of evaluating their own opinions outside themselves.
Normally his would not be a problem, because natural selection does not require the organism to accept or to agree...it exacts a price whether the organism has a brain, or not.
but we live in systems that shelter minds form the consequences...so this produces the delusion that all judgments are equal, or their difference in quality is insignificant, nothing to talk about, or to study, or to even mention.
All falls in category 3, in the above list...where philosophy now becomes dominated by effete, infantile, buffoons, with an opinion, and the sense of entitlement that demands to be heard, and to be respected...no matter what crap comes out of their mouths.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:31 am

If we adopt the explosion metaphor, from Big Bang, then the objective corresponds to theblast wave crest, as the universe expands.
The wave crest is the ongoing present, which cannot be consciously perceived but only in hindsight , as the after-the-fact evaluation of the consequences - empiricism.

Consciousness lags behind existence...and as Heidegger said, it is a 'looking back'.
So to be objective refers to the closest approach to presence possible, given the time/space requirements to perceive and process the stimulation produced by interactivity (Flux).
Conventional meaning of objectivity is a subjective perspective which has reduced the corrupting effects of emotion, personal desires, and self interest.
A perspective void, as much as possible, of the prejudices genetics and memetics produce.

Empiricism is another way to describe it, and it is also called the scientific method, because science has adopted it to justify and validate its own theories and hypothesis regarding existence.
I refer to it as a re-connection of noetic constructs, via words/symbols, with what is apparent, what is phenomena - that which can be experienced, tested, and validated by multiple minds, through time/space.
The end result is a hypothesis, a theory, void, as much as possible, of all human prejudices (genetics), and all cultural influences (memetics).
The world is the standard to evaluate idea(l)s.
The world not meaning human world, or world constructed and maintained by human interventions, but the world before, beyond, outside human interventions - also called artificial to distinguish them form spontaneously emerging, natural, phenomena.

Artificial has already been defined by me as the ambiguous point in space/time when the interventions of a species, in this case the human, upon environment begin to affect the species more than the environment intervened upon.
We can safely say that modern human socioeconomic systems fall in this category as they far exceed in effect, upon humans, the environment they have intervened upon and sublimated.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:12 pm

Objectivity, as a qualification of subjectivity, is about eliminating emotion, self-interest, ego, form the perception of phenomena.
As this is not entirely possible, for a living organism with needs, one approaches it, and become objective to a degree.

Like Hellenic asceticism and unlike Hedonism, suffering nor pleasure are the goals, the objectives, but an approach to objectivity, means an approach to how the world is - a perfect harmony of reality and ideal.
The goal is not to remain un-involved, or disinterested, or emotionless, or to deny yourself pleasure, but to clarify, to see as clearly as possible to then gain an appreciation of your own perspective, and to shape your ideals, adjusting your goals accordingly.

To be objective is to see the world as it is, and not as you like it to be...so it is to be as a god, in a theoretical "outside".
The more objective you become the more how phenomena, patterns, relate and interact, becomes clear - unaffected by desire or need, or intent.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:12 pm

I place nothing above truth.
Whether one is free to speak it, or ought o speak it, is another matter.
When I speak of truth, I mean no absolute, certain, perspective, but one that is superior in its approach to the objective world which is dynamic, but still contains patterns that govern patterns interacting.

Truth is a set of rules, held as predicting how the ordered world of perceived matter/energy relate, leaving beyond perception, those energies which lack all consistent, repeating, order.
Truth is an ongoing process of updating, or approaching what is continuously falling away, knowing that a complete merger of subjective and objective is not only impossible but entirely undesirable, as it would be an end.
At the same time I do not define truth as totally meaningless, because this continuous falling away dies not mean that where order exists there are not some underlying laws governing them, for the time being.
To be aware of these patterns that underlie patterns is what I define as understanding, as opposed to knowing.
An animal knows, because it perceives patterns, and interprets them as colour, shape, scent, abstracting them as tree, fruit, stone etc. but it does not understand, on the level a human can, because it cannot find a connections governing all these patterns, and it certainly cannot imagine the presence of random energies it cannot even intuit, but has evolved to take them into account when it, like all simple organisms, side on the side of caution.
An animal's awareness of causality is simple and direct.
Fear of the dark can be ascribed to such an siding with caution, when one senses there is more, but cannot perceive, and cannot know or understand.

These laws, are not themselves eternal, but they are, in relation to human lifespans, and history, sufficient to produce civilization, and an understanding of nature, and organic behavior.

Truth is not an end in itself, although many have made it so.
Such an endeavour is reserved for those that surpass the human condition, with its desires, fears, needs, hopes, ambitions, loves and hates.
Truth is a means of clarifying, testing, validating ideas, ideals.

Truth is not an absolute.
For those who are clear and clean, it is another way of saying superior, or most probable.
Truth is another way of saying ariston.
There is no place in truth for emotion, needs, desire,ego, because then it is corrupt and false.
Truth is how ego, emotion, focus and direct themselves in an unforgiving world, where absolutes are absent.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:24 am

Truth is not power, nor is it pleasing, but it may be used for the pursuit of both.
Truth just is.
How it is used, and how effective it is in being used, is a matter of Will.
Truth has no intent, but it can be given one, or it must be endured as what cannot be escaped.

Truth cannot be created, only exploited, concealed, manipulated.
Truth knows no friends or foes - your attitude towards it will only affect you.
Truth is good for the strong, and bad, or even evil, for the weak.
Truth confronts and shatters desire. It burst bubbles, splashes cold water on hot passion, rudely awakens dreamers from their dreams.
Truth stands in the way towards goals, when they are not in agreement with it.
Truth is indifferent to human woes.

Truth is the immutable past, made eternally present.
To get into it deeply, you must go back.
Truth is unforgiving and unforgettable.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:32 pm



Harmony of subjective/objective can manifest in a harmony of mind and body, where the mind is not so advanced in a body that is inept, and a body is not so advanced containing a mind that is totally inept.
We call the first nerdiness, we call the second stupidity.

A hyper-developed brain can also lead itself astray, when in its desire to compensate for it's body's insufficiency it exceeds the realm of the real, because the mind is not bound by time or space.
Ideas/ideals, noetic constructs are 'free' of external effects if they remain so.
This is part of the problem.
I attempt to solve it by reattaching words/symbols to reality, because words are mental constructs that ought to represent abstractions that were constructed directly from sensual stimuli, and not delusions, or fantasies that mix or invert sensual stimuli to construct abstractions with no external references.
Imagination not limited by external order, by nature, is fantasy, and when and if the mind prefers it, because it is convenient and pleasing, then it succumbs to delusion, and becomes Nihilistic.
Nihilism is, after all, a coping mechanism.


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



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 1169
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 26
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:03 pm

If one finds their mind wandering as the result of a misguided 'empathy' for everyone's imaginations, then they find the connecting of words to reality to be something peaceful. The strong who are convinced of their need to 'care for everyone' and treat all with kinship, find what is anathema to the people they're supposed to care about, is actually great relief to them. If the powerful won't abandon the idea of universal kindness without first addressing the fear of that kind, then they'll have no rest. Part of madness/genius. Civility and humility, manners, a God, enabled the geniuses to have some peace because the peasant class was not resentful. The 'social revolutionary' stokes the flames of revolution and finds pity within the upper classes, who, when they notice the lower classes, feel kindness for them. Or pity. The Bhagavad Gita serves as a decent guide for the upper class, who get consumed in kindness and pity only to forget the higher truths - patterns behind patterns - they fight for.

They resentful have the same impetus as do the ruthless.

Autistic 'extreme-manning' is the tool of the lower classes to declare the use of 'kinship' to be inconsistent on the part of the powerful if the powerful will not extend that kinship to the lowest animal, or themselves. If the powerful decide to treat kindly their own family, they're called "hypocrites" for not treating the sons and daughters of others with the exact same kindness. This kind of resentment is ruthless against the powerful, deserved only if the powerful are ruthless. To the 'social revolutionary', any power that is not theirs, is ruthless and they're victims of it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:16 am

The sphere is how we conceptualize the approach towards the absolute in four-dimensional time/space.
It's competition would proceed towards the point, in two-dimensions, and then drop out of existence, as the absolute was attained, in theory, as an implosion of space/time.
This theoretical absolute can only be conceptualized using our multi-dimensional experiences - because we are products of Flux, and increasing chaos.
Because we cannot conceptualize the non-existent absolute, because it is counter-intuitive for an organism evolved using intuition, we convert the flux into a static thing; we construct it in our mind, as an an ambiguous, vague, insinuating abstraction.
Being in the world we convert the world into a thing and call it uni-verse.
We have no experience with any singularity, any one, whole, yet we construct it and then assume it into existence, unable to conceptualize existence without interpreting it in the manner we evolved to interpret all fluidity = phenomena translated, converted to noumenon.
The concept of universe, in particular, necessitates a projection of mind "beyond "existence, "outside" reality, in other words into a noetic non-existent, alternate reality, or non-reality, from where we can imagine the cosmos as a singularity, a complete, whole


Absolute symmetry would be another way of describing the absolute.
Proportionality is the adaptation of symmetry to chaos, to flux, as functionality.
The organism adapts its specialized organs, into an organization specializing in a method of coping with chaos, and (inter)activity.
Symmetry and proportionality are the form an approach towards the absolute takes in relation to randomness - chaos.
Because absolutes are non-existent, are the definition of non-existence, absolute symmetry, or the absolute order, God, are impossible, and for us Pagans undesirable, because it implies an end to existing.
Pagans relate to order and chaos in an ambivalent way.  
They value order, because they are organisms of ordering, but also appreciate chaos, as essential to the emergence of life, and the experience of existing.
Order is what they value and are inspired and attracted by, and chaos is a necessary antithesis that gives makes order precious to a living organism and not as an intrinsic aspect of its existence.
 
Absolute order would be static - immutable, indivisible, eternal, unchanging.
All possibilities would be contained in the singular probability, more accurately described as a certainty.
That we describe the universe as perfect, whole, one, contradicting our own reactions to it, is due to a projection of an idea, based no a organic desire, a need.
Perfection would not change, as it would have to become imperfect if it were already perfect.
To call every manifestation in the course of change perfect, is a human emotional projection, immediately contradicted by the organism's resistance to change, as part of its drive to survive.
To claim that the universe is absolute while its parts are not, or that the theoretical whole, is contradicted by the experiences parts, phenomena, is an absurdity often used by Nihilists when they try to defend their detached from reality, their naive ideologies, such as Communism, and Christianity.

Communists claim that the ideal is perfect, but its applications have been imperfect....which implies a perfect application, in a perfect world, by perfect beings, in perfect, or ideal circumstances.
Christians, like all variances of the same dis-ease, face the difficulty of justifying the existence of 'evil' or the imperfect, the non-ideal, in a universe, theoretically, created by a perfect, ideal Being.
Their solution is creative, even if hypocritical.
They imply god's intent as underlying imperfect, in the form of the Devil, or human free-will, as a testing ground of faith, or of perfection.
That they all consider themselves sinners and insist that all accept this label, implies that their ideal is extra-ordinary and unapproachable, damning them to a lifetime of submissive shame and guilt, before its theoretical, vague, insinuating perfection.
Before the unknown, the unpredictable, they sacrifice their pride, and ego....hoping for forgiveness or salvation in an after life, life.

Secular nihilists, like Marxists, reject this notion, dividing the world of the living to those working for the wordy salvation of all, which may, or may not include non-human organic life, and by renaming all perfect, whole, ideal, in its own way, if it contributes to the idea of individual, or subjective, perfection, idealization, completion for all.
They bring down to a future, immanent reality, the notion of Paradise - as a coming always coming, never quite there, ideal place, meant for ideal creature, in ideal circumstances Utopia.
The present, the world as it is experienced must be ignored, or explained away, in relation to this coming, never present, never past, always future, always hope, always on its way.
In this way the theory is never questioned, because it has not yet been applied 'correctly' or completely, or wholly, or perfectly.
It is always immanent, a promise that will save mankind, or all life, form itself.
Appearances are always superficial, what we see is always an illusion, or too complex to draw guidance from, because completion will resolve complexity, once it gets here.  
All will, one day, be made clear...in some coming future, where we finally see that we, and all, is  one and the same.
Judaism, rejecting its offspring's Christianity, youthful exuberance, is still awaiting its Messiah, and he will get here to bring with him the end of the world.
Christianity, having been selectively fertilized by Hellenic cosmopolitanism, believes the world has already been redeemed, for those who can accept the gift given by the Christ.
The world IS perfect, whole, one, if we stop living in the illusory aesthetic world, and await death, to enter the real reality, where we awaken to the 'truth' that we are already God.
The Christian should open his heart and close his eyes and all his senses that connect him/her to world, and simply immerse himself esoterically, emotionally, to the words - words lacking all references outside the mind.

Using symbols/words, language, as a reflecting surface, in self, or in an authorized other, reflects back consciousness, evading the contradicting, to it, experience of nature.
The true believer, like most Nihilists to varying degrees, is a zombie, with eyes wide shut.
He is a blind seer, following an internal hunger.
He perceives, but rejects what he perceives, when it contradicts the dogma, the ideal, the noumenon he has accepted as preferable.  
As such, words change their motive, their references.
They are now defined, linguistically, and let go of their external meaning, replacing it with a subjective, esoteric, self-serving one - which could be anything the individual wishes, if it does not disturb this delusion in the other.

To accept an external to all minds reference point, standard, is to hold one's self accountable to something outside one's desire, one's will, one's power.
This would require a challenge of one's true essence, where words no longer matter, but only actions, deeds.

if I could convince others, for example, that I've already accomplished a great deed, I've hit the target, then I do not really have to test my skills in relation to the target, where all can witness my accuracy.
I can declare myself a talented artist, a great philosopher, a brilliant thinker, a fabulous individual, a attractive man or woman, and then attempt to seduce others with the ease of escaping judgments, where they are brought in as culpable participants in the lie, so as to then demand to have reciprocity support their own claims.
This is why Nihilists often declare the image they wish others to support, and in return offer their own pretentious acquiescence in another's desirable image, creating an inter-subjective, inter-dependent relationship of lies.
The goal is earthly Utopia, where all are free from suffering, need, and all are happy...and if reality contradicts this "happiness' then it ought to be ignored, or redefined in a way that supports the shared lie.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Aug 21, 2017 4:49 pm

Appearance/Presence <> Interpretation/Perspective

>>> That which exists is dynamic (energy): it (Inter)acts, is part of Flux, where Flux is all that is dynamic (inter)acting, both patterned (order) and non-patterned (chaos - random) energies.

>>> That which exists is present, it is perceptible apparent: it appears to a living, conscious entity.
it can (inter)act with a medium and a sensory cell.
It can be object, and/or objective only to a conscious entity with needs,/desires.

>>> That which can be perceived can be judged, evaluated, interpreted - subjectivity.
The accuracy of the interpretation, and the accuracy of the relationship with other energies (relationships - meaning) determines the outcome of an interpretation which is applied, that produces movement/motive.
A superior interpretation in relation to a motive results in benefits.
An inferior one results in costs.

Costs/Benefits are consequences in relation to motive: needs/desires, or objectives, expectations.

Errors are the product of a misinterpretation a wrong evaluation, and awareness of meaning.
A wrong interpretation.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:02 pm

The process of self-discovery, the endless know thyself, follows the same processes as discovery of world, as it is, and not as we wish it were.
How we perform, in relation to others, and how accurate we evaluate the performance, and understand why good and bad, or cost/benefits, resulted from it, is what determines your self-knowledge.

Self - is memory.
How far back you can go, when seeking yourself, and how accurately you appreciate this past will determine how well you know yourself, in the present, as presence.
This knowledge will be tested and adjusted by interacting with others, and evaluating the consequences (costs/benefits) in relation to the expected results - if no intervening force does not warp the consequences either way.
This intervention upon the consequences is what leads to an over-under-estimation of self...and if the benefits are intervened upon, then sheltering is the outcome.
A spoiled brat, a sheltered mind, over-estimates self, because all his judgments were followed by an intervention which skewed the results in its favor: decreased the costs and increased the benefits.

This leads to arrogance, and narcissism, in the long run.

Modernity, and its nihilism, is the byproduct of a systemic intervention on the consequences.
Generations born in privilege, living a lifetime of sheltering, to one degree or another.
The result in a sense of entitlement, and a growing conviction that all is subjective and all that is subjective is equally valid.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:29 pm



1:10 - You can gauge the intrinsic value from the instrumental value by the cost/benefit outcome and your expectations.
Truth refers to a perspective that has proven to be successful, in relation to the expected/projected outcomes. Juxtaposing the theory, the expected, with the pragmatic, the outcome, on a cost/benefit evaluation, determines how close your instrumental application came to the intrinsic.
But this  is overcharging, so the same application at a different time/space will result in slightly different consequences.
It is the wise man, the philosopher, who seeks truths that are more reliable, and for longer periods of time, and in broader spaces of space - where space = possibility, and time is the movement through and of possibility (change).
Not all truths are equal - indeed.
In all natural selection, where cost/benefit is not intervened upon, weeds out bad judgments - the degree to which a judgment was wrong, or bad, in relation to the expected/projected, exposes the degree to which cost exceeds benefit.
Of course, due to the random (chaos) factor no judgment can ever be absolutely correct, so the we are always dealing with degrees of accuracy.

3:30 - The reason why it is easier to know what is wrong, than what is right, is because wrong covers what is left after right claims a portion of time/space.
It is harder to miss the entire target, than it is to hit the bulls-eye.
Because we are dealing with probability, and not absolutes, the odds of us not being probably correct, are greater than the odds of us being correct.
This is where the evolution of intelligence comes in handy.
Intelligence = *knowledge/experience, *imagination, *processing speed, memory, awareness of subtle patterns within the patterns - or within order, courage, and control.
Intelligence = *knowledge/experience, *imagination, *processing speed, memory, awareness of subtle patterns within the patterns – or within order, *courage, and *control.
*Intelligence holds experience/knowledge in lucid, conscious memory, and combines it with stored genetic memory (DNA), experiences; *projecting beyond the immediate time/space to gain the advantage of foresight, by appreciating past (nature = sum of all nurturing), or second-hand experiences/knowledge, and projecting into the future unknown accurately, minus any corruptible emotions, egoism etc.; *speed of processing sense data and integrating them alongside learned/experienced data, to construct mental models (abstractions); *ability to hold in consciousness data, abstractions so as to juxtapose them with the current, or to integrate them into the aforementioned mental models; *sensual acuity, picking up minute, subtle patterns that evade the awareness of lesser minds, producing a more refined mental model; *bravery to accept what the world is telling you, through its interactivity, producing patterns – the constitution to bear it; *self-control, containing this data, not letting it overwhelm you, or destroy you -dominating what the world is revealing to you.


4:40 -  I am with Peterson on this. A truth cannot only be theoretical, ti must be applicable, pragmatic, proven by trial and error, otherwise it is romantic, ideological, that may fail when applied.
All dogmas have claimed such truths, and when theory was applied in the real world all but a few survived unscathed, forced to change, or to contradict their own ideal principles i.e Christianity.
A theory can be self-consistent, when ti has started from a detached from reality premise.
Anyone can manufacture a perfect theory, when he disregards natural order and you fabricate your own.  
Truth, or theory, or opinion, or subjectivity, only has relevance in relation to an application of its theories, measured, juxtaposed, against the objective, the goal, the ideal.
This is why value and value judgments are always about the conscious juxtaposition of A with B, and there is no intrinsic value or truth.

5:10 - morality is, as I've said before, related to a behavior, common to social organisms where cooperation and cohabitation is a matter of life and death. It is a behavior that promotes and maintains harmonious participation.
There is no universal morality, or objective morality, because the universe is not conscious, only life forms are, and only for social lifeforms, or those that practice heterosexual reproduction, and need another of their kind to be successful, can be said to have a behavior we call moral.
Ethics is the codification of this (inter)activity, this behavior determining relationships.
The Abrahamic concepts of good/evil are meaningless outside these relationships, and in relationships, which eventually include an ideal. In human morality an individual is held accountable in relation to a shared idea(l).
This can be meme specific, but all memes have a common ground, because memes come from genes, and not the other way around.
A shared evolutionary past establishes the grounding for a shared morality.
Where evolution divergence, as in the case of races, or species, we have a divergence in morality, equal to the degree of divergence, measured in time, but only in traumatic environmental effect.
For example long periods of genetic isolation may result in a smaller divergence than a shorter time period but with more severe environmental pressures.
Here I am moving away from Peterson's Abrahamic influences and siding more with Harrison.

8:00 - Moral truths are truths in the sense that they've worked in the past. Within a social context, where behavior matters, they hold true.
But they are not universal, or intrinsic truths, because they cannot be used to apply to lifeless energy/matter and how these patterns relate, or (inter)act.
The danger of anthropomorphizing is great at this point, because attraction/repulsion is how we, humans, understand how patterns relate as harmony/disharmony, and life does evolve from these basic interactions, but the element of memory is missing.
Reputation follows the individuals life, particularly within a small groups. It dilutes within larger, heterogeneous systems, and this is why they dissolve in degeneracy, that begins to threaten the cohesion of the whole.
Conscientiousness, to hold yourself accountable to the ideal, without having another do it for you, is also due to memory.
But it does not in life-less patterns and non-pattered energies.
they interact the same, with every encounter, or modified slightly in power, after each encounter...and its is the beginning of what we call memory.
The difference is where the division between life-less congruities and/or unities of energy/matter and unities that are conscious is found here, in memory (DNA, Consciousness, encoding experience/knowledge that affects every subsequent encounter).
Life-less matter/energy has no such memory. It just (inter)acts as it always has.
Whether it gains or loses from the encounter does not alter its behaviour, but modifies its effect.  

8:30 - Facts are about how phenomena relate. Truths are about a perspective on how phenomena relate, trying to assess what this relationship means. in other words, how the relationship of fact, relates to all other phenomena, past, present, and future.
We can speak of facts, and accentuate our certainty by calling them absolute, but we cannot speak of absolute truths, without claiming to be outside space/time with a universal perspective where the wholeness of the universe is taken as a given.  
But language is an art, and it can be used metaphorically, allegorically, emotionally, without wanting to be precise or to retain integrity. Words have been abused for so long that many have lost all meaning.
They've been detached from reality, from an external reference point, for so long, that this liberty of application, with minimal costs, has become addictive.
No accountability = infancy - retardation man-child, moron = degeneration to prepubescence.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:45 am

Monism comes easy to the human mind, because the brain evolved on a very simple principle based on cellular systolic/diastolic rhythms.
It necessarily reduces the multiplicity and fluidity of existence into an abstraction, a One, and then, later, posits its negation, as part of the diastolic phase of cellular metabolism, as the Nil.

Even when it attempts to conceptualize existence, it does so by imploding it into a One, a universe, implying something beyond it, which would be non-existence, the negation of universe.
This is the foundation of Binary Logic, expressed by the mathematical representations 1/0, and developing into a world view based on dualities.
There is, in fact, no oneness, no whole, literally understood, because no evidence of it exists.
Oneness is a theory, a idea/ideal, an ideology a noetic construct.
In math the absence of one, in reality, is expressed by fractions, shifting the decimal point.
In linguistics it is expressed by verbs, as there is no static thing, only a name given to processes imploded into an abstraction with a ambiguous beginning and end.

All there is, is multiplicity, movement, process - interactivity - Flux.
Many delusions have been built on monism, even while rejecting the idea.
The idea of a panpsychism, of universal consciousness, is one that alludes to monism - living and non-living, consciousness and unconsciousness imploded into a singularity, a tautology, a oneness.
Underlying the nihilistic ideology of oneness is the perception of sameness.
Because we recognize what is most intimate to us, we assume that all is like us, going so far as to disregard or minimize the relevance of difference, divergence.
Sameness relies on perspective - the perception of similarity from a distance, because the closer we observe the more the same becomes different.
Here same is another way of implying oneness, whole.
Not even an individual organism is the same with itself, in any given time/space. it is process, constantly altering because it is interacting and with every interaction a slight change occurs. What binds the organism as a concept is memory.

Sameness is a measure of degree of difference, just as strength is a measure of a degree of weakness, and order is a measure of a degree of chaos.
Since all is tending towards absolute chaos, order is never absolute, it is always order-ing, manifesting as higher or lower order, just as strength is a deteriorating in time, due to temporal attrition, so it is not omnipotence, it is a degree of weakness.
This is what makes strength and order so valuable, so precious - so revolutionary.
It's not those who idealize chaos that are radicals, it is those who idealize order - they are the progressives, not the liberals who want to abandon self to chaos and the natural attrition towards fragmentation, change.  

Monism has some curious effects.
It implodes existence into a universe, and then reduces all differences to sameness - so consciousness is now everywhere, just as love is deserved by all.
It devalues the traits that distinguish and makes them universal.

Christianity devalues love, by naming its monist Deity 'Love' and then declares it as being everywhere, in everything, deserved by all who open themselves to it etc.
Panpsychics devalue consciousness, by projecting ti everywhere, within all processes, so that it is not a distinguishing characteristic of life, rising in hierarchy to superior and inferior consciousness, but it is everywhere, in everything.
Not rare at all.
Not distinctive at all.
They imply that their own consciousness is but a part of a one consciousness.
Their only claim to fame is that they are aware of this, or have access to the universal mind.
It's Abrahamism using different metaphors.

This same ideology is expressed as a metaphysical certainty that all is ordered.
That even what is chaotic is really hiding a secret order, a conspicuous connection to the oneness of absolute order.
Chaos is defines as complexity, so that randomness can be prevented from contradicting the ideology of a perfect whole.

When man conceptualizes universe, or more appropriately named by the Greeks kosmos, what does he do, exactly, when he has no awareness of a whole, a one, or of everything in it?
What he does, in his mind, is project his own consciousness, using imagination, "outside" space/time", into the non-existent, the nil, in other words, and then perceives the totality of processes as a huge, ambiguously held together, whole, a oneness - he, in fact, implodes it into an abstraction and makes the sum of all phenomena, into a noetic fabrication.
But, there is no "outside" space/time, all there is are interactions, that deny the possibility of an immutable, eternal, perfect, complete, complete, whole, indivisible, one.
even the processes we call phenomena, are in constant flux, and the laws man perceives that govern these interactions, patterns within patterns, are also changing.  
This is why consciousness is not static either - it is a continuously updating, verifying process.

Because conceptualizing fluidity, the interactive, without succumbing to the temptation of surrendering to your own representation is difficult, very few have managed to accomplish it.
Very few can, or have the courage and the artistic talent to extricate themselves from the representation, or to use the representation to imply what can never be perfectly represented.
Heraclitus did it by using a metaphor: fire.
With it, flux, interactivity, regional energy fluctuations was displayed by suing the process of combustion.
life is a part of the fire, a flame, a spark, becoming aware of its combustion - life as combustion - overflowing energy, or pathos as it has also been called.
The pathos of suffering this combustion, and learning to enjoy and appreciate it.
Fire is not aware it is fire...nor are all sparks conscious of what they are.
Fire is a process of temperature interactivity, minus a combustion substance.
It is only fire, caused/created by nothing, burning nothing but itself...slowly expanding and cooling down.
What would life be in this metaphor?
A cooling down of a region, within the fire....yes, ordering is contrary to combustion....unless it becomes an overman and realizes that combustion is what it is, and without it it is nil.
A nihilist wants to cool it all down, or burn it all down, depending if he is a positive or a pure nihilist.  
What is a pagan?
One who appreciates his own combustion, does not resent it, but also tries to control it, and cool it down to a degree, without extinguishing it.
See there's a fine ascetic line there differentiating a nihilist, an Abrahamic from a Pagan.
This is why I've said Nihilism is seductive, and there's a little Jew in all of us.
Balance....Hellenic asceticism.
It begins by reconnecting mind to world, or noumenon to phenomenon, the idea(l) to the real.
With this first, necessary step, in an Age where words are used to discontent from reality, rather than to engage it, or connect to it, and with sheltering being present to prevent the weakling, the coward, from surrendering to fantasy, this first step is the hardest.
Without it we can all construct cool, frozen, realities in our minds, and live in them as kings in our own private universe, hoping the fire will not burn it to the ground.  

Those who cannot settle their minds in there, perceived fire as a whole, a one, from the cool distance of an "outside", and just as they can perceive something else burning from there, they continue to think of cosmos as a oneness, or they literally understand the metaphor as the universe being fire.
theoretically projecting yourself into the fire, without feeling the ecstasy of being burned, the need/suffering, is a detachment only those who have projected themselves into an "outside" can enjoy....but not for long.
Sheltering is not forever, and not perfect, either.

Philosophy is not for everyone.  

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:03 am

Consciousness emerges within existence, it does not precede or emerge alongside it.
it is a product of (inter)activity, which is what existence is = dynamic.
What exist is dynamic, it (inter)acts.
Patterned and non-patterned Energies (inter)act = Flux.

Consciousness awakens to world.
It is an awakening to what already exists, beginning a lifelong relationship of subjective consciousness and objective world.
Minds are "trapped" in their perspective, seeking liberation outward.

The phenomenon, that which is (inter)active is apparent to the subjective emerging, awakening conscious mind.
The phenomenon is interpreted by the subjective mind, and is indifferent to its interpretation, if it is also unconscious. Only a conscious mind, an organism, life, can care, has care, experiences existence as need/suffering.
Noumenon relates to phenomenon via the senses which use a medium, mitigating (inter)activity, or direct (inter)action, translating this (inter)action into a form it has evolved to use - method.
It translates it into a form existing as part of its unity - what is known.
This translation is not automatically precise, accurate.
The mind must motivate the body to apply its interpretation of the phenomenon in engaging it, (inter)acting with it.
The consequences, the costs/benefits, the good/bad outcome of this (inter)action is in relation to the mind's expectations, usually having to do with its own esoteric, organic, needs, or in higher minds in relation to an exoteric projected ideal.

Judgment is the word we use to describe the conscious mind's evaluation of the phenomenon, in relation to esoteric needs/desires and exoteric idea(l)s concepts, standards.
The consequences expose the subjective mind's quality of judgment - its intelligence, its awareness.

Philosophy is the discipline of evaluating, speculating, assessing, phenomena and how they relate to each other, in relation to esoteric needs and/or exoteric ideals, objectives.
If it remains theoretical, abstract, noetic, it can never prove its judgments, nor have the disproved. It seduces with untested promise.
They remain theoretical noetic constructs that cannot be applied or have never been applied or have been, as in the case of Abrahamism and Marxism, and have consistently failed, by producing more costs than the promised, expected benefits.
Applied nihilism from Abraham spiritual nihilism, to its alter secularized variants - Marxism, Humanism, Transhumanism - make excuses, or blame others for its continuous, predictable failures - its naivete and obtuseness.

Language (symbols/words, semiotics) is how the noumenon relates and then engages the phenomenon.
Mistaking symbols, language, including mathematics, for the phenomenon itself, is the first level of delusion - degeneracy...and may be willful, intentional, or due to a genetic limit, an inferiority.
Using language to project an alternative world, is also a method of degeneracy, seeking escapes in semiotics, covering of facts, a release and relief from an indifferent world.
Societies often create a memetic protective shield (code cocoon), permitting the continuing immersion in a manmade reality, by reducing the costs and accentuating, inflating, the benefits - artificiality.
This increases the emergence of unfit mutations, dis-ease, just as when man protects domesticated species from natural culling, increases desired or undesired genetic mutations, dis-eases, which man then manipulates and/or exploits to his benefit.

The absence of absolutes means that the subjective, conscious mind must continuously validate its own abstractions, and/or adjust them, adapt them to fluctuating rearrangements.
Finding patterns within patterns, or within order(ing) helps man deal with flux, by becoming aware of longer lasting patterns, that hold true for longer periods of time.
Man calls these natural laws, or mathematical logic when the pattern deals with the validation of semiology once something ti taken as self-evident...in the case of math the concept of 'one' or 'whole'.
This self-consistency is what is called mathematical logic, which can then be used to predict, to be applied externally, upon dynamic phenomena.
In this case the symbols refer to external processes, and represent flux by infinite division, and/or infinite multiplication - divisibility, the absence of an a-tom, being a paradox language produces when and if it is taken literally and not as what it is, metaphorically, representationally, artistically.

All language, including math, is an art form, that can be more or less realistic, more or less precise....and can be sued to re-translate an abstraction into a form that can be projected outward, can be externalized and shared.

Mind interprets phenomena, converting them to neural pulses, then to abstractions, sensations, emotions, and then it may evolve the ability to translate them into a form it can then externalize - geometry, mathematics, words, symbols.
Technologies are this externalization of man's understanding of himself and his own processes.
They are the esoteric externalized.
This is limited by man;s understanding, and of man's knowledge, awareness of himself and of the world he must sample to convert the internal into an external form, suing some other material.
The medium of air/light is replaced by a medium of metal, stone, plastic etc.

Only living conscious minds can achieve this, if and when they develop self-consciousness.

The vast expanses of existence (space/time) simply (inter)act as patterned and non-patterned Energies, which can be perceived and interpreted by a conscious mind as matter/energy, or as void, darkness.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:46 pm

In nature, before human systems evolved, there was no debate over subjective/objective and no claim that all was subjective, so all was equally valid.

There was a simple trial & error mechanism,. built upon an off/on neurological, binary dualistic switch.

Life evolved by applying subjectivity, in real time, in relation to an indifferent objective world.
The participants were not expected to acknowledge, understand, or even perceive what was going on.
No concessions, or agreements or justifications mattered.

A mind perceived, in accordance with its perspective, built on its particular inherited traits, methods etc.
It then applied its subjective interpretation of objective reality, and faced the consequences as cost/benefit, where no external mitigating force intruded, intervened, to adjust the costs and the benefits.
This is called natural selection.
It evolved higher consciousness, intelligence, on the simple mechanism of applied subjective judgment.

No upbringing, all is a social construct, no excuses, no moral pleas, no God.
Degrees of success and failure...over time...stored as memory.




_________________
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 6 of 6Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 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: