Objective <> Subjective

Empathy within the contexts of subjectivity/objectivity
Objectivity is an idealization of subjectivity, just as omnipotence is for strength/power, and omniscience is for knowledge/understanding, viz., objectivity is a qualification of subjectivity, describing a degree/level.

Empathy begins with self-awarness - Know Thyself.
The simplest form simply projects self, offering second-hand probabilities without the costs and risks entailed in first-hand experiences - self as it is known and understood - in another's circumstances, imagining how one would feel, what he would think and do if he were to experience them first-hand.
Knowing oneself is essential.
A second essential component, other than imagination, is honesty, i.e., to know one's self honestly with as little self-comforting, self-agrandizing, self-abnegating hyperbole as possible.
Third essential component is perception of and attention to details, i.e., subtle interactions that may go unnoticed by an average mind, subtle data integrated into a cohesive model.
A mediocre mind simply projects his over-under-estimaiton of himself into another's circumstances, producing antipathetic or, more often, sympathetic reactions, e.g., he pities himself if he were to suffer another's pains, or exalts itself if he were to enjoy another's pleasures.
Antipathy is more complex as it integrates ideals as a standard, comparing one's self, through another, in relation to a collective or conventional standard - feeling animosity towards himself if he were to contradict this standard as another has.  
The standard is ideological, i.e., socioeconomic, religious, cultural.
Sympathy is automatic for an emerging self-cosnciousness experiencing the suffering, the costs and risks of existence, therefore sympathy is the primary, easiest reaction to another's plight.
Antipathy slightly modifies the simplistic - easy - projections of sympathy, because it requires an external standard to juxtapose self an other against - acquiring a third-person perspective.
This is low grade empathy, remaining within average inter-subjective models - common, popular.

To advance towards higher - objective - levels the self must be known in higher levels of detail - a high self-cosnciuosness must be present; honesty must be present, not submitting to the temptations of succumbing to ego driven self-evalautions; attention to details and to subtle nuances is a significant aspect.

Quantity of data & quality of data
Quantity measuring amount of perceived phenomena, and quality measuring intensity of each perceived phenomenon, creating meaning.
The objective empath uses knowledge of himself - as he has accumulated it during years of first and second-hand experiences - to project into another, gradually adjusting them relative to the particular perceived intensities and sequences.
Just as letters repeated in different sequences alter the meaning of words, and the sequence and frequency of words alters the meaning of sentences, so too is the sequence, intercity, frequency of perceived gestures, tones, actions - some subtle some lurid - are combined to "read" - give meaning to - another's behaviour.
Objectivity is a slow methodical detachment of self from the objective, from the evaluated - a qualification of subjectivity describing higher levels of clarity, honesty, perception, understanding.
An objective empath does not simply project himself - or what he knows of himself - into another's circumstances, but adjusts his projections to the perceived behaviours of another - some imperceptible to the average mind, e.g., twitches, quivers, tonal fluctuations, unconscious tics, looks, word frequencies and adjustment of tone, repeating mannerisms and their sequential frequencies...etc.

The only way to preserve the delusion that "everything is equally subjective" the modern demands moral collectivism - moral Marxism - where responsibility is equally distributed via its negative consequences.
In this way there is no "right or wrong" because everything has the same share in negative/positive consequences, and with no right/wrong or any degree of it, there can be no inferior or superior judgment, and choice based on said judgment, therefore the individual need not change a thing about his thinking and acting, safely cocooned within the collective.

Obviously, the bigger the collective the small the share of, primarily, the negative consequences of wrong thinking, so desperate degenerates expect, no they demand, all-inclusivity to spread out the pain and make it mora manageable.
Whereas a rational mind decreases his participation in collectives, the irrational, emotional, desperate mind strives to be include and to increase the numbers participating within it - its messianism is proselytizing, reducing all categories that exclude or prevent harmonious indoctrination.


In another context the desperate degenerate does not value anything which is not sanctioned by as many people as possible, is not acknowledged and cannot be appreciated by as large a collective as possible - herd psychology.
Its ambitions, creations, actions, must be communally valued - and the quantity of this collective mas appreciation determines the quality of the act, creation.
It gains value with every participating mind that appreciates and validates their creations - quantity becomes quality, i.e., the higher the quantity the higher its quality.
Value based on mass appreciation - a collective validation.

In this case value is a product of a triangulation but not of the single individual or a small group, but of a large herd, each member adding to the final result.

Hedonism is still a large factor, because what ensures a large amount of appreciation if not what pleases as many individuals as possible?
Pleasure becomes a end in itself, indicating mass appreciation and validation - market value.
The nihilistic spirit - whether secular or Abrahamic - is dominated by this need to be included and to be appreciated and loved by as many individuals as possible - basic marketing and political dynamics, i.e. the common ground of both Marxism and its flip side, Capitalism - that which pleases as many as possible, sells, and by selling is highly appreciated- money - its offering - is a sign of appreciation.

As linked on LoL, by...

Satyr wrote:

Absolutism is so ingrained as to be necessary for thinking to commence.
Absolutism is thinking, using binaries, and so man becomes trapped within his own modes of thinking, i.e., his own foundational presumptions.

The objective can only be generalizing because it is interested in finding what is applicable to all subjectivities and, at the same time, indifferent to their specific interoperations, i.e., independent from all subjectivity.
As such, when one evaluated good/bad  - as a precedent to the Abrahamic good/evil - one evaluates the consequences of an action, and the reactions of the individual performing them, in that it desires to correct or replace them with other consequences.
To put it simpler, for simpletons, an act has specific consequences...not yet determined to be neither good nor bad....but simply consequent to an act, a choice, based on a yet to be determined judgment - the choice expressing the final conclusion of said judgement, or the application of said judgement.
The label good/bad is not arbitrary but primarily derived from the subsequent reaction of the actor to the consequent...exposing the actor's evaluation it, independent from any indifferent observer's judgment.
Subjective actor applies his judgment in the form of a choice, and then reacts to the consequences in accordance with his intent, his goal, his own objective.
If the consequence is in accordance with the expected it is "positive" and no intervention form another is sought.
If and when another's intervention is ought, or presupposed, or ensured as a preliminary step to acting, then the actor exposes a "negative" consequence is imminent - as a potential future consequence - or evident, as an immediate reaction to consequence.
The actor expects or demands, or please for an external intervention to absorb some of the negative consequences of his actions.

Objectivity attempt to generalize rules or patterns governing choices and consequences, applicable to all subjective actors without imposing them as rules of conduct.
Objectivity can only generalize because its objective is to discover, uncover, patterns governing all subjective actors - including itself - across space/time.
To accomplish this task the actor, the thinker, must eliminate all subjective motives and corrupting influences upon his judgment nd their subsequent choices, i.e., must, as much as this is possible, transcend his own subjectivity by perceiving other and himself as a thrid-party, indifferent to all consequences.

Objectivity is generalizing, because it seeks patterns that govern patterns, and its insights that are applicable to multiple subjects and their subjectivities.

It does not exclude the human species from what it applies to all living organisms just because it can use language and manipulable words and symbols, because these have their roots in rudimentary forms of organic communications - human language being a mere extension and sophistication and collectivization of these forms of externalizing mental states.

Objectivity competes to provide an explanation that holds true across space/time, and across tribal, cultural, linguistic boundaries.

Excellent...
This "encompassing" subject/object has some commonalities.
It is present - both subject/object are present, and subject interest both as apparent.
It is dynamic - both subject/object are interacting.

Thales used "water", others used "fire" to encompass this dynamic essence of existence. Energy - all is en-ergy.

The subject must simplify this dynamism as abstraction, as sensation, image, sound, texture etc.
The common mind then mistakes this simplification for the object, and itself, as subject, projecting it as all-encopassing.
This is nihilism.
Notice how when the subject does so it does so to what is present and it can perceive as apparent, so it can only reduce the dynamic which has order down to the level of a thing-in-itself, excluding all that it cannot, the complex and the chaotic. Because the brain can only conceptualize in binary, either/or, it assumes that all it can perceive is ordered and all that it cannot is other than order or one and the same.
This is how it concludes that it has no free-will - when all is ordered, leaving to space for choice - or that it is creator of its own reality - if all is other than ordered, making everything a matter of choice, i.e., of will.
This is the dual nature of nihilism, either absolute oneness of order, or absolute oneness of chaos, i.e., nil, negation of absolute one with absolute nil.
This is the limit of human thinking.
If it is not absolutely known it is absolutely unknown. If complete knowledge is absent then all are ignorant.
Positive and Pure Nihilism.
If self is not complete, whole and final, then it must be non-existent, an illusion.

Satyr wrote:

Thales used "water", others used "fire" to encompass this dynamic essence of existence. Energy - all is en-ergy.

I think the ancients, Parmenides being among the most exemplary in my view, had a mode of understanding and thinking itself, which revolved around the idea of Being, in that their expositions were always concerned with it, never straying away from the ultimate question, maintaining a consistent view of what the nature of truth is. So when Jaspers speaks of the Encompassing, he is speaking in reference to ‘Being’. In his book “Way to Wisdom” he uses a similar term which is “The Comprehensive”. These terms clarify more than they confound. Simplicity as complexity. To do philosophy in any adequate manner, one must think and reason based on the guiding inquiry of “What is Being?” or the understanding that all thoughts and ideas must originate in a source of reality which accounts for truth. All particulars are connected to universals. The modern mind is stunted within the particular.

Can't believe I have to say this, but it's a sign of the times that we must affirm common sense:

1- Objectivity means that what applies to all also applies to oneself.
The approach is from a third-person perspective - requiring empathy not projected sympathy/antipathy where subjectivity is trapped in.
An approach from an indifferent point-of-view - appearing callous and harsh - to subjectivist or emotional thinkers, that exposes a indifferent and harsh reality which also includes the messenger.

2- Skepticism is implied in each and every belief and opinion - without having to be repeated through a disclaimer - especially when the opinion admits that there are no absolutes, implying that this includes absolute knowledge, i.e., omniscience. The laws of natural selection apply, evaluating what is superior by constantly affirming it in relation to a shared existence - preferably outside manmade, cultural, paradigms - outside memetic environments.

3- Objectivity does not imply an absolute state, no more than being, or truth, or power, or knowing, or understanding, or living, or having etc. It implies an approach, a motive/movement towards an agreement - agreement of thinker with the object of his thought, i.e., self and world.
a qualification of subjectivity, using a shared world as the standard - preferably outside cultural, manmade environments.

The cosmos is indifferent, therefore to attain any level of objectivity one must become indifferent.
Life experiences existence as need/suffering - life cares and is subjective.
The antagonism is clear...as it is for anyone who understands paganism, or spiritual traditions that worship the cosmos.

The cosmos is both the benefactor and the antagonist.
This was the meaning of Nietzsche's "overman". A prediction of a future man that had overcome the resentment this contradiction created - to be both a child of time and its victim - to be born and consumed by Kronos.

Abrahamics are trapped in their spiritual nihilism. They can only perceive the divine as benevolent, and life as deserving, because this is what seduced them in Abrahamism - this lie.
Life consumes life - the relationship is not one of care.
What one cares for is balance, and modern man, infected by an existential disease, has created an unbalanced alternate world, a world he associates with humanity.

As I've said, for modern nihilism
Humanity = world; world = humanity.
When they think of "nature" they imagine a humane, i.e., benevolent, kind, caring, entity.

Objectivity is nothing more than the mental ability to perceive oneself and events from a third-person perspective - a perspective of indifferent non-participation; uni-invested in the events and in the welfare of the participants.
A cold, indifferent, entirely rational perspective, with no emotional investment.

For the modern nihilist such a thing is monstrous, if not impossible - because he has no mind for it.
In his subjective emotional invested mind every perspective hides a preference, a motive, other than clarity, and an desire...because this is the case for him/her.
He is so unable to truly empathize, without surrendering to sympathy/antipathy, is automatically accused of lying, and of harbouring a secret intent...just as for a dog a man's perspective is unfathomable, mysterious, confusing.

Therefore, for such an emasculated, entirely feminized, creature, all ideas, and those who propose and present them, are emotionally filtered.
Not the ideas themselves but the individuals proposing and presenting them.

A clear case of top<>down emoting instead of bottom<>up reasoning.

An objective mind - masculine - begins with the idea, and how it relates to a shared reality, and then proceeds to deconstruct the messenger's hypothetical motives; the subjective mind - feminine - begins with deconstructing the messenger and his hypothetical motives, before he proceeds to deal with the ideas - if he ever does at all, because usually the simpleton believes that by destroying - character assassinating - a messenger the messenger he carries is erased, or rendered innocuous.
Here we se the nihilistic complete reliance of words/symbols: e.g., the objective, rational, mind uses words to represent ideas, referring to phenomena that are independent from him, or the words and the abstractions he uses; the subjective mind believes that without the words the referent disappears (is negated, nullified), and that it has no substance other than semiotically - and he does so because his own beliefs are entirely linguistic and have no reference independent from minds and the words being used.

Objectivity is threatening to an inter-subjectively dependent psychotic, because it expresses the indifferent uncertainty of a world it cannot understand nor accept.
In the image of the objective speaker he unleashes his animosity towards the world himself and an immutable past that determined him to be so.
In this case the messenger is a representative of a cosmos he despises and wants to negate.
Most of these creatures deny the very existence of objectivize reality, so all opinions are equally subjective - mirroring the absolutist either/or nihilistic paradigm they've sought shelter in.

This is the same problem caused when race is denied, and is believed to be a social construct, e.g., any racial performance disparity must be the product of social engineering and human brains, and not a product of a false conviction.
See, if god didn't create the races, then men must have....just as in the case of morality, i.e., if morality is not divine in origin, then it must be a human contrivance.

In the same way omnipotence is an idealized extreme of power, so is objectivity an idealized extreme of subjectivity.
One becomes more objective as one begins to overcome his subjective weakness - approaching but never attaining an absolute ideal state.

From first person, to second person advancing to a third person perspective.
From plant, to animal, to manimal...
An objective mind noetically distances itself from itself - separating its perspective from its self-interst, self-comfrots, self-flattering, self-negating, self-agrandizing to perceive itself as a un-invested consciousness.

This is where nihilism begins: seeing oneself as another would, or seeing oneself and another, from a third-person vantage point.
Nihilism emerges as a reaction to this increasing objectivity - a defensive reaction using semiotics to create an alternate reality, immersing itself back into the safety of subjectivity - reverting back to the animal phase - where logos - words/numbers, symbols representing mental abstractions - have a magical independent omnipotence, compared to their impotent dependence in the real world.
A nihilism immerses itself in his own artifices, i.e., art, where it is god-creator, refusing to leave when there is no necessity - such as an external threat and no sheltering system to force it to come out of its platonic cave.

Example: a promiscuous slut has no reason to take care how she dresses or where she frequents and with whom she socializes, unless there is on system to protect her from herself, e.g., no police, no law & order, no medicines to provide her with contraceptives and no surgery to abort the consequences of her carelessness.

For a mind immersed in its own subjectivity, morality becomes the only criterion of veracity.
It has substituted the experienced world with the experience itself.
Humanity=world; world=humanity.
If god did not create it, then man creates it.
Morality must be preserved as a product of intent.

Philosophy is about attaining and cultivating objective knowledge and understanding. Love of wisdom is a relationship with reality, despite personal interests and desires. Objectivity is perceiving oneself and the world from a third-person perspective – divine.
Subjectivity is political. It is about attaining and maintaining interpersonal relationships, and doing what is necessary to seduce and coerce personal and interpersonal interests and desires. Subjectivity is immersing oneself in the second – sympathy/antipathy – and first person perspective – ego.

The modern is obsessed with subjectivity, exposing his sense of vulnerability in relation to an uncertain, mostly unknown, and unpredictable objective world.
When his creator/parent proved to be wanting man declares himself his own divine creator; his own mind fabricating reality using language – letters/numbers becoming codes of his creative divinity, channeling universal forces to reconstruct order in accordance with his desired abstractions.
What secret doubts remain modern man overwhelms with excess arrogance, placing his faith in absolute order, renamed universe, or oneness, or simply nature – his ego becomes its divine expression.

The purpose of philosophy – science being its brain-child – is to liberate knowledge and understanding from human contrivances, uncovering lucidity by objectifying reality, tentatively approaching as far as will endures.

There is no philosophy without an of objectivity claim, so subjectivity is anti-philosophy - more politics and marketing; objectivity is masculine in intent, whereas, seeking an advantage, whereas subjectivity is feminine in intent, seeking peace, participation, harmony, social compromises, group cohesion, social status, seduction etc. - establishing and preserving relationships.

There can never be a subjective philosophy - it is a contradiction of intent.
Philosophy can only strive to become objective, universal; it can only deal in generalities, patterns, rules that apply to as many diverse circumstances and situations as possible etc.

The most pragmatic consequence of postmodern inter-subjectivity is that it cannot correct behavioural and intellectual errors - i.e., errors in judgment.
With no objective standard - defensively reactive to all external value-judgments that may serve to help it self-adjust - the individual never changes - never adjusts, adapts - always finding excuses or something other than itself to accuse - preserving its sense of purity and innocence - so that it repeats the same actions, makes the same choices based on the same errors, resulting in the same consequences.
A life lived in confused fixity - "progressing" from one mistake to another as it simply renames the same convictions, dressing them up with updated rhetoric.

Unable to correctly evaluate the cause of its predicament it can never overcome it - its mind trapped in confused defensiveness, lashing out towards all external corrective challenges.

The paradox of paradoxes is that the conscious thinker is is their cause - the "error" in another is usually an error in ones own knowledge and understanding, if an external standard is not used and its failings are traceable to an underlying misunderstanding of language and its utility.

For a modern subjectivist, incapable of any degree of objective thinking, everything must have a lucid intent, and this is why the idea of of natural selection and morality is always reduced to a motive and a conspiracy.

For example, that a parasite would impulsively hijack a host, is an incomprehensible concept.
It can only understand it within Abrahamic spirituality that has "progressed" into Marxist power relationships.
A subjectivist finds any concept that does not involve a conscious intent, baffling. It lives in ego, because ego is what it feels inferior about.

Objective is the ideal, the objective of subjectivity....just as omnipotence is the ideal, the objective of power, and omniscience is the ideal, the objective of knowledge/understanding, i.e., gnosis.

Philosophy's objective is objectivity.
Politics' objective is seduction.
Spirituality's objective is comforting, and the conversion of complex metaphysics to the a level the layman can relate to, and be affected by.

In politics seducing the mediocre masses necessitates a kind of self-prostitution - lowering yourself to their lowest-common-denominator.
In philosophy there is no such restriction, other than the psychological constitution of the individual who in the pursuit of objectivity will be called upon to expose himself to an indifferent, harsh, reality. The needs/desires of the mediocre masses are irrelevant.

For an objective thinker - Bottom<>Up - the criterion is not some icon/idol, or sacred text, but the shared world. This is what validates and falsifies his subjective perspectives.

For a subjective emoter, - Top<>Down - some authority, or absolute totalitarian order, i.e., an icon/idol, or a sacred text, or a popular convention, is one criterion, the other is pleasure, i.e., how flattering, aggrandizing, pleasing, a perspective is contributes to the assessment of its validity.
Such dualistic minds - entirely trapped within binaries - can only have two source of validation, 1- popularity and 2- pleasure, both having one criterion....self-maitenance, i.e., survival.
The life principle overpowers any other motive...and so they remain entirely animalistic, ergo they are manimals, despite what pretences they adopt and religiously perform.

A typical desperate degenerate confuses opinion for preference.
When they hear an opinion they are convinced that they are listening to a desire, a preference, a motive.
All is subjective, you see, so the idea of objectivity is beyond them. this is why they often refuse to define the words they throw about - defining the words would expose their motive, or would force them to place the standard outside their own desires and preferences.
All must be kept in an ideological level - abstract, ambiguous, esoteric, romantic, with as few references to a shared world as possible. This is the basis of nihilism's defence of ego.
Nihilism in all it multifarious forms, is always entirely and completely semiotic - lacking all external referents.
This is what "esoteric" implies, in relation to "exoteric" - subjective, rather than objective.

Every perspective must be maintained as a subjective, personal expression of preference; every concept must be validated morally, not rational - everything becomes evaluated using moral criteria, not empirical, nor rational - feminization of philosophy where the only standard is emotion and morality, i.e., how does it feel; how good is it for me and for the collective?
usually the welfare of the individual is tied into the welfare of the collective, as is identity: identity is collectivized, abstracted into a universal "truth" where the individual ceases to have agency outside some conceptualization of a collective whole, i.e., a universal, an absolute.
This is what I meant about empathy being confused with sympathy/antipathy, viz., the idea that empathy can be void of both is strange to these simpletons. They lack the honesty or even the imagination to detach their personal feelings from understanding another, or the world. All they can do, dare to do, is project, barely being able to imagine what they would do, how they would feel, if they held another's beliefs and convictions.
What they hate or love is themselves in another's place...not the other at all.
The other is simply a mirror reflecting them back to themselves. They sympathize or antipathize with themselves sin the other's circumstances, not with the other at all.

They see consciousness, ego, will, everywhere because they've put it there.
They demand the world offer evidence of god, or universal morality, or meaning, because they've projected it there, and if it fails to deliver they accuse it of being "negative", because existence without their projections is a terrifying negative intolerable state of being - if it fails to reflect the absolute good back it must reflect the absolute absence, the absolute evil, the absolute void back - either/or.
They intentionally adopt definitions that place concepts "outside experienced space/time" because they intuitively wish to evade confronting the world as it is.

What does it mean "all is subjective"?
It means all is a projection of self; determined by personal fears and anxieties - an expression of private motives.
That's all they can comprehend; that's all they dare comprehend.

The starting principle for any constructive discussion to even begin is a shared goal.
The shared goal of philosophy is objectivity - not to claim it, or to declare one's own subjectivity as the absolutely objective, but to share in its attainment, i.e., make it a shared goal, motive, objective.

Without this shared - common , objective there is no hope for any useful dialogue sharing subjective viewpoints.
The primary criterion is to externalize the standard of evaluating degree of objectivity - or to falsify and/or verify a "truth statement" - determining what is a superior hypothesis so as to distinguish it from an inferior hypothesis.
If this is not achieved there can be no movement forward - dialogue is trapped in subjective analysis and evaluating standards.
Defining terminology is a fundamental aspect of this movement towards progressive clarity.

Both the standard and the definition of terminologies must be empire - externalizing the standard and deferring the definition of terms to empiricism.
No one will impose their subjective standard nor their definitions on the other, nor will they negate a definition and a evaluation without offering a superior alternative - otherwise, in the name of pseudo-sketicism, the an antagonist can show overexuberance in one context - arbitrarily and conveniently - whereas exhibit laxness when and where it suits his motives.
Consistency is necessary.
The scientific method is a good starting point.
With it the standard and the definition of terminology is externalized, and the methodology is a bottom<>up rather than top<>down, viz., beginning with the perceived - phenomenon - rather than the thought - noumenon; the method also inhibits the rejection of a theory on the grounds of an absence of absolute knowledge and understanding, ergo, one cannot dismiss a hypothesis on the grounds that nobody is omniscient or that some future knowledge may contradict it - this is top<>down emoting, used by cowards and hypocrites to reject - pretending they do so on rational and honest skeptical grounds when, in fact, their rejection and skepticism is inconsistently applied and emotionally founded.

Wikipedia wrote:

Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior. These signs all begin before a child is three years old.
Autism affects information processing in the brain by altering how nerve cells and their synapses connect and organize; how this occurs is not well understood.

“Impaired social interaction” also promotes dependence and reduces the odds of collective movements resisting institutional control. Individuals are rendered “useful idiots” unable to organize collective resistances; reliable, efficient, cogs in the machinery of social regimentation/automation.
Information overload can cause the processing brain to shut-down; overstimulation disrupts the functions of autism – an off-switch.
The individual prefers to immersed itself in own world, and does not seem to be aware of anything else because it cannot be aware without suffering distress and/or anxiety.
Subjectivism is such an immersion within one’s own world because the mind in incapable of processing all data, delivered through sensual stimulations; specialization is an institutional form of this subjectivisation, viz., institutionally promoted inter-subjectivisation, a.k.a. Mcdolandization of thinking.
The demands of most fields of human social interest are so great that the individual must spend most of its waking hours to keep updated with the latest fashions, trends, and advancement in its field of interest – usually tied into its socioeconomic utility, i.e., job, work, career.
Focused energies – the martial arts apply the same logic in their physically focused training – create localized advantages, at the price of all other utilities. Prolonged and consistent focus alters brain geometry by cultivating particular synaptic relationships while allowing others to atrophy – specialization cultivates institutionalized autism.
Technological advancements and urban lifestyles are cultivating an inability to socialize and to interact with other human beings. Moderns are becoming technologically proficient and psychologically impotent; more able to interact with machines than with humans. McGilchrist refers to it as the dominance of the “emissary” – left hemisphere – over the “master” – right hemisphere; hypermasculinity in thinking, ironically, produces feminization in acting, especially when and if the mind is dominated by a hypermasculine ideal, such as an omnipotent, omniscient, totalitarian, authoritarian, one-god, or by the ideal of institutionalized masculinity via the abstraction of an faceless authoritarian State that reduces its members to sexless, race-less, resources.
Denying an objective reality expresses the emergence of institutionalized autism.
A self-induced, collectively promoted, fleeing inward – away from the source of anxiety and distress, i.e., an incomprehensible otherness the mind is unable to adapt to, and to process. Stimulation overload is a matter of perspective; a product of nurtured, over time, habituation and an inherited constitution – a psyche denying the very existence it intuitively fears is the source of its anxieties, i.e., the source of stimulations – data, information, knowledge – it cannot fully process, preferring the easier dualities of its own organic binaries: simple, concise, and absolute.

there is no "my truth/your truth", or "our truth/their truth", there is only THE truth, and my knowledge and understanding of it (genetic), or our knowledge and understanding of it (memetic), none of it ever complete, perfect, whole...absolute.
This absence does not imply all are equally ignorant or misunderstanding...only that all truths are evaluated on degree of merit, in relation to a fluctuating reality.
The absence of omniscience does not imply parity in ignorance, just as the absence of omnipotence does not imply parity in potency, in power.
It implies degrees, or superior/inferior, never, ever, ever, attaining any absoluteness, i.e., any finality, completeness, wholeness, or any static, eternal, indivisible, immutable absoluteness.
Power is not a given. It must constantly reaffirm itself to maintain its status. It must continuously prove itself worthy of respect.

Respect being a form of submission to what is superior; an affirmation of what is superior, striking fear/anxiety in the inferior.
We respect that which we fear. We fear that which can deny us something we value, e.g., our life, our well being, our happiness, our health (negative respect) or that which can deny us something we desire, guidance, companionship, support, kindness, love, knowledge, understanding (positive respect).
There is no respect without some degree of anxiety/fear, concerning/concerned with a potential loss.

Ah...another podcast with McGilchrist. I luv the guy.
Nice find.

Nature is frugal. It develops brains sufficient enough to facilitate niche survival and reproductive strategies and nothing beyond what is necessary within their contexts.
Men released from the demands of survival and reproduction direct their excess energies towards a variety of distracting, venting, preoccupations one of which is towards an attempt to go beyond these contexts to engage more of the world than is necessary.
Prolonged periods of predictable leisure is essential for this to even begin.

This is the movement from subjectivity towards objectivity. Not always a pleasant process when men willfully expose themselves to aspects of the world that may not be useful or in harmony with their evolved survival and reproductive motives.