Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalSearchRegisterLog in

Share
 

 Objective <> Subjective

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21910
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 6:35 am

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

My eye IS the seeing?

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

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

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

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

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

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Anfang

Anfang

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 3484
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : CET

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 6:37 am

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

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



* * *

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21910
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 6:54 am

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

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

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

God = 1
Satan = 0

Abrahamic nihilism.

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

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

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

Ergo....

Satan = 1
God = 0

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

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

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

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21910
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 7:14 am

Gravity...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
Lyssa

Gender : Female Posts : 9031
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 9:36 am

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

My eye IS the seeing?

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

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

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

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

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


Thanks.

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

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

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this 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
http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
Lyssa

Gender : Female Posts : 9031
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 9:39 am

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

My eye IS the seeing?

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


I'm contemplating a grammatological revolution...

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this 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
http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21910
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 10:03 am

Lyssa wrote:


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

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

I, assume, you agree with him.

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

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

Your affection for him is cute.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
Lyssa

Gender : Female Posts : 9031
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 10:09 am

Satyr wrote:
Lyssa wrote:


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

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

I, assume, you agree with him.

You assumed wrong.

Quote :
Your affection for him is cute.

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

Pls. carry on.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this 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
http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Guest
Guest



Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 10:14 am

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

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

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

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



Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 10:16 am

Satyr wrote:

Your affection for him is cute.

His for her as well. Adorable. I love to watch.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21910
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 10:23 am

phoneutria wrote:
Satyr wrote:

Your affection for him is cute.

His for her as well. Adorable. I love to watch.

It's obvious.
Particularly when she defends his views, trying to associate them with mine to protect my ego, and when he goes to great lengths to seduce her away from the despicable Satyr, who has brainwashed her with his lies.
Although I think he cannot quite figure it out, so he assumes whatever.

It's subtle, but there.

Thinking is action.
I am not the one who thinks but I am thinking.
Thinking being action, revealing my nature, my past.  
What does my thinking say about me?
I am ordering.
Am I ORDER?
No...I am in the process of ordering, within the disordering (chaos).

My abstraction are me putting in order what lacks it, or absorbing an order that is not my own, in terms which I can understand - a form of memetic feeding, assimilation.
I do not deny myself words and numbers, I simply do not take them literally, but as what they are...my figurative, artistic representations, which makes me an artist, a creator....

To assume that numbers and words already have a universal order is to surrender to an external creator.
I no longer create, but I seek the creator...and if not through script, the Bible, scripture, then through numbers.
Each algorithm becoming a miraculous discovery of a godly will, not my own; I peer into god's mind with every exciting discovery of mathematical self-referential logic.

Yeah, I am exactly like Fixed.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Anfang

Anfang

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 3484
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : CET

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 1:45 pm

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

That doesn't make the existence of god an objective truth. There are social conventions in place in that time and that makes people on average think and act a certain way about certain things - that's in my eyes 'what is'. That doesn't make god into an objective truth during those days.
If a whole community is being drugged and starts to believe that they can fly and that they have to prove it by jumping off a cliff then it's not the 'objective truth' that they can fly but it's true that they believe that they can and are going to act a certain way because of it. Those are two different things.

That doesn't mean that I know the absolute objective truth, but because I can understand what this acolyte believes and in part why he believes what he believes, I am thinking that in that aspect I am more objective than him.
Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
Lyssa

Gender : Female Posts : 9031
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 1:51 pm

For clarification:

My post contrasting two Apollonian models of Satyr and Fixed on ILP was based on pg.1 of this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] thread,,, which is exactly the material I had quoted there too; I'll requote here:

The exchange bet. Fixed and Satyr:


FC wrote:
War is in the first instance resistance. The war against nature. Barbarian hordes are forces of nature. Resistance, defense, walls, the selection of strong men for duty -

War comes to exist after the spontaneous raid is unsuccessful.
A barbarian invasion of a village, raping pillaging and stealing everything, is not war. Hence war is resistance. To attack the state is to resist the will of the state. The only will of the state is that it is obeyed, It represents the only absolute; the void.

To resist the void is to make war, which, to a man, is life. No man who does not battle is truly alive. If he finds happiness outside of battle, he is no longer a man.  

Our state compels us with great force. Resistance is a challenge. It requires both will and intelligence. Will is abundant among the Earthly young and aging, intelligence is rare. Intelligence is defined as a mindset adequately discerning and resourceful to turn disadvantages into advantages.

The disadvantage of the Greek man is very enormous. More enormous than disadvantages may ever have been, save meteors and climate cataclysms. But the enormity of the force that leans and looms over him can be used. It is intelligent to use the enemy's weight against him.

The key is in the weight that is not directly controlled by his will, but indirectly. Somewhere in the chain of command are hiatuses in his control, "pressure points" that when pressed, disconnect weight from control.

- - -


Satyr wrote:
War = memetic agon, to struggle to resist.

Agon = organism (genes) The organism grows and reproduces (fertilizes).
War = SuperOrganism (memes) The superorganinm expands and cultivates (spreads its idea(l)s)

Agon = begins as a defensive necessity of self-maintenance. This necessity is constant, never-ending, and is interpreted sensually as need/suffering, pleasure being a sudden or substantial decrease in this need/suffering.
The object/objective is the focus of the Will upon a source of gratifying need.  
Only after self-preservation has been ensured, in the immediate, does it grow and reproduce with the excess - it overflows.
If no excess energies are available or accessible it withers, atrophies, declines.

As an organism and super-organism grows/expands the energies required to self-preserve increase proportionally.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Linear time towards entropy, chaos, increasing randomness.

Need the organizing emergent unity's sensation of this Fluidity upon its ordering - this is its Becoming
Ordering/environment (entropy, increasing randomness).

--------------Pleasure>-----------------Need------------------>Suffering/Pain
<---------------AGON------------------------------------------

The mind being able to project itself beyond the immediate can be attracted to potential gratification or order which is desired, promised gratification inspires with its symmetry.


- - -


FC wrote:
Pleasure is excess.
Nature requires excess to thrive, and it must thrive if it is to be.
Agon is within thriving; between thriving and decline.


- - -

Satyr wrote:
Yes....pleasure is the sensation of excess within a world of austerity.
Order towards Entropy

The organism feels overflowing, powerful, virile, when its energies exceed its needs.
All that promises or represents this state of excess is experiences vicariously, in art.

In sex it is the moment of releasing excess, stored, energies, which is experiences as ecstasy, a sudden relief.


- - -

_________________
[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
http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21910
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 2:06 pm

See how kind and loving you are towards him?
It's sweet.

I admire it.

Look at what lengths you go to to find my and his common denominator, to make us the same?
It's wonderful.
Raising me up, in your eyes, to where I can reach his, and your, shared standard.

Dear, I am not one of the "chosen".
Everything I have, had, or will ever have, I've had to fight for....with lies, or directly with work, I'v earned it.
Nothing was given to me and I expect nothing to be given to me.

Equating me with one of the chosen, is doing a disservice to us both.
If I am going to tolerate the lower I will do so honestly, admitting that I do so without actually respecting them.
I will not lie to myself, turning this submission to necessity, to reality, into a virtue all can share in, or a submission to the other as "equally valuable".

If I'm going to lie, then I'll do it to other, not to self, or to my kind.
When I share my views I do not do it with the restriction of considering how the other will be affected by it.
To the other I lie to daily and repeatedly.
Shamelessly.

I will not come on-line, to deal with what is called "philosophy" to do exactly the same thing I can do outside my fuckin' door.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Tue Dec 02, 2014 2:29 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Guest
Guest



Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 2:07 pm

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

That doesn't make the existence of god an objective truth. There are social conventions in place in that time and that makes people on average think and act a certain way about certain things - that's in my eyes 'what is'. That doesn't make god into an objective truth during those days.
If a whole community is being drugged and starts to believe that they can fly and that they have to prove it by jumping off a cliff then it's not the 'objective truth' that they can fly but it's true that they believe that they can and are going to act a certain way because of it. Those are two different things.

That doesn't mean that I know the absolute objective truth, but because I can understand what this acolyte believes and in part why he believes what he believes, I am thinking that in that aspect I am more objective than him.

Nobody knows what the objective truth is. It can't be reached. Even if you got pretty close to it, it would have moved by the time you got there. There is no perfect interpretation of the objective.
This is what we know now. And because we know that, we are more objective now than we were before, because we understand that what we know is subjective.

This is not what they knew back them. Back then, the "what is" included the existence of a god. God "was". In other words, in the mind of the time, a subjective interpretation was understood as an objective one.

The objective is completely independent from what we think of it.
Understanding that knowledge is subjective makes you more objective.
Taking a subjective view to be objective makes you more subjective.
In other words, assuming that what you think "is" in fact "is" universally, is to be subjective.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 2:11 pm

Satyr wrote:
See how kind and loving you are towards him?
It's sweet.

I admire it.

Your jealousy as well, is so quaint and warming.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21910
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 2:18 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Satyr wrote:
See how kind and loving you are towards him?
It's sweet.

I admire it.

Your jealousy as well, is so quaint and warming.

I am...it is.

That's all you need to know.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Guest
Guest



Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 2:21 pm

I predict, in a near future, another mass post deletion, and some demotions.
Get your backups ready, kids.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21910
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 2:30 pm

You see so much.
Tell me more.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
Lyssa

Gender : Female Posts : 9031
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 2:54 pm

Satyr wrote:
See how kind and loving you are towards him?
It's sweet.

I admire it.

Look at what lengths you go to to find my and his common denominator, to make us the same?
It's wonderful.
Raising me up, in your eyes, to where I can reach his, and your, shared standard.



To whoever it may concern,

My quote there was in response to his saying,

FC wrote:
"This is how Apollo was conceived. Not from some vanities alike "a man without a belly is like a house without a balcony" as the modern Greeks say - or is it the Turks? Not from proclamations that man is beast and he has to cope with the world.

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

He offers that coping has nothing to do with his or any greek Apollo; when those who have watched his videos will know "coping" is the exact word he uses himself.

I was responding to his hypocrisy vis. a vis. Satyr the "modern greek"... and not trying adapt Satyr to his model.

People only see what they want to see. I'm done with this.

_________________
[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
http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21910
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 3:02 pm

The more you defend him, to me, while at the same time telling me how "like him" I am the more words are no longer needed.

He does have that ol' European charm....no dear?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Anfang

Anfang

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 3484
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : CET

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 3:13 pm

phoneutria wrote:
This is what we know now. And because we know that, we are more objective now than we were before, because we understand that what we know is subjective.

WE are not all equally more objective now than those people from the past. And not all people living in the past were less objective than most today.

I will even say that the capability to be objective was more developed and common in the man of the past than it is today.

How I see it -
There is no objective truth.
All truths are subjective.
A subject had to come up with them about an object or another subject.
That doesn't mean that all subjective truths are equally valid.

There is the quality of objectivity and this quality is present to a certain degree in an individual (as a potential which is actualized to a certain degree).
This is the capacity to perceive and evaluate an object as accurately as possible.

There is often no simple answer how to determine which individual is assessing an object or situation most objectively, in particular because our environment is a big social community, with many subjects present who are reacting or responding to our actions and perceptions when expressed. It's a dynamic phenomenon.

Don't call social conventions objective truths, use the dictionary word for it, call it BOB.
Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
Lyssa

Gender : Female Posts : 9031
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 4:27 pm

Satyr wrote:
The more you defend him, to me, while at the same time telling me how "like him" I am the more words are no longer needed.

I don't even defend myself to you,, why would I defend him?

I can even empathize with a worm without getting involved,,, its a gift. Now you may Cross yourself in that Fixed way... and I'll give you a confession...

Quote :
He does have that ol' European charm....no dear?

You don't know me at all, do you?

Its PD. Not charm, but someone who promises me real power,, not the kind that cures cancer, but extra-ordinary stuff. I have fallen for it everytime.
I might love Fixed's poetic video,,, but ultimately,, its always the porno that I go for.

_________________
[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
http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Magnus Anderson

Magnus Anderson

Gender : Male Posts : 341
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : Sirmium

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 02, 2014 8:02 pm

Apaosha wrote:
This forum concerns itself with an honest appraisal of reality. To see. Judgment is separate from that. Each individual brings his own motivations as to what is to be done with the information presented here.

Our judgment derives directly from the way we see reality (our own and that of the rest of the world.) The two are in no way separate.

Motivations (which is to say habits) are in no way arbitrary (which is to say equal.) Motivations/habits have been developed to deal with the world and if the world changes in such a way so as to force the individual to shape his own habits, or if the individual realizes that his habits are inferior and in need of tweaking, he would do well to change them. But . . . not everyone is able to do so.

I despise him who separates the real from the ideal, as if the two, the real and the ideal, aren't merely two different shades of the same. I despise him who wants to believe that ideals are arbitrary choice derived from one's habits just as I despise him who denies the real in order to deceive himself that he has already reached his ideal (or that he is close to reaching it) in an effort to avoid dealing with his feelings of shame associated with who he is in the present moment.

The reality of our bodies determines the PATH we have to take in order to reach the ideal, it does not define the ideal. He who thinks that the the ideal is defined by our own bodies, by our own habits and whims, is nothing but a spoiled little child with zero will-power.

If by subjective you simply mean relative (i.e. that our decisions are based not merely on the world outside of ourselves but also on the reality of our own individual biochemistries), then I agree with you, but why call it subjective then? Why oppose it to objective?

Quote :
This culture concerns itself with how reality ought to be corrected, exposing how dissatisfied with itself it truly is.

Nothing wrong with concerning yourself with how to correct reality and nothing wrong with being dissatisfied with reality. The only thing that is wrong, that can be wrong, is when a man weaker than the situation repeatedly tries to change the situation, a sort of behavior that indicates one's inability to accept that he is weaker than the situation.

All change (and change is all there is) is based on dissatisfaction. I am dissatisfied with my messy room so I decide to clean it up so that I can restore my earlier contentment. What's wrong with that? Nothing. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Changing the environment IS THE SUPERIOR OPTION not the inferior one. The inferior one is to put up with it. That does not mean it's useless, just that you resort to it only if you can't afford the other one.

The rank is like following:

1. shape the world
2. put up with the world
3. try shaping the world while denying the fact that you receive far more damage than you deal

Rule: the best and the worst options are one and the same option inverted.

The smartest and the stupidest are alike, all of their abilities, including IQ, are equal, except for one, which is the way their abilities are coordinated.

Still, I do not deny the fact that a man capable of dealing with his dissatisfactions in a healthy way does not remember his dissatisfactions as dissatisfications but as something that was pleasurable all along. Nonetheless, he was dissatisfied and he had to change the world around him (or himself) in order to deal with it, so the fact that he's not a whiny little fuck does not mean that he wasn't dissatisfied and that dissatisfactions are something fundamentally bad.
Back to top Go down
apaosha
Daeva
apaosha

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1827
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 33
Location : Ireland

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyWed Dec 03, 2014 12:33 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Our judgment derives directly from the way we see reality (our own and that of the rest of the world.) The two are in no way separate.

They are, in that judgement is a reaction to perception of reality by an individual consciousness. This reaction is based upon the individuals inherited, inherent, predisposition as well as acquired experience.
If you are saying that we are not blank slates whose motivations originate from essentially nothing, or are social contructs or what have you, then - yes.

I am the ongoing manifestation of past processes, the product of my past; the past, as it moves into the future. I am not distinct from the phenomenological process that has brought me about.
But I am also a consciousness, therefore I am a phenomenon becoming aware of itself; reactive.

Quote :
Nothing wrong with concerning yourself with how to correct reality and nothing wrong with being dissatisfied with reality.

Idealism is concerned with concealing reality, not revealing it. This is a matter of self-deceit; a psychology deceiving itself in order to cope with a reality it cannot confront.

So, you have theists jumping off a cliff. Life is suffering to them. Pain, hardship, sin and so forth. Because they are weak, they want to escape this suffering into a state of pure bliss called heaven. It occurs to them that death may be the solution to their dilemma, as their form of idealism proposes an afterlife, so they jump off a cliff. This is the devaluation of the world originating in an inability to adapt the self to reality. The type of reaction/delusion/idealism demonstrates the nature of the one reacting. Mass appeal indicates that the root flaw is commonplace.

This is a simplification but it can be extended onto many other things that humans engage in to cope with reality, usually in the social context, but also in the personal. The Will is not engaging itself in shaping or being shaped by reality, it's seeking an escape.

Reality is available to all, but some choose not to look. And that is in their nature. "We" must Will around that; not ought or should: must. It can't be changed.

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

How can I attempt to describe what is by describing what ought to be? Realism/idealism. Did you read the OP?

If I have a fantasy that I want to indulge in and convince lots of people to believe it and tell me it's true, it won't make it real. It won't make it "objective", as you use the word (incorrectly, to mean intersubjectivity as reality), although it is an unsurprising view into your psychology.

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

Hrodeberto

Gender : Male Capricorn Posts : 1348
Join date : 2014-07-14
Age : 33
Location : UA2 2 Rjoyhalty via Njobhilitie

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyWed Dec 03, 2014 8:00 am

Goethe wrote:

The eye owes its existence to the light. Out of indifferent animal organs the light produces an organ to correspond to itself; and so the eye is formed by the light for the light so that the inner light may meet the outer.
Every organ of the organism was created in response to the underlying processes of the outer/objective world, where the brain was formed as an organ for thinking, or an instrument through which intelligence is enabled, thereupon being another sensory perception.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 09, 2014 7:09 am

Anfang wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
This is what we know now. And because we know that, we are more objective now than we were before, because we understand that what we know is subjective.

WE are not all equally more objective now than those people from the past. And not all people living in the past were less objective than most today.

Agreed. Not all are a product of their time. Some are the light in times of darkness, some are darkness in time of light. It is difficult to generalize to the individual.

Quote :

I will even say that the capability to be objective was more developed and common in the man of the past than it is today.

I don't think I agree with that. I think that the difference between the common man of the past and the common man of now which might give that impression is that the common man of the past was more in contact with nature than the common man of today. There is something very sobering about subsisting off of a piece of land, being at the mercy of the seasons, etc.

What I meant with "we" are more objective now was just that our collective scientific  knowledge of the world has expanded. Whether or not people seek to know of it, it has been dug up and is available.

Quote :

How I see it -
There is no objective truth.
All truths are subjective.
A subject had to come up with them about an object or another subject.

With the small correction that there is an objective truth, which is the totality of the Universe, but that we cannot ever fully reach. All truths as postulated by humans are subjective.
I agree.

Quote :

That doesn't mean that all subjective truths are equally valid.

I have been writing this on here, nearly verbatim, for months. Every time I hear the mention of relativism. Relativism is an infantile fallacy.

Quote :

There is the quality of objectivity and this quality is present to a certain degree in an individual (as a potential which is actualized to a certain degree).
This is the capacity to perceive and evaluate an object as accurately as possible.

There is often no simple answer how to determine which individual is assessing an object or situation most objectively, in particular because our environment is a big social community, with many subjects present who are reacting or responding to our actions and perceptions when expressed. It's a dynamic phenomenon.

It is easier to perceive and achieve objectivity in certain themes than others. Some are easier to control for, some have fewer variables, some tie more directly to observable phenomena. Chemistry for example can be very exact, and molecular biology as an offshoot of chemistry has gotten to be very precise as well with the advent of gene sequencing tech.

Themes such as psychology, theory of the mind, behavior, emotions etc are remarkably more difficult to control for, there are variables which are impossible to control, and there is only so much we can observe physically. This is where the scientific method is often insufficient, and where we are most likely to make mistakes.

Our reliance on the scientific method has enabled us to reach very far, and has made of science something at times as straightforward as a baking recipe. It is however the capacity to conceptualize models, to write these very "baking" recipes, to make sense of the data obtained, and to compensate with proper extrapolations when the method does prove insufficient that sets aside the individual as a quality observer. Philosophy remains the mother of all sciences.

Quote :

Don't call social conventions objective truths, use the dictionary word for it, call it BOB.

All which is a convention has a reason to be so. Not all social conventions are artificial or bad. There is a social convention which is at the root of all human development, for example, and that is family.
The relationships between the members of a social group are according to rules set by them based on a shared experience of living. To live in a place is to interact with its physical environment. Social conventions are not objective truths, but they are a reflection of an objective experience.
Back to top Go down
Anfang

Anfang

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 3484
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : CET

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 09, 2014 12:00 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Anfang wrote:
I will even say that the capability to be objective was more developed and common in the man of the past than it is today.

I don't think I agree with that. I think that the difference between the common man of the past and the common man of now which might give that impression is that the common man of the past was more in contact with nature than the common man of today. There is something very sobering about subsisting off of a piece of land, being at the mercy of the seasons, etc.

What I meant with "we" are more objective now was just that our collective scientific  knowledge of the world has expanded. Whether or not people seek to know of it, it has been dug up and is available.


There are many, many, books out there and ironically the more books there are, the more content there is, the more critical it becomes to discriminate. Just like it is important to discern between the perception of the senses as to not get overwhelmed with too much of it. To not drown in the complexity and becoming a new kind of randomness. Thanks to modern technology it isn't necessary for people to discriminate on their own, or to think about what they read objectively. It is established by a few, that which is deemed important and that which is discarded for the broad public.

Furthermore, the decline in objectivity within the population is to be expected. Within a highly socialized environment being a good liar (as in including self-deception) is a beneficial quality.
Not so much in a small group where reputations matter more because of a lower number of new acquaintances every year. Not to mention that a deer won't roll over and die by uttering the right words. Actually, talking too much all the time will even make them take flight quicker.


phoneutria wrote:
Anfang wrote:
How I see it -
There is no objective truth.
All truths are subjective.
A subject had to come up with them about an object or another subject.

With the small correction that there is an objective truth, which is the totality of the Universe, but that we cannot ever fully reach. All truths as postulated by humans are subjective.
I agree.

I am assuming the universe is actually infinite and totality is 'difficult' to contain when it is infinite.
But even if it were finite, the totality of 'what is' is not the truth about what is. If God were something like the consciousness of this totality then I think he'd be a very unconscious consciousness because consciousness lies between the very small and the very large.
A certain degree of complexity is required to produce a self-aware consciousness but the more complex and larger it grows the more unconscious it becomes. The larger the more it just is; like the very small one which also just is. The large one loses itself in its own complexity.

In short, 'what is', is not the truth about 'what is'.


phoneutria wrote:
Anfang wrote:
Don't call social conventions objective truths, use the dictionary word for it, call it BOB.

All which is a convention has a reason to be so. Not all social conventions are artificial or bad. There is a social convention which is at the root of all human development, for example, and that is family.
The relationships between the members of a social group are according to rules set by them based on a shared experience of living. To live in a place is to interact with its physical environment. Social conventions are not objective truths, but they are a reflection of an objective experience.

The underlying assumption of what you wrote seems to be that I am attacking social conventions. I already told you that there are no objective truths, the way I see it. When I say call it BOB then this is not a stab at social conventions but at the notion of objective truth.

I don't think that they set the rules for themselves. If the group is large enough and you have the technology of a printing press then very few people can shape social conventions for many people. It becomes the new truth, which is thought of as the only truth. Remember it's always getting better, humanity improving and so on. Whatever the new truth is, it is better than the old one.
Back to top Go down
Magnus Anderson

Magnus Anderson

Gender : Male Posts : 341
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : Sirmium

Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 09, 2014 12:28 pm

A man is either confident in the idea that A is better than B or he is not. If he is, there is no way in hell he can tolerate those who are confident in the opposite idea: that A is worse than B. Such a person would either be a hypocrite (most likely to be the case) or someone with no confidence.

Those who (genuinely) lack confidence regarding certain matters (those who know they do not know, like that iambiguous retard, or phoneutria -- she seems to be in the same boat) tend to be overly confident regarding the superiority of their own lack of confidence. There are indeed cases when lack of confidence is superior to confidence but they take this way too far, not realizing that they themselves are overconfident in their ability to judge the value of other people's confidence, most importantly, in the quality of their understanding of the underlying reasons behind other people's opinions. They assume -- or appear to assume -- that knowledge/understanding/reasons are perfectly communicable, that the apparatus required to communicate certain kinds of understandings is present in everyone (a sort of belief in equality of people.)

The instinct (i.e. the inherited) is frowned up by all scientific minds precisely because it goes against the idea of perfect communicability.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 EmptyTue Dec 09, 2014 12:47 pm

I know what I know, dear. I am simply not pushing it because I am not an evangelizer.

Also this:
Quote :
The instinct (i.e. the inherited) is frowned up by all scientific minds precisely because it goes against the idea of perfect communicability.

Is entirely false and I can't imagine why you would say that other than to speak of a prejudice. You're welcome to make the case, though.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 2 Empty

Back to top Go down
 
Objective <> Subjective
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 9Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

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