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  Next
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue 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
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1894
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 33
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue 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
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 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
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue 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
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue 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



PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue 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
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue 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
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue 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
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 2:30 pm

You see so much.
Tell me more.

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

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

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 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
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue 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
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1894
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 33
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue 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
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 02, 2014 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
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Magnus Anderson

avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue 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
View user profile
apaosha
Daeva
avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1495
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 30
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed 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
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Hrodeberto

avatar

Gender : Male Capricorn Posts : 1339
Join date : 2014-07-14
Age : 31
Location : Nova Universalis

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed 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
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue 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

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1894
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 33
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue 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
View user profile
Magnus Anderson

avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue 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
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue 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
Magnus Anderson

avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 09, 2014 1:35 pm

The instinct on its own is neither good nor bad. After all, it's just a habit, something learned, something automated, something made unconscious. What can be good or bad is its content, the mode of behavior it automates and activates within certain kind of context. And since it can automate any sort of behavior within any sort of context, it can be good as well as bad.

I'm going to take the anti-hedonistic statement that says that "it is a bad thing to surrender to your instincts" and put in on its head by saying "it is a bad thing NOT to surrender to your instincts". There is no contradiction here: what there is is minimal and mostly related to semantics.

A hedonist does not "surrender to his instincts" he EXAGGERATES certain instincts in order to prematurely deny other instincts. Note that I'm qualifying the word "deny": this is because I am redefining the word "denial" as well. In all other contexts, the word "denial" has a negative connotation, whereas within this context, the concept of "denial" is treated as neutral i.e. it can be both a positive and a negative thing. When I say "premature denial" I mean denial in a negative way, which is to say, denial the purpose of which is to escape the tension of having to endure multiple contradictions. So a hedonist does not surrender/follow his instincts, he exaggerates some of his instincts (in Nietzsche's terms this would be "tyranny of the instinct", I think) in order to get rid of other instincts, and by doing so, decrease the amount of contradictions created by his instincts (the unbearable state is called "anarchy of the instinct") and the amount of tension these contradictions create.

The good thing to do then is to surrender to/follow ALL of your instincts, but not in a hedonistic way (which, as I've said, is not really surrendering to/following your instincts, but exaggerating them), which is to say, you have to endure the contradictions they create and let the bad ones deny themselves in a slow and controlled manner (you must not rush the process because rushing creates exaggerations.) This requires great deal of courage (especially when, after some time, contradictions start to pile up exponentially with no end in sight.)

Note that "following your instincts" does not necessarily mean "following your instincts ALL THE WAY". It can simply mean "following them IN YOUR HEAD". When your instincts contradict, following them all the way becomes impossible since all other instincts will make sure to block your path. Following them all the way would require that some other instincts are not followed -- that they are denied -- and this is what hedonism (as well as rationalism) is all about.

And this is what "self-control" is about. This is what the terms "action" and "reaction" describe: "action" means to endure, "reaction" means to deny/exaggerate; "action" is imperfect, it's prone to error, "reaction" is idealistic, it's all about perfectionism (perfection here understood as inability to be imperfect, not as a desire to be perfect, since we all desire to be perfect); "active" is that which is born out of tension, "reactive" that which is born out of denial of tension.

Lack of confidence -- the kind of displayed by retards such as iambiguous -- is a form of reaction, which is to say, a form of denial and exaggeration.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Magnus Anderson

avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Dec 09, 2014 1:39 pm

phoneutria wrote:
I know what I know, dear.

I am not dear to you and you are even less so to me. Get it?

Quote :
I am simply not pushing it because I am not an evangelizer.

Boring reply is boring. You are well known for unconsciously faking your reasons (which is a form of exaggeration prompted by your utterly unnecessary sense of obligation to respond to those who address you.)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:00 pm

Unable to break out of their binary absolutist, either/or thinking, desperate to preserve the singularity, the thing, the transcending/immanent one, they cannot imagine objectivity being fluid, and subjectivity being a fluid interpretation of this fluidity.

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

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

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 1:54 pm

More chimps...


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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

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

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

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 2:04 pm

Chimps ask:
"Tell me what is absolutely so, or let me wallow in my nihilism. Let me live in my own world."

Satyr says:
"Good luck, and be thankful there's a system there to ensure that your stupidity will not result in what I consider the natural consequence of stupidity".

Natural selection...what is more accurate, what is superior, not what is God, omnipotent, omniscient.

This chimp uses "arbitrarily" as our local chimp uses his cut and paste sentences.
Molyneux does not say, with any conviction, that definitions are not arbitrary.
This was the chimp's weak spot.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Wed May 27, 2015 4:59 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1894
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 33
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 4:37 pm

So the caller argues that because the subject (Molyneux) is part of the objective reality, Molyneux's views and evaluation about anything are also objective.
The subject is part of objective reality and therefore the subjective evaluations performed by the subject are now objective.


Every subject is also an object.
Not every object can act in the way of a subject.
All evaluations are performed by a subject.

Saying that subjective is a subset of objective, is saying that if I think that unicorns exist then they do exist. Somebody is thinking - things are happening in the body of the thinker but at the same time that doesn't make what is being thought about necessarily into a real, existing thing.

There is no thought without a thinker. The thought cannot be separated from the thinking mind. Hearing someone talk, or reading what someone has written could lead to a confusion about it, mistaking the written word or the spoken words for a thought itself.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Magnus Anderson

avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 4:46 pm

What I think he's saying is that models of reality are a subset of reality. He's trying to make a distinction between subjective/objective and incorrect/correct.

I am not sure who you consider to be a chimp in the video, but to me, it is Stefan who appears to be a chimp.

Quote :
Saying that subjective is a subset of objective, is saying that if I think that unicorns exist then they do exist.

No, it means that the idea that unicorns exist exists.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Magnus Anderson

avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 4:49 pm

Stefan's immediate reaction to the idea that things can be both subjective and objective is to dismiss it on logical grounds. Typical of retards who are stuck in logic.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 5:06 pm

It does not matter what symbol you give to a phenomenon...call a  dog a cat, a tree a house, a car a cloud...what matter is that the symbol, refers to a phenomenon outside the noumenon, the abstracting mind.

The word is irrelevant because it refers to a phenomenon, a pattern.
It is the pattern that matters, not the symbol, word, number, being used to refer to it.

"What's in a name..."

The symbol is arbitrary what it refers to is not.
The symbol is the subjective, it is the noumenon, the phenomenon is the pattern, and it does not give a shit what you call it.  
You can call a lion a pussy cat, it will not stop it from biting your stupid head off.

The subjectivity is measured against an objective world.  

Same goes for projected object/objective, ideals.
They represent a behaviour, a pattern, which is more or less objective; also a pattern which indicates an ideal or a group of traits it is unwilling to continue living without.

For instance, if I were told that I had no choice but to be a chimpanzee, I would opt for death.
The ideal overrides the survival instinct.
If I were told that I had to rape my son or die, I would choose death gladly.
I would rather die than go on-line, in forums, displaying how obtuse I am, day after day...or bragging trying to convince others that I am happy and living a good life, when ever y day I go there looking for alternatives.  
I prefer death to lying to myself.
I prefer death to being stupid.

If I were told that my son would be born a retard, I would choose abortion.
Simple.
If I were told to kill my son to prove myself to the Jew god i would die trying to kill this God.
Simple.
But the chimp thinks it is complex...because it is stuck in the Judeo-Christian nihilistic paradigm, of either/or, good/bad, god/Satan, 1/0, and it takes these metaphors literally.

Nobility indicates a set of principles some, are unwilling to live without.
Morals are extensions of this.

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

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1894
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 33
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 5:14 pm

I listened to the first 15 minutes and up to that point the caller seemed to make the argument I laid out in my first paragraph.
Which I disagree with.
Maybe I misinterpreted him, Molyneux was steering that part of the conversation.

Magnus Anderson wrote:
No, it means that the idea that unicorns exist exists.

I take it the caller meant subjective is a subset of (being) objective, of objectivity. If he meant subjective is a subset of the objective reality then yeah.


I thought both are talking shit but Moly was steering the conversation.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
apaosha
Daeva
avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1495
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 30
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 5:34 pm

The guy talking to Molyneux was either intimidated or just stupid. I'm not even sure what his point was, he was pretty incoherent.

I posted this at the chimp:

apaosha wrote:
Value judgements are both subjective and objective at the same time. They are subjective in that they originate from a particular organism and are applied to what that organism perceives or thinks as a result of his own peculiar drives and circumstance. They are objective in that these peculiar drives and circumstance originate in objective reality, but are confined to the objective reality of a particular organism, therefore subjective to that organism.
An individual has it's own drives, rooted in it's biological objectivity. It values as a result of these. Another individual has another biological reality, another past, another multitude of conflicting forces which brought it about and therefore another objective basis to value.... subjectively.

Subjective is not another word for arbitrary. Objective is not another word for absolute.

Molyneux is making a distinction between objective reality and mental contructs, which is fair enough. My understanding of subjectivity is just the objective reality of an individual as it manifests as that individuals particular goals and drives. A subjectivity rooted in objectivity.

Objective does not need to mean universal.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 5:44 pm

A distinction must be made between an appreciation of objective reality, as it relates to the subjective mind - because this decides the individuals success - and projected objective, as in idea(l), which governs the individuals actions.
The projection, the idea(l) if it is disconnected from world, is entirely subjective, is called nihilistic.
It is only able to persist because it is protected form its own error.

The objective ideal, the goal, must be rooted in the objective world, and to do so you must first connect to reality by freeing yourself from the corruption of emotion, ego and so on.
Not to abandon them but only like asceticism to clear your mind; to sharpen your abstractions.

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

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1894
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 33
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 5:45 pm

I don't like Moly's way of arguing, it's dismissive, though not based on much reason. I find he is doing pretty much all the things he is accusing the caller of doing. But at the same time the caller doesn't make much sense to me either. If you gonna call into that show then you better have a small but well thought out argument and be prepared for low blows from the Bot.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Magnus Anderson

avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 5:48 pm

Him saying that everything is both subjective and objective means that we can never get rid of subject-object relation but that we can nonetheless improve such a relation through detachment. In other words, nothing is purely subjective (subjectivism) and nothing is purely objective (objectivism.) He is the one who thinks fluidly and it is Stefan who is rigid.

He says right at the start that "values are objective". This is a defense against "values are subjective" which seeks to rid capable people of their ability to judge. So he proceeds to explain how everything is subjective and objective at the same time . . . how we can never escape our own subjectivity but that we can nonetheless achieve a higher level of objectivity.

And what does Stefan say to this? It is impossible . . . because of Aristotelian law of non-contradiction. Because of logic. This is how we have defined things and this is how they should be. Logic and definition, for him, precede reality, are not supposed to be shaped by reality.


Last edited by Magnus Anderson on Wed May 27, 2015 5:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 5:48 pm

You wanted him to respect that clown?
I don't particularly like Molyneux but in this case I must admire his patience in dealing with an incoherent, clown.
I loved when he tried to contain his laughter, as the other was rambling on throwing words around.

Really?
No matter how absurd the other is, how dense, you would waste you time by taking him seriously?

To what end?
What do you expect the outcome to be?
That reason finally gets through?
That some IQ points are added miraculously in the course of the conversation?

The subjective is part of the objective, and that is why determining its corruptive effects, as in Know Thyself, is essential.
The interpreter is part of what is being interpreted, but it is not the central theme.

To eliminate the subjective's effect you must focus outward, reducing ego, emotion, need, making your only motive clarity, honesty, to approach the objective as much as possible.

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

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1894
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 33
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 6:14 pm

Satyr wrote:
The subjective is part of the objective, and that is why determining its corruptive effects, as in Know Thyself, is essential.

Like the subjective is a subset of the objective?
Depends what the caller meant by that though Molyneux was already certain about the stupidity.
The more Molyneux put the pressure on, the more it became a nervous defensive rambling.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 6:23 pm

Anfang wrote:
Satyr wrote:
The subjective is part of the objective, and that is why determining its corruptive effects, as in Know Thyself, is essential.

Like the subjective is a subset of the objective?
Depends what the caller meant by that though Molyneux was already certain about the stupidity.
The more Molyneux put the pressure on, the more it became a nervous defensive rambling.

The eye I part of the world it is seeing.

Consciousnesses precedes self-consciousness...the eye must recognize itself in a reflection.

The subjective is outwardly focused - it is an interpretation of the objective world.
How well it interprets determines the organisms success'- its survival probability.

When the subjective perceives self as a reflection in other, the brain goes a bit haywire.
Have you seen a dog seeing itself in a mirror?

This is what Jaynes called Bicameral Mind.
It is the point where God, as an external consciousnesses begins to arise.
The part of consciousness, becoming self-conscious, (the eye seeing itself) mistaking itself as the God.
Conscience, that internal dialogue, becomes God speaking to the believer.

This is a stage in intellectual development.

Same as nihilism.
It is the emotional primal, reaction to increasing self-consciousness.
A pulling back.

Know Thyself is the subjective objectifying itself.
As if self were but another phenomenon. The approach towards the objective is like the approach to godliness.
One takes one's self out of the observed, and perceives self and world with detachment.

The motive here is not to escape world but to become more lucid...just as Hellenic asceticism is not like the Judeo-Christian asceticism.
The former is motivated by the objective of strengthening the will to endure the world, the latter is motivated by the desire to detach and escape suffering by eliminating the ego.

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

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1495
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 30
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 6:27 pm

Satyr wrote:
The projection, the idea(l) if it is disconnected from world, is entirely subjective, is called nihilistic.

I don't think a projection/idea(l) needs to be called subjective only when it is disconnected from reality to a great degree. For example eugenics are desirable if the genetic fitness of a population is projected as an ideal, but it isn't if the projected ideal is based around being spared from the consequences of ones own inadequacies.
The nature of one's ideals are based in the objective reality of the individuals temperament, the deterministic factors that cause an individual to desire one thing over another, or to react to something in a certain way.

Both pro-eugenics and anti-eugenics have reasons and justifications that are rooted in reality. They're not equivalent, or arbitrary, it's just that the differing nature or spirit of 2 individuals can react to the same phenomenon in different ways.

This difference in spirit results in master/slave moralities.

Though I suppose that devaluing eugenics would require a distortion of perception of reality in order to determine that enabling genetic dysfunction to propagate itself is more desirable than the alternative. But then slave morality necessarily requires such delusion in order to function, the central issue has to be sort of sidestepped and the focus brought upon altruism, or the altruistic nature that people have towards others in order to overcome the hurdle, it doesn't mean that it is still not rooted in an objective desire to preserve the self in the face of natural selection, even if that means relying solely on the pity and indulgences of the capable.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 6:40 pm

No, how disconnected/connected it is to the real determines its success within the real.

The subjective may be contrary to the real, as in the example of eugenics you gave.
This disconnection would require constant protection from the real it is contrary to.
Idealizing life, for instance, to where even cripples and retards are allowed life, will slowly diminish the genetic health of the individuals participating within it.

It's why I say that Nihilism, and every derivative (ideal) requires sheltering, and requires multiplicity to be safe within.
The sheltering mechanism cannot be nihilistic...and so Nihilism is a method of internal control, of constructing and maintaining internal harmony by those who know.
This disparity is exposed as a contradiction between what is sold internally and what is projected externally as against an alien other not part of the nihilistic paradigm.

Christianity sold "turning the other cheek"internally but then made the Crusades possible.
The modern elites sell interracial reproduction, and immigration, and they practice exclusivity, discrimination.
Nihilism is a dumbing-down, manipulating human emotions and needs.

By making words arbitrary, detached from the real, they manufacture innocuous minds, castrated wills.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 9:09 pm


Having watched the vid again, I think the caller is incoherent because he does not use the proper words so as to clarify.  

The Subjective is what interprets the apparent, which is apparent because it is fluctuating with a particular pattern.
What does not have a pattern in its (inter)acting is not perceived, and is interpreted by the mind as black, and/or void.  
This pattern, and how it (inter)acts with other patterns, is the objective real: world/kosmos.

The subjective mind's accuracy, how close to the objective the subjective interpretation got, is determined by its perception of the pattern, and how detailed this perception is.
This pattern is the phenomenon: that which appears, is accessible through the senses to be interpreted.  
For instance the pattern may also include other patterns within it, which are part of its pattern.
This detailed perception is a discrimination - a more sophisticated perception of the pattern perceived; a more refined conciousness.
The pattern and its sub-patterns, is interpreted by the mind in accordance with  what medium, (inter)acted with this phenomenon, and what sense organ was stimulated, (inter)acted with the medium in turn, after it had been affected by its (inter)action with the phenomenon.
This stimulation and all its details, are translated into a code the sense organ uses to transmit it to the neurological hub, which is the brain. there the data is processed, integrating it into an abstraction, a feeling, a sense, perhaps also triggering automatic reactions such as emotions in the process.
This mental construct is called abstraction, and I call it noumenon.
It is a noetic representation of the phenomenon.
the accuracy of this interpretation is not decided by the organism subjectively, but by the world as the sum of all (inter)actions, if the organism uses this nouemnon to make a choice, to (re)act.  

This pattern along with its participating patterns, is interpreted by the mind in a way it can process, and use - the method and usage determined through hundreds of thousands of years of trial and error - evolution.
The success of the organism using these interpretations proves that these interpretation sufficed for the mode of survival the organism is using.    
But success in the past does not guarantee success in the present or the future, because the world is in flux, it is changing, and the entire process and the organs at play can be corrupted warped by disease, or some genetic mutation, and the mind may be corrupted by emotion, such as fear, hope, expectation, which will affect the abstraction, how the noumenon is formed.

In nature there is one method of eradicating such error...death.
Survival of the fittest means right is might.
Might is right refers to a dominance which can change the environment in favour of the organism intervening upon it.
This is a continuance of the right is might.
"I say so" only works when you have control over the environment and those participating within it.
To attain this level of dominance the right is might must precede it.

It does not really matter what symbol you use to share the abstraction in your head if the abstraction refers to the same pattern, the same appearance.

You can call a wolf whatever you like because the symbol you uses must correspond to the b behaviour, the (inter)activity of the phenomenon we call wolf.

_________________
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 2 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Similar topics
-
» OBJECTIVE QUESTIONS & ITS ANSWERS OF Co. A/C & COST ACCOUTING
» Purpose of Retention Money
» COMPANY LAW ALL OBJECTIVES
» To Strike or...to Strike: Objective News reports

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