Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Objective <> Subjective

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 9:28 pm

How all this pertains to politics and morals I refer you to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Morality has no meaning detached from an objective, an idea(l), and politics has to do with what concerns the working of the polis, as in human relationships, which may or may not be determined by objective reality since the polis creates a noetic space/time of inter-subjectivity, which may or may not be based on a reference to phenomena, and may simply be self-validating as in noumena referencing noumena, in an endless looping - communal solipsism.

I would say that there are two ways this is possible, to persist over a period of time without facing the inevitable...
One, that there is a sheltering will which is totally connected to the world, but uses internal detachment (nihilism) so as to control and manipulate and produce internal harmony.
Two, that the participants apply a selective subjectivity, sometimes connecting with the world and sometimes detaching from it, depending on the circumstances and the motive.
This may be hypocritical, intentional, or a product of what I've called compartmentalization, selective reasoning.
 

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 9:55 pm

All value judgements are a reference to this object/objective, this desirable idea(l).

These projected objectives are rooted in the individual's knowledge and acceptance of his past/nature.

They represent what from the past has manifested in the present, as appearance, which the individual cannot live without - is unwilling to give up even if it means losing his life.
These are the individual's core identifiers.

The projected objective, idea(l) is therefore in alignment with these core identifiers, either maintaining them or accentuating them.
This willingness to die in defence of these core identifiers is what is called nobility.

Each identifier and the projected objective corresponding to it, represents the individuals principles, his values are extensions of this, as are his morals.

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

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 239
Join date : 2014-07-27
Location : Perfidious Albion

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 10:18 pm

The caller is representative of a type of mind which often finds itself in mathematics. Having honed his intelligence to deal with mathematical problems and find balanced solutions and equations he imagines that all of life can be approached in the same manner. He seems to have three premises none of which he explores clearly:

1) The symbolic references known as language could be re-classified and re-designated as long as the phenomena referred to are still accurately described. He imagines we can just start at a sterile or neutral starting point free from historical development of accepted terminology because all that matters is what is being described and whether, using the chosen terms, this is accurate or not (as long as a=b+c then c=b+a if you just change which symbol relates to which phenomena...) If you want to redefine objective and subjective to mean something totally different then that which they mean to everyone else then you should write a very long book with very well reasoned arguments which justify your position. The absurdity of trying to use accepted language to describe this position exposes that he merely has a childish fixation on the fact that language(s) could have developed in a way which would cause the same terms to mean different things. In that sense language is 'arbitrary'. He is lost in a mathematical world where all that matters is the balancing of the equation not the ability to relate this to any other human being.

2) There is no such thing as objective because human sensory interpretation, evidential data and descriptive terminology are all imperfect and therefore objectivity is something which exists only in an unapproachable abstract (he references an omniscient God to elude to this point). Here he is correct to a point but reveals his disappointment at man's imperfection rather than accepting the inherent limitations of being a human and relishing the challenge of becoming more lucid, more clear, more objective. Ressentiment. Reality is never fully perceived and certainly never completely defined: such is the nature of an emergent intelligence.

3) The subjective delusions that a person may have (seeing a non-existent lake for example) occur in an objective world and are caused by objective phenomena or objective mental illness and in that way the delusion itself is objective, whilst the experience of the delusion or the description of that experience would still be subjective. Again in a useless sort of way he is partly correct but I think this can just be chalked up to a romanticism and used in combination with point number 2). Rather than accepting that some peoples sense of reality is inhibited by this or that limiting factor, he prefers to see their delusion as a type of reality caused by reality itself and therefore, in some convoluted sense, equally objective being that all humans are limited in their capacity to be objective (lack omniscience). Here it is crucial that he relies upon point 2) because a more objective view of the world would reveal that the person in question has defective senses or is interpreting reality erroneously, but, when you deny that objectivity can actually be attained or approached by man then delusions are an objective phenomena in themselves and not merely a fault. One is reminded of trans-gender advocates claiming that hermaphrodites, intersex people and others with chromosomal abnormalities are proof that gender is too fluid and non-binary to justify a simple male-female dichotomy... rather than just accepting that some people are born with flaws which prevent them from experiencing reality in a way which would be more healthy in a normative sense and coming to terms with the fact that the unfortunate folk are indeed deficient and not special snowflakes.

All in all, a horrid mess, but kinda funny. Molyneux is cool for his 'truth about' videos but often I find him to be pretty annoying. Had he listened a little more he could have really fleshed out the weakness and childishness of the arguments.
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 Wed May 27, 2015 10:43 pm

By chimp, I certainly meant the caller asking the questions to Moly.

Moly speaks of Objectivity as that which exists outside the merely human, taking the example of Light, with a spectrum of wavelengths that may fall above or below the human range of perception depending on the quality of consciousness and existing  as a real whether we can perceive it or not.

The chimp caller then states that because the accuracy and capacity of scientific instruments only allow so much, with further precision, our Objective understanding would be larger, and so he says what Moly says to him is yet only another human subjectivity.

Clearly, the chimp is conflating human interests with human limitations. Our degree of Objectivity is indeed a reflection of our limitations, and while our scope of knowledge may widen with increased precision and discrimination, this doesnt make Objectivity a subset of subjectivities because what the former means really is assessment outside of human self-indulgent self-interests, not self-limitations.

The same with the chimp in the dungeon.

It all depends on what word in what context in what frame of particularities, etc.

The Xt. he is, he puts the Word first. Identity is a subset of language, a language construct, than language expressing organ hierarchies of the organism...
Self-indulgent self-interest and particular dasein is the only Real to this hedonist.

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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

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

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

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

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

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed May 27, 2015 10:49 pm

apaosha wrote:
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.

Rand's Objective Rationalism is not the same as Rational Objectivity.
The former is a variant of the hedonist school that equates rationality with pleasure with self-preservation.

If I put self-preservation at all costs, my objective Rationalism can justify anything that aids my survival, my pleasure,, whereas rational Objectivity is that path of maximum resistance moving beyond even that which I know will give me pleasure.


-

@Carlin, good summary.

_________________
[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
OhFortunae

avatar

Gender : Male Scorpio Posts : 2478
Join date : 2013-10-26
Age : 23
Location : Land of Dance and Song

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sat Aug 15, 2015 7:43 pm

Beyond Good & Evil 207 wrote:
No matter how gratefully we may accommodate ourselves to the objective spirit - and who has never been sick to death of everything subjective and its damnably excessive obsession with itself [Ipsissimosität]! - we must ultimately also learn caution concerning this gratitude and stop the exaggeration with which in recent years we have celebrated the depersonalizing of the spirit, emptying the self from the spirit, as if that were the goal in itself, redemption and transfiguration. That's what tends to happen, for example, in the pessimism school, which, for its part, has good reasons for awarding highest honour to "disinterested knowledge." The objective man who no longer curses and grumbles like the pessimist, the ideal scholar, in whom the scientific instinct after thousands of total and partial failures all of a sudden comes into bloom and keeps flowering to the end, is surely one of the most valuable of implements there are, but he belongs in the hands of someone more powerful. He is only a tool, we say. He is a mirror - he is no "end in himself." The objective man is, in fact, a mirror: accustomed to submit before everything which wishes to be known, without any delight other than that available in knowing and "mirroring back" - he waits until something comes along and then spreads himself out tenderly so that light footsteps and the spiritual essences slipping past are not lost on his surface and skin. What is still left of his "person" seems to him accidental, often a matter of chance, even more often disruptive, so much has he become a conduit and reflection for strange shapes and experiences. He reflects about "himself" with effort and is not infrequently wrong. He readily gets himself confused with others. He makes mistakes concerning his own needs, and it's only here that he is coarse and careless. Perhaps he gets anxious about his health or about the pettiness and stifling atmosphere of wife and friend or about the lack of companions and society - indeed, he forces himself to think about his anxieties: but it's no use! His thoughts have already wandered off to some more general example, and tomorrow he knows as little as he knew yesterday about how he might be helped. He has lost seriousness for himself - as well as time. He is cheerful, not from any lack of need, but from a lack of fingers and handles for his own needs. His habitual concessions concerning all things and all experiences, the sunny and uninhibited hospitality with which he accepts everything which runs into him, his kind of thoughtless good will and dangerous lack of concern about Yes and No - alas, there are enough cases where he must atone for these virtues of his! - and as a human being he generally becomes far too easily the caput mortuum [worthless residue] of these virtues. If people want love and hate from him - I mean love and hate the way God, women, and animals understand the terms - he'll do what he can and give what he can. But we should not be amazed when it doesn't amount to much - when he reveals himself in these very matters as inauthentic, fragile, questionable, and rotten. His love is forced, his hate artificial, more a tour de force, a tiny vanity and exaggeration. He is genuine only as long as he is permitted to be objective: only in his cheerful comprehensiveness [Totalismus] is he still "Nature" and "natural." His mirror soul, always smoothing itself out, no longer knows how to affirm or to deny. He does not command, and he does not destroy. "Je ne méprise presque rien" [there is almost nothing I despise] - he says with Leibnitz: We should not fail to hear and should not underestimate that presque [almost]!3 Moreover, he is no model human being. He does not go ahead of anyone or behind. He places himself in general too far away to have a reason to take sides between good and evil. When people confused him for such a long time with the philosopher, with the Caesar-like breeder and cultural power house, they held him in much too high honour and overlooked the most essential thing about him - he is an instrument, something of a slave, although certainly the most sublime form of slave, but in himself nothing - presque rien [almost nothing]! The objective man is an instrument, an expensive, easily damaged and blunted tool for measurement and an artful arrangement of mirrors, something we should take care of and respect. But he is no goal, no way out or upward, no complementary human being in whom the rest of existence is justified, no conclusion - and even less a beginning, a procreation and first cause. He is nothing strong, powerful, self-assured, something which wants to be master. He is much rather merely a delicate, finely blown mobile pot for forms, which must first wait for some content and meaning or other, in order to "give himself a shape" consistent with it - usually a man without form and content, a "selfless" man. And thus also nothing for women, in parenthesi [in parenthesis].-
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://plus.google.com/u/0/109705167311303906720/posts
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:20 pm

When life emerges, as a self-organizing, incomplete unity, the subjective/objective dichotomy emerges with it.
The perspective of the organism, in reference to world, is the division between what lies within its domain of self-organization, directed by a will, and what lies outside its domain of wilful control, the otherness.
The nervous system is the fluctuating division between subject and object, and the skin/membrane/exoskeleton is the extent of its domain.
What leis within, attached to this nervous system and is contained by this skin/membrane/exoskeleton is the self, the "I".

Without the emergence of life, as a self-organizing incomplete unity, there is no subjective/objective divide.
What lacks awareness is neither a unity not aware, and so can never be a subject interpretation the world, as its object of interest.
Without a nervous system there is no subjective/objective divide.
We might say the nervous system is what begins the separation between I/other, and the skin/membrane/exoskeleton is the extend of its domain.

The fluctuating, porous, delineation begins and end at the exoskeleton, or the skin, or the membrane, which is what the organism needs to construct so as to begin self-maintaining, and accumulating energies to direct, to overflow, to grow, create, to move.
First conception is of otherness.
Perception of otherness does not require self-awareness. The senses are for exploring, and discriminating between patterns outside the organism's self-organizing, its domain.
Self is sensation.

Later, if it develops a more sophisticated neurological system and its awareness becomes more precise, more discriminating, it begins to perceive finer details of divergence, and of similarity, when it becomes self-aware.
It juxtaposes self-awareness with awareness of other.
Similarities are also incomplete, imperfect, not absolute.
Even between genetic twins and even between clones similarities are never absolute.

The recognition of sameness proceeds from the differentiation between I/other, it follows the establishment of divergence.
The organism needs to separate itself from other, for it to begin self-organizing, and accumulating, storing, energies to direct itself, in movement, and directs the energies towards growth, reproduction, creation.

All else is neither a unity nor a subjective perception of an objective world.
A pattern, which humans have categorized as particular elements, species, types, does not recognize anything, it simply (inter)acts with other patterns in the only way it can, being the pattern that it is.
A congruence of elements, an external observer simplifies/generalizes as a stone, is not a unity, nor is it trying to maintain itself as one.
This is a projection, on the part of the organism, which must simplify/generalize, abstract, so as to make sense of the Flux.

The subjective emerges as consciousness of other emerges in a living organism.
The world, all otherness external form this self-organizing is the unknown, the alien, the objective world, which is indifferent to the subjective interpretation, meaning that the organism lives or dies on the precision, quality, of its interpretations, its perspective.

Subjective/objective indicates this increasing differentiation between organism, the "I", and that which is not "I" the "other" - all patterns and non-patterns that do not participate in its self-organizing.

As I noted [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the neurological system is also the source of confusion when consciousness of others develops to self-consciousness, where self is discovered as an otherness, while also sensing self internally.
This conflict between two sensual streams of consciousness, one collected by the nervous system through its webs all across the body, to the furthest reaches of its skin/membrane/exoskeleton, and the other collecting data via a medium, from external sources, phenomena, results in a schism, a fragmentation.
The different streams sending conflicting sensations, the brain unable to differentiate from where it is receiving the particular sensations, it conflates the two, merges them into one, because ti must create cohesion, even if compartmentalized, and ti must abstract the data, constructing it noetic representations.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:32 pm

The separation, between I/other is necessary, because the organism must reduce possibilities, and increase particular probabilities within its domain - this is what is called ordering, or becoming.
Subjective/Objective are the result.
These concepts have no meaning outside living organism and how these organisms relate to what lies outside their wilful domain.
This separation, imperfect, porous though it may be, is what is required to self-maintain, and then accumulate energies, storing them as reserve, so as to direct them towards otherness, to grow, to move towards otherness, to expand its domain.

Without this skin/membrane there is no possibility for Will to Power or will at all.
This is what the organism confuses as universal unity, wholeness - this projection of self-knowledge as a cosmic truth.
From this understanding the concept of one emerges, and then its negation of nil.

Nihilism is the insistence that what lies outside the organism's domain must abide by, be the same as, reflect, what leis inside its domain.
The confusion between the data, and from where the nervous system is collecting them to construct abstractions, results in a confusion between "I" and "other".
The unity, the oneness, the organism is desperately trying to complete, becomes a universal oneness.
The will focusing its aggregate energies, becomes a cosmic will, a God.
Its subjective interpretation, abstraction, of world becomes world.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:38 pm

Biological processes translated into Christian spiritual metaphors...

Objective/World/Phenomenon = God/Satan
Nervous System = Holy Spirit
Subjective/Noumenon = Son of God, Jesus

Translated into Metaphysics...

Objective/World/Phenomenon = Order/Chaos - observed
Nervous System = Medium - intermediate element (light, air, water)
Subjective/Noumenon = Mind, Self - observer

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:08 pm

The brain is a tool of efficiency.
intelligence is dominant offering a species that may be slower, weaker, smaller, more fragile, an advantage for one reason....efficiency.
That is the only reason some species naturally selected this trait, or group of traits.

Consciousness is discrimination.
There is no such thing as non-discriminating consciousness - the two concepts are tautologies.
I am conscious of a pattern that exhibits a divergence in relation to other patterns.
Everything I am aware of is such a divergence.

The mind emerges through brain processes.
Consciousness is its outward projection.

To begin to make the evolution of the brain possible, the organism must establish a separation, it must distinguish itself, differentiate itself from otherness, from world.
Recognition of sameness follows from this differentiation.
to do so the organism constructs a porous, flimsy, imperfect, barrier: exoskeleton, skin, membrane.
This establishes the I/Other which becomes subjective/objective.

The organism makes of the world its object, it turns it into a thing, an objective.
This is what makes it a subject, a subjectivity interpreting relating, engaging, evaluating the objective world in relation to its needs, which later develop into ideals, principles, goals.
The world is not thing, but the mind must convert, translate the fluid, the flux, into static form, so as to be able to assimilate it, store it, and process it.

Therefore, things are human constructs, they are abstractions, noumena.

We replace subjective/objective with noetic/apparent, or noumenon/phenomenon.
The first is the abstraction, the interpretation, the simplification/generalization, the second is the apparent, the revealed, the (inter)active.
The noumenon is a representation of the phenomenon.
The phenomenon is not affected by how the noumenon represents it, but the organism which uses the noumenon to make sense of the world, is affected.


The moon is pretty involves two abstractions, the moon which is converted into a thing in the brain, and pretty which is a reference to the moon's aesthetics, which is never clarified, never defined.
What does it mean to be pretty?
Why do we find phenomena pretty?
Are all phenomena pretty? If not then what makes some phenomenon very pretty and others not so pretty?
Is it how it, the moon makes us feel, and if so why does it make us feel that way?
Is it something about the moon's shape, its symmetry, its actions upon the earth and ourselves as living organism's upon the earth?
Why would we find the moon pretty?
Is is based on nothing, or whims, on taste, which also says nothing more than alter the words being used?
Do I have a taste for salty food for no reason?
Why do I prefer salty food, to sweet food?
No reason?
Luck?
Chance?

Why do I find a scene of trees upon the meadow inspiring?
Why do I find it pleasing?
Just because?
For no reason?
I decided to?
God?
Luck?

Why do I find a pretty girl sexy, and another not so sexy?
Whim?
Blind luck?
God?
Her "spirit"?
I decided to?
I chose to?
I made up my mind to do so?

In the common usage the objective describes a thing, a phenomenon, and subjective describes a particular quality characterizing the object/objective.
Tall, short, pretty, ugly, strong, weak, smart, dumb, and so on.
The trait is not independent from the object, it is a evaluation, translation, of its particularities.
the organism does not decide the tallness, shortness, strength, sexiness of the other...the organism recognizes it, becomes aware of it, appreciates it by comparing it to another.

The individuals doesn't just decide what they are, just because.
There's a reason the object is translated in that way, is evaluated in that way.
The organism's particularities, its organism, its internal structures, determine how it reacts to the object/objective.

To become more objective about the object/objective the subject, the mind, must detach from its needs, emotions, interests, hopes, so as to evaluate the object/objective with clarity, with cold reasoning.
Is tallness subjective?
No.
is how big or small the object is?
No.
Is the object's strength/weakness?
No.

These are relationships of object/objective and organism, a juxtaposition, a comparison.

So why is prettiness, beauty subjective?
why is intelligence subjective?
Only because the organism refuses or cannot define what is being compared.
most Moderns refuse to proceed beyond a certain point because that will shatter their entire world view, their psychological well-being.

Is physical symmetry, we call beauty, arbitrary?
No.
Is mental symmetry, we call intelligence, arbitrary?
No.
Is psychological symmetry, we call personality, arbitrary?
No.

What is arbitrary is what each individual chooses to settle for, to make compromises on.
and even that is not arbitrary because the desire to make compromises is determined by the past/nature, which shapes the organisms' own attitudes, predispositions, inclinations.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:52 pm

The brain evolved to connect this internal and external stream of data.
It's primary function is to judge, to evaluate, the external, objective, as it relates to its needs.

The "apple is good" is meaningless without connecting this "good for" with an organic need, related to the organism's nature/past, and the apples particular traits as these relate to these organic needs.
The first value judgments were in relation to the "idea(l) of survival, self-maintenance.

When an organism becomes more sophisticated then this idea(l) can be a projection, an intent.
Intelligence is "good" only means something when the motive of intelligence is connected to the idea(l) it facilitates.
The traits of intelligence are evaluated in relation to a desirable goal, a motive, an idea(l) state.

Therefore, the perception of a phenomenon, begins with discrimination, discerning it among other phenomena, separating it, distinguishing it.
The phenomenon's particular traits are analyzed, and evaluated in relation to a idea(l) which the organism wishes to attain.
The degree that the desirable trait(s) is present in the particular phenomenon determines its value, in relation to this idea(l).

All value judgments are references to an idea(l).


_________________
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 Mon Aug 24, 2015 3:01 pm

Satyr wrote:
The brain evolved to connect this internal and external stream of data.
It's primary function is to judge, to evaluate, the external, objective, as it relates to its needs.  

The "apple is good" is meaningless without connecting this "good for" with an organic need, related to the organism's nature/past, and the apples particular traits as these relate to these organic needs.
The first value judgments were in relation to the "idea(l) of survival, self-maintenance.

When an organism becomes more sophisticated then this idea(l) can be a projection, an intent.
Intelligence is "good" only means something when the motive of intelligence is connected to the idea(l) it facilitates.
The traits of intelligence are evaluated in relation to a desirable goal, a motive, an idea(l) state.

Therefore, the perception of a phenomenon, begins with discrimination, discerning it among other phenomena, separating it, distinguishing it.
The phenomenon's particular traits are analyzed, and evaluated in relation to a idea(l) which the organism wishes to attain.
The degree that the desirable trait(s) is present in the particular phenomenon determines its value, in relation to this idea(l).

All value judgments are references to an idea(l).



Good post.

That's what socratism did, cut off the ideal and idealized in itself: like "virtue is good" became The good than good for what?
"Virtue is good" became an idealism in itself with no connection to an organic ideal.

_________________
[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 : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Aug 24, 2015 3:13 pm

The idea(l), in turn, is determined to be superior/inferior, by the objective/world.
The organism's evaluation are not automatically accurate, they are measured against a world which is indifferent to the subjective evaluation of the idea(l).
The subjective mind may evaluate goodness but it may be mistaken.
The world determines the accuracy of projected idea(l) and its evaluation.

A mind may value levitation greatly, considering it "good", but the world does not care what the organisms thinks, and levitation, no matter how "good" The organism thinks it is, may be a delusion, and not only not-good, but impossible.
The idea(l) must not only be "good" but it must be possible, real, and not a noetic construct, a delusion, a fantasy.
it's "goodness' may only exist as a possibility in the mind of the organism and it may be meaningless outside the mind.
Like the "goodness" or "badness' of unicorns.
The unicorn being a pure noumenon, with no references outside the human skull. An amalgamation of abstractions, recombined in a novel way which refers to nothing real.
in this case the "goodness" of the unicorn is an irrelevant value judgment.
It's "goodness' may be only founded on its non-applicability, its non-existence - its purity as noumenon, protecting it from being measured in the real world.
Like the Christian "god".

This is what i mean by connecting the noumenon to the phenomenon.
We can all construct an idea(l) that is "good" forever, because it is never placed within reality - it being a pure noetic construct.
The idea(l) must be connected to the real otherwise it is useless, mind-candy, a delusion that may entertain and comfort the organism but is a fantasy.
The utility of the idea(l) is just as important as its intent, its "goodness".

The pragmatic value of an idea(l) is also determined by the world, and not decided by the organism.
The organism can imagine whatever it wants, as long as this detachment from reality is not costly (Modern sheltering being what keeps the costs of detachment down), but it cannot make what it fantasizes about real, unless it connects its idea(l) with the real, or adjusts it.
It is the idea(l), as a mental construct, which must adjust to the real, not the real to the idea(l).
It is the noumenon that must adjust to the phenomenon, not the other way around.

In a direct interpretation of phenomenon, the noumenon translates what the phenomenon is into a form it can comprehend, it can store, it can process.
It is what the phenomenon is which determines how the noumenon will translate it, unless the brain is damaged or nuder chemical effects, or ill.
Beauty is not subjective, since it is an interpretation of symmetry, fitness, or an interpretation of existential awe, possibilities, before order, for an organism dependent on order.




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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Sep 01, 2015 4:44 pm

A man who is separated from his wife for a long period of time will produce more sperm, than usual, upon his return.
No matter how much he loves, respects, and trusts her, consciously, rationally, his body will not be convinced by the brain's judgments, nor by the social constructs that reassure it.
No human institutions, rules, or words of love and eternal devotion can sway it.
It knows of a deeper, more vicious, truth.
The body, evolved to deal with nature's indifferent cruelty, has a "logic" of its own; has developed a judgment over hundreds of thousands of years of trial and error, and founded on experiences that precedes the individual’s personal experiences and its immediate awareness.
No mind can override this completely, with its meagre lifetime of training, and institutionalized learning.
The man’s body, despite his mind, adjusts to circumstances, free of all manmade morals, ideals, and values.
It was made to deal with the real, not the idea(l).

For the female it is the same.
She may despise a man, rationally, hold him in contempt, have a low opinion of him and for his behaviour, and still, if the occasion arises, her body will scream out its unmistakable approval with a spontaneous, uncontrollably convulsing, "Yes, Yes, my god yes!!!" that leaves no room for misinterpretations, and word-games.
Conversely, she may consciously adore a man, hold him in high esteem, think the world of him, appreciate him and his spirit, rationally, agree with his mind, be charmed by his wit, and despite this, her body, with unresponsive coldness will pronounce its own final judgment with an unequivocal "No, no, this man, this past, these genes, these memories, do not deserve my sacrifices, my time. No more than this gift can I offer in gratitude, not as complete approval of mind and body."

The woman may lay down with man out of pity, out of spite against her own body’s unresponsiveness, as the unyielding proclamation of her idea(l)’s superiority, its dominance, over nature, her own nature; a gesture of disapproval for nature’s injustices, her unwarranted cruelty upon him, and still her body will not follow.

The idea(l), of course – a least for her, because a man's sexual judgments are less stringent and more exploitative – is the "complete package", or "Mr. Right", as these modern females call this elusive mate.
The one who can receive both her mind's and her body's complete approval, with a resounding unison of "Yes, such a man is worthy of my complete submission".

In our age of human interventions, and the hedonistic idea(l) that all are deserving, disparity between mind/body, particularly in the female sex, is the norm.
Many a marriage remain viable because of the female's partial, or complete, dissatisfaction, and disapproval, whereas the male is content with the illusion, with her "faking it", because his sex is less demanding, and more easily gratified, and because he is simply happy to be approved, even if hypocritically.

Whatever idea(l)s have fertilized the mind, the body remains unimpressed, at least immediately.
It may be affected, in time, and only after the mind has imposed itself, consistently, causing the body to shrivel, and only when it has gained some dominance over the body, some control – or only as much as it has managed to do so.
The brain's power is time dependent.
It imposes itself upon the body's automated, honest, reactions only with great effort, and only after a period of long, and persistent training.
If the brain continues with its impositions, a total breach is inevitable.
If not a mind/body split, necessitating a splintering of the mind, because the body still needs the brain to function, then dis-ease, a sense of discomfort in its own skin, a sense of disorientation; a neurological effect, produced by the stress of having to integrate disagreeing elements in the same organization.
Habit, a regimented, disciplined adherence to formalities, can establish a precarious peace; the mind dominating, as momentary victor, over body, and its presence as the manifestation of past.
But let us push this line of reasoning further, following the neurological pathways back to the source.
Fantasies, fetishes, irrational obsessions, are found lurking in the deepest crevices of the human body.
The cells, adopting imagery from consciousness to make themselves heard, speak to the brain in the only language it can understand, but the message, being the result of memories that span centuries, from a time before the birth of the organism, is presented in a convoluted, metaphorical way, leaving the brain wondering what it's all about.
Let us now take the lead from Nietzsche and Jung, if not Freud only, and discover in dreams the body communicating its wisdom to the brain.
In sleep, when the nervous system is cut-off from external stimulation, from sensual sources, the body continues transmitting messages to the brain.
No longer burdened with two sources of stimulation, an internal and an external one, the internal takes over, flooding the brain with its imagery, its sensations and symbols.
Irrational fears, confused imagery, fantastic unreal combinations, all bubble-up from our internal networks, connecting billions of cells, each with a life of its own. This is the source of oneness, the idea of universal consciousness.
The Modern dedicated to noumena, obsessed with the subjective, presents himself as the happy sleepwalker, a dreamer of the unreal – a member of a collective unconscious.
The transmissions are unclear, because the body has no sense of temporal continuity, and it adopts imagery, symbols, and words, from the waking mind, to make itself known, if not understood.
With Moderns this collective dream is their inter-subjective idealism.
Within it, everything is possible, it is comforting, ordered, it is romantic, and irrationally rational; everything is imbued with meaning.
In dream the body conveys its memories, its wisdom, its judgments, most of them stored in cells for centuries, and lacking a formal language it adopts the one the conscious mind uses. In dream the body communicates with the brain, in the only way it can, and at the only period in time when the brain is open to its communications without disturbances from the external world.

Do we hear it?
Can we make sense of what it is telling us?
When the body speaks, there is no doubt, no lies, no ulterior motives – these are tools of the mind, the methods of the dream-interpreters, the priests.
The body speaks of past, as it does of presence.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Thu Sep 24, 2015 10:29 am

Of course individuals engaging reality, the world, honestly, and motivated only by a desire to find clarity.
All are part of the same world, and perceiving it accurately, and basing your idea(l)s on the appreciation of it, would, of course, converge in agreement.
Those who share the same environment and base their objectives, ideals, within this environment will reach agreement, if not on the path towards it, then only on its value.


Of course, minds unbound by a world, wanting to escape it rather than engage, it obsessed with self-referential personal subjective "reality" would exhibit diversity in the subjectivity each one prefers to live within.
With no external, to them, world to restrict their fantasies, each one would diverge into whatever delusion (s)he prefers, and would only agree upon the "right" to live within whatever world each ones desires.

An objective mind is not restricted by an external will, a god, an institution, a mind, (s)he is restricted by the world and its patterns which his thinking and values must harmonize with.

A Modern, using subjectivity, perspectivism, cynicism to defend hiss/her hedonistic motives would consider this undesirable, too restrictive, brutal.
In this collective inter-subjectivity (s)he finds the "excuse" to imagine himself/herself as whatever brings him/her pleasure, and thinks (s)he has escaped the determining, immutable past which (s)he is a manifestation of.



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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:28 am

Objective = the world, matter/energy, the apparent, the observed: (inter)activity; a subjective approach towards the ongoing Flux - an ordering of the fluctuating: noumenon deciphering phenomenon by extricating self, as a corruptible component, to reach for the godly perspective, clarity.

Subjective = the mind, noumenon, the observer; an interpretation/translation, using a medium of stimuli constructing abstractions, mental models, by simplifying/generalizing the fluctuating into static imagery/symbols/ later to be represented by words.

It is these mental models projected first as orienting destinations, and later as desirable ideals, reaching the absurdity of absolutes (utopia) which the observing organism uses as its standard to evaluate self, and all phenomena in it perceptual vicinity.
It judges all in accordance to this destination, this objective.
It feels victorious when it overcomes an obstacle in its way, standing between itself and this goal, and defeated when ti cannot surpass, overcome: ashamed.

The world cares not for ideals. It simply is, and it is fluctuation, dynamic, (inter)activity of patterns with no goal, to motive, no sense of self, no awareness, just patterns, ordering, disordering, fragmenting, uniting, and all tending gradually towards the chaotic, the random.
The objective, being a projection of an ordering mind, promising higher order, is a resistance, a reaction to this entropy.
Chaos happens, it is not willed. It happens without effort, simply through the mechanism of (inter)action.
The tragic/comedy of the human condition: that with every attempt to resist it contributes to what is resisted - resentiment.  

To believe that you construct reality in your mind, that the objective world is a product of your subjectivity, is the Judeo-Christian/Islamic Nihilistic idea(l) in all its glory. Seductive, easy, inspiring, effective when manipulating weakness, inferiority, immaturity.
Eroticism, the pleasure principle, is dominant within a more base mind - one governed by its animal instincts.
Those who cannot endure the indifference of world, escape internally, dive into their psyche, hide there, and there they build empires; there they are formidable warriors.
This method can be transmitted, using words, to other minds - those that cannot dive inwards or have failed to build convincing internal empires.
the Priest offers these minds a replica of his own, and they are grateful, and forever dependent on him filling in the details of their fantasy.
An artist reigns over the inartistic, the dull of mind, the ones who have neither the imagination nor the courage to create their own delusions.

The world passes by, before their senses, unnoticed, ignored, denied....the spirit of the Nihilist finds a nest in art...in the magic of the word as toy and not as tool.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:43 am

The Hellenes, for those who have imagined themselves as being Greek, had a word for truth, and it was not the same as the one the Romans gave it, forever infecting western man with their Latin misinterpretations.

The word was αλήθεια (alethiea)....to re-call, to re-member, to un-cover.
What its un-covered but that which is without our interventions.
What is re-called but that which we are, and know not (know thyself).

Man does not will existence into existence, he discovers it there, as it was and will be, before and after his presence.
Words were invented to symbolize that which is exposed, disclosed, un-covered - giving it a name, a symbol, an abstraction.

Outside this role words are playthings for cowards and fakes.
They do not wish to re-connect what is distant, covered, forgotten, denied - but want to disconnect, detach, and feel this as "freedom", as power.
Nihilism is seductive because of this - it offers multiplicity because it is not limited by the world.
It can imagine itself, it's world, as anything; it can construct any identity, and be corrected by nothing as it accepts nothing outside itself as a standard; it feels lost, dissatisfied, seeking out a replacement standard, internally, falling prey to emotion, to manipulation, to feel-good objectives, to unifying constructs.
What tit loses in quality it tries to make up with quantities - seducing numbers to its delusion, making it a shared project, is how it reinforces the negation of world, helping it live, a lifetime, within its own constructs: it is why it always wants to change world, for the "better" - better meaning its own disconnected fantasies.



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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed Nov 11, 2015 8:51 am

A battle over the soul of European man, between Classicism and Romanticism - each given a different name (symbol) to represent it within different contexts.
It is a battle of awareness, that will determine how man interprets, relates, to world - his word-view.  

Classicism vs. Romanticism - Hellenism vs. Europe - Reason vs. Emotion/Felling/Fantasy...the Masculine vs. the Feminine.

Paganism confronted by Judeo-Christianity, Marxism, Humanism...

The Objective vs. surrender to the Subjective.
Realism vs. Idealism.

The two poles that cannot unite.

Flux of patterns, ordering but never complete vs. Positive/Negative, God/Satan, 1/0 certainty, romantic apex of desire, longing satiated.

European romanticism through the dis-ease of Christianity, of the Modern "last man", full of love, value, positivism...words floating in the noetic spheres where all is possible, and all is wonder-full.

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

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

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

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

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed Nov 11, 2015 11:06 am

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

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


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

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Nov 17, 2015 6:21 am

1st Level of Cognition
Awareness of other in relation to need/suffering; other as (re)congized pattern promising satiation of the sensation of self as existing – Subjectivity.
Consciousness of Otherness.
Self is perceived as (inter)activity with otherness, felt as stress producing need/suffering.
Other is the source of both pain and pleasure; pain/pleaser are self.  

2nd Level of Cognition
Awareness of self, as other, amongst others; as (re)cognized pattern differing from others (self as not-other) – Hyper-Subjectivity.
Self as Other.
Self is perceived as pattern, amongst patterns, with particular differences that distinguish it.
Other and self are the source of pain and pleasure.  

3rd Level of Cognition
Awareness of self from the projected perception of other; alienation of self from self – Objectivity.
Self through Other.
Self is approached from the vantage point of an otherness; projected consciousness.

4th level of Cognition
Awareness of self and other from the projected perception of a whole; relationship of self with otherness as a one – Hyper-Objectivity.
Self and Other.
Self, and Other become part of a unity, approached from a noetic vantage point of a detached, consciousness – God.
Confusion of self as other, and other as self.  

5th level of Cognition
Awareness of self and other from the projected perception of a non-whole, from the vantage point of detached, indifferent consciousness – Supra-Objectivity.
Reaffirmation of self as other than other, with no end.
The self is distinguished more clearly, more precisely, as a pattern, among patterns, forever self-ordering, similar to other patterns, but forever other-than.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Wed Nov 18, 2015 12:57 pm

In the wild, outside human environments, and human interventions, there is no debate over who is superior and who is inferior, who appreciated world, and self within it, and who overestimated or underestimated.
The answer is quick, obvious and brutal - world, nature, indifferent to the particular perspective of each individual.
No human judge, no god, no democratic process is appealed to.
It is the subjective mind that pays the price for its inaccuracy, its error, its disharmony, in relation to world as (inter)acting patterns - randomness factoring in as chance, genetic drift, the unforeseeable.

If someone misjudges beauty, with his beholding, the consequences are present in offspring, and the objective judgment is in the outcome if this offspring within world.
To be objective is to approach subjectively the closest to appreciating world outside personal desires, needs, hopes, superstitions, upbringing.

Now, within human environments where man intervenes upon nature, the rules change. The objective, in this environment, is the appreciation of how inter-subjective dynamics (inter)act in relation not to nature, but in relation to an established institutionalized "order" which may or may not he in agreement to the natural/past world intervened upon.
This last is political, and is about evaluating the variants of subjective opinions as these harmonize with a shared, often imposed, idea(l).

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Nov 20, 2015 7:03 am

We must be more like the old and wise Dædalus who never soared so far up that he lost sight of the ground, and not like young, naïve, Ikarus who, forgetting the warnings of experience was taken over by exuberance and soared higher towards the sun, as if he were master of space and time.
Because from the earth we come and to the earth we must return, and if we wish to return with our integrity intact, and not broken, then the earth’s rotating consistency, producing gravity, we must never overlook; underestimating her unforgiving mass, and overestimating the artifices we construct trying to escape, dreaming of flying above and away.


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

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:23 am

If the noumenon, referring to a phenomenon, remains vague and uncertain, and only proposes superiority, then how much more vague is a noumenon referring to nothing but another noumenon, or combination of abstractions, with no external reference point?

If we can build a castle on words, and shared fantasies, then what use do we have of reality?
Our validation comes from self, from inside, from the emotional reward these words inspire in us - sensations bubbling up from internal caverns, mysterious sources, stimulating the nervous system and making us feel alive, special, powerful, impregnable after we have been impregnated by a clever intrusive external source - subtly worming itself inside to place its seed.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Sun Nov 22, 2015 7:20 pm

When the objective is something other than the approach of the subjective toward clarity, understanding of it as world, then the subjective takes precedence and replaces the objective with its own subjective projections, based on the individual's particular past/nature.  
The world ceases to be an objective, and is ignored, or forgotten, or buried in the subjective, and renamed another subjective.

Past experiences may corrupt the intention of the subjective mind, emotion cloud its motives, ego overtake its relationship to otherness.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:00 pm

The object of philosophy is man’s relationship with time.
His preparation, in contemplation, of death, is this most distinctly human dialogue with existence.
Every relationship is measured by its honesty, and with philosophy an honest appreciation of existence, and of a self relating to it, demands honesty, the courage to stand naked before, vulnerable and weak.
Philosophy is the name we give this relationship of man with existence.
If man hides, or tries to hide reality from him, the rapport is sickly, unhealthy.
A lover approaches the object of his love with openness, with a desire to explore every part of her, absorb every inch, every scent, every texture into his mind and body – wanting to make her a part of him.
This is the approach of a lover of wisdom must have towards the object of his wisdom, the object that gives birth to it, the world, existence.
His wisdom is the love-child of this intimate contact of subject with object, observer with observed, man and world.
Harsh and cruel the loved one can be, but if the lover truly loves, he persists, he does not give-in, and he persists.


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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:32 am

Unless one is sensually deficient, suffering from a sens organ dysfunction, and unless one is neurologically deficient and is suffering from a neurological dysfunction, the world is common, and all phenomena within it translated/interpreted in the same way, or, at least, in a way that acknowledges the perception of the same divergences in quality, that I call a divergence in pattern, in vibration.

The first will be unable to share the same world, on the same level as another with healthy sense organs (nervous system collecting external stimuli), and the latter will be unable because his internal neural network is corrupting his perceptions.
To these categories we can add the brain dysfunctional ones, who either because of these deficiencies, or because the brain is dysfunctional when its senses and nervous system are healthy, cannot process and understand these stimulation.
In nature such individuals would face the expected consequences, but when they are protected within human environments, and given rights, then the dysfunction expresses itself in ways which are often subtle, and when they are not, can be justified by using the philosophical position of subjectivity, or perspectivism.
Despite this, human environments are not enclosed systems, no more than an organism is a completed being, and so they are still affected by a world they intervene upon, placing their construct between the individuals participating within them and the world that has been intervened upon but not totally pushed away.
Nevertheless, even this porous mitigating effect, suffices to permit deficiency to pretend all is subjective, and malleable using words, and human imagination.

I say this to explain how phenomena are not arbitrarily translated in whatever manner the individual prefers. They are interpreted more or less precisely, more or less effectively.
The phenomena and the succession they emerge in, the causal chain, is not accidental, and not affected by human fantasies, deficient or healthy with other motives, than clarity and engagement of man with world.
This is not where the "problem" arises for Nihilists, although this is where they fall back to, pretending they have a metaphysical grounding.
The problem arises when these phenomena, and how they (inter)act, how they relate with each other and consequently with the individual observing them, are evaluated - what value each individual places upon them.

Now, we must keep in mind the mitigating effect of human interventions, creating an artificial shell dominating human sensuality. this mitigating human shell of artifices, affects the evaluation of phenomena, and also produces phenomena that would have never emerges within this human intervention upon past/nature.
But this is not the issue either.
The issue is the idea(l)s constructed and moved towards, and how these phenomena, manmade or natural, influence the movement towards them.
This is where idealism comes in, not as the monopoly of the few, but as an organic projection, an orientation device, which, in man, has been converted to the absolute, and sometimes is so disconnected form reality, or is founded on human artifices, that it loses all meaning in the world outside human environments - socioeconomic cultural systems: memes.
With Nihilists, their ideals are completely, or partially, based on human artifices, intentionally chosen, or unintentionally adopted.  
Value is based no the individual's evaluation of the phenomenon and how it stands in his way, aids him, or is neutral in relation to his movement towards his objective, his idea(l).      
It is the relationship of the phenomenon with the projected idea(l) that determines its value, and how the individual judges them.

The phenomenon, whether it be human artifice, or natural element, is judged as the relationship of it to objective, as it relates to the subjective.
A mind interested in human constructs, undisturbed, not contradicted by natural phenomena (world outside human environments), will choose to compare artificial phenomena with his projected idea(l), as it relates to the subjective, and will evade being exposed by denying the meaning of "artificial", pretending that all that exists is natural, in the sense that it is the manifestation of past outside the emergence of human beings and human civilization.
This will make him prone to the easy evaluation of phenomena as it relates to how it affects human beings, and shapes human environments - this will be his primary care, his most pronounced ambition, measured numerically, quantitatively, by how many minds it can convince, coerce, and seduce.
He has no other external standard than the inter-subjective collective, of humanity; he accepts no other external standard, denying its existence.
The desire to live a life within your own reality, you as the sovereign, is enticing, and it is only possible when there's a protective shield between individual and world, or a collective mass of humanity, because outside of this the individual is faced with an indifferent, to his needs/desires, world, ordering and lacking order, (inter)acting in ways he is forces to humble himself before, so as to find patterns, to understand and to direct himself accordingly.

An objective understanding of world does not dismiss succession, or phenomena, or the reality of them, but attempts to find pattern within them.
His idea(l)s, goals, are based on the understanding of these phenomena, and the evaluation of these phenomena, separated into natural and artificial, are judged by how they add or subtract to his approach towards it.
His judgments, his idea(l)s, his principles, are not arbitrary, whimsical, because his motive is not to evade but to engage, even if this means failure; because his motive is not to comfort himself and please himself, but to see even if it pains him; because he thinks of life as an opportunity not a mission; because he does not dismiss the external, diving inward, but dives inward to better understand the external.

A individual can be challenged on his externalized evaluation, and never on his internalized ones, and this is why Nihilists prefer the safe world of subjectivity, where they can think and value whatever they want, in whatever manner they want, and they do not have to justify themselves, and their judgments, to anyone.
It an easy way to remain safe from objective reality.            

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:43 pm

Subjectivism, also called persepctivism, is relative to objectivity, an easy path, if there is a protective layer between self and world present.
All you need to do is extricate yourself from reality - something made easy in Modern systems - then base your assumptions on internal hierarchies, using words to manipulate concepts - usually emotion, pretending to be indifferent, and need, pretending to be independent - then fabricate an idea(l) that is both promising (positive) and seductive to the majority, because this magic only works when minds (other subjectivities) are supporting it, are assimilated into its premises - and then strive to make an impact, within man-made structures, produced and maintained by man-made artifices, that will quickly disappear when man disappears.
This is Nihilism, this is Modernity.
This is not philosophy.
The continuously adapting delusion, in relation to a reality it cannot deal with.

Bottom<>Up thinking begins with world, the sensually perceived, the apparent.
What is, before, beyond, above, human interventions, human involvement, human presence...human socioeconomic political systems.
Genes before Memes, so as to appreciate what memes are in relation to humans.

How would life be, if there were no humans present to impose their moral, idealism, their order?
That's the starting point, the foundation.
No personal ambition, no personal need, no emotion and preference - all objective evaluation of what is, outside human contrivances.
This, in itself is difficult enough...because it demands courage, the ability to hurt one's self with honesty, with clarity, with an understanding of nature/past.  
From here one advances upwards towards idea(l)s, preferences, goals, motives...objectives.
How one "ought to live" within this reality?
What is the best option, the best personal path, within this determining, immutable past/nature, manifesting as presence/appearance?
This is why I, as Satyr, cannot offer guidance, only advice, and whomever does otherwise is a fake, a charlatan, a conniving duplicitous miser with different ambitions, collecting, hoarding, accumulating mountains of flesh to shield himself from this world he despises, and pretends he loves.
We meet as homoioi, not as subordinate to master, or we do not meet at all.
Language as tool, not toy; words exposing, revealing, not concealing, seducing, manipulating, other, before self.    

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:09 pm

There is no 0/1.
These are linguistic symbols of the order/chaos duality.
Math is a language, not mystical, magical, stricture. it is not the new "word of god", a divine code.
It is a language, and like all languages it is a tool, which in Modern times, and in Nihilistic minds, has become a toy.

One symbolizes any dynamic vibration the mind can perceive, or potentially perceived, and interpret/translate into an abstraction - it is the abstraction, the noumenon, which is the "true" one.
The "one" is a static, vague, simplified/generalized representation, of a dynamic process - the idea(l) referring, or not, to the real, to the phenomenon.
It is more, or less precise, and more or less accurate.

Zero/Nil symbolizes the dynamic which cannot be perceived nor abstracted as noumenon, because ti lacks the pattern the mind needs to make sense of it - it is counter-intuitive, in relation to human intuition, disordering in relation to the mind's ordering.

Subjectivity relates to the objective abstractly, within this one/nil duality - as observer to observed, as organism relates to idea(l).

_________________
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 Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:57 pm

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

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


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



William Barrett, The Irrational Man.

He compares the rationalist platonists to Gulliver's Laputans...

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

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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

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

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

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:28 am

The objective, sanctified as the elusive, yet eternally guiding, is given the title "ideal", to differentiate it from all other objectives, expressing a subjective commitment to its superiority.
Movement toward it identifies, distinguishes the subjective mind, not its attainment.
It is a commitment based no self-respect, confidence in one's own judgments of world, and the discrimination between desirable and undesirable outcomes.
The idea(l) is the central point, in the wheel, which is never reached, but falls away as you approach it.
Movement toward it can come from multiple directions, making the approach a personal, subjective, agon, journey, without altering the ideal itself.
A noumenon glorified, becoming a shared identifier.
Movement towards it identifies the actor, but also distinguishes all other actors, though they approach form sometimes opposite directions; it orients all that move towards it, like a lighthouse orients all ships on the sea.
Its vicinity, recognition, distinguishes all actors as those who have already committed themselves and have covered some distance, just as the vicinity of the lighthouse to the ships, distinguishes them as those ships, on the chaos, on the ocean waters, which have approached the same shores, the same land, the same territory – they all see and are enlightened, inspired, by the same light, the same ideal.
The ideal acts as a planet in space, in the void, the darkness.
All satellites that have been captured by its mass are already a part of the planet.

The patterns called planet have already harmonized other patterns to their congruity.
These alien patterns, through still at a distance when compared to the ones we identify as planetary body, are already part of the planets mass.
The patterns participating in the proximity, tending towards the core, which is never stable, never concrete, have already appropriated these satellites, these meteors, moving in space, lost in the darkness.
Not part of a unity, but a congruity, tending, moving towards a center, a core that is never there, never static, never attained, and with each addition to the congruity the pressure increases, movement towards this absent center accelerated, until, at some point, light, emerges – as the fastest perceptible pattern, or congruity of patterns which cannot be differentiated by a human sense organ, interpreted as brilliance.

The pressure breaks down the patterns into smaller and smaller bits, each phase increasing uniformity – melting/melding the different patterns towards an absolute order, a singularity never attained.
Light signifies this approach towards the singular and has become, for man (an ordering congruity) a symbol of the divine: absolute order.
Symbol for God.
At the extreme as pressure increases, not even light can escape and inspire from a distance. Uniformity reaches a point of decreasing differentiation as one approaches the absolute singular.
Time /Space implode towards a core, a point always missing, absent.
Ironically the mind interprets the absence as black, as it also interprets absence of order as black, confusing complexity for chaos, thinking both are one and the same, because they are if one considers both approaches towards an absolute state: absolute order and absolute chaos two sides of the same coin – yin/yang.
Both nihilistic conceptions as both express an end to existence which is outside their absoluteness, as movement, (inter)activity.
1/0 symbols of non-existence, if taken literally.
Nihilism's polar opposites engulfing human conceptions within its premises: good/bad, God/Satan, being/non-being.
Existence is outside this intuitive symbolization, as movement towards and away – (inter)activity between patterned, tending towards order, and non-patterned, tending towards chaos energies/flows/vibrations.
Friction produced by this (inter)activity contributes to the movement towards increasing chaos – expanding space/time meaning expanding possibilities and diminishing probabilities.
At some point it becomes inevitable that in the randomness the near-absolute singularity, a new Big Bang, will emerge, repeating the cycle: not once but continuously.
  


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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:37 pm

The subjective relates to the objective as judgment....interpretation.
The world need not care, and is inanimate care-free patterns (inter)acting.
It is the subjective mind that cares, and this is why it judges, evaluates, and this is why it benefits or pays the price for its own interpretations/judgments.

The world has no goal, to motive, it is activity with no objective.
It is the subjective mind, the human one, which projects upon it motive, direction, in relation to its own essence, measured against its own ordering.

To be objective is not an absolute state, it is an approach to the cosmic indifference, so as to achieve clarity unaffected by emotion, by interests.
To be objective is not the goal, no more than pleasure is the goal, or self is the goal, it is a means towards the goal.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:50 pm

Cosmos is the word, given to the object the subject is interested in, if it is not involved in self, and escaping cosmos internally where there is no escape at all.

Cosmos is a dynamic process of (inter)acting patterned and non-patterned dynamism, call it energy with matter being a less dynamic form of it.
We can say that cosmos because of this continuous (inter)activity is a constant falling away, and subjective is the continuous approach.
Subjective mind cares about cosmos because it desires to continue to exist within it, and to advance towards it.
It cares because it is dependent, contingent upon it.
Self-maintenance, and advancement towards, is growth.
Because all is in continuous flux, the notion of "self" maintaining, is one describing an accumulation being acted upon, building upon what has been acquired/attained and what is being continuously lost.

To become objective is to approach cosmos by first reducing the need to self-maintain.
This is the focusing of mind upon objective - sharpening, clarifying, taking advantage of synergy when no other concern distracting and draining its energies.

Self is not a static thing, something pre-existing life, an absolute, but a reference to the past/nature which cannot be lost, because the loss would mean a breach in the continuity which is what self describes - harmony, of past and future, via the nexus of in congruity patterns, presence/present.
Self-maintenance, therefore, means the remembrance, the recalling, of this past which the self is a manifestation of, as appearance.
Know thyself refers to the recalling of past/nature, to not lose it, but to reaffirm it as present, and ongoing - make it lucid, clear, to bring it up into consciousness.
Life is this congruity of patterns maintaining its continuity within chaos and contradicting patterns, not part of its particular congruity.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Dec 04, 2015 3:04 pm

The subjective/objective divide is at the core of the divide of reality and idealism, making Nihilism possible.
If we take the nervous system as the border, the dividing line, between mind and body, and recall that brain, through the senses collects data from outside the body, and the cells, the organs, send data to the mind through the nervous system, then subjectivism is the closing of the mind to the external sources, reducing them to illusion, dismissing them as of little importance, introverting the mind to the point where the internal data dominates over the external, the empirical data, sensual interpretations.
This inversion can only survive when there is a protective force, preventing the indifferent external world form intruding upon the subjective mind’s inversion – Nihilism is an inversion of reality.
The subjective, ceases to be a secondary part of the data flooding into the brain, where the external data takes precedence, and becomes the primary focus.
This is what subjectivity means.
When this occurs words cease to connect to the phenomenon, as I stated elsewhere, and the mind is increasingly focused inwards, noumenon connecting to noumenon, where emotion usurps reason, and words can acquire any definition, be given any place in a sentence describing a concept, because the world, the cosmos no longer applies, and no longer forces the mind to correct itself.


The esoteric reading of signs and words takes over from their exoteric application.
All becomes subtext, filling in where there is no meaning, with sensation, innuendo, emotional appeals exploiting the organism's instincts, and unconscious intuitions.
Every word becomes mystical, clouded with ambiguity, not out of necessity but intentionally.
The motive is to discredit the external, so that the mind can be manipulated using the internal.

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

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

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Dec 04, 2015 3:48 pm

Satyr wrote:
achieve clarity unaffected by emotion, by interests.

In the Apollonian frame, that is achieved by distance away from the biological/appetitive centre.

In the Dionysian sense, that is achieved by unifying with the biological centre. The heights of passion and emotion and vibrancy can make one see things in more minute clarity than in their absence. At the heights of spiritual intoxication, one is able to penetrate through the veils of reality and behold a sharper vision. Why N. says lovers in passion are able to envision a world in all its richness, because one stakes everything and experiences with the totality of oneself. Passion raises them to a height. Senses become sharper, everything is more livelier, they become life themselves. Love lends a loftiness to the soul and an elevation to the spirit. Why love or the beloved is regarded as conferring a grace. This kind of perception is the opposite of subjective solipsism and the decadence of J.-Xt. and other religious mysticism, where the animal is equated to emotion than strength of spirit.

Needless to say, both frames ideally depending on the strength of the sensual apparatus among other factors.

_________________
[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 : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:00 pm

I consider the experiencing, other than the understanding.
An animal, a hedonist, experiences without understanding.
Why I stated that first-hand experiences are more profound than second-hand ones.

i do not deny the animal, the subjective, the Dionysian....I revel in it. I analyze and understand it, in hindsight, from a cool distance of time and space...even while it is occurring, if that level of detachment is possible, as it was for Hannibal Lecter.

The body speaks the honest truth, even when the mind believes otherwise.
One feels the pussy wet, and does not simply accept her claims that she is aroused.

The act is far more important than the word, because it is automatic, instinctive, not controlled.

Agape must take eros into account when forming itself.
Agape and eros as actions, not words.

The Apollonian does not deny Dionysian.
The Hellenic ascetic does not deny earthly pleasures; he does not reject, go into the desert where he cannot be tempted, to preserve the illusion of purity.

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

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

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:09 pm

The Apollonian sees and can only see the Dionysian as pleasure, because to him, nature appears to him as the emotional animaline.

The Dionysian to the dionysian means joy [consciousness of victory founded on max. fitness - *ar, h'ar'monie - best joint, excellence, skill], because to him, nature is the intelligent animaline. The animal that communicates.

I only believe in agaperos.

In simply accepting a woman saying she is aroused actually then makes her pussy wet.
The Dionysian takes joy in creating her of his own will and trust [in himself], than accepting some ready-ma(d)te.
The Apollonian needs con-firmation from the other, which can make a wet pussy go dry.

_________________
[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 : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:14 pm

No, Dionysian, for me, is not pleasure, it is the satiation of need/suffering, where need/suffering precedes pleasure, and so is the first cause.
Apollonian contact with Dionysian suffering, or chaos, or animalism, is not pleasing.
It is appreciative.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:16 pm

Its not what I said.

I said to the Apollonian, the Dionysian paradigm is one of pleasure.

_________________
[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 : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:18 pm

And I said, no it isn't...it is primarily suffering, with the promise of pleasure.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14245
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:23 pm

I edited.

_________________
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 3 of 6Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Similar topics
-
» OBJECTIVE QUESTIONS & ITS ANSWERS OF Co. A/C & COST ACCOUTING
» Purpose of Retention Money
» COMPANY LAW ALL OBJECTIVES
» To Strike or...to Strike: Objective News reports

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