Objective <> Subjective

The modern avoids the truth about his own inferior subjectivity, by leveling it all down, and dismissing objectivity as the measuring standard.
Their stupidity, blindness, romanticism, weakness, can now be excuses with relativism and "eye of the beholder" crap.

Consider this...

A retard, unable to see what the healthy one can see, will and can simply say:
"It's all subjective....you see colors and I see only shades. Nobody is superior."

The subjectivist takes a human fabrication, such as moral law, and justice, and turns it into an objectivist target.
He confuses the reverse of himself, in the nihilistic paradigm of left/right, good/bad, absolute chaos/absolute order, for the reality the more sane ones call objectivity.

He is trapped in his own dualism.

For the Modern, Subjectivity is about spreading a particular form of it - a meme, as I call it.
This training, education, civility, as they refer to it, is the absolution, the saving idea(l).
The particular Subjective viewpoint must be made into a popular one for it to gain a foothold in the real.

They are against "social engineering" and "eugenics" while proposing them as "objective morality", or "ontological value", or emotional reasoning or by using words with no meaning outside the human brain, such as: justice, good, fair, right, truth, God etc.
They believe that if you convince enough, if you seduce as many as possible, into this Subjectivity, this particular nihilistic perspective, the world, and they as a consequence, will be saved from an indifferent, Objective reality.

The rejection of Objectivity, in reference to a world that remains indifferent to human perspectives of it, is meant to cleans away the disrupting factor, so as to then appeal to emotion, and to establish their nihilistic Subjective (Modern) perspective, as a universal truth.
The world, objectively perceived, stands in their way.
It is the negative because it negates, contradicts, their unreal subjectivity, their detached from reality 'reality'.
They need words to refer back only to abstractions, and to emotions, for their goal to be achieved.
These, then, become their "positive" their one.

Philosophy, for them, is a debate over which Subjective perspective has the greatest emotional appeal; which one can become the most popular - reality by vote, by communal decree, where the world remains on the outside.

This is why they can only comprehend a challenge, an objective evaluation of lust/love, the central theme of their nihilism, as being the product of another emotion...hate.
The debate must be made one about love (eros), cleansed from lust, contra hate (thymos), full of anger.
Feminine vs. Masculine.
This is the only way they feeeeel they can gain an advantage.  

Nihilism, begins, by severing this connection between the noumenon and the phenomenon, so as to purify the noetic, and the word used to symbolize it, to the point where it becomes unreal, surreal, supra-real, hyper-real...a simulation.
Once this detachment has reached a certain level the appeal to emotion replaces the appeal to reason, and words refer back to human artifices, now dominated by emotion and sensuality void of a reference point.
It is this cocooning that makes the simulation virile and erotically seductive - pleasure being its reward.

Feminization

Within this particular nihilistic meme, this present Modern paradigm, not only is exploitation an evil, but the only "chosen to suffer" and become the face of human tragedy, will not relinquish center stage to any other [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

10+ millions in he Congo, 20+ in Russia, and only the 6- stand-out.
Need/Suffering has a face.
It is a monopoly.
All forms of suffering are now to be compared to this singular historical event, that claimed its victims before a war was fought.
When identity is built around victimhood, then all must be assimilated into this meme by identifying with victims.

Innocence becomes the absolution from personal accountability, or from a world that cares not for human needs.

And so, Paternalism is torn down, the family crumbles, women are left on their own (independent now), children become fatherless, coming on-line or going into the ghettos to find an idea(l) to identify with...and what happens?

Women cry for help...again they are victims of their own declarations of freedom.
Who will protect them now that men have been turned into women, and pater is no longer around - she has left his authoritarian home, because she's declared herself liberated?
Who would dare rape a woman when they were under a family's care?  

Women want liberty without the risks and costs.
Like a child who leaves his father's home, because he feels oppressed, only to cry when those outside this house treat him like a product to be used and abused.

Dismissing past is part of the Subjective mind's required repertoire. Then it can redefine the past, or narrate it in a way that supports its present delusions and/or its preferred future utopia.

All events in its personal history, in particular, are reinvented, as time goes by, to satisfy their emotional needs at any given time.
At the end the subjective mind is left clean and pristine...innocent of all wrongdoing, all responsibility, accountable for nothing...another victim of otherness, and the big bad world.

This weakness is its strength
This hypocrisy is is authenticity.
This lie is its truth.
This pretense is its identity.

But only amongst hypocrites can a lie remain unexposed.
It lingers, unseen, in the mind, but it is never spoken of.

Courtesy amongst Moderns...
That which must remain unspoken, shall never be spoken of.
Unstated social contract.

Civility....politeness amongst thieves....
Nobody shall take from another thief.
Amongst the pretentious...
Nobody shall expose the other's lie.
Nobody shall tear-off the other's mask.

Subjectivity can remain unchallenged, as the shared agreement amongst fools and charlatans.

The unfortunate, for them, fact about all this is that the world, as objectively indifferent to human pretenses and lies, cannot be kept outside of these human preceding for long.
If it does not intrude, shattering the atmosphere of mutual respectability, in a vulgar way then it slowly seeps through the cracks as ennui.
The participants, themselves, begin to become bored of each other and the pretentiousness.
Though the push it towards the back of their consciousness, or only feel it as a mysterious itch in the back of their mind, they know, intuitively or consciously, that all that they say and do is a lie, or dependent on a shared pretense.

Their will to power, or will to life, forces them to peek behind the curtains they've enveloped their party in.
The cave dweller cannot help but turn his head towards the cave entrance, away from the shadows on the wall, despite the firelight.
He must see, though he fears that what he sees might break his carefully constructed lies.

Satyr wrote:

'What is', is different from 'what ought to be'.

The first is realism, the second idealism.
The first is focused on the Objective, the second on the Subjective.
The Modern is only interested in the second, because the first is what (s)he denies, rejects, fears, wants to "correct" with social engineering, which he calls "education", and "civility".

With the subjective approach, disinterested in exploring the indifferent objective world, the Modern can introduce emotional appeals, and self-interests, and personal motives as effective arguments.

Because "self interests" and "personal motives" are shared.
You can generalize about members of a community and arrive at a few reasonably general common interests and motives, because members of a community have a shared culture and a similar background.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", is a good example. It follows that the community might attempt to establish access and protection to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, provided by it's members and extending to all of its members.

"What ought to be", despite being an idealism, is also focused on an objective, not in a subjective as you said.
It aims to find a common denominator between all members of a group, thus it attempts to remove all that is subjective about the individual.
For example, it is understood by all that one values the property one has put effort into developing. It is therefore understood by all that if someone violates that property, the owner will respond with anger. From that it follows that one does not violate someone else's property unless one is willing to deal with the outcome of an angry reaction. Eventually you have an unspoken/unwritten "law" in which nobody touches other people's stuff.

If a group of much stronger men come into this community and violate the property of one, all other members might opt to rise to his defense, not so much for sympathy, but because of the awareness that they might be next, and thus there is a need to combine forces to neutralize the external source of instability.

We are social animals and therefore we have developed senses that go beyond the "selfish" rule of the strong. It is so hard wired into our psychologic construct that it is enough to sometimes elicit worldwide outrage at a case taken by all to have been an "injustice".

Not doing onto others what you do not wish for yourself is more than an empty piece of christian morality. It is a human nature based policy which enables the economic and cultural thriving of a community.

So "what is": a large male comes into your house and clubs you in the head, rapes your mother, takes all your valuables and carries off your son to slave for him. You are the weaker one so tough luck. Pump more iron in the next lifetime.

"What ought to be": if not the natural common sense of respect for private property, you fucking tell me, dear

Objectivity via democracy, then. Uh-huh.

If a subjectivity is shared it does not become objective. A million people can jump off a cliff believing they will reach heaven. Won't make it real.

Should they be prevented from jumping off a cliff if they wish to do so?

"Should"?

The first sentence from your quote of Satyr's post may prove instructive.

Reality is not affected by our interpretations of it. It's natural selection, I guess.

What ought to be is the theme of the post you replied to.

Believe in a god or in gods was understood to be an objective truth by many a civilization who has since vanished along with those gods.
In europe too, a belief in the objective existence of god was such that it was the basis of rule to quite an extreme (inquisition).

Fact is agreed to by all of us in this thread that the objective world exists regardless of our capacity to make out what it is. As our knowledge progresses and our sensory tools improve, our understanding of what is objective also changes.

You're asking me for my subjective estimation of what ought to be done about theistic lemmings.

I'm just saying that the existence of belief does not somehow create the subject of belief in reality. Their wish, their hope, their need, however strong, does not alter what is.

SPLAT!!

Subjective does not become objective in this way: reality decides.

Quote :

As our knowledge progresses and our sensory tools improve, our understanding of what is objective also changes.

Yes, our understanding, the subjective itself, as it is inaccurate and incomplete, constantly revised and corrected. Also it is relative to what it understands, the object, reality: which is constantly changing. It is an observer and must shape itself to what exists independent of it.

People who can't shape themselves to reality go splat, simply.
The main subject of this forum however is that the current system is engaged in a project to actively prevent such people from going splat.... which will have devastating long term consequences for everyone. But that's another -subject-.

phoneutria wrote:

Believe in a god or in gods was understood to be an objective truth by many a civilization who has since vanished along with those gods.

It was understood as truth by many, but I'm not convinced about the 'objective' part.
In those days 'subjective' didn't come with the accepted modern truth of, 'if it's subjective then it doesn't warrant killing anybody over it, or persecution'.
Even more so, they probably didn't even think in the way of 'subjective' versus 'objective'. You either believe in that truth or you are not part of that religious community.

Quote :

As our knowledge progresses and our sensory tools improve, our understanding of what is objective also changes.

Our understanding of 'what is' changes but about it becoming more objective...  that era is over for now, at least for the average person.
A TV set is magic for most people. They know it's based on engineering and 'science' but what and how it actually works is a big mystery for most. And if I don't understand how it works then the words 'engineering' and 'science' could also refer to some holy text.
Priests of old age held power over the population - it worked, it was real, they held power over them.

The capabilities to be more or less objective are found in the individual. And that capacity has not been selected for in a long time. A bunch of Elois can be surrounded by lots of technology and libraries filled with books on nature, all having been researched by very objective people and still they might not be capable of being very objective themselves.

'Our' knowledge... tsssk, now we are objective because we have books on stuff. If I can't look into nature and be objective to a certain degree about what I perceive then I doubt I'd be very objective when reading a book. Both can and must be interpreted - and people can even choose to ignore and slander books they don't find to be 'objective'/to their liking.

I agree, apaosha, that believing something doesn't make it real.

To say that an absolute depiction of the objective is not possible does not equate to say that all depictions of the objective are equally good. That is the fallacy of subjectivism.

Our understanding of the world changes, improves, is uncovered, is sometimes covered back up... Different cultures come to different perceptions at different times. Better sensory tools yield better approximations. Their accuracy against the real determines their success.

How do you establish, then, what ought to be acceptable conduct within a society?
By aiming at the objective. The objective, unknown, but its approximate perception as understood by the whole of the group to be a common among them.
In matters in which there is no common ground, in other words, in matters where two or more subjective views diverge, the stance is to allow for both. Religion is an example of that. Hence, if someone wants to reach heaven by jumping off a cliff, they ought to be free to do so.

In other words, there is an objective world, and we know enough to know that we can't know exactly what it is, and thus we allow for more freedom than other cultures do.

Quote :

"What ought to be", despite being an idealism, is also focused on an objective, not in a subjective as you said.

Ideals are derived from the real (they belong to the real), that is true. For example, the way I should interact with people is not an arbitrary choice, it is a choice grounded in reality, since every option has a different set of consequences, consequently, different value (hence, strictly speaking, every "ought" is "is".)

His "what ought to be", however, refers to people who are pressured to shape their habits and who are, unable to do so, forced to spend all of their time deceiving themselves they can shape the world around them.

Quote :

In other words, there is an objective world, and we know enough to know that we can't know exactly what it is, and thus we allow for more freedom than other cultures do.

And the real reason people allow for more freedom is quite simply because they can't forbid anyone anything, not because that's the smarter decision (because it isn't.)

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.
The is is here, not the ought. The ought is commonplace. This culture concerns itself with how reality ought to be corrected, exposing how dissatisfied with itself it truly is.

Aside from that, all individual perspectives are not equal, therefore there is a hierarchy of perception based upon degree of accuracy. So creating a universal consensus subjectivity is not viable, especially given the many degenerate, deluded and/or insane fucking retards around.

No agreement necessary. Can you see what I see? That is the only relevant question.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] = cultural war, ideological war, memetic war.
War fought using words, expressing ideas, and ideals.
Cold War.

Subjective = consciousness, awareness, sensuality, interpretation.
Static = an abstraction, a mental-model.

Objective = world, reality.
Dynamic = fluctuating (inter)actions.


The subjective is in reference to an objective otherness.
The world is always partially perceived, and unknown.

Evolution = The subjective mind (brain interactions, processes) is in various degrees of ignorance in relation to the objective world.
It inherits, via genetic code (experiences, knowledge passed on via the gene), a formula of (re)acting to this unknown, fluctuating world, which the organism, being constantly ordering, self-organizing, adds to and may, or may not, pass on these experiences to its offspring.
Natural Selection = those that cannot adapt their inherited knowledge to the current circumstances, is filtered out of the gene pool.
Culling.
If it is protected, by an other, its unfit, in relation to the current, genes are propagated.
The motive of this other should now become an issue.

In our "current" Modern circumstances this protection is a fact.
The ideological warfare is between reality and this sheltering idea(l), which adopts nihilistic methods to maintain self-cohesion.

The war is internal to this sheltering meme, because it has no reference to anything outside of it.

The evolution of the meme from religious towards secular forms is part of its adaptation to world circumstances, and part of its annulling processes.
To become worldly, viral across cultures, it must reduce its self-referential ideas, using words, to the lowest-common-denominator.

In this case numbers, as a language (math) of extreme abstraction, takes over from words, finding the lowest-common-denominator in the simplest neurological process of binary logic, resulting in linguistic dualism.

The fear of this objective, uncertain, unknown world is so great, for the subjective organism, that it first succumbs to anthropomorphizing the world so as to make it more intimate to it...and then, in our time, it presumes an underlying universal logic, a pattern that all existence follows, becomes the replacement of this previous more primitive method.
With the first the absolute is placed "outside" the world, outside time/space, whereas with this secular form the absolute is taken for granted as the world itself.
The God IS the world, and in both cases He is rational, and good.

No safe and/or easy way bridge subjective, perspective (care), and objective, world (indifference).
Trial and error rules apply...also called natural selection, culling, but if a sheltering environment is in practice then the natural selection rules shift to social selection, or memetic filtering, where the standards of selecting are determined by the meme's idea(l)s, indicating its principle motives.

As always one begins with observation (first-hand, experience, second-hand, knowledge) to create understanding (appreciation of patterns).
This is the noetic, theoretical part of engagement.
From there we move to the application of theory to pragmatic circumstances, or the testing phase, empiricism, over time.
Theory, hypothesis is tested in time, and in different situations, using others as the target projection of self = imagination.

And finally the personal application of the conclusions derived from 1 & 2.

If there is a discrepancy between 1,2,3 then there is an error present.
A virus, like a computer ones, in your mental "software".

Feminine Nihilism = pure nihilism - negative nihilism
Absolute Randomness, chaos, its projected absolute, idea(l).
Surrender to the power of entropy.
Amongst the female they joy of surrendering to what no man can ever match (power with no face) - male as idealistic, nave laughed at by those who see the weakness in all organic life.
Amongst the male the acceptance of one's own weakness before the inevitable as the only thing left for him to choose.
The naive form fantasizes chaos as a sweeping away of all that keeps him emasculated; a new beginning full of new promises - Anarchy.
A cleansing away of Armageddon, and the great flood.  
   

Masculine Nihilism = duplicitous, seductive, nihilism - positive nihilism.
Self-contradicting as it negates the real and offers an alternative more real real - exposing paradoxes, such as the power of the meek gaining power through their meekness, or the victims becomes masters through their victimhood.
Absolute Order, the promise of a finality, an end to the experience of existing (need/suffering) - agon.
The salesmen present themselves as a means towards this final end, usually in the form of a God or an absolute solution to all that ails the existing.
Females and emasculated males are seduced by the promise.
Presenting self as a means, a conduit, towards this promised end, the priestly kind (power, masculinity, through association); the snake-oil salesman who avoids the average female's scorn, and her naturally born cynicism.  
The skepticism that keeps her searching for the idea(l) male.
Totalitarianism of mind and spirit is its promised state.

Beware of the one who comes to you, humbly promising the world, using easy to apply methods...usually, no more than a change of perspective, faith a suspension of doubt, a sacrifice of reason, and of sensuality, is all that is expected.
The female, thinking she is acting freely, serves as the gene/meme filtering mechanism, adapting her judgments, and tastes to the environmental conditions, believing she is making rational choices when she is intuitively adjusting to what she was raised to be.
Therefore, in more austere, challenging circumstances the more masculine is preferred, whereas in less austere, safer, environments the more effete is preferred.

The sensation of pleasure, being the most primal form of judging, indicates that the organism is in-tune with its past, as it manifests I the present.
An animal need not have a large cerebral cortex, and understand much, for it to feel this neurological sensation.
The nervous system being the nexus of mind/body, interprets this agreement of mind with body as pleasure - the interpretation of it.
But man, having a larger brain and the ability to project beyond the immediate, can project an object/objective which he assumes will result in this pleasure outcome, this side-effect of mind/body harmony.
The expectation of pleasure might give him/her the immediate sensation of it, since man can exist in a time/space broader than that of a simpler organism - having a deeper (longer, broader) perceptual-event-horizon.
Pleasure is not the end, but the sensation, the side-effect, the interpretation of an end being attained, an object/objective reached, which places the mind, which is projecting the object/objective as a goal, or an idea(l), with the body, which is always a manifestation of the past, in the present (an appearance).
Making pleasure an end (hedonism) is accomplished by sacrificing clarity as to how and why one experiences this side-effect, reducing "goodness", or any idea(l) to an accident, or a simple sensation with no understanding of it.

Of course pleasure can also be attained by using chemical, or artificial methods.
In this case the perceptual-even-horizon is shrunk, or its connection to reality is partially severed, to the level of an animal, making the harmony between the mind's projection, into the future, and the body's representation of the past more easy to maintain.
Dumbing-down or shrinking the mind's perceptual-event-horizon, by stunting development (retarding the organism's fulfillment of its potentials), is another way to achieve this pleasure reward.
A simpler mind (shallow perceptual-event-horizon) is easier to please, is troubled by less, cares about fewer things, and quickly forgets, being absorbed by the next promising object/objective.

The objective, the world, is neither good nor back, neither full nor empty, but it is only in relation to the subjective mind that it is interpreted as such.
The world just is, and by "is" one does not imply a static thing, but a dynamic (inter)acting aggregate of processes - Flux.
Some patterned and others not.

It is the subjective mind that arrests it into thingness (abstraction, singularity), and judges it, using self as the standard.
It is in elation to the organism that the world is slower or faster in fluidity; is useful or useless; is good, or bad or neutral.
It is the organism that needs, and lacks, in relation to a increasingly chaotic world.
In relation to the subjective mind's needs, to remain subjective, or judging self-organizing, emergent unity, is the world dynamism problematic, a stress upon its organizing.

The organism, cares, in that it is interested in maintaining its own organization, before it directs energies towards increasing, expanding this organization.
It is self-organizing.
It is struggling to maintain itself within the Flux, even if it is unaware of it.
It is in a state of agon = constant, unending, need, struggle, battle.
When its aggregate energies suffice it is in a comfortable state... when not it is in decline, deteriorating, in (dis)stress.
When it is stressed its perceptual-event-horizon shrinks...its need becoming increasingly immediate.
When it is comfortable it can project further in space/time, contemplating its own existence by turning this perception inward, ro back upon self.
This also increases the sources of potential (dis)stress, and, consequently, of potential pleasure.

The organism emerges, as a remnant of this near-absolute, which becomes increasingly possible as time/space expands towards infinite possibilities, or a uniformity of possibility where probability slowly diminish.
There is no willing of self, no sell-valuing, there is an slowly increasing possibility that an organization will emerge which will become self-organizing in the increasing chaos.

in relation to a organism, a consciousness, a rock is not willing, not self, not valuable in and of itself, a rock is a (inter)action of different rated of flow, fluctuations, arrested by the conscious mind as a thing, by detaching, discriminating, it away form the background.    
This is what I call simplification/generalization.
Essentially, the conscious mind cuts away dimensions so as to construct the abstraction.
The stone can be a pebble, then a granule of sand, then a particle, then a vibrating string, and it can be part of a pile of stones, a hill, a mountain, a landscape, a planet, a solar system...and so on.
The mind turns each level of perception into a thingness.    

The rock does not resist the organism, this is projecting a will, a motive where one need not be present. The stone, being made up of different rates of flow, different elements, is slower in its fluidity, compared to the observing consciousness, and so it appears, is intercepted, as solid, and as resisting the organism's will, as if it were willfully doing so.

When man shatters a rock he shatters the (inter)action, with as much force needed. the force determined by the different in rates of flow between the stone, the (inter)activity, and the observing, organism.
To shatter a homogenous element, a pure element, would require to break apart its pattern of flow; breaking its order, releasing chaos from its ordered state...some settling in lower forms of order while others remaining pure chaos, as in random.

The mark of a truly aware subjective mind is its ability to perceive subtle patterns in what, for another, appears far too complex to make sense of.
This reduction to the simplest, the most general, is finding the lowest-common-denominator, within the particular amalgamation of processes.

But to do so without losing sight of the bigger picture, is to find that lowest-common-denominator, this most subtle of all patterns, without losing the complexity it produces by participating within it.
This is the connection of the lowest to the highest, from the bottom upwards, from the past towards the future, through the immediate present.
This (re)cognition of the most subtle pattern in the complexity of (inter)activities that make-up an organism, an organization, is the (re)cognition of its most basic behavioral pattern.

All complexity is added to it, as a byproduct of its (inter)activity, accumulating mutations, corruptions to this basic behavioral pattern.
By (re)cognizing this basic pattern and comparing it to the presence, one can discern the path the organism has taken.

There is no point in time/space.

The line, being a series of points, is also a human artifice that has no meaning outside the human brain.
Therefore, all geometric shapes are human constructs...the square, the triangle, the circle and its radius.

Geometry, and the units of measuring it, are all a projection of noetic artifices upon a dynamic reality that has no thing, and no static point.
Using the apriori methods evolved to simplify/generalize existence man builds, prosthetics, approximating what is most intimate to him.
He externalizes, projects, reproduces, simulates, what is known, and understood, by him.

Then he lives immersed within his own artifices - subjectivity looping back upon itself, reflecting off of its own projected constructs and object/objectives, until everything around him reflects back to him his own self.
Everywhere he looks he sees his own thoughts reflected back to him.
At this point the objective world is forgotten.

Now man begins to live in a world of his own making.

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

My eye IS the seeing?

Anfang wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

Believe in a god or in gods was understood to be an objective truth by many a civilization who has since vanished along with those gods.

It was understood as truth by many, but I'm not convinced about the 'objective' part.
In those days 'subjective' didn't come with the accepted modern truth of, 'if it's subjective then it doesn't warrant killing anybody over it, or persecution'.
Even more so, they probably didn't even think in the way of 'subjective' versus 'objective'. You either believe in that truth or you are not part of that religious community.

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

Quote :

Quote :

As our knowledge progresses and our sensory tools improve, our understanding of what is objective also changes.

Our understanding of 'what is' changes but about it becoming more objective...  that era is over for now, at least for the average person.
A TV set is magic for most people. They know it's based on engineering and 'science' but what and how it actually works is a big mystery for most. And if I don't understand how it works then the words 'engineering' and 'science' could also refer to some holy text.
Priests of old age held power over the population - it worked, it was real, they held power over them.

When a person is willfully ignorant of their environment even in the presence of easily accessible information, I do not think that that situation equates the times in our historic past when information was kept in monasteries and castles and the average person was not even allowed to be taught to read.

Regardless...
What I mean by become more objective is that we are able to sense more. At first all we had was our wit and our blind eyes. Then came lenses, microscopes and telescopes, enabling us to see that there is much more to matter than we were ever able to see before. Then came satellites, particle colliders, pcr amplifiers, electronic microscopes, spectrophotometers, oscilloscopes... our ability to sense is improving, and with it our knowledge, and with it our ability to sense back again, in a feedback loop. Our wit of course still is the main tool to draw meaning from sensed data.

Quote :

The capabilities to be more or less objective are found in the individual. And that capacity has not been selected for in a long time. A bunch of Elois can be surrounded by lots of technology and libraries filled with books on nature, all having been researched by very objective people and still they might not be capable of being very objective themselves

The deepening of knowledge requires specialization. In order to understand proteins for example, one must forego pursuing astrophysics, simply because there is too much to know about both, and much more to be found. Neither the biochemist nor the astrophysicis though, should forego the principles of nature which enable us to live in this world, something that a passionate scientist commonly does.
Nature will eventually sort it all out.

Quote :

'Our' knowledge... tsssk, now we are objective because we have books on stuff. If I can't look into nature and be objective to a certain degree about what I perceive then I doubt I'd be very objective when reading a book. Both can and must be interpreted - and people can even choose to ignore and slander books they don't find to be 'objective'/to their liking.

As I said, wit is still our main tool.

Lyssa wrote:

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

My eye IS the seeing?

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

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.
The is is here, not the ought. The ought is commonplace. This culture concerns itself with how reality ought to be corrected, exposing how dissatisfied with itself it truly is.

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?

Thus it appears to me that judgment is very much engaged in, on here. What isn't engaged in is any form of consequence resulting from these judgments.

You're wanking at the walls and waiting for the flies to do the deed.

:thumbs up:

Quote :

Aside from that, all individual perspectives are not equal, therefore there is a hierarchy of perception based upon degree of accuracy. So creating a universal consensus subjectivity is not viable, especially given the many degenerate, deluded and/or insane fucking retards around.

No agreement necessary. Can you see what I see? That is the only relevant question.

It is obvious that a perfect consensus can never exist. A common denominator, however, can.

Example #1: nothing that lives and is healthy and sane wishes to die.