Objectivity

Objectivity is much maligned, particularly by those who desperately want the world to be a product of subjective perspectives, coming to an agreement. As if the world would be swayed by a common belief about it.
True, that if enough delusional individuals all agree on a nonsensical perspective that, for all intent and purposes, they will live within a social premises where the shared convictions are 'true'.
For example, if millions believe that faith can heal an individual, or prayer can heal diseases, then, for them, within their inter-subjective boundaries, this will be 'true', though when one exits those noetic boundaries, the belief is nonsense, due to the fact that it cannot produce the outcome it professes to be 'true'. It is not testable, and replicable.
Of course within the inter-subjective cabal, all sort of excuses may be formulated to explain why prayer never works, or a coincidental healing will be used to validate the belief. In this case the 'exception to the rule' validates the belief in the rule.

Objectivity is akin to empathy.
Many mistake empathy as meaning sympathy...and if it does not then it must mean antipathy...as in 'if you cannot love another' you must 'hate' them.
This is typical Abrahamic psychosis, or Modern insanity, expressing itself in such emotional proclamations as the accusations of 'homophobia' or misogyny' etc.

Any objective description and definition of homosexuality, for example must be the product of hate or fear, because all 'positive' sympathetic definitions are rooted in fear and the compensating emotion of 'love'.
It is, perhaps odd, to a Modern to think of 'love' as an emotion that evolved to compensate for fear. The reasoning is clear, and I'm not going to get into it in this thread.
It requires some 'unloading,' as they say.

The relationship of 'empathy', accurately understood, and 'objectivity', is obvious for all rational, and not emotional, minds approaching life and existence with integrity.
Empathy identifies with the mental state - positive and/or negative, of another. To achieve this feat of fantasy, the imagination is employed, and self-knowledge is crucial.
In order to 'enter' the mind of another - to the degree that this is possible (remember there are no absolutes, so there is no perfect conclusion) - you must associate knowledge of yourself as indicating a similar state in anther. self-honesty is, like I said, essential here, because if an individual over- or under-estimates himself - usually the former is most often the case - then the projection will be corrupted by this error.
Already we have a source of a potential error that will corrupt the final product to a degree.
The projecting individual imagines himself in the other's place, and experiences, second-hand, the others joy or pain.
Sympathy, this is called, from the Greek συν- πασχο.
Most stop there. Creating the inter-subjective pathos of the herd psychology, as 'you know who' called it.
Self and Other are synthesized into a oneness, starting the process of a communal identity, common among social species, such as man. With man it reaches another level due to man's more sophisticated mind, producing a more sophisticated imagination.
This merger of identity is relieving, no an existential level. Sharing need/suffering dilutes it - a shard burden makes it less massive, like a load being lifted by more than yourself. Joy is also multiplied in the same way, because social species experience themselves through others - as a reflection.
Self-awareness is a self-reflection, beginning with a negation: "I am that which I am not" i.e. other.
We see the source of nihilism in this 'negation' of other to identify self, indirectly.

At this point we are not talking about empathy but the state of sympathy, which is another way of describing inter-subjectivity.
Ego is immersed in otherness. This state is most appealing to those who fear standing apart, or those who feel insecure and vulnerable due to this increasing self-consciousness. Ego, the lucid part of self, seeks shelter in otherness - this is herd psychology.
The master/salve relationship is one of inter-dependence. The narcissist - a by-product of this process - stands as a 'master,' entirely dependent on the slaves to validate himself. So, increasing a following, a audience, a pool of appreciation, is crucial to his self-validation. The cynic, on the other hand, wants to dismiss it all, laugh at it, so as to escape self-awareness in a degraded other, with which he can identify and stand above, as the one who recognizes himself as ridiculous.
But this is too much detail.

The point is the emapth is not a systematizer, though he must go through this phase to attain clarity.
The Modern cannot comprehend this transcendence, so he must explain it as the antithesis to his own sympathy i.e. as antipathy.
What is superior cannot be understood by the inferior, so he fears it. and because he fears it he must make it intimate, and bring it down to his level of comprehension.
In the binary method - the simple method - the Modern reverses his own understanding of other, as sympathetic, into antipathy, trying to explain how one can place himself in another's plight ans still not feel sympathy for him/her, nor antipathy.

An empath is best described as apathetic - a Stoic position. Ataraxia.
To fully empathize, without his judgement being corrupted by the emotional appeals of love/hate, or sympathy/antipathy, h must take the position of existence: indifferent to human need/suffering.
We can use the metaphorical imagery of approaching the Divine, or harmonizing with the cosmos - identifying not with the plight of the living, but with cosmic indifference.
This is never complete, because there are no absolutes, and living organisms are always imperfect, so everything they do is imperfect, to a degree.
Nevertheless, one can approach the ideal, the desired, and become more indifferent, attaining a degree of clarity. A level of awareness that excludes personal desires, and needs; a judgement unaffected by emotion and/or ego.
This is empathy. But this is also objectivity. Because empathy is a judgment of another living organism, whereas objectivity expands the perspective to include all of existence.
An emapth is one who has achieved a level of objectivity, concerning another's state of mind.
Empathy excludes personal emotions and ego, and needs/desires, to attain a level of understanding of other - sometimes greater than the other can achieve in regards to himself/herself.
Objectivity is attained when one excludes ego and emotions from his appreciation, judgements of existence, of Cosmos - in other words it excluded subjectivity, as much as possible, by transcending it. just as empathy must proceed from self-knowledge, towards a projection of self-knowledge into other, and then transcend both self and other to attain clarity, so too must objectivity go through subjectivity towards clarity.
In effect, the mind partially separates from the mind/body, so as to perceive self and other, from the perspective of an indifferent, uninvolved, third.

I've explained my positions on the different levels of cognition elsewhere.
They offer a general outline, explaining how mind can fragment, producing the by-products schizophrenia, bipolarity, narcissism, and cynicism. It's a form of compartmentalization. Trauma is often segregate and prevented from rising to consciousness so as to protect the mind from its own memories.
Compartmentalization can also explain how and why humans self-deceive, s a way of making deception more effective and efficient - a survival strategy.
I repost, what I had written years ago on the subject, below...

All of human cognition, including the formal, such as Geometric shapes, and Mathematics, can be reduced down to the simple binocular mammalian cognition.
Binary logic, and dualism is a product of this.
The organism's eyes become the base, and the convergence point the tip of a triangle.
The tip is the point in space/time, the object/objective.


A primitive mind/psychology, not yet having developed beyond the Second Level of Cognition & Second Level of Intentionality (triangulation), cannot dislodge itself, its emotions, prejudices, its still youthful self-awareness from subjectivity.
It is closer to animal.
It projects this spotty, yet intimate, knowledge of self, into the alien other, beginning the process of advancing further towards objectivity.
Modern man, having advanced into the Third Level, and beyond, still suffers from the inexperience, and the anxiety this stimulates in him.
Nihilism stifles his courage to stand firm and move on; he is seduced by the idea of settling for the easy, the primitive, the seemingly certain - path-of-least-resistance.
He stumbles back to the Second Level, that is easier, simpler, only daring to advance further, when there is nothing personal, intimate, at stake.
Titter-Tottering between the two, he compartmentalizes his "reasoning", and is conveniently selective with the standards of his "judgment": schizophrenic.
He becomes a child at play, calling this up-down on the see-saw, evidence of his "balance".

To comprehend the alien other, he uses his selective knowledge of self - projecting in this otherness his own best qualities, or the most neutral if he wishes to pretend objectivity.
He is immersed in a human, all too human world with him at its centre.
Stones, water, wind, mud, all alive with himself; all moving with intent, with meaning, with a purpose no different than his own.
He is in "agreement" with his own "reason", in conflict with it, in alliance with it.
He feels himself moving in all things, but thinks of them moving in him.
He hears his mind speaking to him from afar, from a tree, from a river, from the soil - Bicameral Mind, self-consciousness still awakening to consciousness, as if it were an-other.
Self-consciousness becoming conscience - whispering in the wind, code in the raindrops, the world is speaking to him in his own images, his own symbols, his own words.
His heart beating in all.  
He is a God, with God, and this is comforting.

Geometry functions as symbolic connecting noumenon with phenomenon.
What is meant by "objectivity" is clarified, as a cognitive advancement detaching subjective emotions, sensations, interests, personal tastes, preferences,from the observable other.
The process involves self-awareness so to then, slowly, reduce the corruption of subjectivity, used as a standard, from the evaluation of objective other.  
A process where courage, integrity, ans self-knowledge are all essential factors - more so than processing speed, and sensual acuity.

The previous post offers a visualization of a process that leads towards increasing empathy, and objectivity - a product of distancing.
Distancing is where Nihilism strives to detach completely, mind from body, so as to 'liberate' itself from the process and the limitations imposed upon the organism by natural order, and the fluctuating interactions of Flux.
Nihilism opts to use mind as a vehicle of not merely distancing, to attain clarity, and indifference, but as a way of escaping body, the physical, the real, immersing itself completely within the ideal - within ideology, theory - Divinity. A god with no world - a self-referential Creator one-god.
Of course this solipsism fails, because the mind, detached from body, cannot escape reality, but becomes more vulnerable to what it denies.  
Instead, the mind seeks a following, a herd, a gathering, that shares the same inter-subjective self-referential, detachments. Immersing itself within a herd, a group, hoping it'll remain 'free' from world, but also 'safe' from it.
This also fails, forcing Nihilism to lie - to self-deceive, within an echo chamber of the like-minded.  
It's theories require external validation, but world is not its standard, so it substitutes world with humanity.
World becomes, is redefined as Humanity, and Humanity becomes World.
This is why they perceive world as being conscious, ordered, and, sometimes even benevolent and caring.
A cognitive immersion in a noetic womb - a return to infancy, the child-like state of 'innocence'.
In this state all 'negativity' suffering by the individual is a victimization of its divine innocence. The assurance is that no matter what all will turn out well, all is part of a parent's - a god's - will, a plan.
The child's will is inconsequential, as it is entirely under the dominance of an external Will. It surrenders to the care of the external - a helpless victim of circumstances, of the incomprehensible external, the terrifying unknown. Protected by the external will it feels safe enough to explore, care-free, and carelessly.

Therefore, empathy, and objectivity - because empathy is a objective appreciation of self and other - are not absolute states of 'being' but movements towards an ideal, that require constant effort.
As one approaches the ideal the efforts requires multiply, until the last step is made impossible because it requires absolute energies/effort, to attain the absolute state.

Absolute empathy, and absolute objectivity are impossible. Everything is evaluated, measured, in degrees - inferior/superior.
Subjectivity cannot be absolutely excluded, but it must be reduced in its participation in the final product i.e. the judgment.
Judgement is the foundation of choice, of action, focusing the organism via Will.
The quality of judgement is evaluated, after-the-fact, from the consequences of its application through choices and actions. Choice is an action.
If the consequences are not accurately appreciated and evaluated, the organism will repeat the same errors in judgement, seeking excuses in others.

When we speak of 'natural laws', or 'laws of physics' and physics, we are speaking of manmade laws, referring to patterns the unify most perceived patterns: laws are human perceptions of patterns in the interplay (flux) of patterns.
If by pattern we mean energies of order, then to a 'law' they would abide by, would be an underlying pattern.
But it is never absolute in that it is never precise. It is always an approximation, covered by numerical binary values = 1/0.
Numbers, like letters, are linguistic representations. The foundation of mathematical language is the 'one', and the 'nil' evolves as its negation. All numbers are multiples of this 'idea' - an idea that cannot refer to a singularity, outside the mind, but like all language, sued to refer to all phenomenon, interpreted as singularities when the brain abstracts them.
Abstraction is a process of detaching dimensional possibilities, so as to bring forth, into clarity a 'segment' of a fluctuating world.
Space = possibilities.
An abstraction gradually detaches spatial possibilities from the perceived unity representing 'probabilities'...and probability, being ordering, can be measured. but never absolutely, never precisely - they can be approximated.
This is why the 'one' is fragmented into fractions, compensating for this fact, and attempting to become increasingly more precise.

Chaos, random energies, are included in the approximations, as the unknown factor, the fragmenting factor; the factor that prevents absolute knowledge - omniscience. The factor that makes conciousness a valuable tool of compensating for this unknown, and unknowable factor.  
This is what the 'nil' the 0 represents. It 'negates' the one's absoluteness, forcing a fragmentation - infinite regress.  
Nothing can ever be measured with absolute precision...but only to a degree of increasing precision, as man compensates for his won physical limitations by externalizing the same mechanics in the form of technologies.

Therefore, history can be used as a predictive tool, but it can never be absolutely accurate. Men, and their wilful compensation for chaotic forces, determine the course of history.
The simpler noes follow the same predictive behaviours, like animals - totally dominated by precedent, encoded as DNA.
The more sophisticated apply mind to overcome this genetic programming, in order to compensate for randomness, incorporated within the perceived order.
This is why man can be unpredictable in his choices and behaviours, to a degree simpler animals and human manimals, cannot.This is why man can contradict, in his mind, his very nature, declaring himself a 'spirit' 'trapped' in the wrong body, or not determined by his body.

The rule stands:
What makes the species homo sapient dominant all other species, to the degree that it does?
It is the same thing that distinguishes one homo sapient form another, and one breed of homo sapient, one sub-category of the category, from another.

A degenerate may rightfully claim that man is superior in some ways, meaning in some traits, but inferior in to others.
but the degenerate will refuse to admit that man is 'superior' with those few dominating traits, over species that are superior in all others.
If man is 'superior' to gorilla, then the traits that make him so - in degree - also make one man superior to another, and one race of men superior to others - proven by the consequences.
The difference is one of inherited 'potentials' which is also imprecise, and only indicates an approximation, not an absolute determination...not a certainty.
Though man can be born of superior genetic potentials he may not develop them, for many reasons, one being the random factor that affects the embryo in utero.

All man can do is increase his probabilities by striving to continuously close the gap between order and chaos, without ever closing it absolutely...fro then he would be god incarnate, and not merely god in his own mind.

Similarly 'laws of logic' are manmade laws restricting the free-play of the imagination.
The can contradict natural order, and go into wild fantastic tangents of 'creativity', losing contact with reality.
Nihilism is evidence of man's mental ability to 'invert' the perceived, so as to essentially 'negate it' in theory.
Laws of logic had to be created to discipline the human mind to natural order. These laws refer to linguistic or abstraction rules, connecting them with an external standard.
A cocnept is 'logical' if and when it abides with these 'laws', or is consistent with them.
It enforces rules that correspond to the aesthetically perceived - and are self-consistent.

When dealing with Modern degenerates you have to keep in mind their psychological illness, their retardation, and their need to remain so.
If you don't continuously offer disclaimers they'll revert to their defensive posture.

In language they display the attitude of children.
They will think in absolutes, such as 'absolute one' or 'absolute nil'. The next stage in their intellectual development is the use of binary logic and dualities. The either/or.
Some grasp fractions and the imprecision of degrees, in theory, but in practice their fall-back position is the absolute, if they are totally retarded, or the either/or, if they are slightly above retarded.

Allow me to explain....

When discussing strength they'' defensively assume that you are presenting yourself as all-powerful, and will either flee or try to take you apart, in groups.
For them the cocnept of 'strength' is either one of 'omnipotence' or an either/or strong or weak.
So, it's either about 'omnipotence' or two categories strong/weak.

When discussing knowledge or intelligence, omniscience is the absolute, and the dualities are gnosis/ignorance.
When discussing freedom, as in free-will, its either God-like divine independence, or the either/or of absolute dependence or absolute independence.

It's the same with every concept.

The idea that 'strength' is a measure of weakness, starting from the Bottom<>Up, does not compute.
The idea that knowledge awareness is a measure of ignorance, not of omniscience, does not compute.
They understand it, it just fails to register when they become engaged and their ego is under assault, or they feel threatened. Their defensive posture is from the Top<>Down, starting with the absolute, and then 'progressing' to dualities.
So, whenever you see them behaving in this manner, even if they are quire reasonable in every other instance, it is because the subject threatens them, or the discussion is making them feel uncomfortable, insecure.

We've all seen how they immediately accuse the other of Nazism or being some kind of Hitler, or some other Nazi reference, when they are scared witless of being uncovered as dim-witted imbeciles.
It's an automatic defensive reaction at the slightest hint of discomfort.
Like a cat arching her back and projecting her hairs to appear larger than what she is.  
World War 2 has become a common reference for Modern Degenerates, and although far worse things happened in human history, none where particular groups of elite 'victims' were involved.
Professional victims who are now producing a culture of victimhood.  

But anyway...
The cocnept of objectivity is, for Moderns, an implication of godly detachment and awareness - a divine certainty.
In fact it is a measure of subjectivity, just as the cocnept of 'power' implies a comparison, not omnipotence, and it measures a degree of powerlessness; just as height is a comparison, not an absolute measurement.
Just as free-will is not either a will that is absolutely independent, god-like, or absolutely dependent.
Children think in these terms.
Black/White...good/bad....like/dislike....love/hate...
Animalistic, base...simple thoughts for simpletons.  

The idea that someone, for instance, can love someone and, simultaneously, envy, resent, and secretly also have some hate for them, is something that just cannot compute.
Th cocnept has to be pure, unadulterated...infantile in its naivete. You either love someone absolutely, or, you must hate them absolutely.
There's no gradation, no nuance.
In they they can understand the nuances, vaguely, but in practice they revert to their either/or...and in times of stress, and what little reason they can muster is under pressure, they flee into the either/or absolutes.

So, when one of them is presenting this either/or absolutism you can be sure the subject is something they feel particularly anxious about.
The topic of 'free-will' if we isolate the cocnept of 'freedom', can touch some sensitive nerves, dealing with personal issues of accountability, self-hatred, distrust with one's own judgements, and the usual Freudian mommy/daddy issues.

When 'god' was declared dead, many of them 'cheered' but in their hearts they trembled. What would replace this cocnept that kept them feeling secure and hopeful, and valuable?
They could not continue without the cocnept of a one-god, or something comparable.
Fortunately, for them,, linguistics is full of binary dualities....it is built on them. You can replace one word with another, slightly modifying the imagery, or eliminating them altogether, to create a replacement abstract idea of the exact same concept as the one that was declared 'dead'....meaning it was too infantile to remain effective. An upgrade was required to meet the needs of the manimal herds in a post industrial, information age.
If you rearrange words, replace older noes with more sophisticated ones you can repeat the same ancient concepts as if you were saying something new.  

When I use the term 'strength' I am describing a degree of weakness, and I'm comparing myself to another, or two others to a perceived average, or another with an ideal, or whatnot....I'm not implying omnipotence.
When I use the term 'freedom' I know I can replace it with the term 'independence' to clarify, and by using it I am not implying absolute independence nor absolute dependence, but I'm comparing, juxtaposing, evaluating.
When I use the term 'superior' I'm not saying in all things, in all ways, in every instance....I am comparing something specific.
I'm going to repeat in a form of a question, so as to not frighten the children...
Is the species homo sapient 'superior' to the species 'bovine'?
Am I asking for physical power here?
What am I using to compare two different species sharing the same planet, existing in the same cosmos?
Am I implying humans are bigger, stronger, faster than the lovable bovines?
What of chimpanzees or apes in general.
Is the primate homo sapient the biggest, fastest, more durable ape? Not my a long-shot...and yet this pathetic, weak, fragile primate dominates.
How, why?
Well, the answer is how I justify the superiority between one race of man, one breed of man, from another.
Am I implying omnipotence, omniscience, absolutes....superior in every way in every measure, in every instance?
No....but the children will not have it. They need their defensive either/or absolutes to run and hide from something very troubling to their sensitive souls; something unjust, unfair.
Why oh why would a benevolent god be so cruel?!!!!
Oh, but wait...we are all manifestations of the same oneness, so it's all an illusion, or insignificant.
Full circle, back to the soft, warm womb - reborn again.
It has been written.

In metaphysics the concept of harmony/disharmony implies attraction/repulsion, simultaneously.
Not attraction and repulsion or attraction or repulsion, but attraction/repulsion, referred to by the term harmony. If one wishes to approach the same subject from the 'negative', which would be more accurate, then attraction/repulsion refers to a degree of disharmony.

In psychology, dealing with organic reactions to reality, the same concepts are represented with the concepts of love/hate.
Not the either/or absolutism of love and hate, or love or hate but love/hate represented by the term 'relating', corresponding to disharmony.
Since it is more 'pleasing' to approach any cocnept from the vantage point of the 'positive' then you can substitute the word 'disharmony' with 'harmony' without changing a thing.
We can now admit that when we say love - a adaptation of lust - we are referring to a degree of antipathy, or a degree of repulsion.
Since there are no absolutes there can be no absolute 'apathy' (ataraxia - Αταραξία) like the stoics claim. A very Buddhist myth.
There can only be a degree of apathy, approached and/or evaluated from the perceptive of the 'positive' - degree of care - or from the perspective of the 'negative' - degree of indifference.
It follows that love is a measure of the theoretical cocnept of apathy, approached from the 'positive', and it, in no way, excludes 'hatred' as belonging to its 'tensions'.  
We've all experienced attraction that inevitably exposes a degree of repulsion, when the chemical inebriating effects of endorphins and hormones subside.
Our 'love' for our parents and for our very children is accompanied with a level of 'antipathy' which we prefer not to acknowledge - ignoring it - because it may soil the 'purity' of the feeling we wish to believe in. Whoever has the self-knowledge and the courage, to admit it to himself, first and foremost, will find a little 'resentment' in every, otherwise loving, relationship.
Those we find attractive, or appealing, are those in relation to we feel more attraction than repulsion, not absolute attraction, not perfect love/lust.
If we do not acknowledge this fact then it will not go away, as if it depends no you acknowledging it, but it will only find indirect ways to expunge itself, to make itself present.  
The 'negative', or what organic life considers or judges as being detrimental to its well-being, does not require the organism's awareness, or acknowledgement or admission.
This is the myth subjectivity has cultivated, as an implication of its own 'logic': if all is subjective, and socially constructed, then if the individual does not admit, or acknowledge, then the undesirable disappears, as if by magic. The Modern has, conveniently, convinced itself that if it rejects, and denies, the 'toxic', as they call it, goes away.  
Subjectivity, is the logical conclusion for those born and raised in the duplicitous 'humility' that the entire cosmos was created for its behalf, as a testing ground of its 'faith, and that it deserves eternity.
Moderns simply alter the words.  
Just as the belief that there is absolutely no 'free-will', indirectly implies a one-god, a one-Will, minus all the childish fantasies.  

Subjectivity can go either/or, way. One being the belief that man is, in fact, God, creating his own reality; the other that universe is god, determining man's fate, implying that life is a cannibalistic masturbation experience, or a big joke, a prank a Divine conciousness is playing on itself- it implies the universal oneness, is sadomasochistic, because it is 'suffering - this is where the 'perfection' is contradicted - from existential boredom.

Maybe, if we wish to approach the same concept from the 'romantic idealistic positivity, of modernism, we might say the Primordial one, is making sweet love to itself, and part of this 'self-loving' is self-consuming.

An individual can never know if his judgement has been correct or erroneous, before-the-fact, but he can only appreciate its accuracy, after-the-fact, and looking back: in hindsight, not in foresight.  
In a fluid, (dynamic) world, his evaluation of his own performance will determine the success or failure degree of his next judgment - keeping in mind that a wrong judgement can lead to a correct outcome, for entirely different reasons than the ones the individual believes.
But this accidental prediction cannot replicate itself, like a correct judgement, made with lucid reasoning, can repeat its performance.

In a Fluid existence the accuracy may fluctuate due to factors the individual cannot perfectly evaluate, therefore accuracy is a matter of an educated guess - using precedent - decreasing the possibility of error, never absolutely ensuring it.
All human judgement are approximations, not absolutes. This is reflected in mathematical language by the cocnept of fractions - infinite divisibility.
In science the percentage of error is gradually eroded, approximating absolute accuracy, without ever attaining it. Every human measurement and judgement, prediction, made using them, fall within or without a +/- error percentage.
This is where understanding, rather than just knowing, becomes crucial.

For this reason consciousness is ongoing and continuously juxtaposing between choices made - consciously or subconsciously - and degree of accuracy, evaluated through the consequences.  
The judgement is continuously compared - juxtaposed - with a previous judgement, slightly making adjustments, modifications, on the fly.
So, the mind is continuously compensating for error in judgement.  

From broader, or deeper judgement - projections in space/time - the mind's judgement and its evaluation of its own judgement is crucial in its success. A mind that wrongly under- or over-estimates will repeat the same degree of error, or it may even increase the degree of error when it fails to adequately judge the consequences of its previous judgements, and to accurately approximate the causes.
An individual with bad judgement, or with an incapacity to accurately judge himself and the causes of his own mistakes, will inevitably seek the reasons in others.
Unable to accept the feebleness of its own judgements, or their corruption by an over- under-estimation of self it will protect its ego by projecting the blame externally.

This has to do with free-will, and how words are sometimes intentionally, or due to mental feebleness, misunderstood; applying the wrong definition of words - words referring to abstractions, ensures the repetition of failure.
Success is also a a measure of a degree of failure, just as strength is a measure of a degree of weakness.
An individual may be incapable of understanding or defining the words it has adopted as a defensive measure, or it may intentionally refuse to correct its definitions, because of what this will expose it to, i.e. a intentionally wrong definitions of the cocnept of 'identity', represented by the word ' self' or 'I', can reflect a dissatisfaction with itself, and the life it endures due to its inability to accurately judge and to adjust to errors in judgement, i.e. accept responsibility.

Another word that can be intentionally defined in a way that prevents accuracy, and/or utility, other than as an excuse or as a defensive measure, is the word 'god' referring to a cocnept with specific 'traits'.
The intentional misinterpretation and misunderstanding of a cocnept also ensures that the individual can remain true to a cocnept by altering the words used to refer to it - giving the impression that it is 'progressing' or 'growing' or 'overcoming' when it is simply replacing terms, but preserving the original meaning unblemished, i.e perfect.
The example I've given before, where many replace the Abrahamic cocnept of an absolute consciousness, with other terms, like 'whole' or 'one' or 'order', so as to self-deceive that they've overcome Christianity when they are simply altering the words associated with the exact same concepts - exact same traits given a different moniker.
Many, so called, atheists, fall into this category - they are crypto-Christian, though in their own mind they have moved beyond this spiritual ideology.

Many other similar examples can be given.

The relationship of 'subjectivity' to 'objectivity' follows the emergence of life, developing increasingly sophisticated degrees of awareness.
The subjective emerges simultaneously with life, and follows this path towards increasing levels of sophistication.

This describes a relationship of the living with existence.

Subjectivity is an interpretation, an evaluation, of the world - making it an object of its interest - care.
Subjectivity implies a judgement.
A judgement implies a juxtaposition - beginning with the juxtaposition of a perceived otherness with an intent, an objective, developing into a third-person juxtaposition of other with another, in relation to self.

All judgements are approximations, applying trial/error to modify and adjust accuracy - measure of inaccuracy, (error).
Only living organisms can make value-judgements, because only living organisms have an intent, and use a standard of evaluation. In it most primitive form it is the standard of need, felt and not conceptualized, even in simple organic life, such as plants.
But life is a rare and distinct kind of existence.
It's basic trait is memory = storage and application of experiences.
Memories that can be first-hand, second-hand or even inherited through the process of reproduction, in the form of DNA.

To approach objectivity, the individual has to noetically extricate himself from his personal desires, needs, fears and hopes.
For example, to evaluate 'justice' one must acknowledge that it alludes to a deep need to 'correct' the indifferent unfairness of nature, and natural selection.
It exposes a personal antipathy with reality, because of personal issues, such as a dissatisfaction with the outcome, and the anxiety concerning life's unpredictability.
Why do we systematize with a stranger, down on his luck?
Because we recognize in him, a possibility we do not wish to suffer.
Why does man, usually, identify with the 'victim' and not the 'predator'?
Because man feels vulnerable, before an indifferent and threatening world.

Anxiety/Fear underlies all this 'loving altruism'. A personal interest, pretending to be selflessness.
We recognize in the other's suffering a possibility we cannot escape, one way or the other.
It is entirely subjectively driven, and stocked by emotion and ego.

For this reason, the average modern cannot relate to 'objectivity'. He cannot understand it, mistaking it for a pretentious subjectivity, hiding ulterior motives.
The idea is entirely alien to such a mind. It continuously looks for the 'benefit' the hidden advantage in any opinion that threatens its own.
When someone speaks of nature's indifference and injustices and unfairness, and 'cruelty', he perceives an attack on his own motives; which are anti-nature, on this 'fact' alone.
A secret desire to 'correct' nature, to convert nature's indifference to 'care', to 'love'.

And what is that ideology that proposes an antithesis to nature?
Yes...Nihilism.
One can struggle against nature without deceiving himself that he's doing it for some universal 'good'.
Self-deception may work, on himself, and on those who share his anxiety and surrender to fear, but it does not deceive everyone. Most importantly of all, it does nothing to fool nature, that remains indifferent.

Inter-Subjectivity is a self-referential cocooning, using another, belonging to the same mindset, as a substitute for world.
A communal echo-chamber.
World is replaced by another conciousness, mirroring back and validating communal values, beliefs, principles - a linguistically based matrix, weaving semiotic nets to create a inter-subjective cocoon - a theoretical womb.
the idea of 'wholeness' or universal conciousness, is this reflection upon a communal 'consciousness' sharing and repeating shared ideas/ideals.

The indifferent, threatening, world beyond human conciousness, is evaded, and ignored, or selectively sampled - Top<>Down.
What can be integrated becomes part of the collective belief, what cannot is dismissed as 'illusion' or slandered and degraded.


See how 'race' and 'gender' have been excluded and dismissed, implying a counter-evolutionary hypothesis that is never defined so as to maintain compartmentalization: a different set of principles apply to other species than the ones applied to the homo sapient specie.
The excuse, once more, is logos - referring back to Abrahamic tropes.
Lange, semiotics is the new Messiah. Money being a type of semiology.

Capitalism/Marxism apply the same 'money principles' differing only in method/application.
Money is the great saviour, the emancipator of mind from reality, from nature, from past; mind freed to reinvent itself, as anything.
The physical, the body, is ignored or integrated as a mental construct. ergo, a male is 'trapped' in a female body, and a woman is 'trapped' in her sexual, biological, role, unlike a male: injustice of biology is transferred to an accusation of a 'system' perpetuating an antithesis to the inter-subjective values.

The cosmos is indifferent with no telos, and no purpose and no morality.
For the subjective organic mind to approach any degree of objectivity it must become just as indifferent, unintentional, unconcerned about morals and purposes and ends.
This is why it is so difficult and only a few can achieve it.

Aristotle wrote:

Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.

-Politics

To place another motive above that of your 'friendship' makes you a bad friend, therefore the true 'lover of wisdom' is a rare breed that holds nothing above its love; not its self-interests, not its go, not its life.
This is why it is a rare breed, indeed.
All others are false-friends, and pretenders, who hide their true love behind a false one, whether it be a love of life, of pleasure, or of accolades.

I've offered my conception of how objectivity can arise in a subjective mind.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just as life is a degree of detachment from cosmos, and self-consciousness involves a level of separation from consciousness, so too does objectivity depend on a level of detachment form subjectivity; the next level of awareness, where the mind perceives itself and the body it belongs to, from a third-persona perspective.
A difficult task...and for the majority an impossible one.

The inspiration, the ideal objective, for strength or power is 'omnipotence'; the ideal projection of gnosis, knowledge/understanding, is omniscience.
Some actually believe they can attain the absolute, yet only a degree is possible.

Therefore, the ideal, the objective, of subjectivity, is objectivity, but not in a final absolute form, but a degree of it, in relation to another.
Like with power and knowledge, it offers an advantage, accompanied with a cost; it offers potentials with a risk, and like any absolute the approach to it becomes increasingly difficult, i.e. every advancement multiplies the effort/energy, stress, required to make the next.
This represents the impossibility of making the final absolute step into absoluteness - an end. Literally.


so, objectivity simply means the degree to which the individual can overcome its fears, its ego, its self-interests, and perceive self in relation to other, as clearly as possible.
This is contrary to the Nihilistic motive, which is directed by self-preservation, and a defensiveness towards its own emerging self-consciousness, exposing how it relates to other.
As such, its extreme expressions are the Cynic/Sociopath and the Narcissist/Schizophrenic.

like with everything human, mistaking the word for a literal absolute, produces a paradox; ironically, the subjective mind's inability to comprehend and apply language representationally, but only literally, is what traps it in its own limitation.
Sometimes this entrapment is subconsciously intentional, when the mind secretly fears that it cannot endure any increase in risk and discomfort.
It linguistically entraps itself, ergo the Cynic is part of the four psychological extremes of Nihilism. the individual subconsciously, but quite intentionally, discredits language, and the concepts they represent, so as to never face itself and its own culpability in its own predicament.
A defensiveness against increasing self-awareness, or the insecurity and vulnerability produced when juxtaposing self and other.

To achieve an approach towards clarity, or objectivity, entails a risk and a cost.
I've explained why I think both the cost, entails a risk, few are willing to take, and most are unable to take.

The objective cannot be arbitrary, because this implies that all perspectives are equally valid, and dependent no word-games, or semantics, or the feminine application and sue of language.
The method is Bottom<>Up, or from the ground up, the real towards the ideal.
The 'ground' is the apparent, that which we perceive. this is in-line with the scientific method, and/or empiricism.
For this reason words must begin by referring to the observable, testable, and what can be disproved, i.e. the apparent, that which is present.
I content that the present is the past, i.e. the past made present is what we call presence.
Appearance is how a consciousness, if also present, can interpret it, to varying degrees of accuracy.
I define 'nature' as the sum of all nurturing, as it pertains to living organism, and I define 'life' as an emergent unity that is informed by a past stored as memory, e.g. experiences and genetic, constituting the triadastic essence of what we call 'self', in the second person, and refer to, in the first person, as 'I'.
Anyone can deny this without offering an alternative that may be 'better'. The nil - negative - is easy, the one - positive - is what requires effort.
Non-living unities, such as unities we call particles combining into elements, are unities held together unintentionally, but through unconscious relationships of attraction/repulsion, following paths-of-least-resistance.
Repulsion/Attraction can be summed up with the term 'harmony', or 'balance'...or, if approached from the negative as 'disharmony' and 'imbalance'.
Just as we can define energy from a self-serving positive perspective as a measure of 'power', or 'strength' when it is more appropriate, given how rare life is, from the non-living perspective - though projection - as a measure of 'weakness' and/or 'powerlessness'.
Living organisms tend to prefer the 'positive' approach, yet both approaches describe the exact same phenomenon.

That side, when we choose to seek honesty and clarity, and not to simply fool ourselves, deceive ourselves, protect our ego, or whatever other self-serving motive we are governed by, then we begin with a non-arbitrary connection of the words/symbols we are using - adopted as conventions of communication and/or relating - with what is apparent, and yet outside our wilful control.
This process describes a simple relationship of subjective organism, interpreting/translating, an objective world that remain indifferent to all interpretations/translations of it, because the cost and risk is burdening the subjective concious organism and not the cosmos.

Only when we accomplish this can we experiment with an artistic use of language, to display our personal reactions to this indifferent, mostly unknown, and unknowable, cosmos, just as an artist must first prove his merit, his talent, by representing reality all can use to evaluate his artistry, and he cannot begin with a obscure use of abstractions to pretend he is talented, finding marketing ploys to sell his presumed 'artistry' to imbeciles and fools.
So, the use of language is not arbitrary, but it is direct and limited by natural order, and by the linguistic conventions developed over the centuries that limit the use of the language we are using. So there are two restrictions to how we apply language, and semiotics in general.
The latter ensures communication will occur effectively and efficiently, and the former ensures that the dialogue does not veer into nonsensical idiocy., and infantile fantasies.

All this is but a starting premise, a foundation - what we call physical reality, or physics, from the Greek physis, nature from where we can delve deep into the subterranean realm, known as Metaphysics, and upwards towards the noetic realm we call idea/ideal - ideology, theory.
We can call this starting foundation our 'middle ground,' between the idealistic - where we build our ideologies and theories - and the cthonic - where we ground our thoughts so that they do not become absurd.

Most words can find definitions in the experienced, aesthetic realm, of the middle ground'.
Words like 'god', 'self', 'male/female', 'power', 'good/bad', 'natural/artificial', 'healthy/unhealthy', 'strong/weak', 'intelligent/stupid', 'existence'', 'past/future', 'race', 'gender', 'ego' and so on....

If we are honest and courageous and able to think, we can start the journey.
If not, then we will construct all sorts of contrivances and excuses, and intentionally confuse and seek to deceive by self-deceiving...all to avoid the fact that we are either idiots, that cannot, or cowards, that will not.

Either way....the world remains indifferent to our motives, trickery, excuses, and humoristic dismissals.

Objectivity involves a triangulation that places the top point, of assessment, outside the individual's control and judgment.

The triangulation is between the subjective interpretation of circumstances, i.e. individual judgment, in relation to a projected outcome, i.e. expected or desired, and both in relation to an indifferent uncertain world, i.e. the objective.
The 'expected' and 'desired' is a projection of the objective within an indifferent uncertain world, and the two ought not to be confused as being synonymous, or tautologies.

Man assesses his accuracy, his success/failure, after-the-fact, i.e. looking back at the consequences in relation to his expectations & desires, when and if he dares expose them to the indifferent unforgiving harshness of reality.
If he has courage to peer 'into the abyss' and the integrity to accept it then he makes adjustments to his strategies and/or his projected expectations & desires.
If he lacks integrity and the courage to do so, to any degree approaching accuracy, then he is doomed to repeat the same errors, or different ones, always finding fault in other, or in world, but never in himself, to the degree that is demanded by the circumstances.

Consciousness is an ongoing evaluation and adjustment; a consistent 'tweaking' of judgements to approach accuracy as close as possible, within a fluctuating, dynamic world, i.e. existence as flux.

Cowards and hypocrites tend to triangulate by placing themselves at the peak of the triangulation pyramid, or the ideology they ascribe to, the objective, at the top.
This slight shift of perspective is what causes the dissonance and their continued drive to hide from reality.
They never face the world directly but indirectly, obliquely.
With the 'subjective' at the top of their noetic pyramid, they adjust the indifference and unforgiving world accordingly. Abrahamics - some variants - adjusted it to become 'benevolent' and 'caring', i.e. conscious.
They projected their subjectivity into its uncertain indifference so as to reduce their anxiety in relation to it, and then they adjusted the third corner of the pyramid, the desired expected ideal to fit into this self-serving scheme.

This is typical of cowards and hypocrites, hiding their self-deceptive interventions beneath feigned innocence, i.e. ignorance, and sometimes a more aggressive 'arrogance', i.e. hyperbole.
All to defend or shelter the vulnerable, fragile ego - the lucid part of self - from the vulnerability of the self.
They need followers or companions to aid them in this shared endeavour because all they truly have under their control are words - words that must not be defined or connected to reality, because this would disarm them, and erase their 'magical' aura they so need to protect them from an indifferent uncertain world.
Words/Symbols to fabricate, or to eradicate - to create or destroy, to affirm or to nullify; words void of meaning, of substance, made 'divine' by making them theoretical, i.e. impotent, and idealistic.

It follows, from everything that has been stated already, that the 'objective' is, in fact, an objective, that is never absolutely attained. it is an ongoing process that requires constant reaffirmation, and/or the subject's continuous adjustment to it.
Given that there is no absolute and existence is dynamic, this already implies all that is required to comprehend what the 'objective', in relation to the subject, the subjective, is - a relationship.

We can substitute the terms being used without losing the meanings, for instance 'objective' can be replaced by 'idea/ideal', and 'subjective' can be replaced by 'interpretation/consciousness.

In a godless universe the 'god' idea/ideal can be replaced by the word 'order', implying the same 'absolute' with a slight modification in semiology, including the imagery, and in fact in the minds of those that reject 'free-will' as absolutely non-existent, the cocnept of 'god' as defined in Nihilism and/or Abrahamism, as the most popular form of nihilism, in the 'west', the same concept is re-baptised....from 'god' to 'order' or to 'one', or to 'whole' without losing anything fundamental about the 'idea/ideal' but only changing the image, and the symbolisms.

In fact most of those who believe in either/or binaries are crypt-Christian, and/or crypto-Abrahamics, that have simply secularized their Nihilism, through the cleansing process of Marxism.
They believe in the exact same idea/ideal only this time under a new moniker.

Considering what I am saying carefully, if one is interested enough to even try, what is being implies is that there is no final, absolute, 'truth' but that there is always superior/inferior truth, always being updated and adjusted, in time.
This does not mean that 'truths' are useless, only applicable for a short time, if we take human lifespans and life on earth as a standard, because the dynamisms of existence implies both order and chaos, both consistent repeating patterns and inconsistent non-repeating random non-patterns, both of which are dynamic and therefore exist.
Therefore, three is no absolute order, that will absolutely determine anything absolutely, i.e. with absolute certainty, but only patterns that determine things to a greater or lesser probability.

So, when we speak of species, or race, or anything having to do with observable behaviours with some degree of repetitive consistency, we are referring to probability, or in the case of living organisms inherited potentials, determining traits not exactly, not absolutely, but within an upper/lower scale of probability - exception to this rule would fall outside the scale of probabilities and are to be expected.

For this reason conciousness must adjust to existence and be as dynamic - mirroring it.
Therefore, an organism cannot absolutely predict the future but it can use precedent, to perceive patterns, that will increase its accuracy probability, and then use precedent to evaluate its degree of accuracy, after-the-fact, if it wishes to adjust and try for a greater degree of accuracy.
But this self-evaluation is dependent no the minds lucidity, its ability to think outside its emotional self-interests and ego driven desires....to attain clarity. if the mind is unable to accept responsibility, or to evaluate the degree of its own culpability, as it relates to external factors, then it will continuously fail, and it will continuously blame everything and everyone but itself; and if it entirely dismisses its own ability to change the outcome with its own choices and actions - to the degree that these participate in the outcome within any given circumstance - then it has failed before it has even begun - it has already failed, using this as an excuse to not try, or to evade its own qualities as being participants in the outcome.


Every judgment can only be evaluated after-the-fact, as if it has already been determined, because most organic processes are automated, and only in higher organisms is it possible to intervene and even contradict genetic programming, as is evident in the current 'identity crisis'.
But this awareness does not automatically guarantee success, not only because of the absence of an absolute, i.e, that the cosmos is not absolutely ordered, but also because the individual can never be absolutely aware, or have absolute knowledge and understanding, and primarily because organic life is corrupted by organic cares and anxieties, over- under-estimating themselves or others, so never achieving absolute accuracy but always a degree of it.

Life sues trial/error as part of its survival strategy, acting adjusting, reacting and on and on....this is why conciousness is not static,. it never reaches final conclusions, unless it is diseased and warped by genetic or environmental factors, forcing it to seek refuge internally, esoterically, in its own subjectivity, viz, in its own mind.
This solipsism is often delusional when it finds kindred spirit to externalize the same psychosis, creating an inter-subjective clan, a cult of shard comforting delusions.

In all judgements the world, nature, is the final arbiter. Applied they, and the consequences reveal quality of judgment.
Words games, occultism, are all infantile mind-games used by charlatans to escape the fact of their own impotence and consistent failures.
The scientific method - empiricism -offering testable, verifiable, by multiple minds in multiple circumstances through multiple time periods, is what offers the highest degree of accuracy.

There are two general types of charlatans, those adhering to 'positive' nihilism, and those adopting the more honest 'pure' nihilism - both employ self-deception, but to different degree and from different direction.

The first, exploits the absence of absolutes to declare the existence of his own, attraction to him all those desperate, lost, gullible, needy souls that increasingly populate our modern urban landscapes.
These are usually liars, sniffing for any hint of vulnerability, any sign of need.desire they can manipulate and exploit - usually the 'parasitical strategy' is utilized by the 'chosen' few.
The destruction of the traditional family, the loss of culture, all contribute to the production of myriads os such needy, desperate souls, looking for anything that promises 'certainty' that gives them 'hope' that flatters and comforts them.
'Positive' Nihilism is usually predatory, i.e. parasitical, and viral. All life has a weakens that can be exploited and more so humans in their emerging consciousness of self.

The second, exploits the absence of absolutes to selectively, and intentionally, dismiss all theories all ideas, all ideals, that hint at something stressful or unflattering, or demanding etc. They demand the absolute while having lost hope in its existence.
Their awakening to its absence so traumatic that they lost faith in themselves, the world, in everything and everyone. if they find a purpose it is to 'bring the world down' with them, before they die, returning to the emptiness.

'Positive' Nihilism is seductive to the masses, because there it finds desperation and need for authority, for certainty, for a replacement for the 'absent absolute' that was provided to them in the form of a God, of Abraham.

To some it presents itself as a 'god', in the form of a cocnept, represented by a symbol/word void of all substance and meaning; to others as a father-figure substituting for a missing one; to others as a seductive mistress engorging their manly ego, flattering their emasculated desires; to others as a benevolent, generous friend to help them deal with their existential loneliness....it can take any form because it is not restricted by any natural order, any external limitation.
The boundaries of its creativity are traced by human psychology and its organic needs/desires; by its vanity, and idiocy.
It appeals to the masses, finding there willing and ready vacuousness, seeking fulfilment outwardly; obtuseness seeking leadership and direction; emasculation seeking a manly hand to take them by their shrivelling testicles into manhood.

The old Chines saying is adjusted...'When the slave is ready, the master appears.'

Objectivity is to Subjectivity, what I is to Other, and Self and Organism are to World and Natural Order.
Subjectivity is the interpreter, and the Objective is the dynamic fluctuating real...the interpreted.
Subjectivity is the audience, and the Objective is the movie, in a proverbial cave, the theatre. Each screening determining the next movie showing.

In this context the audience member enters the theatre not as a incorporeal mind, but as a physical being shaped by movies he did not see, before his birth, and each screening alters him/her.
Culture is the speech given in preparation for the movie screening - it shapes the comprehension of the film, but does not change the film itself.

To say the term 'objective' is synonymous with the term 'god', or the term 'order' as it is defined by nihilists, is to describe subjectivity's pursuit of the absolute as an approach that can never be finalized. To be in-tune with nature leaves the definition of 'nature' to be given – outside nihilistic paradigms of binary either/or dualities. For, what does it actually mean when we say that the ‘absolute is absent' but that there is no completion no resolution, no salvation, i.e., nature does not simply replace 'god' in the Spinozean Nihilistic interpretation entirely consistent with Nihilism? Nature means sum of all nurturing, but neither is this a description of absolutism determinism.
To escape the box of Nihilism, the one most refuse to exit, and most cannot, even if they are told about it, necessitates an artist's disposition and a scientist’s motive. The Greeks called philosophers a hybrid of part scientist and part artist.
It necessitates an understanding of what words are, and what function they evolved to serve, despite their corrupted current application.
What is meant by 'nature' but the interplay of chaos and order, i.e., patterned and non-patterned energy? It is not another name for the Abrahamic one-god, or another word to describe the presumed absolute.
If and when this advancement can be mad then all becomes painfully clear, because to be sure reality will not please and placate, but only illuminate.
In the obscurantism of the dark, the mind can fantasize away, uninhibited by anything but its own capacity to release the mind’s imagination, but to shed light leaves no room for much creative fantasizing, the real becomes obvious and clear, and rarely, if ever, convenient and comforting.
Light disciplines the mind – it focuses it; darkness lets it dance in its own fantasies, hoping nothing real will ever intrude.

The advancement is from subjectivity towards increasing levels of objectivity.
A plant, like every simple organism, has no conception of self, i.e., it perceives otherness and juxtaposes it with a vague sense of self, in the form of a sensation that evolves into an impulse, a feeling, and finally an emotion. It sense otherness in relation to a vague sense of self, relative to need/suffering.
This is the point Hedonists want to revert to, and/or are trapped within. The next stage of development is the gradual perception of self, as the negation of other.
The organism can now juxtapose self with otherness. This is the stage Nihilism emerges as a defensive mechanism. All forms of psychosis emerge here... such as cynicism/sociopathy & narcissism/schizophrenia.
The self is noetically reduced to a nil or inflated into extraordinary proportions, as part of the mind's role in protecting the organism – the extremes of nil/one serve as the compensating abstractions. We call this subjectivity. Moderns are trapped here. This is the easiest stage for humans, i.e., using self as the measure of all things. The subjective replacing God, by abstracting the collective. The mind identifies with the judgements of the whole – group subjectivity replaces individual subjectivity, i.e., inter-subjectivity.
The next phase is risky and difficult, involving the evaluation of self and other from a third-party perspective – necessitating empathy, uncorrupted by the subjectivity of sympathy/antipathy.
An abstraction can also be used as a standard. The mind can perceive the world or anything and anyone, including itself, from another' perspective. A mind can go insane if it does not possess the natural constitution – most revert back to the previous phase.
This is what they call 'overcoming': to not care about any external standard of measuring self, or to deny self altogether....or its 'freedom' to affects its own destiny.
Immersing yourself in subjectivity is 'transcending' world, i.e., otherness. This is what the LGBTQ movement is all about.
Not giving a shit about other – not other people's judgement, but reality, world, natural order, the very foundation of 'logic'. An 'overcoming' of the social instinct... not a finer discrimination so that morons do not trick you with the 'humanity is the only race' crap, but overcoming the very impulse to identify with your own kind, your own people, your own family. To be proud of your shamelessness.
Immersion in subjectivity – the mind imploding into itself, and only acknowledging otherness as far as it maintains and services its detachments from any external standard. Everything is evaluated by how it makes the ego feel, how it serves it, and how it relates to ego, i.e. sense of self – the end result is collapse, because the world doesn't disappear, nor does it adjust to accommodate the individual’s ego. Pride in oneself must be pragmatic, not an 'I say so' declaration.

The Modern desperate degenerate prefers art, language, philosophy, to remain as subjective as possible, i.e., as vague, obscure and interpretive as possible.
They want to remain 'free' to project whatever they desire into the symbols and imagery - artists and observer participating to produce the outcome; the former as insinuating and indefinite as possible, the the latter as addicted and obsessive as probable.

They want all-inclusive, and universal benefits.

Objectivity, properly defined and understood, has nothing to do with absolute truths and social engineering, it's about placing the standard outside of all subjectivity and holding oneself just as accountable towards it.

For the typical imbecile it has replaced fascism and violence - capitalistic injustices - another way of feeling a victim of another's will.
The desperate degenerate is desperate for an external authority, someone or something to blame - concious or unconscious, wilful or not - to absolve himself of all culpability, and to return him to idealized innocence, so as to preserve his victim status.
He wants to return to infancy - as he imagines it, i.e., purity, innocent, someone to be cared for and cared about. A fantasy of those who have not enjoyed a family and the benefits of good parental care.

Objectivity is an extension of natural selection.
Both genes and memes are filtered out or allowed to proceed, according to their relationship with the real.

In the case of Nihilistic ideologies, they are hypocritical, i.e., saying one thing, in public, and believing another in private, while doing a third in accordance to impulses not even they can fully comprehend.
The only reason Abrahamism survives is that it does not adhere to its own stated principles, owing to the fact that their dogmas are based no texts - considered sacred - that remain intentionally ambiguous so as to permit any interpretation - depending on the circumstances. Christianity also has pressure venting rituals to deal with the accumulating dissonance, like 'confession' and the weekly ritual of absolution.

When you're 'out of touch' with reality, you are doomed to fail, and then find blame in everything but the reasons you failed - so you are doomed to fail constantly, because you cannot evaluate yourself, in the world, objectively, but you consistently trap yourself within your own subjectivity, hoping others will fall in with you; sometimes pulling them in, tripping them, tricking them, seducing them with tales about how safe and warm it is in your trap; how wonderful or empowering; how dangerous it is, promising adventure and glory - then you want to pull the entire world in with you, so that you make the 'external', 'internal,' and the 'inside your mind' the boundary of a theoretical 'outside existence' - finally you rename it all accordingly: 'in' become 'out,' 'good' become 'bad,' 'reason' become 'un-reason', weakness becomes 'power', 'ignoble' becomes 'noble,' 'freedom' becomes 'slavery' and 'slavery' is renamed 'freedom'.

It's newspeak....basic Marxist propaganda.

So called 'laws of Nature are not universal laws....they are laws describing man's understanding of natural processes and what governs them; laws defining and describing a relationship of subject with object.

Laws of logic are manmade laws attempting to harmonize human abstractions- represented by human semiotics, with natural order, i.e., Laws of nature, physics etc.

M-Theory is such an attempt to create a cohesive set of laws that can explain and predict observable phenomena - harmonize  noumena with phenomena.

To use the concept of Natural Laws, or Laws of Physics or Laws of Logic, like one would use God's commandments, is an error.
All laws are manmade rules based on human awareness and human understanding and human sensual perceptions, extended by technologies.

But ethical laws, like those called God's 'commandments', are human constructs referring to 'moral behaviour,' as this evolved over millennia through natural selection - making heterosexual reproduction and social cooperative strategies possible - and to human socio-economic circumstances, necessitating specific restrictions to natural impulses.
Genes - Memes.  
Morals - Ethics.

Moral behaviour can also be called social instinct - a sublimation of individual impulses within group dynamics, necessitating self-repression (self-control) and self-deception.

Subjectivity relates to Objectivity as life relates to cosmos.
The subjective mind creates laws, rules, describing its understanding of what its knowledge.
In lower life-forms this occurs dynamically - adaptation - and is experiences as stress. The individual organism is pressured to adapt itself to environmental circumstances, it does not entirely know nor understand, but can perceive and sense.