Know Thyself
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalSearchRegisterLog in

Share
 

 Objective <> Subjective

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
AuthorMessage
Magnus Anderson

Magnus Anderson

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

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyTue Dec 09, 2014 1:35 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Magnus Anderson

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

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyTue Dec 09, 2014 1:39 pm

phoneutria wrote:
I know what I know, dear.

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

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

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 26729
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 55
Location : Hyperborea

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyTue Feb 10, 2015 10:00 pm

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

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

Gender : Female Posts : 8965
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 1:54 pm

More chimps...


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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

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

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

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 26729
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 55
Location : Hyperborea

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 2:04 pm

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

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

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

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

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Wed May 27, 2015 4:59 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Anfang

Anfang

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 3786
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 38
Location : Castra Alpine Grug

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 4:37 pm

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


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

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

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

Magnus Anderson

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

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 4:46 pm

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

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

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

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

Magnus Anderson

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

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 4:49 pm

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 26729
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 55
Location : Hyperborea

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 5:06 pm

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

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

"What's in a name..."

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

The subjectivity is measured against an objective world.  

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

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

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

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

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

Anfang

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 3786
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 38
Location : Castra Alpine Grug

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 5:14 pm

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

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

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


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

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1711
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 35
Location : Ireland

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 5:34 pm

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

I posted this at the chimp:

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

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

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

Objective does not need to mean universal.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 26729
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 55
Location : Hyperborea

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 5:44 pm

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

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

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

Anfang

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 3786
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 38
Location : Castra Alpine Grug

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 5:45 pm

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

Magnus Anderson

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

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 5:48 pm

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

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

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


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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 26729
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 55
Location : Hyperborea

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 5:48 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anfang

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 3786
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 38
Location : Castra Alpine Grug

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 6:14 pm

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

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 26729
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 55
Location : Hyperborea

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 6:23 pm

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

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

The eye I part of the world it is seeing.

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

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

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

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

This is a stage in intellectual development.

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

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

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

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

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1711
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 35
Location : Ireland

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 6:27 pm

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

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

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

This difference in spirit results in master/slave moralities.

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

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 26729
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 55
Location : Hyperborea

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 6:40 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 26729
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 55
Location : Hyperborea

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 9:09 pm


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 26729
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 55
Location : Hyperborea

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 9:28 pm

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

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

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

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 26729
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 55
Location : Hyperborea

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 9:55 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Riastradh

Gender : Male Posts : 235
Join date : 2014-07-27
Location : Perfidious Albion

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 10:18 pm

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

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

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

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

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

_________________
"A truth that’s told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent."

- William Blake
Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
Lyssa

Gender : Female Posts : 8965
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 10:43 pm

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

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

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

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

The same with the chimp in the dungeon.

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

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

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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

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

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

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

Gender : Female Posts : 8965
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptyWed May 27, 2015 10:49 pm

apaosha wrote:
it doesn't mean that it is still not rooted in an objective desire to preserve the self in the face of natural selection, even if that means relying solely on the pity and indulgences of the capable.

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

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


-

@Carlin, good summary.

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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

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

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

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
http://ow.ly/RLQvm
OhFortunae

OhFortunae

Gender : Male Scorpio Posts : 2311
Join date : 2013-10-26
Age : 28
Location : Land of Dance and Song

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptySat Aug 15, 2015 7:43 pm

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

_________________
1. "Youth, oh, youth! | of whom then, youth, art thou born?
Say whose son thou art,
Who in Fafnir's blood | thy bright blade reddened,
And struck thy sword to my heart."


2. "The Noble Hart | my name, and I go
A motherless man abroad;
Father I had not, | as others have,
And lonely ever I live."
Back to top Go down
https://plus.google.com/u/0/109705167311303906720/posts
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 26729
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 55
Location : Hyperborea

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptySat Aug 22, 2015 11:20 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 26729
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 55
Location : Hyperborea

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptySat Aug 22, 2015 11:32 pm

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

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

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

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 26729
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 55
Location : Hyperborea

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptySat Aug 22, 2015 11:38 pm

Biological processes translated into Christian spiritual metaphors...

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

Translated into Metaphysics...

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

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 26729
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 55
Location : Hyperborea

Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 EmptySun Aug 23, 2015 7:08 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objective <> Subjective Objective <> Subjective - Page 3 Empty

Back to top Go down
 
Objective <> Subjective
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 12Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

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