Objective <> Subjective

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.

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.)

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.

More chimps...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.