Objectivity

For an animal all is objectively true. It does not doubt its own senses - what it sees is a complete and indisputable fact.
It is entirely in the immediate past - in the moment.

Self-consciousness is what evolves in man as self-doubt - the mind doubting its own sense - comparing what is perceived as present - immediate past - when juxtaposed with a memory, stored as an idea/ideal, an abstraction.
It is self-consciousness that exposes man to the juxtaposition of itself with another, from a third-persona perspective - making man feel insecure and vulnerable.  
It is Nihilistic to choose the abstraction as a defensive measure - choosing the abstraction as 'more real than reality', because an abstraction - a memory - a concept, an idea/ideal, can be manipulated, altered, selectively sampled....the apparent cannot. It confronts man whether he likes it or not.

Memories, thoughts, can be manipulated, reshaped, resynthesized, reality cannot. This is why nihilism detaches past from present - or attempts to do so; preferring noetic constructs - i.e., abstractions, a.k.a., ideas/ideals, concepts, thoughts - and degrades phenomena,, the real, i.e., empirical, tangible reality.
They flourish ideologically when they disconnect their ideologies from everything real - everything experienced, that can be tested and verified by third-parties independently.

Nihilism, in all its forms - e.g., Abrahamism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), Marxism (Communism), Tarashumanism etc. - is a political process of detaching semiotics from reality, converting them to 'divine ideas/ideals - sanctified through the process of disconnection. The Biblical allegory of Christ's' death and resurrection is a description of the 'demise' of the tangible - i.e., physical, corporeal, empirical of the body - and its 'replacement' with pure ideology.
Jesus dies on the cross, as a physical concept, and is 'reborn' an immortal idea.
As long as one believer exists the idea exists with him - believers are mortal but their communal ideology is immortal as long as one of them is born - every birth is a resurrection of the ideology. It has no power outside minds- because it is entirely noetic - theoretical, ideological; it is political, psychological.

For Aryans their beliefs are about forces that precede their birth and will continue after their death, i.e., the gods. Reality does not depend no believers - it is, whether there is anyone who perceives and appreciates them or not - it is the ones who deny, who cannot see, who suffer the consequence, not the world - e.g., Zeus = god of thunder and lightning; whether you believe in thunder or not, the electromagnetic forces that produce it continue unabated; belief in them is inconsequential to that which produces it.

Right is Might
Scientific methodology is about approaching the objectively real - e.g., two thinkers have opposing theories, one believes the world is round, the other that it is flat, neither is omnipotent/omniscient, and they do not defend their 'perspectives' by evoking the divine one-go, but formulate strategies of traversing the oceanic examples based on their perspectives.
The one closest to the objective fact of the earth's tangible existence will be more successful and benefit from his accuracy - the one who is less correct will suffer the consequences - natural selection at work.

Neither is absolutely correct nor has absolute knowledge and understanding, but one is more accurate than the other, and this superiority gives him an advantage over the other; neither imposed their beliefs no the other but tested them agaisnt nature - i.e., the world - gauging their validity from the consequences.

Might is Right
The antithesis of the previous.
In this scenario one coerces the other, whether his perspective is superior or not, forcing him to behave as if it were superior.
Marxism, liberalism is the 'might of quantities over the individual' The totalitarianism of a one-god, or of a despot, is transferred to an intangible concept called the citizenry' or 'humanity', imposing itself over the individual; coercing him to act as if its collective perspective were 'fact' whether it is proven or not. Defining words, testing a hypothesis is prohibited because it may contradict the will of the many, proving that one can be superior to many,. when the many are stunted or dominated by ideology and emotions; fascism of the many over the few.
Ergo, if the many declare race and sex to be social constructs, and refuse to test and validate their claims, but go to great effort to discourage dialogue, and exploration of the reasoning - explaining away anything that contradicts their ideological claims, by accusing some external will, some external intent, and by censoring all criticism - then we have the totalitarianism of the one-god being replaced by the totalitarianism of the many over the few.
Whatever criticizes or contradicts the shared narratives is driven by an 'evil' intent, an ulterior motive; whoever repeats and supports it, is driven by 'goodness' and no intent but communal virtue of e peace and equality.
Words cease to have meaning - the objective world disappears, denying all validation of superiority; suddenly it does not matter whether the world is round or flat, but what the many want it to be, and if they feel good about it or not. What matters, the only thing that matters, is that nobody is made to feel bad about being wrong.

It's obvious....right?
For desperate degenerates, it isn't.

Orwell, George wrote:

We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.

Orwell, George wrote:

The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.

In the trenches, confronting the myriad of average brain-dead jug-head of the Nihilistic hoards, is where the slogging will be a repetitive cut and slash - similar to killing zombies.
More tedious than dangerous, unless they overwhelm with their masses.

It will be rare when a formidable foe will make his/her appearance. Mostly it will be those dime-a-dozen footsoldiers of Modern decadence that'll come forth to offer themselves as canon fodder for their 'cause'....relentlessly throwing wave after wave of idiocy agaisnt you.

It's the way of the woman - the feminine spirit- If they cannot confront physically or mentally, they will nag you until you submit - frustration is how they wear down opposition.
They cannot defeat the foe, all they can do is repeat and fatigue him, until he has to surrender or turn away - the third and fourth options are criminalized, and not available to a wise man.

We're not 'progressing' we are regressing.
We are in a Dark Age when what was once obvious and man was proceeding to advance from is now questioned, and doubted, forcing man to redress what he's already established as objective fact.
Basic stuff like 'what appears different is, in fact different' or 'a male is a male' and a female is a female'.

Dark Ages are characterized by a regression to superstition, to madness, to nihilism, and this is exactly what is occurring on our time. .
The most basic ideas are now debatable.
Evolution Theory, objective reality, race, sex....are all ideologized.
Their empirical validity is reduced to an ideological construct - all is subjective, if it threatens the core principles and values of the nihilistic paradigm.

During Dark ages mankind returns to a previous state of decadence and degradation, with small consistent steps.
What was known is suddenly no longer known, if it threatens the nihilistic paradigm that insists that all must be made uniform and equal.

Heisman, Mitchell wrote:

It is likely that most people will not even consider the veracity of this correlation between death and objectivity even if they understand it intellectually because most will consciously or unconsciously choose to place the interests of self-preservation over the interests of objectivity. In other words, to even consider the validity of this view assumes that one is willing and able to even consider prioritizing objectivity over one’s own self-preservation. Since it not safe to simply assume this on an individual level, let alone a social level, relatively few are willing and able to seriously address this issue (and majority consensus can be expected to dismiss the issue). In short, for most people, including most ‘scientists,’ overcoming self-preservation is not ultimately a subject for rational debate and objective discussion.

Overcoming the survival instinct is difficult.
Few can manage it. Few can be true philosophers.
Most seek in 'philosophizing' a method, guidance, a solution to a personal issue.
Thinking becomes more psychological projection, and politics; engulfed in subjectivity and the human condition.

Fraser, Andrew wrote:

It is more than likely that the ritual significance of oath-taking in England has an evolutionary basis. In particular, one might expect that men who remained faithful to their oaths and became known as trustworthy individuals consequently enjoyed greater commercial and reproductive success than known perjurers and outlaws. Over generations, that pattern will produce a population characterised by high levels of trust and trustworthiness. Significantly, a stronger disposition to trust strangers is associated with enhanced levels of a hormone known as oxytocin in the body and the brain. Giving experimental subjects a sniff of oxytocin specifically affects their ‘willingness to accept social risks arising through interpersonal interactions.’ Oxytocin is also the key mediator in promoting maternal behaviors and is sometimes termed the ‘hormone of love,’ a tag that must be qualified. Far from being an indiscriminate ‘cuddle chemical,’ oxytocin has been shown to create ‘intergroup bias’ by motivating ‘in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation.’ It seems then that trusting behavior has a biological basis and this suggests, in turn, that ‘the degree of trust could be ratcheted up or down in the course of human evolution by genetic changes that either increased individuals’ natural production of the hormone or enhanced the brain’s response to it.’
If that is true, then it may be that the oath-taking rituals of Anglo-Saxon society co-evolved with increased sensitivity to oxytocin among Anglo-Saxons. Other biochemical mediators and additional psychological and behavioral adaptations are in all probability in play as well. In China, by contrast, the intensely clan-based nature of society did not favor the evolution of trust towards strangers to the same degree; the result may have been a comparatively decreased sensitivity to oxytocin.

How can this be objectively factual if, as many degenerates have told me, it's all subjective and socially engineered?
Either this is not fact, or the degenerates are idiotic, imbeciles nobody should take seriously.

Imagine the idea that natural processes - chemical reactions- can explain behaviours and attitudes, such as bonding and discrimination and allegiance.
I'm appalled by the mere insinuation.
I think I'll involve myself in mocking whoever claims such an 'absurdity', and does not support my subjective delusions - which, by the way, are very popular these days.
If it's one thing I'm sure about it's the 'absolute' truth that popular beliefs, across the ages, were never proven wrong, because every age has its own inter-subjective truths, socially engineered into them.

[1]Objectivity has three components - a triangulate relationship: world/self/goal.

World is dynamic interactive flux, so it is not static, therefore triangulation requires constant adjustment to the world changing circumstances.

******
[2]Self as another triad: ego (lucid part of self)/self (including the subconscious)/Self (genetic information/experiences/data, inherited from your parents).
Will/Nurture/Nature.
Choice/First hand knowledge/understanding (Experiences)/Inherited knowledge/understanding (impulses, intuition, instinct)
We can reduce the triad to a simpler form: Present/Immediate Past/Deep Past, or Nervous System/Mind/Body

Nervous System is the most reactive part of the triad, synthesizing mind/body, or experiences, stored as memory in the brain/dispositions, stored as genetic sequences (DNA).
Free-Will occurs as a conflict between mind, adjusting the nervous system's reactivity by imposing itself upon automated physical dispositions.
Body is automated reactivity evolved over hundreds of thousands of years; mind is immediate reactivity, that can overwrite and overrule the previous;nervous system is where the two merge.
Here is where mind may confuse the body's automatic reactions for an external agency (god, will, order), or for a predetermined fate.
The ego is a small part of what we call 'I', encompassing all three parts of an organism's individuality. Its size makes it insecure and vulnerable - fragile.

Here is where the defensiveness of Nihilism takes root, as the ego begins to awaken to itself, as it relation to otherness (world).
Nihilism being entirely semiotic - language based - suing the nervous system to usurp the body, so as to project itself outside space/time, fabricating alternate realities to replace the world it finds "too much to endure" or "not enough to satisfy" - the juxtaposition is always in reference to the mind's relationship to the world it is interpreting.
Hyper-evaluation or hypo-evaluation of self or of world, establishes the psychological reaction.

******
Goal, as a projected destination (objective), constructed through the interaction of the previous two - determined by which dominates: is it body or mind that is dominant in the synthesis?

Consequences are evaluated in relation to the goal; adjustments are made between mind/body relationships to facilitate the attainment of the desired goal.
Here is where dualities like "good/bad" apply - referring to mind/body balances and how they relate to the objective.  

____________________
Before any of this can begin an evaluation of the objective must take place, establishing its relation to reality itself.
Many people have objectives that are unrealistic, or even pathologically anti-realistic.
Precedence has to be used to evaluate the "reality" of the objective.
A juxtaposition of the objective with the perceived world, in relation to past, is another clarifying triangulation of the objective plausibility.  
There are many reasons why individuals have unrealistic goals....which I've gone into elsewhere.
[3]We may reduce this triad into a more clear form, such as Future(objective/ideal)/Present (world/appearance)/Past (first & second hand experiences - memory).
Once the reality of the objective has been analysed, its realization can proceed using the first triangulation.

Mencken, H.L. wrote:

Woman as Realpolitiker:
Women in general are far too realistic to have any respect for so-called ideas. One seldom hears of them suffering and dying for any of the bogus Great Truths that men believe in.

Common sense does not require any great intellectual feat. Simple animals exhibit a basic degree of common sense. Women feel this intuitively, just as animals may sense what is the correct – most probably accurate – course of action from what is not, without being forced to justify themselves nor having to explain how nor why. Only a man can break the physical with an idealistic leap of faith.
Has not man placed woman on a romantic pedestal demanding, of her, to live up to his expectations; has not women cautiously accepted this pedestal as a way to surpass man, seeking from her idealistic height the pragmatically highest?
Is her disrespect for males not based on this male propensity to idealize out of existence, what is always, and forever, present?

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von wrote:

Human failings are only described by an unloving person; that is why, in order to realize them one has to become unloving oneself, but not more than is strictly the purpose.

An approach towards an indifferent, cold, inhuman, lifeless cosmos, attaining objectivity, demands a mind that can reflect this in itself.
The subjective mind is trapped in its self-serving, emotional distancing, demanding that the cosmos accommodate its needs.

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von wrote:

It takes a special turn of mind to grasp formless reality in its essential nature and to distinguish it from figments of the imagination which, all the same, thrust themselves urgently on our attention with a certain semblance of reality.

What Goethe is telling us is that the mind it is easily trapped in its own contrivances, unable to distinguish their connection to esoteric, emotional grounding.
A fine line between fantasy and imagination. The abstract is where the mind detaches, noetically, from reality, conveniently assuming that its methods are universal truths; a mind comfortably entrapped within its own contraptions, unable and unwilling to even make an attempt to break free, it conveniently assumes that there is no escape – it is a slave of its own subjectivity, that declares all to be similarly enslaved, and freedom, in a uncertain, indifferent, objective world, a myth it has rejected, finding in disbelief its own claim to superiority.

The existence of a shared objective world makes the idea of reaching the same conclusions independently a relationship of individual (subject) existing in a shared world (object).
It is only when objectivity is denied that the idea of agreement being a product of coercion, or seduction, a probability that places it within Marxist ideology.

Spartans could never have established the concept of 'homoioi' - the foundation of their society, without the existence of a shared objective world independent from all subjective interpretations and relationships.
Only then could a man find the truth independent form another and still be in agreement with him.

In Abrahamism and Marxism, the world is a creation of a subjective consciousness, making all agreement a product of a will's dominance over other wills - such as God, or the state etc - or an absolute, making all relationships with it one of a subordinate with an omnipotent/omniscient authority, i.e., parity through weakness.

In the former the individual finds a shared world independently, and relates to this shared world as imperfect being towards imperfection - imperfection indicating the absence of absolutes, i.e., absence of an indivisible, immutable, complete while (singularity).
The spirit is open to the unforeseeable, the uncertain, the fluctuating, where order/chaos participate.
Right-Brained - in accordance with Dr. McGilchrist's psychosomatic contexts. A spirit open to the novel, establishing a respect and worship of the intimate, what is ones own.

The latter, having rejected an objective yet fluid world, can only explain agreement as a product of some kind of imposition, either due to coercion (force, dominance) or seduction (manipulation, exploitation).
There can never be an independently validated world because all is subjective, requiring some form of subjugation or submission - a compromise.
Left-Brained psychology demanding positivity and complete, absolute answers, certainty, finality - abstractions.
The mind is driven to project a faceless absolute authority to evade capitulating to another consciousness - even in the form of a one-god. The relationship with the absolute is an entirely subjective experience that does not require external validation - an esoteric relationship with a vague and absent absolute, in itself.
Shift from an external absolute, provided by others, constituted a revolution in cognition - a rebellion against tangible, physical, corporeal, experienced authorities. The mind could now worship the absolute as an esoteric product of its own making - imagining - projecting - it externally.
Agreement was no longer necessary and inf fact it would indicate a spiritual capitulation to a mediator.
Protestantism.
Tribal projections of the absolute became collective projects identifying a herd that retained its individuality within the collective.
Judaism.
Even the idea of a one-god was often mystified out of existence so as to evade shared experience with the world.
Experience could now be selectively sampled to maintain the individual or collective ideal - absolute.
Individuality becoming a relationship with this shared absolute.

The collective consciousnesses became an allegory for the absolute divine one-consciousness, which could not be independently validated but collectively constructed and maintained.
The individual became a piece of this shared oneness - herd psychology.
Individual 'freedom' became enclosed within the collective psyche - free to relate and roam within the enclosure, but not free to leave it, as there was nothing beyond it.
Humanity became the boundary of the collective will - language its encoded borders representing the extent of individual, power. Expanding power became a process of coercion and seduction - a linguistic project of dominated human consciousness, through individuals.

There was no independently arrived agreement because there was nothing objective - nothing beyond the inter-subjective.
All agreement a product of some form of dominance - Abrahamism/Marxism.
There was no possibility of escape, of freedom, from the collective - all that was left was to become the agency controlling the collective narrative of coercion and seduction.
Power through other - master/slave dynamics. A paradox founded no semiotics, as all paradoxes are by-products of idealism linguistically/symbolically contradicting realism - noumena/phenomena dissonance.

Schizophrenia (mind/body dissonance, i.e. left-hemisphere usurping right-hemisphere control) was somewhat alleviated with the development of Modern Urban environment, encasing the individual psyche within manmade constructs - matrices of human codes.
Logos, in the Abrahamic sense.

Apollo gone mad fabricating a Dionysian dystopia.
Repressed and denied physicality manifesting as hyper-hedonism - degeneracy - over-compensating with Apollonian monstrous idols/icons.

Nihilism's either/or dualities overcompensating for the absence of absolutes - a defence against the implied uncertainties - was extreme asceticism - un-Hellenic asceticism - denial of body, and physical pleasures, producing a reaction where body is worshipped and pleasure established as a certain and absolute 'truth'.
If the singularity was not worshipped and surrendered to then the mind's creations replaced it.
If no one-god then man (humanity) was god, in his place.
If not one then nil.
If not universal morality then no morality, other than one of a collective agreement or the individual's own preferences.
If not a collective Self, then no self, at all.

Judgments are based on juxtapositions.
Sometimes between the immediate and the experienced and stored in memory.

The larger the pool of experiences the more discriminating the judgment.
The more detail, subtlety, can be perceived and stored, the higher quality of judgment.
The more clear the stored memories remains, the more clear, definite, the judgment.
Discrimination is consciousness. Consciousness is discrimination.

Ideologies that attempt to reduce or eliminate discrimination are really attempting to reduce consciousness - reverting to a past, less sophisticated, state of awareness - dumbing-down.

Discriminating means perceiving difference in what appears, to the mediocre, as being the same - as being uniform.
Discrimination is the basis of attraction/repulsion, using knowledge of self as its starting premises - standard - in its rudimentary forms - gradually developing into more objective levels where the judging/discriminating mind takes on the perspective of another - eliminating himself from the final evaluation.

Value = subject/judgment + effort/movement = objective/goal/ideal.

A value is objective in as much as it is realizable - its objective is realistic, and not fantastic, illusory, or imaginary; it is objective in as much as it is accurate - its expectations concerning the attainment of an objective are approaching the realization of its attainment, i.e., the subject has accurately evaluated the positive & negative consequences of the attainment of an objective.

Since objectivity can never be absolute, objectivity is a measure of subjective quality, just as strength is a measure of weakness.

Taste is determined by a subjective relationship with an indifferent, uncertain, world.

Objectivity seeks the common threat, the underlying pattern, what is common across all subjective relationships with the world, s the object/objective of interest.
Organism = organization of multiple organs.
Organ = cellular cooperative.
Personality is determined by organ hierarchies.
Each organ's particular power, and constitution, determines its place on the hierarchy, at any given time.

Taste is determined by the particular requirements of each organ within the hierarchy.
Preference for particular elements is the product of the organ's power and rate of energy consumption, as ell as its health - its constitution.
The sum total of elements determines the type of nutrition the organism prefers - as these participate in the organism being consumed.

How the nutrients are prepared, and presented is determined by the organisms habituation - memetically, in the case of humans, i.e., culturally, socially.
Social hierarchy + organ hierarchy = taste.

Corruptive effects on the organs, e.g., disease, mutations, injury, warp tastes, i.e., preferences - sexual nutritional etc.

Memes/Genes

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

Inter-Subjectivity is an unwritten agreement that each man ought to safely sleep and enjoy his private dreams.
Denial of objectivity is a denial of the waking world; denial of the wold beyond Plato's cave.

Yes, "partial knowledge" is real knowledge - know thyself is not a completion, but a process that is continuous.
no absolutes, meaning no omniscience.
If there is no omniscience this does not make all knowledge equally subjective or equally valid.
Degrees.
Natural selection applies.
Hierarchies: superior/inferior.
Right is Might

I would add that absolute knowledge and understanding, i.e., omniscience, is impossible, for the reasons I've given concerning chaos.

Wrong knowledge, leads to erroneous judgements and then to bad choices.
Natural selection applies when the individual is not protected from the severity of the consequences of bad judgments and choices.
When it is - to the degree that it is - produces atrophying....and you get morons claiming the world is created by the mind, using words, or that gender and race are social constructs, or that there is no free-will.
Idiocy flourishes when it is sheltered by a mediating power, reducing the severity of the negative consequences its own bad judgements and choices produce.

Everything begins and ends with the sensually perceived, which pre-existed man and will continue to exist after man is gone.
All human perceptions are tested within this sensually perceived dynamic world - interactive reality.
It limits and tests all human judgements, expressed as choices - as actions.

Interactions are perceived and processed, evaluated, then becoming interactions founded on these evaluations - value judgements - determining consequences that display a judgements quality, i.e., accuracy.
We always begin with the act - interaction - and proceed from there.
Our inability to comprehend the consequences of our evaluation of an act, does not negate the act.