The Objective Reality of the room is still that there is something, regardless of perception. Even that to which we are ignorant exists in Objective Reality, regardless of our perception or inability to perceive.
The problem continues as I've been trying to illustrate in my examples of perception, that to have an object you must have a subject. To be an object, it must be perceived. To be an absolute Object, you must have an absolute Subject. Objective Reality is only valid if you have Subjective Reality. And that absolute Subject is God. This is the question of, if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? The answer is yes, to God. Because God is the absolute, Subject, absolute Perception. God knows what sound is, because God sees through all eyes. The sound of the tree falling is relative to human (or animal) experiences, but it is not to an atom. To an atom the tree does not exist, let alone fall or make a sound. None of those exist in its reality, and is therefore not absolute to it. It is an atom, and absolute Objective Reality to an atom does not include anything to do with human reality. The problem with calling it Objective Reality is because it subtly privileges human subjectivity, assuming what we perceive exists
as we see it independent to us. That's my objection. It sneaks our relative perception into the absolute position.
If you remove all subjects, then all manifest reality ceases to exist. Subjectivity is simply individual, or collective perceptions, and objects only exist in relation to that. That perception of the "other" exists all the way down and all the way up manifest reality, from the string to the human mind, to the mind of God or Cosmic Consciousness. What you should be saying is not that "Objective Reality" exists, which implies that there is no subjects, but rather
manifest reality exists. And that manifest reality includes all subjective reality. What is the core problem of "Objective Reality" as an idea, is that it is a Flatland reality, that has no dimension of interiority. It's like sucking the life out of human being and pointing to its corpse laying on the floor and saying that is a human. It is, only in the exterior form, the "object", but not the person themselves. "Objective Reality", sucks the Subject out of Reality, and is nothing but a corpse, relatively speaking. The human does not exist without the subject within the form, and Reality does not exist without the Subject within all form. Manifest reality is not "other" to us.
(Oh, how to speak of the nondual in dualist language.
)
I'm not sure I follow about Atoms being part of our mental contructs... Atoms exists. We have discovered atoms. Regardless of our ignorance or inability to perceive them in some way, they are what they are, plus or minus our interpretation of them.
You see? You are seeing atoms as other to us. We are atoms!
We are molecules. We are cells. We are bodies. We are brains. We are minds. We are souls. We are spirit. We are the Divine. We divorce ourselves from ourselves along the line and forget who we are, but in our material constructs, an in our interior Ground.
Now just pause for a moment and let this open the eyes. I am 14.5 billion years of evolution walking, and talking, breathing, and perceiving, loving and enjoying, giving and receiving, thinking and sharing, and typing to you across the expanse of time and space, to you who are the same as me. We are that Reality itself in our being and our bodies in this moment and in the next, until our bodies fade and we continue as That which underlies all of the manifest reality which is our body. I am not separate from the atom as I observe it. I am observing my body, from the eyes of God. All Objective Reality is, is God looking at his own body. It is a 3rd person perspective of a 1st person Reality.
Now, I see a hole in that argument for the existence of things that we would currently consider to be supernatural. But I will contest that until we have evidence for that which we do not know we cannot merely assume that it exists.
I don't disagree with this, but I will say there are different types of evidence that are valid which don't involve taking measurements which requires some physical attributes. You can't measure the depths of love and the knowledge from experience by doing an MRI of the brain. You can only measure a change in the physiology of the experiencer, not leaning the content of the experience without the individual sharing it with you. Their experience is evidence. It is evidence because it is not an idea or a speculation about a thing, it is actually engaging in the experience and collecting data.
So that said, when the mystic speaks of the Unity of all things, when he speaks of the Mind of God or Christ Consciousness, when he speaks of Omniscience, he is not speaking in speculative metaphysics, things from which he has no evidence but proposes as a solution to model reality by. He is rather speaking of direct experience, in the lab, so to speak. These are no longer "supernatural" realities beyond our realities, the realm of mythic gods and goddesses, but tangible, actual perceptual realities, changing the eyes of the beholder to see reality in a far, far larger context than merely "through a glass darkly", through the narrow lens of our eyes of reason and logic. It is not "supernatural", but entirely Natural. The evidence for this is to have the experience. The conformation of this is to confer with others who have done the experiment and compare your findings. How well do the descriptions of what they found when they surveyed the land match with the maps you've created in exploring the same terrain? That's how this works.
It would be nothing more than conjecture and guess to assume the existence of those things which we are ignorant of, wouldn't it, since ignorance by definition render us incapable of guessing accurately.
I agree. One must go exploring, sail the ship out there and see, rather than endlessly speculating and debating from shore over the existence of this rumored land using nothing but the current tools of reason and logic.
Experience is data that trumps mere arguments both pro and con.
Well, there must be an Objective sense to the Absolute by definition, at least as I'm using the world Objective. (I think what you call Absolute I call Objective Reality...)
As I've mentioned before, every matter of subjectivity exist within the framework of Objective Reality, but subjective realities are not Objectively real. There is no breakdown that works which can elevate any level of subjectivity to the level of Objectivity.
I see what you are trying to do, but again, you cannot exclude the subject from the object. What you are really trying to say, I believe, is that you can't "trust" subjective experience of an "objective", point of view. Correct?
For point of terms, to continue this stream I'm trying to create here, 'objectivity' is really nothing other than a subjective conformation by others. If others look at the same thing and see what you do, it is no longer merely just your own perception, but the perception of others. Therefore, it is "outside" of you, it is "objective" in that others confirm your perception. Correct? That's how it works. Now, you can add tools of conformation to that list, such as making measurements others can perform as well, but it still follows the same pattern; others confirming your point of view with their own interpretations of their own experiences.
As is pretty well known these days this itself is fraught with problems. No group anywhere can be truly non-subjective in interpretation as groups share the same sort of overarching interpretive frameworks, using the same paradigms, that will basically influence all collection and interpretation of data a certain direction. Even if you get rid of linguist and cultural influences by using the language of mathematics, it's still how one interprets what is found within how one perceives, as a human with a certain culture of scientific paradigms. There is no true, pure objective reality outside the individual that can be known by excluding the subjects. There are only subjective interpretations of it, individually or collectively (the so-called objective truth of the thing).
The best we can do as humans is to expand our understandings of Reality. And to me, logically and experientially speaking, it has to, absolutely include the exploration and knowledge of the subjective, strengthening and growing how we perceive, not trying to make it go away, not trying to gut it out and end up with some imagined Pure Truth that exists in some Pure Form outside of ourselves. The end result of this mentality is a Dead Reality, a Corpse with no interior, and that does not quality as Reality.
From the way I'm reading you, I feel as if your analogy would make every level of subjectivity on par with the Objective, which is by definition impossible.
No, not quite. I think having a perception of reality that includes others expands our own understanding of Reality. Being an island isolated and alone, is in fact not prefered. But the explorer most often must not simply buy into the collective consciousness and set out of a path of discovery own his own. He should check with others who have explored the same terrain for his confirmation to check his results, and not be too terribly concerned with those who sit in behind their desks claiming that it is impossible there this "supernatural" land on the other side of the ocean because the world is flat. Unless they sail the ship out there and touch foot on the shore themselves, they are not qualified to make pronouncements about it.
I don't see any reason, outside of subjectivity, to accept that there is a duality, which is why I argue that there is only Objective Reality. Nothing else.
Your "Objective Reality", is a duality, because you are saying it is "this and not that", "one, and not the other". It is in effect Monism, which is itself a subtle duality. You say the subjective is false, and therefore only the objective is real. But you say so from the subjective point of view!
What you should be after is Nonduality, which is not the same as Moism, or "Not-Duality". I can get into this in more detail as it comes up or you wish further explanation. I'm going to stop here as my fingers need a break.
I enjoy this discussion with you.
