Does objective reality exist indepenently of observation? I think that question is unanswerable,...
Your assessment is noted, though I do not share it and not sure how you might arrive at such a conclusion. You do not seem to be questioning the existence of objective reality in and of itself. If you are, please correct me.
If you do accept the existence of objective reality, then by its very definition its existence would be expressly independent of a need or requirement for observation.
but few scientists and only a handful of philosophers even ask it, and most that do would be inclined to declare objective reality as axiomatic, and then declare subjectivity to be a handicap that must be overcome, rather than a reality which itself must be acknowledged.
Perhaps they do not formally ask it because it would be a self-contradictory question as I have illustrated above. If you mean to say few scientists and philosophers ask whether there is such a thing as objective reality, I suppose I agree and would say that it is for good reasons.
I would disagree that most scientists and philosophers declare objective reality as axiomatic. I would argue that they would say objective reality is supported empirically, not simply presumed.
Your comment regarding subjectivity seems personal and reflective of your feelings, but it would be another contradictory statement. If scientists and philosophers are endeavoring to overcome obstacles to discerning objective reality caused by inherent aspects of subjectivity, aren’t they acknowledging the reality of subjectivity itself? The answer would be yes.
Another approach is to acknowledge the inevitable subjectivity of our unique human perspective, and ask how then do form, order, and perception interact without attempting to reduce any one to the other.
Your use of the terms ‘form’ and ‘order’ seem to fit some stylized definitions for a thesis I am not familiar with. I can’t meaningfully comment on this.
Since every view is a view from somewhere, if we want to understand things as they are as far as is humanly possible, don't we have to begin by acknowledging that object, observer, and act of observation are intrinsically and inseperably connected?
Inseparably connected? No, I don’t think so. An individual observer and its personal acts of observation are interdependent of course, but objects are not dependent on an observer.
I think it is important to introduce an acknowledgement of the existence of multiple observers at this point in the conversation. You seem highly focused on the limits of a single individual to accurately observe, yet we are not limited simply to our own personal observations and experiences. This is a significant point regarding our ability to tease out an understanding of objective reality that you have ignored so far.
Any description of an experiment has to include a description of the laboratry in which it is undertaken, and any description of the universe has to include an account of the consciousness which describes it, in order for either to be complete.
We are not separate from nature, though we are alienated from it; this is a function of our limited perception, but it's also a function of ego, which wants to preserve it's hegemony over the psyche. Because of this alienation, which is really a false perception, we try to understand nature, life the universe and everything, as though we were looking at it from the outside. But we are not outside the universe, we are inside it looking out, while at the same time the universe, or all we know of it, is within us. And only by taking a holistic approach to internal and external realities, can we really hope to understand the world and our place in it.
Pretty convoluted metaphor but I think I get what you are trying to convey.
I think I’ll just jump to the last sentence, which I feel I can agree with as I would interpret it from my perspective. You state, “... by taking a holistic approach to internal and external realities, can we really hope to understand the world and our place in it.”
The holistic approach, as I see it, would be a scientific approach, which would acknowledge the subjectivity of any one individual and all the limitations associated with that (the internal reality you reference), and by the same token it also acknowledges that not every individual is subjective in exactly the same way, that we do not express our individual strengths and weakness in the same manner, nor to the same degrees. The inherent differences *between* individuals provide us some leverage in getting beyond the limitations of any one subjective observer (an aspect of the external reality). We can then use this leverage to piece together a more objective view of reality by reconciling many, many subjective observations of the objective world. Of course, a scientific approach greatly expands beyond this simplistic picture.
To sum up, your focus on the limitations of the individual does not fairly represent the full picture of what is at play. I would argue that our ability to get beyond the subjectivity of the individual enables us to establish confidence in the existence of an objective reality, a reality that exists independent of observation.
