What is objective?

[crossfire]

One is passionate because one thinks 'I' is real, the key to the subject/object split. Without 'I' there is no one who experiences passion. So in order to return to oneness with The Absolute Tao (ie; The Secret of Life), one 'strips oneself of passion'; that is to say, abandons the subject/object split.​

​

I agree that one can be passionate regarding the "I" concept, and this can lead to the same trouble that any other like-dislike passion can lead to.

'Everchanging' is what you perceive as real; how it only seems to be, just as the monks perceived wind/flag movement as real, but which turned out to be moving mind. But even moving mind is an illusion. As one other monk put it:

"From brilliancy I came;
to brilliancy I return.
What, then, is all of this?"

I agree that my perceptions are subconsciously processed, and are only a representation of reality, not reality itself. The map is not the territory.

 

[crossfire]

0 is a mathematical symbol. Can 0 be objective? There's nothing there.

Zero is a placeholder. It can designate a starting point, either in space-time or in number.

 

[Ekleipsis]

0 is a mathematical symbol. Can 0 be objective? There's nothing there.

0 is a symbol that happens to be used in mathematics, among other things

It's semiosis is subjective depending upon the context of it's use, in mathematics it is used to represent both quantities and objects

That is objectively true

 

[crossfire]

However, it is he who 'throws away' that is the subject.

There is the representation of reality, which you call 'objectivity', and which is born of mental constructs; then there is reality itself. Why create such representations when you can go direct to reality itself? That is the method of Zen. Objectivity, being a representation, is precisely the subjective overlay. 'I' thinks it has the 'problem' solved when it is "i" that is the very source of the problem itself, but for 'I' to see that is the most difficult task. Having said that, it is not the problem that is 'I' which sees the solution, but consciousness, without 'I'.

The logical mind critiques the illogic of the "I-making" mind. (The ego purifies the id of its innate fallacy.)

To say that one remains objective implies the existence of the subjective.

Having a subjective mind is the hallmark of sentience. (Buddha nature)

You are still in duality here.

You are clinging to the concept of non-dual out of like-dislike here, imo. Clinging to it in and of itself creates duality. Just let it go--grow dispassionate about it.

The solution is for the subjective to merge completely with the objective, because reality itself is neither. Why? Because Reality itself is non-dual, and so is he who thinks he is being objective, when objective is just a fabrication of the discursive mind.

Objectivity is a tool by which to separate unnecessary subjective overlay (passion) onto perceptions, beliefs, and views. Without the discursive mind, then the "I-making" consciousness won't be purified of its innate fallacy.

 

[godnotgod]

Then you are mislabelling this as "The Absolute," as the unborn is the means by which that which is born is discerned. Sounds very relativistic to me.

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.

~Nibbana Sutta ​

You are experiencing a subtle misunderstanding here, in painting The Unborn as relative to that which is born. The Unborn is not the opposite of birth; death is. The Unborn is neither birth nor death as it is non-dual. And so it is said:

"All this world is filled with coming and going (ie 'birth and death');
Show me the path where there is no coming and there is no going"

That path is The Unborn; The Changeless; The Absolute. It is Being, but not existence.

The key here is that The Unborn is awakened consciousness where there is no Time or Space, and because there is no Time or Space in The Unborn, nothing ever changes, since all change must occur in Time and Space. IOW, and as Buddhism sees it, birth and death are illusions, and as such, cannot be compared in any relative manner to The Absolute. 'Only Brahman is real', even though Brahman is playing itself as the world via lila and maya. It is Brahman that is pretending to be born and die as all the myriad creatures; as planets, stars, and galaxies; trees, rocks, and oceans in a seemingly eternal game of Hide and Seek with itself, when in reality, Brahman; The Absolute; The Unborn; Tao; The Changeless, etc., has not moved a single inch! That is maya, which causes the monks to think they see the flag waving in the wind.

The Big Bang, completely maya in nature, was/is an ongoing event in Consciousness, and the only way to understand this is to awaken from the dream of maya, and not to fool oneself into fabricating conceptual representations of reality it calls 'objectivity', which only leads one further astray into what the Buddha rightly termed 'a thicket of views', borne out by the current crop of scientific 'theories' of origins of The Universe, the very reason why the Buddha discouraged such inquiries, and instead advised his listeners to focus on the problem of and solution to their immediate suffering. This he illustrated in The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow:

The sutta begins at Jetavana where the monk Malunkyaputta is troubled by Gautama Buddha's silence on the fourteen unanswerable questions, which include queries about the nature of the cosmos and life after the death of a Buddha. Malunkyaputta then meets with Gautama Buddha and asks him for the answers to these questions, he says that if he fails to respond, Malunkya will renounce his teachings. Gautama responds by first stating that he never promised to reveal ultimate metaphysical truths such as those and then uses the story of a man who has been shot with a poisoned arrow to illustrate that those questions are irrelevant to his teachings.

"It's just as if a man were [fatally] wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him."


Parable of the Poisoned Arrow - Wikipedia

 

[godnotgod]

0 is a symbol that happens to be used in mathematics, among other things

It's semiosis is subjective depending upon the context of it's use, in mathematics it is used to represent both quantities and objects

That is objectively true

The problem which develops, however, is that 0 is then seen in terms of a subject/object; observer/observed split, where no such split actually exists.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Oh? Show me where you were ever separated from The Universe.

Perhaps the convolution is only in your brain, heh heh.

Why would I care to show you my experiences separated form the universe? First, I never claimed to have such an experience, second, it's none of your business!

You seem to be claiming you've had such experiences? Or at least belive they are possible?

Objective is the object! That which exists. Subjective if the subject, that which is pondered by the mind. Have nice notgod day!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Functional, in such discussions there is no expert!! Ok here we go :
ob·jec·tiv·i·ty
ˌäbjekˈtivədē/
noun

1. the quality of being objective.
   "the piece lacked any objectivity"
   synonyms: impartiality, absence/lack of bias, absence/lack of prejudice, fairness, fair-mindedness, neutrality, evenhandedness, justice, open-mindedness, disinterest, detachment, dispassion, neutrality
   "the quest for total objectivity is unrealistic"

ob·jec·tiv·i·ty
ˌäbjekˈtivədē/
noun

1. the quality of being objective.
   "the piece lacked any objectivity"
   synonyms: impartiality, absence/lack of bias,absence/lack of prejudice, fairness,fair-mindedness, neutrality,evenhandedness, justice, open-mindedness, disinterest, detachment,dispassion, neutrality
   "the quest for total objectivity is unrealistic"

So curiously both seem to be all about human perceptions. Of the two which works more accurately in context to nature itself. Does nature have an objectivity view or is nature objective into itself objective. If you say neither then is it subject subjective? To what? Btw this is not written as an argument or agenda I am curious of perceptions I prefer dialog to dialec.

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.[/quote]So curiously! Objective seems to be about NEGATING the influence, feeling, opinion, and consideration of the human mind! Let us continue this dialog!

 

[godnotgod]

You are clinging to the concept of non-dual out of like-dislike here, imo. Clinging to it in and of itself creates duality.

I only point it out every time I see you immersed in it.

 

[crossfire]

I only point it out every time I see you immersed in it.

I'm immersed in passion? Should I make my avatar's skin red to reflect this?

Kurukulle with her bow and arrow?

 

[godnotgod]

I'm immersed in passion? Should I make my avatar's skin red to reflect this?

Kurukulle with her bow and arrow?

No, immersed in duality.

 

[crossfire]

No, immersed in duality.

Kurukulle is non-dual. I may have to work Diana with her bow and arrow into it to reflect some duality.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Why not just drop all personal subjective interpretations altogether so we can gain access to what you call 'independent objective reality',

Let's consider this.

which is non-existent, [/quotesays you

as it posits a reality apart from the observer, which is not possible. [em so you are syaing there is no such thing and an observerd universe, independent of [There is no such 'independent objective reality' 'out there'. The mind makes things up, and then attempts to match reality to what it dreams up as concept. Let's drop 'mind' and simply see directly into the true nature of Reality itself, instead of going through all sorts of mental acrobatics ala subject/object split, which means nothing.[/QUOTE]

 

[crossfire]

No, immersed in duality.

Kurukulle is non-dual. I may have to work Diana with her bow and arrow into it to reflect some duality.

How's this avatar? Kurukulle-Diana.

 

[godnotgod]

How's this avatar? Kurukulle-Diana.

She's quite lovely. I do prefer a scarlet red, myself, as it denotes a lighter mirthfulness.

 

[crossfire]

Mathematics

Well, mathematics has got to be one of the most well developed systems of describing relativistic relationships.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

It was over your head.

How convenient! Summarily dismiss.

Understand, descriptions of nature are not nature.

Dur dur dur! No duh! A description of nature, is a model of nature. As opposed to what? Becoming one with nature? Good luck with that!

BS. You (and your ilk) want reality to conform to your silly models, rather than understanding reality first which puts facts and data in the correct context. You've got the cart ahead of the horse.

My ilk? Again putting words in my mouth which you have no basis for applying to me. You're projecting on to me some of your own obvious phobias, not anything I said can justify the words you are putting in my mouth.

I never said something was wrong with science's ability to describe and predict, nor that it is not the path of knowledge. I said it will not yield to us what the nature of Reality actually is.

Mental models take us even further away from any possible 'independent objectivity'. The true knowing of 'That' is to become completely one with That, as the drop of water merges completely with the vast ocean. The reality of any 'independent objectivity' is that it is only a mental construct, superimposed over Reality, and then made out to be an absolute.

Actually, I’m not sure what you said. But I know you stated metal models, which is what science is, takes us further form any possible objectivity. Then you turn around and say objectivity is only a mental construct.


The whole purpose of this thread was to ask if I’m somehow misinterpreting this as a person contradicting himself in less than two complete sentences. I’m not reading any more of your posts until you respond to this particular issue!

The spiritual experience is not about explaining the universe nor about making predictions about its behavior. It is about seeing things as they are, in the immediate present.





Your not so much missing something as having too much baggage in the way.




You don't need to get silly.

Here's one from Vivekenanda, a Vedantic mystic:


"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"


(hint: turn off thinking and just SEE)




Look, if you want practicality, prediction, and utility, then seek science and technology, which provide descriptions and explanations about the mechanics of things. But if you want to know what the true nature of things actually is, then you must put science aside, and seek another kind of knowledge. The Universe is not some kind of machine, but a living conscious activity. You cannot see that because for you and your rational mind, The Universe is a mere object of your mind, and as such, is dead matter. Your method is to dissect, reduce, classify and ultimately kill and control, putting the dead things of objectivity in nice neat little boxes with pins through them or in a jar of formaldehyde. That makes you think you've got something, but it only leads you to wanting more and more things to control and kill. You daily amass more and more data and facts, thinking this leads to great knowledge, but to date, science is still as baffled as ever about what the Universe actually is, especially in the area of the sub-atomic, as they now find that the smaller and smaller things become, the more elusive they become until there is no more 'matter' at all.

RUIBISH! The universe IS a machine, it behaves perfectly according to natural laws. If you want me to consider that the universe is a living, conscious acitivity, then

1) Define living.

2) Define conscious

3) What the heck do you mean by ‘the universe is….activity?

You seek knowledge because of insecurity; because you think you are lacking something.

Again, projecting on to me that which you have no reason whatsoever to do! Did you read what you wrote?


Someone (you) seeks knowledge because of insecurity. That is an idiotic statement. To think that you know that I think I’m lacking something is the height of hubris!

I do not 'seek spirits' for contact. I only seek Awakening. Of course, the question must then be asked: 'who is it that seeks awakening'? But for you, the question I would ask is: 'who is it that seeks knowledge'? If you can answer that question, then you might begin to get a glimpse of of a world you have never seen before, but which has been right under your very nose all the while.

Em, oh, that’s a hard one! Who is it that seeks knowledge? Oh my goodness; Em, someone who has a curious, and rational mind!

 

[godnotgod]

How convenient! Summarily dismiss.

Achtung! (sound of heels clicking)

Dur dur dur! No duh! A description of nature, is a model of nature. As opposed to what? Becoming one with nature? Good luck with that!

Models and descriptions of nature are not nature, but you think so, don't you? Yes, duh! Of course you do, and that's why you see it as a machine. Ya, and maybe people are just machines too, things that are exploitable and ultimately expendable. Did you know that the US Army sees its soldiers in the same way it sees its weaponry? Just so much ordnance and property.

I stand corrected: No, cannot 'become one with nature', since even you are already one with nature...kinda. Just gotta lop off a few square corners, heh, heh....

My ilk? Again putting words in my mouth which you have no basis for applying to me. You're projecting on to me some of your own obvious phobias, not anything I said can justify the words you are putting in my mouth.

Yes, your ilk, and no, no need to put words in your mouth as your own are sufficiently telltale.

Actually, I’m not sure what you said. But I know you stated metal models, which is what science is, takes us further form any possible objectivity. Then you turn around and say objectivity is only a mental construct.

hint: what has occurred in drilling down to the sub-atomic levels with objectivity in mind, only to come up empty-handed as far as finding anything of a material substance is concerned? And why is it that a significant number of physicists have jumped the materialist paradigm ship over to the world of the mystic, where the smart money is?

RUIBISH! The universe IS a machine, it behaves perfectly according to natural laws.

Ah, your problem is becoming clearer by the minute. Machines don't behave according to natural laws, but to mechanical laws, and besides, were you even aware that science inherited the notion that the Universe is governed by 'laws' from the theists? That the Universe is a machine is another fantasy your overactive 'objective' mind has indulged itself in, in which it has erroneously dreamed up the idea that the Universe can somehow be an object. It cannot. No one stands outside of the Universe as a separate observer.

BTW, that's 'rubbish' and not 'ruibish'.

What the heck do you mean by ‘the universe is….activity?

If you don't know, you're probably beyond help.

Again, projecting on to me that which you have no reason whatsoever to do! Did you read what you wrote?

Someone (you) seeks knowledge because of insecurity. That is an idiotic statement. To think that you know that I think I’m lacking something is the height of hubris!

Ya, insecure. Now go to your room, or better yet, go to Gulags.

Em, oh, that’s a hard one! Who is it that seeks knowledge? Oh my goodness; Em, someone who has a curious, and rational mind!

Oh? And who (or what) might that be? Any clues?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I guess ignore is an option!

 

[David T]

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

1. So curiously! Objective seems to be about NEGATING the influence, feeling, opinion, and consideration of the human mind! Let us continue this dialog!

[/QUOTE]
It certainly seems that way . 9,

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

1. So curiously! Objective seems to be about NEGATING the influence, feeling, opinion, and consideration of the human mind! Let us continue this dialog!

[/QUOTE]
I am super slow at responding here on this one simply because of the nature of the words. When I asked the question in this thread, I used it in context to nature. In relationship to how the words are defined, either objective or objectivity, both seem to say they are a solely a function of the human mind. So my usage is not correct in context to say webster's or collective understanding.

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

1. So curiously! Objective seems to be about NEGATING the influence, feeling, opinion, and consideration of the human mind! Let us continue this dialog!

[/QUOTE]
I am moving really slowly on this conversation. I originally posted "what is objective?" which you forced me to go back and read the definitions between objectivity and objective. Both appear to be a reductive definition of solely human mental processes. Which leads to the question are the definitions objective, or objectively arrived at? If that is true we have a closed loops recursion, thus false. if not true, then objective literally itself is subjective to something else, and thus is also not true in some larger way than it's literal term.