What is objective?

[crossfire]

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


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.

Interestingly, etymologically, "Object" is related to "opposition," whereas "Subject" is related to "submissive, subdued, under control." The mental factor in being objective is whether you actually can keep the subjective submissive.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

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

I don't know about curious, but yes, objective, is that which exists, even if humans did not. It is reality as it is. As such, objectivity is precisely about negating some of the things you say, but UNDERSTANDING objectively does not negate all these things; e.g. objective is not influenced in any way by the human mind (feeling, opinion, etc.) While objectivity is a subjective talent for separating the influence of the human mind form the focus or subject at hand.

You'll have to be a little clearer if you want me to respond to any of your further comments.

It certainly seems that way . 9,

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

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

 

[godnotgod]

I don't know about curious, but yes, objective, is that which exists, even if humans did not. It is reality as it is. As such, objectivity is precisely about negating some of the things you say, but UNDERSTANDING objectively does not negate all these things; e.g. objective is not influenced in any way by the human mind (feeling, opinion, etc.) While objectivity is a subjective talent for separating the influence of the human mind form the focus or subject at hand.

Nothing can exist 'objectively' without human consciousness in place to see it as such, which means there is a separate observer of the observation. And that is contradictory to 'reality as it is', because there are no separations to reality as it is. Reality as it is, is singular and seamless through and through. There is no separate 'observer' of the observation in 'reality as it is'. Any idea of 'objectivity' is a fabrication, a temporary condition set up by the rational mind as a means of it trying to make sense of something without coloration.

Even science, which is one of the most purportedly 'objective' disciplines, is subject to a little thing called 'paradigm', which ends up shifting the findings of 'objectivity' over time until the next paradigm negates or transforms the current one.

 

[David T]

Interestingly, etymologically, "Object" is related to "opposition," whereas "Subject" is related to "submissive, subdued, under control." The mental factor in being objective is whether you actually can keep the subjective submissive.

yes thank you for that. This is the reason I am moving so slowly on this topic. I originally was trying to head down the direction of Nature being objective, and the individual, or us, or humans, subjective to nature. That structure I think is correct, unfortunately it also becomes teleological if we believe that objective is solely the domain of the human brain. Language isn't a fixed thing and meaning changes with time. Owen Barfield a member of the inklings which was a writers group that got together each week was keenly aware of this and warned against the dangers of reading old historical texts such as the bible because of morphology of language. My sense is that at the time of the New Testament, the conceptualizations of nature and god, and cosmos, was radically different than it is today. It was closer to all the same, rather than literally separate "cogs:" in a machine as they are today.

 

[David T]

I don't know about curious, but yes, objective, is that which exists, even if humans did not. It is reality as it is. As such, objectivity is precisely about negating some of the things you say, but UNDERSTANDING objectively does not negate all these things; e.g. objective is not influenced in any way by the human mind (feeling, opinion, etc.) While objectivity is a subjective talent for separating the influence of the human mind form the focus or subject at hand.

You'll have to be a little clearer if you want me to respond to any of your further comments.
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.

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

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.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
I don't understand the first part. you have contradicted the definition as I posted it earlier. Objective as defined is purely a human mental . You can't have both objectivity as solely a human mental process and that be "reality as it is" without being teleological thus religious.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Its an objectivity thread!

 

[godnotgod]

1. Objective seems to be about NEGATING the influence, feeling, opinion, and consideration of the human mind!

Even after such negation, which is a mental process, what is considered to be 'objective' is determined via thought. So still, one person's negated thought vis a vis another's will differ. The only way for two people to see the same reality is for thought to cease altogether, so the process shifts from thought about reality, to the direct seeing of reality itself. When this occurs, there is no longer an idea of what is 'objective', since that is a concept maintained by thought. One just sees things as they are, rather than how thought imagines them to be. Each person's mind is different, but the consciousness behind all minds is universal, so why would we see a different reality if we are seeing into the nature of things directly, without thinking about what we see?

1. 
   

 

[David T]

Even after such negation, which is a mental process, what is considered to be 'objective' is determined via thought. So still, one person's negated thought vis a vis another's will differ. The only way for two people to see the same reality is for thought to cease altogether, so the process shifts from thought about reality, to the direct seeing of reality itself. When this occurs, there is no longer an idea of what is 'objective', since that is a concept maintained by thought. One just sees things as they are, rather than how thought imagines them to be. Each person's mind is different, but the consciousness behind all minds is universal, so why would we see a different reality if we are seeing into the nature of things directly, without thinking about what we see?

Well yes I understand that experience very well. but in nature there are dependencies and relationships and structure. St Therese said God is big I am little so from that view what determines what is nature as objective us as subjective to that. Unfortunately objective is as defined currently is a human brain function. Btw I am very practiced at thinking like a tree it keeps me sane. Mostly!!!

 

[godnotgod]

Well yes I understand that experience very well. but in nature there are dependencies and relationships and structure. St Therese said God is big I am little so from that view what determines what is nature as objective us as subjective to that. Unfortunately objective is as defined currently is a human brain function. Btw I am very practiced at thinking like a tree it keeps me sane. Mostly!!!

When the thinking mind is transcended, there is no longer 'this and that'; 'observer and observed'; 'subject and object'. The subject/object split is no more. There is not 'the observer' over here, and 'nature' as an object, 'over there'.

 

[David T]

When the thinking mind is transcended, there is no longer 'this and that'; 'observer and observed'; 'subject and object'. The subject/object split is no more. There is not 'the observer' over here, and 'nature' as an object, 'over there'.

Zen is easy! The hard part is remembering... . There is no "trancending" the thinking mind it already believes it is transcendental unto itself. My daughter is a prime example she is naturally Zen she has extreme limitations. A tree is naturally Zen. What I have been alluding to is why that isn't automatic. The thinking aspect of the human brain becomes the locus of its own self reflection and becomes objective, and nature becomes subjective to it. Thats backwards. Yoga in a sense is just classes on reminding city people to remember to breathe. There is nothing that you have written that I am disagreeing with at all. That state of mind you describe is very very basic easy stuff for some. But why is that easy for you, or for me, and not others? It's like Vincent Van Gogh is Zen when he paints, as soon as he stops all nuttiness follows. What's the flip?

 

[Willamena]

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

Rather, it's about contrasting, not negating.

 

[Willamena]

Rather, it's about contrasting, not negating.

'Objective' and 'subjective' are cases, ways to present the world. When we use the objective case, we present a view of the world sans the opinions and rhetoric that permeate common human discourse.

"Just the facts, m'am."

 

[David T]

Rather, it's about contrasting, not negating.

women can't have an opinion on this topic!!! It originally was developed by male German intellectuals to define the scientific methodogy. They all had a very factual clear mind only men can be "objective". Ha ha ha men as being objective now that's funny especially in context to the female!!! Here is a finger nail on the caulk board for ya. Schopenhauer said " women must obey"... What is hilariously true, is he then retorted to that annoying statement " but if a woman can break free from culture, their capacity is infinitely greater than any mans". I find that quote curiously accurate!!! I hope you laughed that was my intent.

 

[godnotgod]

Zen is easy! The hard part is remembering... . There is no "trancending" the thinking mind it already believes it is transcendental unto itself. My daughter is a prime example she is naturally Zen she has extreme limitations. A tree is naturally Zen. What I have been alluding to is why that isn't automatic. The thinking aspect of the human brain becomes the locus of its own self reflection and becomes objective, and nature becomes subjective to it. Thats backwards. Yoga in a sense is just classes on reminding city people to remember to breathe. There is nothing that you have written that I am disagreeing with at all. That state of mind you describe is very very basic easy stuff for some. But why is that easy for you, or for me, and not others? It's like Vincent Van Gogh is Zen when he paints, as soon as he stops all nuttiness follows. What's the flip?

The core of the problem is Identification. Once there is a self called 'I' firmly rooted in consciousness, developed early on, then everything is 'self and other'; 'observer and observed', etc. No one wants to deny the self. Nay, it is touted, instead, ala cogito ergo sum . Man develops the false notion that he is apart from nature; from The Universe, and he is the 'doer', an ego that pushes the world around. He is nothing if he can't 'leave his mark' on the world for posterity. At all costs, the ego must go on, even after death, to some 'deserving' heaven while his inferiors are relegated to some hell to suffer a well-deserved eternity of agony. He may imagine himself sitting in his celestial rocker sipping cappucinos at the edge of Heaven, peering down into the pit of Hell, watching the sinners writhing in agony, only to say: 'they are getting exactly what they deserve!', so powerful is this self-created notion of 'self and other'.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

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.
I don't understand the first part. you have contradicted the definition as I posted it earlier. Objective as defined is purely a human mental . You can't have both objectivity as solely a human mental process and that be "reality as it is" without being teleological thus religious.

Let's try a different avenue. Do you believe their is a reality, an universe, an existence, whether or not the mind exists?

 

[Fire_Monkey]

I dont get warm fuzzy feelings that we understand very well what is objective but we certainly know a Lot and that leads many down the path that knowing a lot is objective. So a bit of an open ended question what is objective?

Objective is that which is not subjective. That is to say, anything that is not subject to the differing views of differing peoples or circumstances or interpretations. If something is Objective it is construed, interpreted, to be the SAME, irregardless of the types of peoples or mindsets who observe it. An objective entity is Universally agreed upon. It is not subject or beholden to bias. It can be proven with the scientific method. Which is the Empirical Method.

 

[David T]

Yes to all I that. My rooted concern is actually environmental. I tend to tell people I am just like john muir. In this part of the country (oregon coast) most understand that. I am writing and have been using this forum to explore peoples thinking so to help my writing. A bit of a science fiction story. South of here (astoria) is the oregon dunes which inspired frank herberts dune.

Objective is that which is not subjective. That is to say, anything that is not subject to the differing views of differing peoples or circumstances or interpretations. If something is Objective it is construed, interpreted, to be the SAME, irregardless of the types of peoples or mindsets who observe it. An objective entity is Universally agreed upon. It is not subject or beholden to bias. It can be proven with the scientific method. Which is the Empirical Method.

That's definition is beholden to what humans think. So it literally can't be objective. That's how i read an earlier defintion as well. My original post was looking at using that word differently than what it is. Who is, A very very subjective defintion of objective!.

 

[David T]

The core of the problem is Identification. Once there is a self called 'I' firmly rooted in consciousness, developed early on, then everything is 'self and other'; 'observer and observed', etc. No one wants to deny the self. Nay, it is touted, instead, ala cogito ergo sum . Man develops the false notion that he is apart from nature; from The Universe, and he is the 'doer', an ego that pushes the world around. He is nothing if he can't 'leave his mark' on the world for posterity. At all costs, the ego must go on, even after death, to some 'deserving' heaven while his inferiors are relegated to some hell to suffer a well-deserved eternity of agony. He may imagine himself sitting in his celestial rocker sipping cappucinos at the edge of Heaven, peering down into the pit of Hell, watching the sinners writhing in agony, only to say: 'they are getting exactly what they deserve!', so powerful is this self-created notion of 'self and other'.

Yes. Well put.. I think, i have gotten what I was looking for from RF. I needed to see how people think with out the prosody of talking. I am Writing an environmental science fiction book. I live on the oregon coast. South of where i live (ASTORIA) there are dunes which were the inspiration of the book series dune by Frank herbert. Across the highway is a park dedicated to the California cobra lilly. A plant that inspired me to start to write a story. Wierd I didn't realize the dune connection till very recent anyway thank you for a moment where someone is more interested in how we think rather than what we think. I enjoyed your musings. Peace

 

[Willamena]

The core of the problem is Identification. Once there is a self called 'I' firmly rooted in consciousness, developed early on, then everything is 'self and other'; 'observer and observed', etc.

But that isn't just training, it's a product of language. In the English language, a verb demands a subject. Quid pro quo.

No one wants to deny the self. Nay, it is touted, instead, ala

cogito ergo sum . Man develops the false notion that he is apart from nature; from The Universe, and he is the 'doer', an ego that pushes the world around. He is nothing if he can't 'leave his mark' on the world for posterity. At all costs, the ego must go on, even after death, to some 'deserving' heaven while his inferiors are relegated to some hell to suffer a well-deserved eternity of agony. He may imagine himself sitting in his celestial rocker sipping cappucinos at the edge of Heaven, peering down into the pit of Hell, watching the sinners writhing in agony, only to say: 'they are getting exactly what they deserve!', so powerful is this self-created notion of 'self and other'.

I don't think Descartes is to blame. Rather, the very nature of English grammar.

 

[Willamena]

Let's try a different avenue. Do you believe their is a reality, an universe, an existence, whether or not the mind exists?

You mean Realism?

Few people in the know support that these days.