What is objective?

[crossfire]

What is constantly true is that all phenomena lacks inherent self-nature.

What is never the case is that phenomena does possess inherent self-nature.

I'm not disputing this.

 

[crossfire]

Exactly the opposite! What do you think all the gurus mean by 'no moving mind'?

Consider the following:

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

"Now Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we [think we] see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

The Equations of Maya

I disagree. I see "Absolute" as a highly unstable state. (Please pardon my Taoist leanings.)

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

You cannot talk about some 'independent object' apart from your awareness of it, even if such 'object' is thought to exist in some other time or place.

Who said you could? In fact I said you cannot interpret object without going through subject. Did you bother to read?

Actually, Quantum Physics is showing us that what you call 'objects' do not actually exist, since the foundation of such 'objects' are particles, and all particles in the Universe are standing waves, creating a virtual reality.

References? Is QP showing us, suggesting to us, predicting to us, proving to us? What does 'showing' mean in your phrase, and what references do you have for this claim?

Standing Waves

When two or more complementary traveling waves of space interact, they form a standing wave. Standing waves are stationary or standing vibrations that travel in a cyclical path within a confined region.

Complementary traveling waves vibrate at frequencies that are equal to or multiples of one another. As space quanta in a standing wave compress and rebound, each one’s period of compression or density, fills the other’s rarity, the period of rebound. Vibrating space quanta in a standing wave follow the path of least resistance. The result of this interaction is mass; a particle.

Wow! you must be thinking of a conversation with someone else. I never mentioned or heard you mention anything about waves and all o a sudden a, flop of a, thesis about waves?

All known elementary particles are standing waves of space.

References?

The energy forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear interactions are also standing wave patterns.

References?

Mass

In its fundamental state, matter, or mass, is a standing wave. Mass is vibrating space quanta locked in ongoing interaction./quote]References?

Each of the 12 elementary particles, six quarks and six leptons, comprises a standing wave of a specific frequency and wavelength. The individual motions of their component traveling waves result in each particle’s unique, vibrational signature.

References?

Elementary particles interact with complementary particles to form new systems, including protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, simple and complex molecules, organisms, eco-systems, planetary systems, stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, and super-clusters./quote]References?

standing waves | Quantum Wave Theory

It’s confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

You're definition of confirmed? As a scientist I'm aware of theory being consistent with or not consistent with theory.

In all honesty it is very difficult to determine if you adhere to standard of truth A (observation) or standard of truth B (authority). The worlds coming out of your type imply you adhere to observational, confirmable facts. Yet your utter failure to provide a single reference, other than a poorly written and completely irrelevant single one, which provides ZERO references itself, would indicate that you somehow expect me to take your word as gospel based on your authority alone.

All of your fancy fabrications, backed up by less than 750 words, without a single reference, hardly constitutes brilliance. And certainly doesn't justify you calling me an alcoholic!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

It's quite simple, actually.

I originally stated that The true knowing of 'That' is to become completely one with That*, but 'becoming one with That' is an illusion, as we have never been separated from 'That' to begin with, 'That', being Everything that is, or 'The Universe'.

*subject/object split merges as a single Reality

Simple, lol, Convoluted for sure!

 

[godnotgod]

I disagree. I see "Absolute" as a highly unstable state. (Please pardon my Taoist leanings.)

I will, if you will pardon one translation of the Tao te Ching itself:

The Tao that can be told of
Is not the Absolute Tao;
The Names that can be given
Are not Absolute Names.

The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
The Named is the Mother of All Things.

Therefore:
Oftentimes, one strips oneself of passion
In order to see the Secret of Life;
Oftentimes, one regards life with passion,
In order to see its manifest forms.

These two (the Secret and its manifestations)
Are (in their nature) the same;
They are given different names
When they become manifest.

They may both be called the Cosmic Mystery:
Reaching from the Mystery into the Deeper Mystery
Is the Gate to the Secret of All Life.

Translated by Lin Yutang (1942)

Lao Tzu: "Tao Te Ching" (170+ translations of Chapter 1)

The Secret is The Absolute; the manifestations (ie the foreground) are the relative tao that can be spoken of and in constant flux, which you are focused upon. You need to go in deeper yet.

(you still exhibit 'moving mind', ie 'taoist leanings'. do not lean to the left nor to the right. just be perfectly still; then you will see)

1st observer: 'the flag is moving'
2nd observer: 'no, the wind is moving'
3rd observer: 'both wrong! flag and wind both are moving!'
passerby: 'all wrong! your MINDS are moving!'

Zen source

 

[godnotgod]

Simple, lol, Convoluted for sure!

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

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

 

[David T]

Only another uneducated understanding follows. (I presume you mean objectivity, rather than objective.)

Objectivity; assumes there is a reality which is real, which is what it is regardless of any I/O from any sentient being.
Objectivity; presumes that it is possible to describe this objective reality using natural laws and generalizations with are either always correct, or in need of and able to be corrected, through observation. (Object; Observe)

However; the human mind (vastly superior, I would argue, to the mind of a squirrel) is entirely Subjective. Nothing can be observed (meaning seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched) without being interpreted by the human mind. I.e. Subjectivity presumes there is no thought independent of I/O into the human mind.

The dichotomy is thus, there is an objective reality independent of any I/O, and there is no understanding NOT dependent on I/O and personal (subjective) interpretation!

Objectivity is, thus, the struggle to match our personal, subjective, interpretations, as closely as possible to the independent, objective, reality.

Note that those who do not believe the universe is not a reality that is basically as it appears and operates by generalized physical laws, are not capable of understanding what objective even means, much less of thinking objectively.

We have the greatest success of matching our subjective images with objective reality when we construct mental models of reality. They are ever perfect, so knowledge is never perfect. The simplest example of a model is a map. Models have two components, the actual parts, and the relationship between the parts. Housing (a part) is located at 29.7604° N, 95.3698° W (a relationship) from the north pole (a part) and the prime meridian (another part).

Objectivity is the ability to evaluate models and analyise them based on their 1) usefulness to the individual or mankind 2) their ability to give the best possible congruence with objective reality 3) and the willingness to change, improve, and better the model based on new information.

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.

 

[crossfire]

I will, if you will pardon one translation of the Tao te Ching itself:

The Tao that can be told of
Is not the Absolute Tao;
The Names that can be given
Are not Absolute Names.

The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
The Named is the Mother of All Things.

Therefore:
Oftentimes, one strips oneself of passion
In order to see the Secret of Life;
Oftentimes, one regards life with passion,
In order to see its manifest forms.

These two (the Secret and its manifestations)
Are (in their nature) the same;
They are given different names
When they become manifest.

They may both be called the Cosmic Mystery:
Reaching from the Mystery into the Deeper Mystery
Is the Gate to the Secret of All Life.

Translated by Lin Yutang (1942)

Lao Tzu: "Tao Te Ching" (170+ translations of Chapter 1)

I think this demonstrates the instability of "Absolute" quite well! It is also very much in line with the Madhyamaka-Prasangika school of philosophy.

The Secret is The Absolute; the manifestations (ie the foreground) are the relative tao that can be spoken of and in constant flux, which you are focused upon.

And by naming "The Absolute," you are giving in to dualistic passion (like-dislike) and flipping the Un-named to the Named. (More evidence of the instability of the so-called "Absolute.") The only constant is Change.

You need to go in deeper yet.

Has it occurred to you that you need to be still and actually listen to what I'm saying? The obsession you have with "Consciousness-awareness" and the fact that you can't seem to stop talking about it seems to fall into the "passion/desire/personal" basket rather than the "passionless/desireless/impersonal" basket. {These are only my observations, however.}

(you still exhibit 'moving mind', ie 'taoist leanings'. do not lean to the left nor to the right. just be perfectly still; then you will see)

1st observer: 'the flag is moving'
2nd observer: 'no, the wind is moving'
3rd observer: 'both wrong! flag and wind both are moving!'
passerby: 'all wrong! your MINDS are moving!'

Zen source

I don't disagree with the flag koan.

 

[crossfire]

But for you to know that, you must be in a state of awareness that is unchanging. Otherwise, you would not be able to discern change. Remember Suzuki's statement about everything going out of balance against a background of perfect harmony.

The sutta you quoted said that consciousness (ie 'mind') is impermanent and unsatisfactory. To be able to realize and state that observation, the Buddha would necessarily have to be in a state of awareness that is permanent and satisfactory. If that is the case, then this permanent state of awareness must not be changing; it must be a changeless state. What is it?

I think this demonstrates the instability of "Absolute" quite well! It is also very much in line with the Madhyamaka-Prasangika school of philosophy.


And by naming "The Absolute," you are giving in to dualistic passion (like-dislike) and flipping the Un-named to the Named. (More evidence of the instability of the so-called "Absolute.") The only constant is Change.

Has it occurred to you that you need to be still and actually listen to what I'm saying? The obsession you have with "Consciousness-awareness" and the fact that you can't seem to stop talking about it seems to fall into the "passion/desire/personal" basket rather than the "passionless/desireless/impersonal" basket. {These are only my observations, however.}

I don't disagree with the flag koan.

!! Have you found "the emptiness of emptiness" yet? !!

 

[godnotgod]

!! Have you found "the emptiness of emptiness" yet? !!

Who is it that exists to grasp at emptiness? It is emptiness grasping at emptiness. The Heart Sutra tells us that even Sunyata itself is empty of self nature. Our true nature is that we are none other than the Indestructible Sunyata itself. Absolute Emptiness which is Nothingness, is the fundamental reality, and it is because and out of Nothingness, that Everything comes into existence.

You, who are Emptiness, are asking if I, who am Emptiness, has found the emptiness of emptiness? We, who are Emptiness, are playing Hide and Seek, yes? Sunyata is hiding within all it's manifested forms we call 'the world', while pretending it is not Sunyata. Compelling, to say the least.

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.”

Kalu Rinpoche

 

[godnotgod]

I think this demonstrates the instability of "Absolute" quite well! .

'Instability' as it compares to what? If The Absolute can be compared, then it cannot be absolute; it must be relative. You are trying to make The Absolute into a relative value, which tells me you are still operating within the realm of duality.

And by naming "The Absolute," you are giving in to dualistic passion (like-dislike) and flipping the Un-named to the Named. (More evidence of the instability of the so-called "Absolute.") The only constant is Change.

'The Absolute' refers to the nature of Reality, not to its description. For you to be able to make the statement that 'the only constant is change' means that it is being stated against the background of not-change, which is The Absolute. All perceived 'change' is illusory, which you agreed is the case, referring to your agreement with the moving flag koan.

Has it occurred to you that you need to be still and actually listen to what I'm saying? The obsession you have with "Consciousness-awareness" and the fact that you can't seem to stop talking about it seems to fall into the "passion/desire/personal" basket rather than the "passionless/desireless/impersonal" basket. {These are only my observations, however.}

Was the Buddha obsessed with talking about the transformation of consciousness required to solve the problem of suffering?

I don't disagree with the flag koan.

In that case, then you agree that all perceived change is illusory, which means that the fundamental reality is The Changeless. Story end.

 

[godnotgod]

Objectivity is, thus, the struggle to match our personal, subjective, interpretations, as closely as possible to the independent, objective, reality.

Why not just drop all personal subjective interpretations altogether so we can gain access to what you call 'independent objective reality', which is non-existent, as it posits a reality apart from the observer, which is not possible. 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.

 

[crossfire]

I don't disagree with the flag koan.

In that case, then you agree that all perceived change is illusory, which means that the fundamental reality is The Changeless. Story end.

No, your mind is moving because you are observing and thinking about it. Koans are especially designed to do that. Be still. Mu. (Interesting tangent regarding mu waves and movement.)

'Instability' as it compares to what? If The Absolute can be compared, then it cannot be absolute; it must be relative. You are trying to make The Absolute into a relative value, which tells me you are still operating within the realm of duality.

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 ​

'The Absolute' refers to the nature of Reality, not to its description. For you to be able to make the statement that 'the only constant is change' means that it is being stated against the background of not-change, which is The Absolute. All perceived 'change' is illusory, which you agreed is the case, referring to your agreement with the moving flag koan.

Back to the Tao Te Ching:

The Tao that can be told of
Is not the Absolute Tao;
The Names that can be given
Are not Absolute Names.

The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
The Named is the Mother of All Things.​

The "background" "changes/becomes" when you name it. This is why it is negatively discerned by not this, not that (neti neti,) by which it remains un-named, which retains the mystery. When you name it, you destroy the mystery and it propagates/changes, creating a "thicket of views" as described by Buddha in the Sabbasava Sutta. (Also see Undeclared-connected: Avyakata Samyutta.) Therefore, if you want to maintain objectivity, you can't name it, but can only approach it via extinguishing the desire to name it.

Was the Buddha obsessed with talking about the transformation of consciousness required to solve the problem of suffering?

Buddha didn't teach the undeclared for a reason! Doing so would create a thicket of views that would get in the way!
The Simsapa Leaves

 

[godnotgod]

No, your mind is moving because you are observing and thinking about it. Koans are especially designed to do that. Be still. Mu. (Interesting tangent regarding mu waves and movement.)

There is no such mind that moves, nor anyone who is observing and thinking. That is the point.

Back to the Tao Te Ching:

The Tao that can be told of
Is not the Absolute Tao;
The Names that can be given
Are not Absolute Names.

The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
The Named is the Mother of All Things.​

The "background" "changes/becomes" when you name it. This is why it is negatively discerned by not this, not that (neti neti,) by which it remains un-named, which retains the mystery. When you name it, you destroy the mystery and it propagates/changes, creating a "thicket of views" as described by Buddha in the Sabbasava Sutta. (Also see Undeclared-connected: Avyakata Samyutta.) Therefore, if you want to maintain objectivity, you can't name it, but can only approach it via extinguishing the desire to name it.

Naming itself changes nothing; it is how naming The Absolute is understood that 'changes' the meaning in the perceiver's mind. IOW, it is encapsulating the infinite into a finite concept. But that is besides the point, which is that here we have a translation by a Chinese author pointing to The Absolute Tao, which is real, but when attempts are mad to try to explain it or encapsulate it in some finite concept, then it is seen as not being The Absolute Tao, which itself is changeless.

Maintaining 'objectivity' in a subject/object split is not the goal; oneness with Tao is. The subject/object split is the problem of duality one wishes to solve.

How do you, via your understanding of Taoism, see the material world?

 

[crossfire]

Naming itself changes nothing; it is how naming The Absolute is understood that 'changes' the meaning in the perceiver's mind. IOW, it is encapsulating the infinite into a finite concept. But that is besides the point, which is that here we have a translation by a Chinese author pointing to The Absolute Tao, which is real, but when attempts are mad to try to explain it or encapsulate it in some finite concept, then it is seen as not being The Absolute Tao, which itself is changeless.

I agree with you that naming something does affect the [satire]{non-existant}[/satire] mind of the [satire]{non-existant}[/satire] one applying the name.

Maintaining 'objectivity' in a subject/object split is not the goal; oneness with Tao is. The subject/object split is the problem of duality one wishes to solve.

Disagree. The problem of duality one wishes to solve is that of passion (Tao Te Ching 1) the duality of which is
like-dislike (Hsin Hsin Ming.) "Throw like and dislike away and you'll be clear about it."
"Be not for or against a thing, For that is contentious, A disease of the mind."

quote from Tao Te Ching 1:

Therefore:
Oftentimes, one strips oneself of passion
In order to see the Secret of Life;
Oftentimes, one regards life with passion,
In order to see its manifest forms.​

How do you, via your understanding of Taoism, see the material world?

It is what it is--everchanging and interconnected.

 

[crossfire]

I agree with you that naming something does affect the [satire]{non-existant}[/satire] mind of the [satire]{non-existant}[/satire] one applying the name.


Disagree. The problem of duality one wishes to solve is that of passion (Tao Te Ching 1) the duality of which is
like-dislike (Hsin Hsin Ming.) "Throw like and dislike away and you'll be clear about it."
"Be not for or against a thing, For that is contentious, A disease of the mind."

quote from Tao Te Ching 1:

Therefore:
Oftentimes, one strips oneself of passion
In order to see the Secret of Life;
Oftentimes, one regards life with passion,
In order to see its manifest forms.​

Now to bring this all back to the OP:
Objectivity is representing reality without unnecessary subjective overlay. The subjective overlay stems from the personal passion of like-dislike. When one overlays ones personal like-dislike over reality, it is said to be biased--a distortion--an illusory representation. Therefore, in order to remain objective, one must throw away/suspend ones passions regarding like-dislike.

Quite simple to say. Quite difficult for some to recognize and implement.

 

[godnotgod]

I agree with you that naming something does affect the [satire]{non-existant}[/satire] mind of the [satire]{non-existant}[/satire] one applying the name.


Disagree. The problem of duality one wishes to solve is that of passion (Tao Te Ching 1) the duality of which is
like-dislike (Hsin Hsin Ming.) "Throw like and dislike away and you'll be clear about it."
"Be not for or against a thing, For that is contentious, A disease of the mind."

quote from Tao Te Ching 1:

Therefore:
Oftentimes, one strips oneself of passion
In order to see the Secret of Life;
Oftentimes, one regards life with passion,
In order to see its manifest forms.​

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.​

It is what it is--everchanging and interconnected.

'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?"

 

[Ekleipsis]

Mathematics

 

[godnotgod]

Now to bring this all back to the OP:
Objectivity is representing reality without unnecessary subjective overlay. The subjective overlay stems from the personal passion of like-dislike. When one overlays ones personal like-dislike over reality, it is said to be biased--a distortion--an illusory representation. Therefore, in order to remain objective, one must throw away/suspend ones passions regarding like-dislike.

Quite simple to say. Quite difficult for some to recognize and implement.

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'. To say that one remains objective implies the existence of the subjective. You are still in duality here. 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.

This is an issue of seeing vs. that of thinking. Pure Conscious attention can see directly into the nature of Reality, while the conceptual mind can only think that what it conceives of as representational of reality will match reality itself. It never does, because as Osho told us: 'Nature is bigger than Reason', and as Michio Kaku confessed after much frustration with trying to marry Relativity to Quantum Mechanics: "Nature is smarter than we are". Hence, paradox.

 

[godnotgod]

Mathematics

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