Well, that’s one thing. Taking those moral and epistemological values and defending them in regard to a particular context another thing altogether.
And in that respect my own experience with him was par for the course.
And if he does ever choose to come back, I suspect that I can demonstrate it anew.
This is some excellent out of the box thinking, KT 
But all I’m saying is if we are a product of, a function of, and generated by the universe, then there is no way to discern anything objectively about the universe because we cannot step outside ourselves and the universe in order to take an objective view, and all truth is a relationship found inside the universe itself and only applicable inside the game. And what exists depends equally on what kind of you you are as it does to what kind of thing the object is. Any sort of morality, if it exists at all, equally depends on the knower as it does the known. The sun cannot give light if there is nothing to receive it. Likewise, morality can’t exist unless there are beings to interpret morality through the subjective lens bestowed upon them by the known itself.
The analogy is simulation theory and if we’re inside a video game, what evidence inside the game can be used to discern truths about the outside world? And claiming that the lack of evidence is fundamental and absolute isn’t itself discerning a truth about the outside world, but is discerning a truth about the inside world and merely recognizing that there is a place we cannot go, like north of the north pole. We don’t need to visit north of the north pole to know there is no there there.
It is objectively true that there is no objective truth because truth is defined to be relational and not something that can exist independent of anything to behold it. If there is absolute truth sitting there all by itself only viewed by the perspective of actuality, then the perspective of actuality becomes the subject helping to define the absolute which then makes the absolute no longer absolute. The absolute is an infinite regression stemming from the fact that the knower and the known are one.
And the fact that Turd ridicules the nondualists testifies that he thinks he is separate from everything, but hasn’t posited by what mechanism he thinks he can behold it. He’s a limb on a tree thinking he’s not the tree.
Matt Dillahunty has discovered the best analogy for this. If there is a jar of jelly beans, does the fact that we do not believe there is an even number of jelly beans mean that we believe there is an odd number of jelly beans? Conviction that there are either even or odd numbers of jelly beans has not manifested and that’s how we know that we don’t know.
Set up experiments. Guess the evenness of jelly beans in lots of jars and then count them. If we’re right as much as we are wrong, then it means we could not have known and what we thought we knew was merely a random guess. But if we were correct too often, then it means we must have known and mistakenly believed that we didn’t.
Lack of manifestation. 1+1 appears as a question, then 2 manifests. If 564^367.6545675 is the question, then nothing manifests. Deer in headlights. If I’m drawing a blank, it means I don’t know.
Subject is made a certain way and object is made a certain way and the interaction between them is a reality that is unique to that combination. Your world is not the same as my world because my world has you in the external world and your world has me in the external world.
Right, those who say, don’t know; those who know, don’t say. The Vanaprastha has resigned from the game and has nothing to teach.
Usually people say what they wish they were, but aren’t. Like me, hypocritus magnanimous, serendipity is how I wish I were, but am not. Sure I stumble into good fortune on occasion, but happy-go-lucky I am not. I’m trying to be humble as best I can and didn’t want a self-flattering username as if I deserve some congratulations for the ideas I fell into of no power of my own, but I realize that humility is just another way of flattering myself. There is no escape from the game, even by resigning and petting the dog, and presumably that’s why most who obtain satori then renounce it and dive into the game more than ever.
If there is no way to escape, then what does that mean?
So, in other words, you are claiming that that analogy works and that the logic of the argument holds. You making objectivist claims.
Same issue.
Same issue, thought I can’t even follow this one.
More objectivist claims.
Though in this case, those who say they don’t know for sure, are actually via this claiming to know. Those who keep mum, might actually not be sure.
For example.
OK.
I don’t know what it means, and I’m not so worried about that. I don’t see a reason to escape from certainty that I’m certain of.
Thank you.
I should have added that
some could say: well sure, I have objectivist tendencies that I can’t clear out, but my attitude toward them is not to trust them completely. But even this is problematic, since it is more claims and implicit claims, but further
the official position of non-objectivism itself contains objectivist claims.
However fast you erase what you wrote on the blackboard, you’re too slow and your erasing also writes.
The problem with saying this is that it undermines itself. The conclusion is based on a whole lot of objectivist claims and it is making universalist application. It is talking about all of us. I realize this is a or seems to be a logical conclusion, but then it still is a subjective being denying the possibilily of objective knowledge and saying it knows that it applies to all beings. Best to keep mum, I think.
I guess if people are going to go down this road, however much there is something to it, I think it is better to present it not as ‘hey this is the way things are’ but more a koan to mull over. Like
is the koan and you just sit with that. Let it propel you.
But I am not saying one should do this. I think, in a sense, I have had that as a koan. Though not formally and I do not do Zen. But its been a background itch I have scratched a lot over the years.
I dunno. I can’t find a good reason to hate life. Here I am carrying objectivisms around in me. What do I want to do?
And generally it is not take up the banner of the war on objectivism, since, amongst other things, that’s just another objectivism. And it isn’t using my full abilities which is another way of saying, it’s not the life I want.
That reminds me of Kant.
Oh, jeez, you read much more carefully than me. But then perhaps I read him more before.
Yes but I don’t see it as an objective claim. What I see is popular subjectivity.
The way I see it, objective claims are not discerned through any lens. I call them “observerless observations”. If the object is discerned through the lens of a subject, then it is always subjectivity (ie only in terms of what the subject is equipped to discern; it’s subject to the subject). Therefore, objectivity could only be observerless lest it be tainted with subjectivity.
Jelly beans being odd or even is judged through my lens of who I am and in response to however the jelly beans were presented.
Whether or not I feel a conviction is viewed through my lens in response to the jelly beans.
The validity of the jelly bean analogy is determined through the deductive lens of anyone considering it.
None of that constitutes objectivity since what’s observed depends just as much on the subject as it does the object.
If I discern “odd”, then it had as much to do with me as it did the jelly beans.
If I feel conviction, then it has just as much to do with me as it did the jelly beans.
If I find the argument compelling, then it was just as much a function of me as the argument.
Logic itself is observed through deduction and manifests only to those with the faculties. A fish may do logical things, but it’s not doing logic.
But “murder is wrong” is simply posited by authority and not discerned through a lens of deduction or empiricism. How anyone sees it is independent of the truth of it. We can’t look with our eyes and see “murder is wrong”. And if we can “see” that “murder is wrong” through a process of deduction, then “murder is wrong” will always be subject to the conditions that influenced the deduction. And even if “murder is wrong” is the logical conclusion of 100% of people on earth, it still doesn’t mean it’s an objective claim, but only a popular subjective claim.
If morality were really objective, then it wouldn’t be subject to only human minds as lions would also agree that murder is wrong instead of callously killing all the cubs of the previous male. If morality isn’t subject to anything else, it’s certainly subject to a neurological capability to fabricate it, and arrogance is the incentive: the pride of integrity.
All objective claims rely on authority because by definition there cannot be any proof, since proof would be observation (and observation includes deduction). Objectivists are essentially theists, I suppose.
Another analogy is the government setting the value of money. In that case, it doesn’t depend on how anyone subjectively values money since the value is simply dictated by authority. The value of money is not discerned empirically or deductively, so it’s observerless. The gov is not discerning the value of money either, but asserting it. However, if the market sets the value of money, then it’s a collection of subjective values determining the value through market forces.
Objectivity isn’t constituted merely by the fact that it applies to everyone, but that it applies to everyone regardless what anyone thinks about it. Objectivity is the proposition that the sun would shine light even if no bodies were present to receive it, and morality would exist even if no sentient beings existed because it is a thing unto itself independent of observation.
This means that the master has observed that there is no such thing as a true state of affairs because what exists depends on who is looking.
If you are saying that something applies to everyone, or the entire world or the entire universe, then you are making an objective claim.
It’s that simple.
And who but the vast and the varied proponents of objectivism claim that?
One particularly surreal aspect of this is that even though there have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of at times completely contradictory moral and political and theological and philosophical narratives, it never stops the next generation of objectivists from insisting that you either become “one of us”* or you are WRONG!!!
*if you embody the right gender or race or sexual orientation
When did I insist that??
The word ‘objective’ is created to communicate some particular idea. If it does not communicate that idea, then there is something wrong with the definition of the word. If nothing is ‘objective’ then there is no reason for the word to even exist. And as a consequence there is no reason for its ‘opposite’ to exist - therefore, the word ‘subjective’ need not exist.
Whenever a claim is being made, a subject is making it. That’s true for both subjective and objective claims. Therefore, the mere involvement of a “subject” can’t be what differentiates ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’.
If this is a part of the definition of ‘objective’ then obviously you’re not going find anything ‘objective’. The phrase contradicts itself right from the start.
I wasn’t attributing it to you, but to objectivists in general.
Here is the dictionary definition of objective:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
And this from SEP regarding the word “object”
plato.stanford.edu/entries/object/
Now, imagine if everytime we used the word “objective” or “subjective” or “object” or “subject” here we had to square our point with these two sources.
Then we would move on to the word “communicate” and “idea” and “exist”.
Come on, my point is this…
We think we know this or that about something in our head. We claim to believe this or that is true or false about it.
Here about Turd.
But what are we in fact able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are obligated to know or to believe about Turd.
Was he in fact an objectivist or are we really only discussing the manner in which we have come existentially to understand the meaning of that word here and now “in our head”?
Can we square our point with the dictionary, with the SEP? Can the dictionary and the SEP be utilized to pin down what is in fact true and false about Turd. About his own particular moral and political narrative? About ours?
Okay, but what claim is being made about what person or thing in what context?
You make the claim, you choose the context.
I’m an objectivist. So you were applying it to me. 
All thoughts and words are “in our head”. Unless you mean to say something more specific and important, then it does not require repeating.
You’re not going to be able to demonstrate anything unless you are clear and precise about the meaning of the words being used. To cast doubt on the meaning of words and the usefulness of words is counterproductive.
What exactly are you trying to convey by saying that Turd is or is not an objectivist? What’s the significance of that label in this particular case? Is it important to “pin it down”?
"The Earth is an oblate spheroid. "
Why should I consider that to be a subjective claim?
That’s a manner-of-speaking way of using the word. The truth may apply objectively to everyone in the universe, but any interpretation of that truth is subjective.
Subjectivity:
Subject ----> Object
Anything discerned about the object by the subject is subjective. What’s real is only in terms of what can be discerned, so reality is just as much dependent upon the subject as the object.
Objectivity:
(((Object)))
There is no subject. It just is. Reality exists independent of observation and the subject plays no part in defining what’s real.
It’s that simple.
Remember James saying that which has no affect does not exist? That’s subjectivity. An objectivist would posit that something exists regardless if it has affect (ie no subject required).
My definition is accurate, but the implication is ridiculous, and that’s the point I wanted to convey: if objectivity exists, it’s not anything we could know.
The dictionary definition of objective:
: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
adjective
-being the object or goal of one’s efforts or actions.
-not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.
-intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
-being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
-of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. dictionary.com/browse/objective
The object exists independent of an observer. And the incidental existence of any observer is inconsequential to reality.
Objectivity posits that the sun could be the only thing in existence since subjects aren’t required for it to manifest, but light can’t exist until its destination has been found, and heat is just IR light, so it’s clear as day that the sun wouldn’t be a sun at all without other things in the universe. We could say the planets “summon the light” from the sun. Our eyes solicit light from the world like one pole of a battery pulls current from the other.
The nucleus of an atom couldn’t be a nucleus without the existence of the electron, so the electron calls into existence the nucleus as a nucleus in order to make an atom.
I don’t know what objective reality means; it’s like an oxymoron. But it presents a paradox because if subjects are required to manifest existence and if everything that exists can be regarded as a totality of everything, then what subject is observing that? Evidently, when James posited affectance, he claimed the universe doesn’t exist since it has no affect on anything lol. Oops!
Because the appearance of the earth is discerned as a subject in relation to the earth as an object. It’s a subjective claim that’s popular (except with the flat-earthers).
But “murder is wrong” can’t be viewed, so it’s not subject to the subject. It just is.
And if you find some line of logic to substantiate the “murder is wrong” claim, then it instantly becomes subject to logical interpretation.
Phyllo’s question is cannily worded. To argue that he should is to contradict yourself. Why should he view it as subjective? For all we know it is working quite well for him to view it as objective, and it might well be working well for him to view your response as subjective or Iamb’s. We are not abstract beings. We are in process experiencing and interacting with the world. Must we be abstractly correct on paper - where we do not live - ? And what is that correctness anyway? Some kind of negation, perhaps. A disclaimer. Should one make disclaimers?
You can qualify everything or claim that you would if challenged or that you mean everything quasi, tentatively, as merely possible, that you are not sure of anything. And while I would tell someone they shouldn’t do that, unless I loved them, I would probably view them as having a meme disease and a dangerous one. Besides now putting themselves in a position to contradict themselves all the time, unless they head off into the woods.
To put it another way it’s a dead end in evolution. The squirrel that does this dies off.
“murder is wrong” is also based on objects/subjects - the victims and families of victims , their reactions and our biological feelings of empathy and sympathy. They have simply been abstracted out of the statement over time.
There is interpretation in every statement. One can argue about how much oblateness is required to call something oblate or how much surface roughness is acceptable for a sphere, etc. Bottom line is that it fits the definitions to a high degree.
Subjects making claims and interpretations of words are common to both subjective and objective statements.
I don’t get the significance because every ‘truth’ is a statement and it’s expressed in words which are interpreted by someone. Those statements(true or false) are descriptions of the state of the world/universe.
I’m not denying that at all.
Yeah, reality exists independently of observation but only after you observe something are you able to formulate statements about it. Those statements are objective or subjective depending on whether they apply to the specific person or to all people.
I don’t think an objectivist would say that or phrase it that way because it sounds like you can imagine something and it automatically comes into existence.
“having reality independent of the mind” and “existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality”
I think that’s essentially correct. The confusion comes into it because we are thinking and talking about it. IOW, the reality exists … and then we see it and discuss it. Thus introducing thought, observer and mind.
That’s your particular take on it but I see no reason why it has to be viewed in that way. It seems entirely possible that the sun emits light without a ‘destination’.
“if subjects are required”
If subjects are not required, then the paradox, oxymoron, problem goes away.
James said that something does not affect anything does not exist. That has no effects or does not affect something. Not that something has no affect (that is, emotion). When you get down to it, most objectivists and most subjectivists believe as James does. Any scientist only believes in things that can be observed, which means they have effects on meters and eyes. Even religious people tend to have their supernatural beings affecting things.
Well, to the extent that this…
One particularly surreal aspect of this is that even though there have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of at times completely contradictory moral and political and theological and philosophical narratives, it never stops the next generation of objectivists from insisting that you either become “one of us” or you are WRONG!!!
…is applicable to you with regard to your own value judgments then the shoe does fit.
For capitalists the word freedom revolves market exchanges. For Communists freedom revolves around a planned economy. And both sides have explanations for that.
So, what is the clear and precise philosophical meaning of the word “freedom” such that this dispute can be resolved once and for all?
I’m not saying that turd is an objectivist objectively. I’m only noting that to the extent that he fits into my own subjective understanding of the word objectivist here and now, “I” think that he is one.
I never deny that my own arguments here are in turn existential contraptions.
And the significance of that is always seen by me in a particular context. Suppose Carleas walks away from ILP and Turd becomes the new administrator. How long would I last here?
What’s crucial then is the extent to which those who are moral and political objectivists are able to acquire actual power in any given human community.
Given that in my experience many political objectivists are [psychologically] also authoritarians, it will always be their way or the highway. Only instead of predicating their power/policies on might makes right, it revolves instead around their own rendition of right makes might.
You know, like the Communists insisted.
The first thing you do of course is to steer clear entirely of the is/ought world.
Instead, your example revolves around the either/or world.
Let’s define the meaning of the words “oblate spheroid”: simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblate_spheroid
Now, is this understanding of it true for all rational men and women? Any particular man or woman [as subjects] may argue either yes or no. But: Is it able to be demonstrated that in fact the earth is an oblate speroid – given the intertwining of these words [in the English language] and the world we live in.
And who argues that the earth ought not to have been an oblate spheroid? That nature fucked up in making it one.
This is an example of my frustration.
You tell me to pick something/anything and then when I do you suggest that I picked the wrong thing. 
Why did I pick it?
Because Serendipper says that it’s subjective and ‘usually’ you say that it’s objective. So what happens?
You waffle around with this :
Why don’t you just say that it’s one of those objective facts that we can know?
Instead of committing yourself to a point of view which you claim to have, you get caught up in uncertainty, “unknown unknowns” and “the intertwining of words” to the extend that you can’t say anything consistent.
Once we settle either/or claims then we could move on to is/ought claims. But we can’t even settle either/or.