The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid.

Let’s go a little bit further, for those that can handle it.

What the infant, child, teenager, and modern adult know of “Objectivity” is usually just another layer of subjectivism. This is how the infant learns to “trust” your mother and father. You believed in the thoughts, beliefs, and ideas of your parents, as an infant. And then in school, you learned and trusted in the ideas of your teacher. And then you trusted in your priest. And then your president. And then whatever else or whomever else convinced you throughout your life. But these are merely authorities and representatives. The average modern, human, goes from one authority to the next, another level and another (per)version of subjectivity.

Most humans stop after a certain point and become accustomed and comfortable with a certain “level of authority”. “That’s enough knowledge, wisdom, information, and intelligence for me,” the average person tells herself. This amount of knowing, or ignorance, is “good enough”. But nowhere along the way does the human escape from ‘subjectivity’. Because the new authority, the new priest, is not offering any “real objectivity” but merely another form of subjectivity.

This is why subjectivists always accuse one another of subjectivity. And this makes the majority of posts on this forum, from week to week, and year to year. You see it all the time. I can pick a majority of threads on this forum, and it’s one subjectivist squabbling with another subjectivist, about their respective subjectivity, and “how to interpret the unicorn in the corner”. That’s all this junk and garbage is.

At no point, do the subjectivists ever step “outside” the box, or even broach the walls. Subjectivity is not interested in a doorway, to step outside the room, and leave the humans and unicorn in the corner behind. Instead humanity is firmly focused on the unicorn in the corner. Inward, solipsistic, subjective, “open to opinion and debate”.

“Objectivity” begins when an individual truly questions, “is there a unicorn in the corner, or isn’t there???” What do your senses say? Is it there? Can you see it? Can you feel it? This is actually a difficult question, meanwhile, a human will continue to claim and insist, “YES I DO SEE IT!” and “YES I CAN FEEL IT!” Subjectivity is difficult to confront and argue with, rationally and reasonably, when it is locked inside such a delusion.

You cannot talk a psychotic out of her psychosis. It’s not a matter of “reasoning” with such madmen.

This is why the ‘priestly’ class of humans feel so motivated, and justified, to redirect the mass of humanity, to their own benefits and personal whims. If humans are firmly entrenched with the idea of the unicorn, and “make it real” with their minds, then why not use and abuse such humans? Why not treat them as cattle? Why not “dehumanize” humanity, when, such a phenomenon and society is not really ‘human’ in the first place? Or, isn’t it obvious by now, that belief and faith in the unicorn in the corner, makes any given person “human” in the first place?

Isn’t humanity that shared delusion? To believe in the unicorn in the corner is. to. be. human.

First of all I do not have to explain myself.

Nobody comes into life as a subjectivist or an objectivist. In order to become one of the both or no one of the both subjectivity and objectivity must be learned. This process begins in the womb.

What do the words “subject” and “object” mean originally? From here you have to begin with your research. The next thing is the development of the human object of your research. Then ask yourself: “How does a human being come into life and learn, especially learn the difference between subject and object?” Look at the test with the mirror. As a very little child one learns to recognize oneself in a mirror.

So if we want to continue our converastion here, then we have to define the words “subject” and “object”, because it is possible that you have other definitions than I have.

In order to know what a “subject” is, one must at least have a self-concept; and in order to know what an “object” is, one must be capable of distinguishing between the own self and the rest (which is outside of the own self).

Tactility already exists when the human embryo is 2 months old, taste already exists when the human fetus is 3 months old, smell already exists when the human fetus is 5 months old, hearing already exists when the human fetus is 6 months old, seeing already exists when the human fetus is 9 months old.

The sense of balance needs more time and starts when the human embryo is 2 months old.

But do you think that the embryo or the fetus is capable of distinguishing between the own self and the rest (which is outside of the own self)?

Objectivism is a dead end in its short sightedness, while subjectivism is too much of a distraction for most. What is needed is a new word that represents the teeter-totter between the two. Over at KTS in the thread, The Nature Of Consciousness, I wrote that no angle is perfection. What is the correct way to blend objectivism and subjectivism?

Subjectivism is the child of Objectivism.

I know that JSS, but the blending needs to happen no matter the parent position.

You seem to be condemning ‘subjectivity’ seemingly ignorant that you are a ‘subject’ in one sense.
Thus whatever condemnation you are throwing at ‘subjectivity’ they are ‘boomeranging’ back to you, i.e. the subject.

I am not clinging onto philosophical subjectivism per-se which could be some specific ideology of certain groups of philosophers, Descartes, Berkeley, etc.
Before you condemned subjectivity, you need to do a full literature review of all the existing perspectives of subjectivity.

My philosophical views are based on the point that the subject[s] is of primary consideration and reality emerges out of inter-subjectivity and dynamic interdependence with objectivity.

To begin with “you” the ‘subject’ is most real while the objects out there must be verified and confirmed by the subject and subjects collectively to be real and objective.

Thus the degrees of confidence levels of reality are the following;

1. “Me” the subject = 99.9% real [the “I THINK” not the “I AM”]
2. “You” and “other humans” as subjects = 90% real, only an autistic and other mad persons would have greater doubts.
3. External world of objects = 80% real as confirmed by objective verification procedures based on intersubjectivity.

Since subjects and other subjects are more real than objects, I wonder why SOME subjects are condemning subjectivity [philosophical, not personal opinions].

To those who are clinging to the external world as absolute real, note Russell’s dilemma here’

Objectivity is meta-inter-subjectivity from a philosophical perspective.

‘Meta’ means it is one level above ordinary subjectivity [not personal opinions by the way].

That is like blending mathematics with poetry. It isn’t that it can’t be done. The issue is of what good it is, once it is done.

Progress. Techno science limits us. Creative science might free us.

“Progress” toward what?
“Free us” from what?

Pwendishery.
Stagnant repetitions.

JSS,

Are your thoughts your own?

One only owns what he controls.

Does anyone truly control his own thoughts?
… I know that you certainly don’t.

No then?

Hi Mangoose: if I say my mind works intuitively, I’d be proposing an untestable hypothesis. However, I am not alone, I find pleasing company with those who claim Quine’s definition of intentionality does not much sway from those of Kant. If the objective/subjective differentiation goes back to Saint Anselm, and progresses to Quine, another surprise awaits to postmodern who think of the philosophy of signs as fine tuning this seemingly inpenetrable digression.

Had to introduce this seeming irrelevance, but it is as far removed from the problem, then it is to digress into the realms which has landed the forum.

This is the problem surrounding the intentional use of language, where without such movement away from the ontological into the ontic, no sense could be made of the other definitions of Being, intentionality as a psychic movement-of the willful force of transformation.

That such has taken place in the modern sense by Brentano, does give it a common bond, of credibility.

Apart from that historical depth, the forum would or could laps into a dialogue such as Meno, where both affirmation of logical structure of the argument would need to correlate with it’s intuitive basis.

Don’t hold this clarification against me, even if, You were to deny it in the manner it is introduced.

If You SIGNAL that I am becoming obscure for the sake of other then learning, I would hope You would at least give some validity for the claim of an intuitive
Philosophical basis.

Will try to connect this, however seemingly convoluted, with the pre-requisited arguments which may or may not substantiate some beginning with some end in terms he progression of phenomenological basis. However, it may work without such, and may in fact, naturally connect the missing cogs, since it is the correlation’s mechanism which seems to generate these.

Perceptual intelligence.

http://sicksadworld.forumotion.com/t199-identifying-reality
A project.

Outsider: Natural selection is the sublimation toward this hidden intentional act to forcefully avoid the pitfalls that would prevent a correlation between the intentional acts and their lack, , in which case the future of this relationship would/could land an existence fall into the absolute and irrevocable nihilism, that some find it inescapable.

Sartre, ‘No Exit’.

Granted, but with limitations into the development of basic metaphoric representations.

And this is what an irrevocable nihilism can regress into.

jerkey wrote

Metaphors, why? Substance only, screw style when it comes to the finished product.