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;
- “Me” the subject = 99.9% real [the “I THINK” not the “I AM”]
- “You” and “other humans” as subjects = 90% real, only an autistic and other mad persons would have greater doubts.
- 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.
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.
Metaphors as substantive, lacking in lower order beings with no intention or object to further development.
Substance without style lacks this development, the
objective intentionality without the subjective signaling remains unavailable and intuitive understanding is reduced to mumbo jumbo
mysticism.
Word play is discrete? Thanks for the heads up towards Brentano. 
You can’t remain on the fence forever…or can you? 