[FairfieldLife] Re: Can Subjectivity Ever Be Considered Objective?

[maskedzebra]

Bzzzzzzt. Any argument that depends on "buy in" to either
the concept of God or belief that you or anyone else knows
what his/her/its perspective is is of no interest to me. You
react to my question about considering subjective belief
to be objective fact by declaring your subjective belief to
be objective fact.

Not for the first time, all that this inspires in me is a sense of
incredulity that people in Fairfield could ever have considered
your narcissism worth listening to, much less following. No
offense, but I do not share their level of gullibility. Thanks
for your reply, but run your stuck-inside-your-own-head
egotrip on someone else, eh?

Turquoiseb:

Your response deeply disappoints me, Turquoiseb. Should I take it that this 
impression and judgment of me is objective? Or should I treat it according to 
your belief: that no one's subjectivity could be objective and therefore my 
argument might actually be objectively true (given the premise that God 
exists)—but you are, because of your reflexive subjectivity, incapable of 
recognizing this?

What counts here, Turquoiseb is not the conviction of your consciousness that I 
am "stuck-inside-[my]-own-head egotrip", but whether in fact what I have said 
actually might be the case. What have you decided about what death is? What 
have you decided about what your individual life as Turquoiseb is?

Will what you have subjectively determined is the truth here be the final 
arbiter of what happens to you? Or will an objective and impartial perspective 
on you—that ignores that part of your subjectivity which is unconsciously 
opinionated—decide your destiny—I mean, past death itself?

Of course now that I really think about it (see criteria), I suddenly find my 
first person perspective changing, and I am beginning to realize: Hey, Robin: 
know that Turquoiseb who nails your narcissism but good (fooling even the 
redoubtable Curtis M), well I think he just may be God breaking in upon your 
hopelessly subjective subjectivity to try to make it more objective.

Turquiseb: May I tell you something? You've lost the child in you that no one 
should ever lose. I think that Rama guy may have done you in a lot more 
seriously than you realize.

But then: This could just be me fighting back with my subjectivity against what 
I need to hear. But you'd think if you really wanted me to get the truth of 
your message, Turquoiseb, you wouldn't be so cavalier in your dismissal of me. 
*You would try to help me* see through my narcissism, my stuck-in-my-own head 
egotrip. Why won't you at least spend the time to try to demonstrate the 
irrelevance of my point of view on this matter?

You still there, Turq? What would it take, do you think, to get through to me, 
so I could receive the truth of your subjective judgment of me—within, that is, 
its objective finality?

You may think I am playing around here, Turq, but I am deadly serious. I *am* a 
narcissist, I *am* stuck inside my own head; I *am* on an egotrip. But for 
God's sake, why just nonchalantly and unfeelingly tell me this, without as much 
as expending even a minimal amount of effort to, for Christ sake, HELP ME?

Now Turq, you gotta know: I am right and you are wrong. You are really missing 
something by not submitting to the objectivity of my subjectivity.

I mean this, Turq. You still there—somewhere in Europe? I really feel we have 
the makings of a friendship, Turq, even as you will—sigh—probably dismiss THIS 
too—out of hand.

I have done my best here, Turq: What more can I do?

By the way: You are right about me. I need a philosophy substitute. Got one?

Jesus Christ, you won't believe this: But after trying to play around here I 
find I am objectively confused in my subjectivity: as in: Did what I write in 
that last post amount to plain nonsense?

I wish now I had never written it.

Christ is still trying to get the starting quarterback job at Denver—and it 
doesn't look as if he is going to succeed.

There's meat in that.

"A cosmos one day being rebuked by a pessimist, replied: 'How can you, who 
revile me, consent to speak by my machinery? Permit me to reduce you to 
nothingness and then we will discuss the matter.' Moral: You should not look a 
gift universe in the mouth. Existence is the deepest fact we can think of/ And 
it is such a nice fact."

You have to give up your unconscious loyalty to your last guru, Turq. Freddy 
was even more untrustworthy than I am. And you loved him.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > God has only a first person perspective on his Creation.
> 
> Bzzzzzzt. Any argument that depends on "buy in" to either
> the concept of God or belief that you or anyone else knows
> what his/her/its perspective is is of no interest to me. You
> react to my question about considering subjective belief
> to be objective fact by declaring your subjective belief to
> be objective fact.
> 
> Not for the first time, all that this inspires in me is a sense of
> incredulity that people in Fairfield could ever have considered
> your narcissism worth listening to, much less following. No
> offense, but I do not share their level of gullibility. Thanks
> for your reply, but run your stuck-inside-your-own-head
> egotrip on someone else, eh?
> 
> > That first person perspective obviates the need for a third person
> perspective (in the case of this necessary being whose substance is the
> same as his existence: he is his own existence: we aren't; our nature
> [human being] and our individuality [person that we are] are distinct
> from our existence).
> >
> > Now as a contingent being whose existence and substance are not the
> same (our sense of a personal I can never be the same as the objective
> truth that we exist—our existence is not our own doing, it is being
> done for us, to us) we can never be certain of the truth of our first
> person perspective: our subjectivity. The fact of our existing in the
> first place always exceeds the potential truthfulness of our
> subjectivity, else our subjectivity would be equivalent to the final
> causality which resulted in us being alive.
> >
> > Whereas our subjectivity itself has a cause, and it is not, despite
> how it feels, something of, originally at least, our own making.
> >
> > Only in God, then, is it possible for subjectivity to be the same as
> objectivity. And for God, this is always the case. Because he *is* his
> own existence.
> >
> > Now the challenge for us is, since our first person point of view (our
> experience of ourselves and reality) is itself a creation of God, then
> it stands to reason that the only theoretically truthful subjectivity
> (subjectivity that is objective) can occur when God, who knows our
> subjectivity, our first person perspective, better than we do: he could
> write not only our biography, but our autobiography,*determines to make
> it come about* that our subjectivity perfectly accords with his
> determination that we apprehend a given moment in time-space-causation
> that does not violate in any way his (God's) own way of seeing things.
> He chooses to have us see reality the way it really is—given our
> limitations as a created (and maybe fallen) human being. (Our
> subjectivity, after all, can never equal in nature what his subjectivity
> is.)
> >
> > Now this admittedly must be a rare event; but given that our own sense
> of subjectivity is a reflection (we are made in the image of God) of
> God's own subjectivity, it must at the very least be possible to *know
> when we are closer to seeing reality as it really is*, or understanding
> something about reality the way God would have us understand it—
> this being the instantiation of objective subjectivity—and when we
> are not. When our subjectivity lacks a sufficient quotient of
> objectivity.
> >
> > What are the criteria of determining the reliability of one's
> subjectivity—and thus the approximation of a subjectivity that is
> objective? Here is my best guess:
> >
> > 1. We experience that our first person subjectivity is not being
> expressed, or being driven to be expressed, at the expense of a purely
> disinterested and dispassionate third person perspective. If there is
> some high order of truth in our experience of something (or even
> someone, or an idea, or an event) we will find that our subjective point
> of view is, to some significant extent, being determined by reality, by
> a sense of truth *which exists independent of that first person point of
> view*. We could call this, not "Support of Nature" but support of
> reality. A third person perspective gets embedded in our first person
> perspective as it were.
> >
> > 2. We find ourselves seeking, like Socrates, to know what is knowable
> and what is not knowable. We are inspired to find out what the truth is
> in and of itself; not to have the truth necessarily correspond to what
> we want it to be, what we are certain it is. We let life, reason,
> reality, into the process of forming our subjective point of
> view—and this is felt to be an empirical variable in our pursuit of
> the truth. {Obviously this could from another viewpoint be seen as
> 'grace'.]
> >
> > 3. We are in our subjectivity always open to having that subjectivity
> altered, adjusted, shaped, redefined, even overturned by reality, by
> reason, by life: we do not double-down in our first person point of view
> when it comes into collision with a different and opposing point of
> view. We don't want to be isolated, defensive, compulsive, or reflexive
> in processing data which seem to be in conflict with our own way of
> seeing things, knowing things, experiencing things.
> >
> > 4. We are determined always to argue against ourselves—or are
> prepared to do this—whenever we run up against points of view which
> are at variance with our own. And we always seek the strongest point of
> the argument against our point of view (POV here meaning a POV rooted in
> our subjectivity—not, for instance, the doing of science, or the
> carrying out of some mechanical activity). Indeed, sensing what our
> subjectivity favours, embraces, is predisposed to think and experience,
> we always act at some level as a potential devil's advocate of our own
> POV—considered, as I say, subjectively.
> >
> > 5. We have the experience of being able to test out experimentally how
> our subjective point of view is playing, is being received, is being
> adjudicated silently by reality. We scrupulously avoid becoming
> isolated, locked-in, enclosed, cut off with respect to our own
> individual subjectivity. We are always doing our best to get the
> feedback from reality as we go to articulate our own subjectivity as it
> takes the form of thoughts, experiences, emotions, intuition and action.
> We are constantly subjecting our subjectivity to the reality test: as
> in: to what extent does my subjectivity get support (how true it is) by
> experimental knowledge: that is, *how it is being received by life, by
> reality*? Do I have evidence that the universe is some way is giving me
> objective feedback that tends to confirm or disconfirm the validity of
> my own subjectivity?
> >
> > 6. We are willing to have our subjectivity altered in a more immediate
> and spontaneous sense—or at least we discover this is a possibility;
> and given the immense complexity and mystery of life, this should always
> be a live contingency in our experience of living out our life. Our
> subjectivity, then, is not solely to serve the purpose of reinforcing
> and sustaining a certain POV; it is there, as an imitation of God, and
> therefore we owe it to ourselves to treat it as the most miraculous gift
> we have; therefore we want, as much as is possible, to bring our
> subjectivity into a form—with the help of life and all that we
> suffer through—which appears to have the right fit for us—given
> our unrepeatable uniqueness as a person—against the backdrop of all
> of creation. We are, after all, right inside of creation.
> >
> > 7. If God exists, it does not seem far-fetched for him to decide that,
> in the case of a given individual human being, he might wish to make
> their (his or her) subjectivity correspond, at least for a certain
> period of time, to what objectively is the case, what is the truth. In
> other words, God wants us to experience reality the way he wishes us to
> experience it. And this, it seems to me, is the circumstance that
> prevails in the case of the most heroic saints: like St Francis of
> Assisi, like St Teresa of Avila, like St Ignatius of Loyola, like Saint
> Catherine of Siena. If this is a possibility, it counts towards the
> realism of objective subjectivity.
> >
> > 8. If there is really such a thing as objective subjectivity, it is
> quite evident that turquoiseb's subjectivity has, *subjectively*,
> determined this is impossible. How are we to determine whether this
> [T's] judgment has been arrived at objectively? Well, let us ask him to
> test his conviction against the criteria I have proposed. For me, the
> way in which he seeks to refute this possibility—an objective
> subjectivity—itself tends to prove my thesis, because I do not sense
> any experimental knowledge here that is being put before me. Turquoiseb
> has already decided the issue. But has the universe? And when it comes
> the the experience of dying, will we not have to, for the first time,
> really understand what it means to have our subjectivity entirely
> determined by reality? That it seems to me, is what death is all about.
> Death being the ultimate experience we will have. And it will be all
> about to the extent to which we can bear the amount of reality which
> gave us existence in the first place. This is the perfect instance of
> the challenge to us for our subjectivity to become objective.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I seem to have a subjective memory of glimpsing, in that half-second
> > > between realizing that a post I've clicked on is from MZ and
> reaching
> > > for the Next button, him saying something about his mind having an
> > > objective component. I got the impression, in the second that I
> paused,
> > > considering this, that he believes that the very fact that he has
> had a
> > > subjective experience or belief that something is true *makes* it
> true,
> > > objective fact. I shrugged and clicked Next. In retrospect, I might
> not
> > > even have seen this. I might have imagined it in that
> second-and-a-half
> > > before Nexting away. I'm honest enough about the nature of MY
> subjective
> > > experience to admit that this is a possibility.
> > >
> > > Today, fresh off my McLuhanist rap, I'm pondering this possibility
> > > further. CAN one's subjective experience ever be considered to be
> > > synonymous with objective fact?
> > >
> > > I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say No.
> > >
> > > I know that I said earlier that this discussion was one that I no
> longer
> > > had much interest in, but that was before I saw many people I had
> > > formerly considered sane, rational beings say that their subjective
> > > impressions of what it was like to spend time with a powerful
> spiritual
> > > teacher trump fact. Their subjective experiences *are*, to them,
> fact.
> > > Anything else is an illusion, or a minor diversion, not worthy of
> > > consideration. According to a few of these folks (fortunately very
> few),
> > > the teacher in question never forced his attentions on any of his
> female
> > > students, even though they have now heard first-hand testimony from
> > > several of their fellow students saying that this was the case. They
> > > assert that he was an impeccable and talented CEO in the world of
> > > business, even though they have now heard testimony from guys who
> sold
> > > the business they co-owned with him for 180 million dollars less
> than
> > > its real value *just to get out of having to do business with him*.
> > >
> > > To be honest, some couch their choice to favor their positive
> subjective
> > > impressions of the guy as perfect as opinion, and that is just fine
> in
> > > my...uh...opinion. Nothing I know or believe about the guy is
> objective
> > > fact; it's just MY opinion, and I respect them having their own. But
> a
> > > few present their opinion as if it were objective fact, and that I'm
> > > less down with.
> > >
> > > Suffice it to say that I've seen the same 'tude here. I would
> suggest
> > > that many more people on this forum believe that their subjective
> > > impressions of reality constitute fact than would ever admit to
> > > believing this in public. But is it true? CAN your subjective
> experience
> > > ever be considered fact? CAN it ever be considered reflective of
> > > objective reality? CAN it ever be considered Truth?
> > >
> > > I throw this question out hoping that some who believe the answers
> to
> > > these questions are Yes will take the time to explain why they
> believe
> > > this. Robin? Jim? Rory? JohnR? Nabby? Others? I don't think I"m
> alone
> > > here in suspecting that you believe this. If you do, WHY? What has
> > > convinced you that subjective really does equal objective? Can you
> > > explain it to those of use who don't quite get it, and can see other
> > > possibilities?
> > >
> >
>