Hmmmh maybe you are right and there is some kind of subjectivity paradox. As we
grow older we become both more subjective and less subjective. More subjective
because our subjective 1st person view becomes more unique, more specific and
more singular. Less subjective because we gain an additional objective view -
Nagel's objective 3rd person "view from nowhere". Should we name it Glen's
paradox of subjectivity?-J.
-------- Original message --------From: glen <[email protected]> Date: 8/28/26
11:34 PM (GMT+01:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity
as a spectrum FWIW, there is a kind of "suck it up" that's less "macho" and
definitely not MAGA. I aspire to the old saying about not being able to control
what happens, only how you react to it. It's amazing how the tables have turned
on who gets labeled a "snowflake". It's literally trivial for me to goad an
outrageous reaction from a MAGA type. But it's really really hard to get a
queer person to react in an uncontrolled way ... at least here in Olympia.
They're so tough. They've heard everything. Experienced a lot of hate, often
capricious. They're some of the toughest people I've ever met. They put the
stoicism bros to shame.While I agree that subjectivity is better understood as
multidimensional, I disagree *entirely* that a baby is all or extremely
subjective. Being largely against narrativity, I'd argue that babies are more
objective than any adult. They measure the world and have a minimum of
bias/narrative to pervert those measurements [⛧]. Maybe "objective" is the
wrong concept, though. Maybe "empirical" is a better one.So I'd argue that
babies->toddlers->...->grownup goes from less to more subjective. Plop any
adult next to me at the pub and it's nearly impossible for me to avoid the
attempt to find the edges of their narrative, their self-told story, their
navel-gazing, masturbatory, subjectivity.[⛧] Now, to make such things
consistent with superdeterminism and reification of concepts like consent, we
need some lessons from plectics, the appearance of inscrutable detail from
algorithmic rules. There, we might say that babies are executing the crispiest
rules without the grit and crystallized grime that accumulates in the machine
as it executes over time ... like that hitch I get in my elbow every time I
lift something heavy after typing for hours at a time.On 8/28/26 1:15 PM,
Marcus Daniels wrote:> Sure, I just mean in contrast to the loud, incoherent,
complaining man baby.> > *From: *Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of
Jochen Fromm <[email protected]>> *Date: *Friday, August 28, 2026 at 12:47 PM>
*To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>>
*Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum> > This sounds like a MAGA
fantasy to me. A strong Rambo-like character who acts as a just avenger, has
superpowers and roams like an invincible knight-errant through the country. The
Jack Reacher novels are a nice read, but a person who can flatten any problem
or bad person with absolute certainty is pure fiction. The promises to the MAGA
followers to reduce prices and costs of living have apparently been fiction
too. The trade war against Canada is certainly not helpful to reduce prices.
And why start a trade war against a close friend and neighbor? Jack Reacher
would shake his head.> > If I had to pick a fictional character then I would
pick Indiana Jones, not Jack Reacher. But that's of course subjective.> > -J.>
> -------- Original message --------> > From: Marcus Daniels
<[email protected]>> > Date: 8/28/26 9:04 PM (GMT+01:00)> > To: The Friday
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>> > Subject: Re:
[FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum> > One of my guilty pleasures is the Reacher
series on Amazon. The protagonist (Alan Ritchson), a beast of a man, finds
himself only a bit concerned about his latest brush with death. (These
brushes occur several times per episode.) This is just what he does and must
do. The only thing he won’t tolerate is the reactive individual. Whatever
happened to the male role model that can suck up their doubts and fears to push
through?> > *From:*Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Jochen
Fromm> *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AM> *To:* The Friday Morning
Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>> *Subject:* [FRIAM]
Subjectivity as a spectrum> > For the new book I have read the famous
philsophers like Dennett, Searle, and Nagel, and used AIs to summarize their
books. Nagel's book "The view frok nowhere" is a bit simplistic. Reality is
more complex than having just two views, subjective and objective, isn't it?> >
In the desperate cries of babies we see pure desires and raw emotions. Babies
are cute but naturally egocentric. Lacking language they only can perceive the
world in a subjective view, and helpless as they are they need to communicate
their needs to their parents.> > The only view they have is a 1st person view
(characterized by "one great blooming, buzzing confusion" as William James
said, which they interrupt by intense bursts of emotions). Everything a toddler
perceives is extremely subjective. In a sense a toddler knows nothing else.> >
Grown-ups have learnt to follow social rules and norms. They learned the value
of politeness and friendliness. They are able to reach a more objective view of
the world. Thomas Nagel called this view the "view from nowhere" in his book of
the same name.> > As we grow older we move along the spectrum from high
selfishness to low selfishness. We are still driven by emotions and do not
become fully objective, but we acquire the ability to view the world from an
objective view. Nagel calls this ability to move from a subjective to an
objective view detachment. We see it normal child development:> > Babies ->
Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers -> Grownups> > There are exceptions: evil
psychopaths and vile narcissts are still as selfish as toddlers or use emotions
to manipulate other people. Artists, musicians, poets and critics are
intentionally using personal feelings and emotions to be creative in their
works.> > Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose) <-> Creative
persons (subjectivity for good purpose)> > Would you agree that seeing
subjectivity as a spectrum is more useful that postulating only two views
(subjective vs. objective) ? ChatGPT has created the attached image for it.> --
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς
φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ...
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
