Let me try:
I segment this into a modal continuum of subjective - intersubjective -
objective. with some fuzzy/moving thresholds.
Underlying this are mappings and models where a model is a mapping which
exposes exploitable consequences of what is mapped.
Our sensorium is a transduction layer at it's simplest. Our perceptions
layer a very low level model of meaning or relevance or actionability
via various categories and valences (good/bad, fight/flight, ...).
What we conventionally call "Modeling" is a bit more abstract and may
be an artifact of, or at least thresholded by language. We have a
grammar and vocabulary of "what matters" (proto-meaning?) which we can
both share and/or save/revisit/operate logic or intuition over.
I would claim that even sensing is "subjective" in the sense that the
transducers represent a proto-model... while the pulse train traversing
our ganglia, cortices, and other neural structures are in some sense
"objective reports", they have already been
transduced/produced/conditioned/compressed by the sensory hardware in an
idiosyncratic way to the organism's (significantly nature-formed, but
nurture-modified) hardware/firmware.
Perception is yet more "subjective", but sill in a very limited or
constrained and normative way. The (possibly) apocryphal) business of
folks raised in the country-side vs those in the city having somewhat
different edge/shape detector firmware, etc... Fight v Flight is also
significantly "conditioned" by nurture and experience. Valence
(good/bad) is yet more conditioned by expectation and collective norms.
Thus proto-intersubjective. We fight or flee from the things our
instincts bias us towards but also what we are taugh/modeled by
parents/community.
Without any *language* as such, these intersubjective norms can be
established and transmitted but language gives them more reach
(space/time/social-network) and more "stiffness" ("as it is written, so
it shall be"). The more explicit and elaborate and abstract models
(e.g. truth, beauty, and the American Way) we consider, the more
intersubjective they may be.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident" does a lot of complex, heavy
lifting across "we" (collectivity) and "self-evident" (introspection)
and "truths" (implied objectivity). The very declaration is an attempt
to fix an intersubjective reality Model across a nation/culture with
implications of it being held across time and aspiring (implicitely) to
influence others outside the in-group ('Murricans).
While my instinct/habit is to defer to an imagined idealized "objective
reality", I see no evidence to the contrary that we construct a highly
agreed upon Model which eventually reaches the declared quality of
"objectively real" when enough of (the right) people agree on all the
nuances and claim to have verified the evidence on the table, up to and
including discovering/presenting yet new evidence through repeatability
under current standards of such.
My Q-Anon and/or MAGA and/or KryptoKreacher friends believe they are
part of a network of TruthSeekers/Tellers with who hold and follow
equally "stiff" procedures and filters, yielding *equally* objectively
true Truths like Michelle Obama and the Williams' sisters are male, that
Barack was born in Kenya and is a Crypto-Muslim, and that Chelsea
Clinton is not Bill's child. Aside from "whose business is this?", all
such also smells of confirmation bias-generated nonsense. AntiVaxxers
(seem to) believe the same about the CDC and Anthony Fauci (and claim
they have their own objectively validated counter-narrative).
So... in psuedo-summary, the spectrum seems to be something about where
one's models are sourced (evolution, development, enculturation,
theological/philosophical tradition, scientific (or other) method).
I prefer (choose?) to live in a world where my world-view is (mostly)
aligned with lots of other people, even though I long ago came to
understand that many/most people don't even think, much less care about
many things I have come to.
Mumble,
- Steve
a
On 8/29/26 1:49 am, Jochen Fromm wrote:
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 uǝןƃ
ὅτε 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
Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ...
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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/
