maybe we call this Steve's law. Steve's law says"what we call "objective truth"
is ultimately just a deeply shared, agreed-upon model rather than an absolute,
independent reality"Marcus you can throw your shoe now-J.
-------- Original message --------From: Steve Smith <[email protected]> Date:
8/29/26 7:25 PM (GMT+01:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM]
Subjectivity as a spectrum
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 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/
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ...
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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/
