Researcher said:
Good and evil have nothing to do with it. There is objective reality, which is neither good nor evil, it just is. And it is the only true reality. We cannot fully comprehend objective reality because we cannot know every single thing. So, we all have our own subjective realities in which we decide what we believe is good and evil. A dichotomy is inherent in observations on reality, because there is only the true reality (objective) and the individual reality (subjective). That's it, just the two. Good and evil only exist within each individuals subjective reality.
The point was that though we consider good evil as diametrically opposed, the fact of the matter is that there is no true good or evil, and that both stem from the individual which is neither or both; as in, the individual's conception of good and evil either extend beyond one's reality, or are both reflective of one's reality. The individual is the only thing tying them together and can never be purely either-or.
That doesn't work. Perspective is subjective reality, it is not separate from it. There is no either/or. One simply cannot experience objective reality, so it's not an option (you can't state that your perspective is equal to objective reality, this is a false statement as it is impossible to completely know objective reality).
Ok, but consider that there must first be an objective reality for a subjective one to arise. The subjective (qualia) is the result the objective, but it doesn't stop there: Subjective reality does impact objective reality, but how does it do this? Through one's perspective reality, the subjective, born of the objective, may lend to the generation of a new objective reality via perspective. Thus my follow-up remark to the following statement:
The Hegelian dialectical process certainly applies to how we shape our subjective realities, or, how subjective realities are shaped for us. Thesis and antithesis lead us to compromise, the synthesis. The synthesis becomes the new thesis and the process begins again. But that can only work within subjective reality, as objective reality does not change along with our subjective interpretations of it.
In a linear model, this would be compromise, but the Hegelian model works in cycles, as you illustrate. As I have previously stated, objective reality is influenced by subjective reality through perspective reality. I would contend that the subjective does not entail interpretation but precludes it. The subjective more adequately comprises sensory or action (manifestation of impulse), which more often than not finds consensus between individuals of like physiology. It is perspective in which the subjective may be interpreted, and the interpretation determines an objective outcome. Fire (object) generates warmth (subject) feels pleasant in some cases, painful in others, and often fluxuates between the two with no clear distinction (perspective), and as such, one's behavior is altered accordingly (back to object). That one behaves in a certain way in consideration of heat means that, for example, one may physically keep their distance, and consensus between individuals and by one's own account that one is not throwing oneself into the fire indicates that the subjective and perspective realities of this person have born an objective interaction--repulsion.
Certainly we can't know the totality of objective reality, as in, from a "god's-eye-view," but this is an imagined position to begin with and presupposes the possibility of an extraneous position. To see or know things as they are is at once paradoxical but also the given state: We see things as they can be seen, given the visible electromagentic spectrum but sight doesn't go beyond that, so to see the totality of something beyond our own sight is a contradiction in terms. To know would be precisely the same, but in terms of neurology: There is nothing to know beyond the brain's capacity to know, and everything that is knowable, is knowable--no such thing as unknowable knowledge. Omniscience does not exceed the capacity of science, just comprises the totality of it, of which the frontiers expand perpetually; certainly not beyond the constraints of reality, but within it.
