objective/subjective truth?

[polytrip]

Many of the discussions about entities or paranormal phenomena at certain moments start to rotate around the subjective/objective theme, that's an ancient philosophical problem and very relevant as an issue.
People are often tired of it, but it is an always innovating discussion that constantly leads to new insights.

I want to start this discussion here, and realy focussing on this theme, so not about entities, about god, the paranormal and not about science.

Is there an objective truth?

I think there is, simply because although every established fact is derived from subjective findings to begin with, but about subjective findings you can say things objectively. Like "i think, therefore i am" for instance. It's an abjective statement based upon subjective perception. The subjective perception is an objective fact.
I think that there are objective facts that apply to all subjective facts.
But this is only the beginning of the argument.
I hope that we can start an intellectually challenging debate here, and move beyond descartes, kant, hegel, hume and wittgenstein.

 

[kyrolima]

This is an important question weather reality is objective or subjective or both at the same time.
My opinion is, that every human being contributes to this reality!
How we all perceive it, how we interact with it.
It's a collective conciousness deciding itself!

There is a flow and people are evolving.
Some may resist, but they a drawn to follow sooner or later! They are bound to! There is no escape from this collective conciousness.
Everybody is connected!

Alternative realities induced by psychoactives I consider as a different stage of reality.
It is still reality, but on a different level.

Sometimes you brain just halluscinates.

But i think sometimes these journeys have a certain input from something else.
It's not something which your brain makes up. It's no memory or hallucination! (my opinion!!)

So it's got to have some source from a different reality!

That is just my opinion.
But let's say, you are being healed by an entity. Now, after you come back, you still feel good and there is a major change in you.
It won't disappear.

How can some "realist" say that this is JUST an illusion and not real!?

 

[jamie]

I bet that objective truth can only be found within subjectivity..and I bet it hides in analogies.

 

[OriginalFace]

Hmmm, I think I exist, therefore I am, I think.

 

[polytrip]

I bet that objective truth can only be found within subjectivity..and I bet it hides in analogies.

That may very well be true, but it could just as much be the other way round. Maybe you could even say that it's a symetrical debate.
From this perspective it has much in common with that famous 'chicken/egg-wich first?' problem.

 

[kyrolima]

I bet that objective truth can only be found within subjectivity..and I bet it hides in analogies.

That may very well be true, but it could just as much be the other way round. Maybe you could even say that it's a symetrical debate.
From this perspective it has much in common with that famous 'chicken/egg-wich first?' problem.

WTF are you talking about? There is no chicken/egg problem. The chicken/egg problem is a question of the logical mind!!!
Therefore part of subjective reality!

I think you made a primal mistake. Thinking as IF you were an independend viewer, ABOVE your subjectivitiy.
There is no objective thinking!

 

[polytrip]

I bet that objective truth can only be found within subjectivity..and I bet it hides in analogies.

That may very well be true, but it could just as much be the other way round. Maybe you could even say that it's a symetrical debate.
From this perspective it has much in common with that famous 'chicken/egg-wich first?' problem.

WTF are you talking about? There is no chicken/egg problem. The chicken/egg problem is a question of the logical mind!!!
Therefore part of subjective reality!

I think you made a primal mistake. Thinking as IF you were an independend viewer, ABOVE your subjectivitiy.
There is no objective thinking!

Whoop, there you go. If what you say is true, than it's an objective fact.

 

[jamie]

I bet that objective truth can only be found within subjectivity..and I bet it hides in analogies.

That may very well be true, but it could just as much be the other way round. Maybe you could even say that it's a symetrical debate.
From this perspective it has much in common with that famous 'chicken/egg-wich first?' problem.

I stopped worrying about the chicken and egg thing when I stopped seeing time as a start to finish linear thing.

Yes you could flip around what I said to mean the same thing..analogy is analogy is analogy...the frame isnt what is important..

 

[polytrip]

Does that mean that you think there is a third perspective possible F.E.?

 

[jamie]

^yeah I guess so..a middle ground that ties the dualistic side of the equation together..though I couln't really put into words what it is..maybe it's what we are..perhaps it is US that is that third perspective..

 

[burnt]

I think its impossible to have any subjectivity (such as a human mind sitting here thinking) without an objective reality. Anyone who claims that subjectivity trumps objective reality never explains how its possible to have a subjective reality without an objective one. I think its impossible and negates the argument.

Therefore I think objective reality exists even if we can only percieve a small part of it with our senses and a bigger but still limited part of it with our instrumentation.

I do not think the human mind influences or changes or makes reality. It does influence reality through action and the chemical signals etc flowing in our brain but thats not what most people mean when they say the human mind influences reality. Most people mean that consciousness is the root of reality and I think its a nonsense idea for the reason I state above.

 

[jamie]

the real wierd things is when you start wondering then where the hell that objective reality came from?...the only thing that makes any sense is that it is just a subjective part of another, even bigger objective reality(and where did it come from?)..unless one is willing to belive there is some cosmic boundry, where beyond it there is nothing...like a wall..which makes no sense..

This is where the collapse into "non-sense" seems valid..is there even such thing as a "whole"..independant from anything else?..complete within itself, finite and surrounded by nothingness?..and then what to make of the nothing?
We give the nothing a name, we conceptualize so surely it is SOMETHING..

I sort of think that the idea of objectivity is NOT RATIONAL AT ALL!..actaully it's very IRRATIONAL..think about it..rationalizing is breaking things up into subjective parts..more and more subjective parts...and then studying them..in relation to the whole...BUT does the whole really exist the way we seem to think it does? That would imply the thing to be FINITE..

I agree there could be a whole but if we are going to say it's infinite than subjectivity/objectivity is just an endless discussion that doesnt go far enough..meaning we just dont understand the reality of it and eventually we will need a new perspective to ponder that is beyond either subjective or objective..

 

[jamie]

You could also view the discussion as an issue related to size...

Without subjective reality there is no objective reality..this should be obvious. There is no "whole" without the parts..

Just as there is no parts without the "whole"..

The "whole" seems bigger than the parts becasue it is comprised of them..so we immediatly conclude that the whole is the most "real"..but really that doesn't make much sense..

Everything subjective..EVERY single experience..delusion or not is "real"..becasue it happens..it IS a felt experience..it builds that "whole"..maybe it integreated in with a lesser or higher degree of what we call "truth"..but truth is something different..

For the "whole" to exist in comletion as a whole it requires all of its parts, no matter how big or small to be there..on a very real level. Granted, there may be times when one cannot see the individual nature of the "part" when in relation to the whole..but you do see it when you dis-connect it and see it as the individual it is..that individuality is important and the "whole" requires it to be that way for it to intercalate just the way it does to become that whole.

It's the whole "big vs small thing"..it's about scale..which reminds me of that post polytrip made a while ago about scale..

So how big is big and how small is small?

ALso which came first objective reality or subjective reality..the chicken or the egg?..this question makes absolutily no sense..either answer is just as strange..people always assume there was this "one" that split up into subjective parts..but that doesnt make sense either if you look far enough..where did that "one" come from?..or maybe there were lots of little "ones"..subjective parts that eventually built that whole..where did they come from? All this does is brings people to the point where they conclude that "everything is infinite" and they end the discussion there..becasue from the perspective of this vs that it is as far as we can possibly go with it.

 

[jamie]

The myth of the "big bang" is a good example of this as well..

It's about the angle we view it from. We talk about this big bang thing from a viewpoint of AFTER the actaul event..everything was one and then it exploded outwards and expanded and cooled down and all the various subjective properties crystalised out of it.

But then there are these theories as well that the universe is receeding and we will go back into one dense little point and then the "big bang" will happen again..Now this perspective is one that comes BEFORE the actauly event..

So it it the big bang(objectivity) creating us..or are we(subjectivity) creating the big bang?..or is there a difference?

 

[kyrolima]

There has to be a beginning and and end. That's what the human mind has to conclude, because itself has a beginning and an end.
And there is the whole subjective/objective problem again.
A lifespawn of ~80 years is a very small amount of time compared with billions of billions years of evolution.

Who wants to explain this space? Who wants to explain the stars?
How can you even be sure that we are the most intelligent species out there.
OF COURSE we are, some might say.
But I think on this forum there are many people who actually know that we are nothing but worms compared to some species.

 

[jamie]

There has to be a beginning and and end. That's what the human mind has to conclude, because itself has a beginning and an end.

Very true..BUT, we dont really know what happens before or after..we could just live our life in rewind at the end for all we know..until we hit the beginning and got back in foreward..kinda like the whole wacky big bang cycle..

 

[polytrip]

How would objective reality be distinguished within subjective reality?
Would it be that we know/think something to be objective reality when it is something we agree on?
So in other words, is objective reality seen from a subjective framework, a (subjective) reality that is very consistent with other parts of that framework?
Any confirmation of any objective truth could only be perceived subjectively.

So if you try to convince somebody of something you think is an objective truth, would that mean that in fact you are just saying something like "deep down inside this is something you already agree on with me"?

 

[kyrolima]

Of course there is universal truth and therefore universal reality. There has to be.
But for the individual perceiving it, I highly doubt that his perception are reflecting 100% reality!

My point of view:
Reality and Perceiver of reality are interconnected. There is no way to perceive "objective" reality.

 

[jamie]

"Of course there is universal truth and therefore universal reality. There has to be."

Most of the time I agree..depends on what day you ask me:wink:
But what really interests me is asking the question WHY there has to be universal truth?

 

[jamie]

How would objective reality be distinguished within subjective reality?
Would it be that we know/think something to be objective reality when it is something we agree on?
So in other words, is objective reality seen from a subjective framework, a (subjective) reality that is very consistent with other parts of that framework?
Any confirmation of any objective truth could only be perceived subjectively.

So if you try to convince somebody of something you think is an objective truth, would that mean that in fact you are just saying something like "deep down inside this is something you already agree on with me"?

Who knows?..I like holographic theory..the whole being found within each part no matter how small..
I sort of think though that everything is just analagous..no matter how far up or down the scale you go..it's all there. I think analogy is the true "objective reality"..or THE analogy should I say..becasause I belive that it crosses all the boundries and flows through everything..analogy that is.

I guess that is sort of what you are saying ploytrip..with people comming to a concensus on something..I just like the word and idea of some sort of cosmic analogy that ties everything together..big or small, no matter how diverse the things may seem.

It's like the space between 2 things..the space that exists between things is where I think the real answers are to be found..the things are just abstractions..what makes them so unique is what goes on between them..the interactions..other wise all you see is the outside..but look that the apce in between, the way things interact and you see what's really inside. Science does this alot when trying to find out certain principles of things.

I think that the whole subjective/objective thing is liek that..the real "objective" reality is found within the way that the 2 interact..the inbetween space.