Re: [COMPLEX-M] Objective Knowledge, Stories and Models

[Ayten Aydin <***>]

To all concerned with objectivityXsubjectivity pair:

 I quote a phrase from Kant which may be handy for those interested in
deepening on the above.That is:

"There is no objectivity, but there is a synthesis of many objectivities".

Then I say: The objectivity merges with the subjectivity as the synthesis of
essences of many objectivities. In a way, objectivity and subjectivity are
like the non-separable opposite sides of the same medallion. We have, in
effect, reached a stage where we have separated them and placed into very
distinctive positions in far away quarters, giving a preference to the
former believing that only objective judgements give us a sound, rational
and thus reliable base to establish all life matters. This belief is the
off-spring of the Scientific (17th)and the Industrial (18th/19th centuries)
Revolutions. In effect , nowadays a particular attention is given to not
letting the subjectivity to interfere or even corrupt the process
objectively set in motion.

Human being has a lot to do to renew itself which is only possible by
becoming able to see and understand themselves and things around in their
totality and recognizing subjectively (!) their inherent complexities.

Ayten


----- Original Message -----
From: "James N Rose" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [COMPLEX-M] Objective Knowledge, Stories and Models


> ++ [COMPLEX-M] Objective Knowledge, Stories and Models ++
>
> Buck,
>
> Given consensus acceptance of 'limitations' as the overarching
> state-of-the-world, you - with others - are comfortable with functional
> ignorange/illiteracy - in experience, psychology, perception.
>
> It's comfortable and doesn't rock the boat.
>
> All you're doing is advocating a shortsheeted definition of 'know'.
>
> I'm not happy with 'epi-cycles' however, even though that's
> a workable-system of evaluation/prediction.
>
> My "unique 'Rosean'" system of complexity pushes all the limits and
> challenges all the definitions, indeed.  Not invalidating the two
> sentences but cautioning against them as 'absolutes'.
>
> The deep dichotomy of existence is a strange one, and one wholly
> different from all the ones currently on the table of human
> thinking.  The dichotomy I have in mind is 'identity' versus
> 'involvement' ;  or 'agency vis a vis dis-agency'.
>
> I can show that 'agent/identity' relations instantiate at the
> very beginning of dimensions-creation.  Which means that from the
> first formative level of existence, systems congeal into unique
> identities, or as I call them, 'integrities'.  All subsequent
> emergings being creations of new-tier integrities, and, they
> stemming from coordinating-of-agents in prior and related tiers.
>
> So, the process architecture of existence .. creates and
> venerates 'individuality' on one hand, while having
> operations and having support processes on the other
> hand which blur what an identity or individuality is.
>
>
> Extrapolating this situation to human thought and ideas,
> it is -instinctive- (in the absolute sense) to feel very
> very comfortable with paradigms that buttress 'identity'
> individuality and uniqueness, versus notions which bolster
> non-specialness of persona/ae.
>
> The two sentences,
>   "Only I can ever know my subjective reality.
>      No one can ever know objective reality.",
> are more statements of reactive preservation of weltanschauung than
> they are of 'conditional/situational fact'.   So I appreciate the truth
> they refer to in one sense, but I totally challenge them otherwise.
>
> On more formal grounds, I totally challenge the current
> understandings used to define 'subjective' and 'objective'.
> Conventional thought merely has 'objectivity' being the/an
> extreme state of 'subjectivity';  where information is complete
> and not limited; where perturbation and noise is eliminated.
> But they are effectively the same thing, one being the 'pure form
> of the other'.
>
> I choose to re-write the definitions so as to avoid those exact
> problems the current definitions lead to.
>
> All systems are conjoint bindings of objective AND subjective.
> Objective information is the rules of performance.
> Subjective information is instantiated performances of Objective
information.
>
> Can't parse one from the other.  Can't 'purify' one and get some
> kind of 'reality extract' residue that is the other.
>
> You'd still be left with having to deal with new situations, new
> criteria, new qualia, alternative arrangings of things percepts
> and responsibilities.  Life would go on, in otherwords, and
> the 'truth' of having to stay with the program, even if you
> were absolutely enlightened, would rise as the greater reality.
>
> Existence has a momentum.  Objective reality creates subjective
> examplings; subjective examplings are the only access (because
> they are expressions -of- it) to objective reality "itself".
>
> Because we all share 'objectivity' from the core of our being,
> we -can- subjectively (to a real sufficient degree such that our
> decisions and behaviors will re-arrange and derive from the
> relations) 'know the subjective reality of another integrity'.
>
> It's when we -choose- to isolate ourselves (deify our
> own special personae) that we rationalize statements like
>  "Only I can ever know my subjective reality.
>         No one can ever know objective reality."
>
> What looks like a 'theory of existential being conditions' is
> combinantly a biased notion, a high psychological defense
> mechanism to bolster 'selfness', dressed up as a theory of existence.
>
> The universe is first and foremost a communications reticulum.
> Information and information compatible and information shared.
> "Sympatico" is the key to dimensional activities and to us
> as well.  It just gets tough to see it when the system has to
> use 'separation' to foster appreciation of shared-qualia.
>
> Jamie
> Ceptual Institute
> July 24, 2004
>
>
>
>