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

[James N Rose <***>]

Dear Ayten,

Kant -may- be interpreted (from that very sparse sentence)
to be saying simply that there is no -single- objectivity
per se, but many 'knowings which presume themselves correct'
which then coordinate into some 'best possible shared knowing'.

This is indeed the dilemma which has been carried to the extreme.
But more for the situation that its likes trying to separate
the speed of light, c, from all other velocities.

The problem is that objectivity and subjectivity are considered
different states of the same thing: knowing ; rather than two
qualitatively different aspects of a system, which are bound
and yet discernable (eg: location vis a vis momentum/inertia).

The strong tie-in with RR is the challenge he made to the
planetary scientific mindset to revamp its presumptions
of causality.

Now remember, Quantum Mechanics had already challenged
Causality's Universe that Newton defined (and was already
under pressure from Relativy about).

The subtle important issue that General Systems thinkers
brought to the table was not just a 'nice and interesting
notion' about the unitary co-coordination of the universe
at all levels, but a first order criteria:   that any model,
theory or paradigm which doesn't use that frame-of-reference
standard, is deficient and not appropriate in all best-possible
considerations.

Think of it this way...

you are made up of 'location' and 'momentum'.  But. You cannot
identify it unless you interact with other place/momentum
entities which vary from your own.  One cannot identify
obective self-qualia (or pandemic qualia) except though
random/alternative involvement with 'other' companioned
extancies.

Its the "conditions of engagements" and the "scope of engagements"
which then become paramount to really identify and to set up a
paradigm about.  RR's deductions and high stand came from his
identifying "scope of engagements" (limited vs extensively
open).  My own comes from honing in on "conditions of engagements".

These are the ontologic considerations which make it
possible to wholly re-evaluate and re-shape the historic
conventional worldview which grips the planet.

But realize, it doesn't want to be changed.  :-)  It's
happy with what it is and thinks itself as.

We are at the epicenter of a storm which will potentially
morph and transform not just the niche of science but
our specie's complete way of thinking ... forever.

Jamie




Ayten Aydin wrote:
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >