I have a serious doubt that torments me

[Rose07]

Is it possible to somehow make people see objective reality?

There are those who say that many cannot see things objectively due to ego, but what exactly does that mean?

The consequences of people not being able to see things objectively are disastrous.
And I think that's why armony in societies is impossible.

 

[aeon]

New Is it possible to somehow make people see objective reality?

By definition, no.

If a person is witnessing a thing, there’s a subject-object, self-other duality.

Hence, subjectivity.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Wyote]

The consequences of people not being able to see things objectively are disastrous.

Welcome to Earth

 

[Rose07]

But I read everyone uses the 8 cognitive functions, Extraverted Sensing being the objective reality function. By logic, there must be a way to activate this function in most humans, right?
Also I read taking certain drugs expand the consciousness... and make the ego death, at least temporary. And what that means when people say ego makes people subjective?

 

[aeon]

New But I read everyone uses the 8 cognitive functions, Extraverted Sensing being the objective reality function. By logic, there must be a way to activate this function in most humans, right?

Extraverted/introverted in Jungian cognition is a different usage than the self-other dichotomy borne of thing-ness as part of duality consciousness.

Extraverted Sensing still takes place within a person, and to the degree they possess a self-other consciousness (which is normative for human beings), their relational position will be necessarily subjective in considering things.

Also I read taking certain drugs expand the consciousness... and make the ego death, at least temporary.

Indeed, there are a few which can do this, but it must be considered that upon ego death, there is no longer any differentiated reality to behold, so going there with the purpose of rational efficacy is a fool’s errand. Ego death is no-thing-ness, the uni-verse, the is-ness of the eternal present.

And what that means when people say ego makes people subjective?

Most people self-identify with their ego, so the binary that is ego/self versus not-self arises, and such an awareness of self-other is by definition subjective.

-------

I tried to use the best words I could, but talking about this is a messy business, both for meanings, but also because writing about the ineffable is, in the end, just so many words, talking to the wind.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Matty]

Is it possible to somehow make people see objective reality?

There are those who say that many cannot see things objectively due to ego, but what exactly does that mean?

The consequences of people not being able to see things objectively are disastrous.
And I think that's why armony in societies is impossible.

The problem isn't that people see subjectively. The problem is that some think that they are truly objective and that everyone who doesn't agree is wrong.

 

[Ren]

Is it possible to somehow make people see objective reality?

There are those who say that many cannot see things objectively due to ego, but what exactly does that mean?

The consequences of people not being able to see things objectively are disastrous.
And I think that's why armony in societies is impossible.

Well, there is an argument for direct realism (John Searle would be a proponent) that claims we do see reality objectively.

It is true that we have a certain way of seeing reality, i.e. an aspectual way, or reality-under-an-aspect. But aspectualism is compatible with objectivism. And most importantly, while we do see reality from a point of view, we do not see our seeing. We see the object. Searle thinks that traditional philosophy's mistake is the idea that we somehow see our experiences of things, whereas in fact the seeing itself is the experience. There is no "middle seeing" between the perceiver and the perceived - call it representation, idea, image, or anything else. We just see (aspectually) the object.

I'm undecided as to how good this argument is,but it is at least a case for our seeing objective reality.

 

[SlowUpTake]

"Objective reality" has a colloquial meaning, as well as different levels kinds of philosophical meanings. I think in this case the phrase implies what is going on with the relationships between humans rather than, is the stick in the water really bent.

 

[Ren]

"Objective reality" has a colloquial meaning, as well as different levels kinds of philosophical meanings. I think in this case the phrase implies what is going on with the relationships between humans rather than, is the stick in the water really bent.

Oh, right.

Then I don't know what it would mean to have an 'objective' relationship with another human. It doesn't sound like something I would want.

 

[SlowUpTake]

Given that " ideal objectivity " in interpersonal relationships is not possible, one can still strive or hope for some degree of less self centeredness in oneself and in others.

 

[John K]

Is it possible to somehow make people see objective reality?

There are those who say that many cannot see things objectively due to ego, but what exactly does that mean?

The consequences of people not being able to see things objectively are disastrous.
And I think that's why armony in societies is impossible.

What do you mean by ‘see objective reality’? For example each of us carries our own subjective reality. To be truly objective would I have to be able to see the world through each and everyone else’s subjective viewpoint simultaneously?

 

[Timujin]

Objective reality,

"Would the sun still rise if there was no one around?"

Yes.

The tree that falls in the forest crushes grass and opens a hole to allow more sun to hit the floor- does not matter if someone wrote it down or took a video.

We are participants in a system - story.

But as the present most powerful participants we have written are own story - but the further we go the more the inaccuracies show. "We are off target"

different cultures bought in to different stories

but universal law - perhaps may boil down to what works and what does not?

Harmony is possible at any point in any time. would have to be a choice. but the choice is not available to certain stories.

If someone is fully bought in to a story they see nothing else.

But Harmony to what end? I have heard true believers wonder if they would be bored in their heavens.

I think it is easily possible for earthlings to achieve harmony - peace - resonance.

That would mean accepting diversity and eliminating the need for the state of war or the state of nature - with technologies that provide - security- and abundant resources.

Some people think that humanity is inherently violent and need to vent out these or it will erupt. Well now or soon you will have a halo-deck or Virtual reality backed by AI.

You could relive the battle of Carthage - or be the happiest larper in history.

After all that we have - the infinite possibilities of perspective - space exploration.

And the arts. We will realize how infantile everything else was.

 

[John K]

The tree that falls

But let’s play …..

What is a tree, objectively? And what does falling mean without anyone to name it? Does the sun rise or does the Earth rotate? What is the dawn, in itself, in outer space - does the question even mean anything if there were no one to ask it?

‘We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep.’
Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

[Timujin]

But let’s play …..

What is a tree, objectively? And what does falling mean without anyone to name it? Does the sun rise or does the Earth rotate? What is the dawn, in itself, in outer space - does the question even mean anything if there were no one to ask it?

‘We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep.’
Shakespeare, The Tempest

I think there are layers of reality and some laws that apply to every layer and some to a single layer.

maybe just a breeze.

 

[wolly.green]

By definition, no.

If a person is witnessing a thing, there’s a subject-object, self-other duality.

Hence, subjectivity.

Cheers,
Ian

Can you expand on this?

 

[aeon]

Can you expand on this?

Only to say I was using objective/subjective in the duality consciousness, world of forms sense, not the Jungian sense.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Jexocuha]

Is it possible to somehow make people see objective reality?

from the MIT technology Review's "A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality"(url:https://www.technologyreview.com/20...ts-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/)

...[of the other] assumptions too. One is that observers have the freedom to make whatever observations they want. And another is that the choices one observer makes do not influence the choices other observers make—an assumption that physicists call locality. [these assumptions all hold if there's an objective reality we all agree on]. ...But Proietti and co’s result suggests that objective reality does not exist. In other words, the experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions—the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have freedom of choice, or the idea of locality—must be wrong.

There are those who say that many cannot see things objectively due to ego, but what exactly does that mean?

Curious: Who are "those" you say "many cannot see things objectively due to ego"? Are you talking about one's expressions of ego-defense can hinder their communication, because it often communicates "separateness", and thus making it more difficult to agree on "objective reality"? Can u see where this is leaning towards here? I don't know what "those" you refer to "who say things like this" mean, but I can tell you what what aI think or feel means. I think it's a way of saying "everything is subjective", and because of one's ego/self-awareness, nothing truly can be agreed upon objectively, since it how does one know exactly whether or not the terms of reality are understood, and how can one be certain that the other minds are even able to choose how they understand the grounds of reality or not?

The consequences of people not being able to see things objectively are disastrous.
And I think that's why armony in societies is impossibe.

I agree, that objective reasoning and object-oriented approaches and systems of problem-solving and communication are highly useful and it could lead to some distasers in certain contexts if not a first or predominant preference. But I may have a slight disagreement with you that social "harmony"(?) in an idealyllic sense is even possible(in an objective and subjective sense).: Object-oriented, systemic, social order, actually does or can result in remarkable hegemonic productivity. But so far history has shown these attempts have not lasted long successfully in the previous century, nor have led to "harmony in societies". Western Europe had almost destroyed itself in the previous century by applying a highly "objective" "solutions" to reach levels socio-economic, ethnic, and the ideological "harmony,order,and and progress" never before seen in the history of humankind. It led to one of the most inhumane and destructive disasters, but also some of the clearest answers to a lot of late 19th century "utopian" dreams proposed by the visionary and controversial social philosophers in the century prior.

Honestly @Rose07, and I'm not trying to sound difficult, but I'm legit interested in your questions and musings you've posted l, and Im enjoying exploring these thoughts and questions with you, would you mind me asking:

1) Have you really, seriously asked yourself about the nature of reality?: Have you looked at some of the research, like Landauers principle on how mass, energy, and information are related? Do you ever question your certainty on being able to "see" "objective reality"!

2) Why does the notion of other people "seeing reality objectively" matter to you so much? How would you know or how would you measure their level of objectivity in comparison to yours, objectively? And still, why would proving this ultimately matter to you?(esp. even some of the brightests physicists struggle to understand fully what objective reality is?

3) What exactly are you're serious doubts, and why does "torment you"? Are you doubting reality being objective? Are you doubting other people's perceived lack of "objective"(or do I mean impersonal) interpretation of reality? Do you think your objective perspective could be defended with "universals"? Do you think social idealism is based on or could be based on "empirical principles"? To you, when and where was a time&place "societies" were the "most harmonious"? Would you consider that society to be the most "objective" in it's approach to social order?​

 

[John K]

I wonder if there are different things getting tangled up in the questions @Rose07 posed. One big issue is maybe symbolised by asking whether the wall behind me is objectively real. It sounds innocent enough, and if I test it out by trying to walk through it, then it will feel hard and unyielding to me. If I ask anyone else to try, they will also find it hard and unyielding. Or will they? My observation is based on inductive reasoning - I have never yet met anyone who can walk through a wall, any wall as well as the one behind me. But inductive logic always leaves doubt - maybe one day I will find someone who can walk through my wall. I'm not holding my breath though, and my working principle is that my wall presents the same obstacle to all and sundry. This is the best I can do to determine what I mean by objective reality - something that all humans experience in more or less the same way.

Can we go any deeper than that? I doubt it! My wall can only be fully determined by its purpose, and so far (again by induction) I have never found anything that has a purpose determined outside of human intent. It may be that some things in nature appear to have purpose distinct from human consciousness, but nature does not seem to be teleologically goal-driven and this seems to me to be a form of anthropomorphism projected by us humans onto things in nature that have no purpose in themselves. Of course, all this would look very different if we were to think that consciousness was both embedded in and transcends the world - if there is a creator god, then the world is filled with the meaning he/she gives it.

But Rose07 went on to talk about human harmony, and that is something I don't think we have touched on here yet. Is it possible to think of human ethics as having objective reality - and if so, is it possible to have a shared perception of those ethics? Because as far as I can see, the possibility of human harmony is rooted in shared human attitudes and behaviours, and this sharing would have to be rooted in a shared ethical system. I think it is possible to have a shared ethical system that most people commit to, but that is by consensus rather than by a hard-wired objectivity. Could it be that ethics are written into the laws of the universe in the way that the laws of physics are? Maybe I lack imagination, but this seems possible only if they are there by conscious intent imposed from outside our world.

If they are not hard-wired in this way, then there is no objective law of ethics and the issue is resolved, probably, by Darwinian selection, in may different ways as the environment in which they operate changes over time.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

If they are not hard-wired in this way, then there is no objective law of ethics and the issue is resolved, probably, by Darwinian selection, in may different ways as the environment in which they operate changes over time.

I know you aren't implying that this is the case. But just to play off that, there would have to be double standards for judging the feasibility of existence of these concepts. What right does Darwinian selection have to occur in a consistent, orderly manner unless it is also imposed externally? For some reason, moral law always gets the exception of being scrutinized more stringently where other natural patterns are just allowed to exist without questioning their origins because they are scientifically defined.

 

[John K]

I know you aren't implying that this is the case. But just to play off that, there would have to be double standards for judging the feasibility of existence of these concepts. What right does Darwinian selection have to occur in a consistent, orderly manner unless it is also imposed externally? For some reason, moral law always gets the exception of being scrutinized more stringently where other natural patterns are just allowed to exist without questioning their origins because they are scientifically defined.

It's a fascinating issue, and one I can only wing because I have a limited background in the philosophy underlying it. One problem is that I find it difficult to work within more than one reference frame at the same time with these sorts of questions, because they lead to radically different perceptions and conclusions. That places the emphasis on the reference frames rather than the actual topic at hand, and the whole metaverse comes with it and spins away completely from the original issue.

The point I was making was that in the absence of an externally imposed ethical system, it seems likely to me that that Darwinian selection sieves our attitudes and behaviours, and we anthropomorphise this by extrapolating them into our ethical systems. It seems likely to me that under these circumstances the ethics is secondary, and is a kind of post-rationalisation that changes as circumstances change our attitudes and behaviours. These are probably contingent, like any other evolutionary process, on the slings and arrows of fortune over the ages.

This is not my own position, because for me, as I think for you, the world was created by god and has a purpose. Human ethics are therefore objective and hard-wired into it, and our job is to discover, not invent them - this is one example of their being imposed on the world from the outside.

Another possibility is the way karma and samsara seem to be conceived - as far as I understand them, these operate more like an analogue of the laws of physics compared with ethics based on the Judaic religions, where there is a concept of judgement by a personal god. With the Eastern philosophies it seems more like the way gravity operates - if you drop a stone on the surface of the earth, it falls, and if you behave in a particular way, your trajectory through life is impersonally determined by that in a very similar way. This is very close to the idea of having an ethical system on the same objective footing as the physical laws. Where I flounder a bit with this is that normally we think of ethics as being attached only to rational creatures. At the moment, we only have humans as an example to go with, but it seems to me unlikely that a such a universal objective law would only apply to humans, but to the whole of nature. But then how would these laws apply to inanimate objects, or to other non-rational creatures around us. It would be fascinating to encounter rational life elsewhere in the universe and see if they parallel us in ethical thinking.

I think that Darwinian selection is possibly over-spotlighted. It's a very useful concept that provides a powerful way of expressing a variety of situations where nature seems to use a trial and error approach. But it's really just a a particular sort of statistics at the roots, and only charged with mystique because of it's claimed effects on the evolution of life. It's no more and no less hard wired than any other branch of statistical explanation of the things we see around us. It's really the way that ethics seems only to apply to humans that leads me to treat it at first sight as something other than a straightforward law of nature. But maybe if we could ever meet a whole galaxy full of different rational creatures we might find that we all share the same ethical rules - or rather they would be meta-ethics because we would have different systems according to our differing natures. It would be the meta-ethics that would be fundamental, objective and universal.

I'm rambling a bit to see where this leads LOL .....