Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajones  Actually:
Reality can only be assumed to be objective, |
I'm wondering what be your definition of "assumed" in this instance, and why it appears to be alternative to mine?
I mean if we were to look at a tree for instance. Right there we have what we can rightly consider a real object - an objective fact if you like. It stands in it's own right, which is a statement that the tree's existence depends NOT upon whether you or I like it or feel warmth towards it, or understand it, or have desire for it to be there, or have any of 100 feelings about it. It simply stands in situ within the realm of existence, where it presumably, originally sprouted from a seed, and therefore exists outside of any sense of dependency upon assumption or any whim of anyone - not mine, not yours, not anyones.
The tree will remain an
objective reality, a plain unhindered authenticity no matter what assumptions anyone ever makes about it or how we see it or relate to it individually or corporately. Moreover, that tree will remain an eternal objective actuality, an objective reality even if someone were to come along and make decision to cut it down and chop it up for firewood.
Of course whether it continues to stand in it's own right, or become firewood, in such circumstance be dependent upon someone's whim - and therefore their
subjectivity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajones and can only be experienced as subjective. |
I'm not really sure what you mean by this statement. If I drive my car along the road and pick up a little speed, and for some reason make the irregular choice, or even in a moment of absentmindedness direct it headlong into our objective tree, my car will, and I will without too much assumption or doubt, encounter a quite objective tree.
This is not to suggest that the tree will object to my actions, however. That would be according a variant usage for the term, yet if it would object in some manner, would be indicative the tree also must deal with an inherent subjectivity. However I think at this point, we are safe to assume that without some evidence to the contrary; the tree really has no subjectivity with which to contend.
Now the moment my car encounters collision with that tree, it, the tree, the car and I have an objective reality needing to be dealt with; being an objective collision which has produced at some level;
A. Objective physical damage to the objective actuality - tree
B. Objective physical damage to the objective reality - car
C. (Possibly) objective physical damage to the objective fact - human (me), and also;
D. A newly realised subjective interpretation for me alone to contend, in relationship with all the details of objective reality - A. B. and C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajones You can fool yourself, as you have done, into believing you are one of many. |
The term 'fool yourself' in this context seems unnecessary and unhelpful, however subjectivity towards it will slide in favour of the following...
It is when we look at ourselves
subjectively that we perveive ourselves as many, separate, isolated. Yet when we look at ourselves
objectively, we are also but one - which my good friend, I've been arguing on this forum from day one. So quite objectively, for mine your 'fooling myself' appears a little irrelevant.
Surely we all have BOTH perceptions available for evaluation per our consciousness, and one (the subjective) is by default in the ascendency, is naturally far more prevalent to our awareness than the other. However we always have the freedom of choice with regards our perception - to embrace the other concomitant (objective) perception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajones But you will always be one. |
If I've failed to cover this point in the above, please feel free my friend, to show me what I've missed.