@Scottydamion,
Quote:longknowledge
There is a false dichotomy between "objective" and "subjective." An experience consists of an "object" that is experienced and a "subject" that is doing the experiencing. All experience is both "subjective" and "objective" in that it involves an interaction between a subject and an object.
hmmm... maybe
I recognise that the word objective like so many words as having an ambiquity and collective of meanings.
There is objective in the sense of something existing without it being experienced. A rock. The flow of blood through a vein. This sense of the word can be extended to aspects of a partially experienced object. eg we may see a rock but have no idea that it has a fossil inside it. ie that we rarely if ever experience all of something. What we don't experience of something but nevertheless exists, is thus considered to exist objectively. Of course the true idealist asserts that what we experience is rarely (if ever) anything other than sensory experience which is not the thing in itself at all. From this is deduced objective reality for the idealist. But this concept of objectivity is not exclusive to idealism. The naive realist can believe that we do partially experience the thing in itself, and objective reality is created from memory of experience. (memory and deduction being fallible of course).
The problem therefore in saying
Quote:longknowledge
When a scientist "reads a thermometer," she's the subject and the visual phenomenon she experiences is the object. She then "makes an interpretation" of the visual phenomena, where again, she is the "subject" and the "interpretation," which is a mental phenomenon, is the "object." So-called "objective reality" is the consensus among "subjects" as to the interpretation of the "objects" they are experiencing.
is that by setting up the seperation of scientist, thermometer, experience of reading the thermometer, the switch from object to objective and subject to subjective is not defined. ie there are various ways of doing it. eg how do we define the objective existence of blood through a vein, not experienced by a person, who is a subject and whose body the vein is a part of? Where the subject begins and ends, and what distinguishes a subject from an object is not defined
even in denial. ie it seems to me to be a blanket denial of all schemes of objectivity through making no distinction between say, naive realism, idealism, info realism, .... or any scheme whatsoever.
A sense in which i think what you are saying makes sense of this is actually to deny subjective and objective, by replacing them with subjectification and objectification. Thus if the act of subjectification and objectification can be defined as the act of creating object and subject where it does not exist in reality without those two acts...... then object and its objective reality is not something that can exist outside an act, such as memory or deduction. ie in schemes that believe in objects and objective reality (such as naive realism and idealism) this alternative scheme would claim that memory and deduction and objectification are acts in themselves. Since this would equally apply to subject and subjectification...... 'acting' itself is reality. And reality is 'acting'. It is a denial of schemes that say that reality is 'acted upon'. Experience is a kind of awareness of acting.
In that sense it appears like on the one hand a supra form of naive realism. Where not only is a thing experienced in itself, but a thing is necessarily an experience. On the other it is almost a supra form of idealism. Where the deconstruction point of idealism of 'everything we experience is inside our heads including this room' is added to by the statement 'and further there isn't anything outside our head'. Similar to the all is mind scheme.
So there are schemes that bridge the divides of naive realism and idealism. All is mind. All is information. All is experience.
Is there a way of distinguishing between these different monisms?
Well another meaning of objectivity is 'not interfering with'. Observation without creating any direct consequence upon the object. In schemes that bring together all objectivity as a complete description of reality, then there is objective in the sense of .... 'Observation without creating any direct consequence upon
an aspect of reality.'
This sense of the word objective i assume you would also deny exists longknowledge? It would seem to follow. But in possibly some schemes of all is mind, this concept of objective might be useful (as in say moral schemes within them) while making the other sense of objective redundant except as a delusional sub scheme. eg in the all is mind scheme it might be conceived as all is the mind of god. Therefore we could possibly have mind of someone else without feeling empathy, where morally we should do.
In the all is experience scheme it appears that any act (including observation) is directly connected to the reality of a supposed object, so objective in the sense of 'not interfering with' is hardly conceivable since it is essential to reality and existence itself. All is intrinsically 'active'.
Interestingly in info realism, the present science would imply that observation without interference is also impossible.
However the sub scheme of classicality that can reside within it can be conceived of as
the essential form in relation to understanding humanity and perception.... so this second form of objective could have important meaning.
Of course subjective can also have more than one meaning in parallel to objective.
