An Objective View

The terms subjects and objects (and units) are abstract. The whole point of abstract is to have context independent status.

When we say "a ball is an object," it doesn't matter what the context is, balls are always objects. When we say, "shall we change the subject," it doesn't matter what subject we are talking about, we want it changed. This is the point of having abstract terms, they are context independent.

Abstraction is, like Fil was trying to say, existential.

I believe Derrida is using the word "objectivity" because it is abstract but what he means is its reduction into a particular.

Aren't subjects, objects, units and relations abstract? Aren't abstract concepts context independent?

Reconsider the word "abstraction"
When children kick a can around is it not " a ball" for their functional context ?
Is not the oval object in US football or English rugby "a ball" for the same reason" ? In fact is not the word "ball" an abstraction (he said with a pain in the ball of his foot) waiting to be concretized by mutual context ?
Derrida would argue that all language outside of behavioral context is an abstraction. Indeed nothing has "presence" without context.

All this is counter-intuitive to a realist who axiomatically proceeds from the idea of an externally existent world independent of his (its) own existence. The hardest thing for the realist to accept is that it (the subject) is also evoked by context and most of the time has no existential functionality,

No, the word, "ball," is not abstract. Are you making the claim that all words are abstract just because they are words?


All of mathematics is abstract. Mathematics has no context and it certainly has "presence."

Not sure if you know object oriented programming or not but abstract classes are the highest classes in a computer program. Abstract classes have no implementation. They are quite important. In fact, the class, "object," is the highest of all classes. Everything is an object. That word is used because objects have no emotional ramifications. Thus the reason it is called, "object oriented programming."

Yes....and further to that they do NOT represent "objects". Rather their physical manifestation reflect semantic nodes in a communicative interaction. As far as the mathematics of classes or sets is concerned, this is a relatively culture free metalanguage which transcends ordinary language. But the act of allocation of set membership (the "nominal level" of all measurement) constitutes a social agreement about model usage.

Also it is merely a tautology to state "everything is an object". Things require thingers (us) to evoke them i.e select a focus for our attention. Is this patch of carpet pattern an "object" ?.....only now that I have selected it for focus to illustrate my current communicative intent ! And all selections have "ramifications" (functional consequences) whether or not we assign "emotionality" to such a selection

u surely hate to spend the least effort to ur thoughts, yea how god would support ur expressions if u were proving being intelligent

u reason in opposite terms to please a deity of ur head source to urself

as if abstract is the opposition to concrete, so anything that sound real for u is surely object so not abstract and anything tht sound invented become abstract,

abstraction are to objects the most, while to u objects are abstract creations when abstract to u is complete nonsense, so u run to say well u see it is the proof that there is a god, only god can do that abstract creations, try u cant

any is absolutely first, so as long as the object is not hundred percent real, its abstractions are used for anything else realities, this is how existence work

speculations on what exist is always justified from the relative objectivity of those objects being real
while u run to pretend loving inventing everything from knowing that relative true existence is abused for **** powers as being anyone life

noone gonna stop this, it is obvious that the end is the clarity of tht fact being all and any

but it is still the fact even more so saying it confirm it u can say it for ur own goals of enjoying its fact or i can say for my own disapointemnt in having to hate any fact

it is still an objective fact to abstract as u want

Hmm, that is quite a stretch to claim that all words are abstract. I suppose when one uses the word "ball" the word isn't actually the ball itself so in that sense it is abstract. I'll have to think about this further.

When I wrote "everything is an object," I meant that in the context of object oriented programming. This is actually a problem with programmers because some people actually believe it. Of course, everything is not an object, objects have no emotional ramifications. One can't hurt an object. In the context of the real world everything is a subject, even objects. This is what I believe you meant by, "all selections have "ramifications" (functional consequences) whether or not we assign 'emotionality' to such a selection." However, the word "subject" itself does not have functional consequences. One can't heal a subject or help a subject. One can heal or help a person, and people are subjects, but a subject itself is abstract. It has no implementation. It has no context. After all, contexts are subjects. The only way to give subject a context is if it gets paired with relation. By doing so the word subject gets subjected itself. I find this fascinating as you can probably tell.

Try researching "systems theory" propounded by Luhmann (et al). I t is one attempt to deal with "the observation of observation" (aka "second order cybernetics" originally proposed by Von Foerster).

he has other goals, that is why he prones nonsense existence so his wills could b appearing justified before enjoying pretending realizing some of getting some

relation to what??? how any exist bc of a relation forced??? what is that existence that one would want to confirm tht itself deny it??? why confirming smthg that do not exist, it is like forcing force, only for absolute powers so then u can do watever u want

that is why those kind of minds are fundamentally against being true and can appear being able to make war to truth objective existing rights

it is inferiority dimension of existence that prefer to be of lies so it could always get smthg by being down, it is a matter of choice

what we need is simply true existence to appear being a matter of fact too

The world is made up of open systems and is itself I believe an open system. We are not privy to the perception of a totality, we are not ourselves a totality. It logically follows that inquiry should be about the organism/environment or subject and object as one system, A difficult perspective to deal with, we are not in Kansas anymore.

the problem is that u believe in systems so even when it is open or u mean to stay open u call it being for plural systems connexions

there is no system in truth, when by definition a system is for existence creations so always justified only bc there is nothing truly

I agree with a non-dualistic approach,and also a nested systems approach. And it turns that that on this view "perception" becomes deconstructed with respect to its usual "data processing" sense. As one writer has pointed out, what we tend to traditionally mean by "perception" tends to amount to a verbal report of a process involving subjects and objects. An alternative is to view "cognition" as involving interaction schemas (in a Gestalt sense) which often operate at a sub-awareness level ( or as Heidegger said, in eveyday life, we only notice and label "things" when action schemas go wrong).

Take note that words are inherently abstract because they "stand for" things (wow! can "thing" be a meta-abstraction?). We might also note that words may point to a particular "concrete" object or--most often I suspect--classes or categories of objects.*
By "objects" I include things, sensations, events, qualities, etc. etc.
.