What we sense and what we percieve.

Objectivity is what a thing is in-itself: what it is conceptually, ignoring the physical. Subjectivity is what a thing is for-itself: how it occurs to itself as a thing.

Well, put AllThisBeauty.
We must of necessity perceive and analyze the Universe from within it. All such actions, therefore, are subjective in a sense. They cannot be objective in the sense that we can stand outside of, or apart from, the Universe and thus treat it as an object.

Thalion



Very good. Hegel wouldn't say it better (in fact, he said it worse)
But then, with subjectivity you mean existence. Only in the presence of the experience can something be for-itself.
Now I ask you: can something be only in-itself? That would take us to the notion of "substance" of Aristotle. Substance as the being, it's "accidents" as the entity (Sein / Wesen).
I don't accept that reasoning. Everything is in relation: the "in-itself" is a fiction, because the itself is always a presence in the world. I am never the ideal "essence" of Val, I am the one that is Val doing this or that, thinking this or that, feeling this or that, and at same time the observer of that "Val-object".
I think the problem, in Hegel, begins with the distinction between the concept of the thing-concept and the single thing.
A stone is what the meaning of the word is. But this stone I have in my hand is not only that meaning, but also something that I interact with my eyes, my hand. It is true that I cannot have experience without intention - meaning, in Husserl conception - but the stone as concept is something very different from the stone in my hand.
The stone in my hand has a conceptual meaning, but - and here I disagree with Husserl - that meaning didn't come from the ideal concept of THE STONE, but from the interaction I have with this stone-in-my-hand.

To be for-itself is the same as to say not being at all.

Is this truley possible?

I have studied mystical experiences for some time in my work and I find them all to be very transient states.

If seeing an object in its essence is possible it seems not possible for very long.

Do we really think Buddha walked around seeing spinning bits of energy when he looked humans and attempted to eat?

I think, if Sidhartha had really reached a state of being a Bodhisattva who had reached Nirvana, he was still restricted by being locked inside his human form.

Thoughts?

TTF

Hegel classified all observations as universals. In order for me to recognize something (and for it to have conceptual meaning), there has to be a multitude of it. It has to exist as part of a category of objects. This thing that you are looking at is not by itself "stonehood." If it were, then it would not be a stone insofar as that is a conceptual category. It would simply be itself. It would not be recognized. You cannot have a category without having a multitude of objects that fall into that category, and, therefore, a single object is not the universal itself. Your stone is a particular subjectivity of the objective universal of stonehood.

Val is a human, which is a universal. Any description or classification that you give to yourself is a universal, which exists above all of the particulars.

Objective and subjective..?
We have no reason to pair them up. There is no association between subjective and objective except the spurious one that comes from the idle claim that one or the other, or indeed both, is, or are, 'real'. So let us stop speaking of 'objective and subjective' as if they are significantly related, or opposed.

You've managed to criticize just about every system put forward. Are you actually going to suggest an alternative at some point? Have you actually even read Hegel so you can make sweeping denials of his system? You've said that views on Subjectivity and Objectivity are wrong, but haven't stated why.

Should we discard all this notion about duality and non-duality?

I personally think that the universe is made up of perhaps one substance, but it creates a phenomena and a material that correlates with one another. Just a thought.

If the universe is at base one substance, it still has to be differentiated in order for phenomena to come forward. These could be described as apparent dualities, even though they are sublated in connection to the One Substance.

Very good, Thalion. Ultimately we must go beyond all opposites--at least so says the Heart Sutra's supreme mantra: Go beyond this and that, even beyond both of them (rough paraphrase/translation). I call myself a non-dualist, but only to separate myself from the fixation we all have with our dualistic orientation to the world of experience and thought. I hope to be beyond both. But for everyday practical interactions with others, one must behave dualistically; it is inherent to our logic and the grammar of our language. But it is important, if only for the sake of balance, to appreciate our phenomenal/sensual life non-dualistically for a while each day (meditation).
The many in the one; the one manifested as the many. Not one and not two. What is there then? Just "this" (which includes "not this" and "that" and "not that").

Well, we must understand that this "duality"is not separate. Of course that does not mean that all opposites are like that.

Have you noticed how much dualism is like computer programming? It is not visible until something is amiss, until the balance is askew. Whenever a program glitches the appearance of coherency is broken, and the programming is visible rather than the intention behind it.

Or knitting. You see a sweater, because the balance of dualism is upheld. As soon as it is torn you see a fraying of threads that don't mesh perfectly. Dualism enters. There is yarn and there are knots, this is the sweater. Two things, one thing... But this too is about perspective.

The thing is that in the spirit of dualism everything is. One some level we chose our own problems. We define them in an effort to define ourselves, and so we find what we seek, because we subconsiously adjust our perspectives according to our desires.

Someone give me an example of dualism, because I am fed up of hearing about it.
I want someone to give me an example of dualism in this form:
'oh, that's one of those things, but this is one of the other things'.

The most notable dualist is probably Descartes, who set up a strict distinction between consciousness and the world outside of it that causes it to perceive things.

John, are you fed up, filled to the brim, with hearing of dualism and you still cannot understand what it's about? What makes you think that even more talk would enlighten you?

Dualism has said that there are two 'substances' in the world, like mind and matter.
But like 'subjective, objective', I have no reason whatever to consider them as related or opposed. There is simply no common ground. So on what basis do I count two and say "here is 'dualism'?"

My take on this is that there is presumably some relationship/connection between the experience 'red' and the electrical signal sent from the eye on contact with light of the right wavelength. There would appear to be two simultaneous occurrences, one of matter and one of mind. It seems to me they are both related and opposed, though I've no idea how or why.

Or am I missing what you are getting at, JJ?

I will start a new topic on this.