OK, taking this further: if you are in a neighbourhood of well-dressed, well-mannered folk then the appearance “well-dressed, well-mannered†is both what it is and appears to be. The fact that you logically conclude from that “therefore, they are all good†is not an objective appearance but an inferred quality. Same deal with the distinction between males and consciousness and females and unconsciousness, I reckon.If you honestly believe that all things are as they appear to be, I have to strongly recommend that you never visit America. You would get killed, or at least seriously taken advantage of.
This is why I said:
“Female†and “male†are things we define as objectively existing. They have tangible parts subject to observable decay (impermanence). What about good, nice, evil, conscious, unconscious is tangible in the same way?It seems to me that when one attempts to use objectivity as a measure of sanity and/or delusion, one misses the boat entirely. It is only through the faculty of logic and reason (living in the realm of certainty) that one becomes human--and all sane "objectivity" is incidental to that.
.