GENIUS FORUMS

...

Hi Dave,

S: Well, yes it is, but [only] as long as you believe things exist inherently

D: Isn't it, rather, the other way around?

That is, belief that the qualities of things are objective is necessarily grounded in the belief that things exist inherently.

Not as I see it. Objectiveness is just as much a ‘quality’ as is subjective-ness; without ‘objectivity’ ‘subjectivity’ cannot be and vice versa, and there is no other kind of “objectivity” beyond that, since that interrelationship itself comprises totality. What has 'dependency through causality' got to do with what things are by definition?

S: otherwise, absolutely all that one can think or imagine are but "qualities", but are real nonetheless

D: Yes indeed, that is reality.

OK, and hence objectivity or any thing for that matter is but a sensed quality.

S: otherwise, I see no reason to take you seriously

D: You have no certain reason to take others seriously at all (if, by taking them seriously, you mean they objectively exist). You can be provisionally confident that you can take others seriously, but never certain

I said nothing about “objectively exist”; it holds no meaning for me, but I do take the objective quality of each individual thing-to-thing interaction as real and quite seriously, otherwise there is no logical reason to value one conclusion over another. I must have reasons to take OTHERS and their conclusions seriously because others and I am not one and the same thing, and that has nothing to do with “objectively EXIST”, but all things do have an objective quality that are experienced subjectively, and that I can be certain of.

S: and that is where I see two subjectivities sensing that objective quality of each other. It is not ALL in MY mind you see

D: How can you know that for sure?

For one, I am not Dave.

Just as you can be only provisionally confident of taking others seriously, you can only be provisionally confident of objective existence and that it's not all in your mind.

May be I’m a bit over confident that you are not me; tell me otherwise.

So, for instance, I made a joke above, intending no offense whatsoever. That was the (objective) quality of my intention, of which I can be subjectively certain. But all you can see is your subjective understanding of it, the qualities of which may or may not be correct, objectively.

So, in effect what you are saying is that my subjectivity is independent of your subjectivity, isn’t it? The fact that I may be subjectively correct or incorrect, itself, tells me that your subjectivity is not entirely dependant on my subjectivity. I and the rest of totality is not one and the same thing. My subjectivity, “I”, has an objective relationship to all that is not it, and ‘objective’ does not mean totally independent of any causal relationship in my books.

Ok, so if you explain how I should fortify my foundations, that should lead to my being able to make sense of your explanation of the certitude of objective qualities; fire away.

All I can say is know thy self, which I think you already know, since you already understand and know that all is but ‘qualities’, be it objectivity or subjectivity, and they are exactly what they are.

So if it's all a matter of perspective, qualities included, how can one possibly be certain of the objective quality of qualities?

By being certain that fundamentally neither consciousness nor its contents are illusory in and off any given causal moment.

Hi Sap, welcome back:

DT: I was really looking to see how you understand the word 'quality' and whether you think the conjunction 'objective quality' is an oxymoron?

Sap: Well, yes it is, but [only] as long as you believe things exist inherently,

DT: Isn't it, rather, the other way around?

That is, belief that the qualities of things are objective is necessarily grounded in the belief that things exist inherently.

Sap: Not as I see it. Objectiveness is just as much a ‘quality’ as is subjective-ness; without ‘objectivity’ ‘subjectivity’ cannot be and vice versa, and there is no other kind of “objectivity” beyond that, since that interrelationship itself comprises totality.

We almost always seem to end up be talking about the same or similar subjects and yet I still don't have a good handle on your philosophical positions. I think this is probably due, in part, to the language barrier and our conversations about simple subjects quickly becoming too labyrinthine to cross that barrier with the required precision (in fact it has little to do with the language barrier per se, as that precision is always required and yet such conversations usually do become labyrinthine). It would probably be beneficial if we started from the basics and kept it simple from there on in but I'll try responding to my understanding of your above points first and we'll see.

It seems to me that you are saying that there is no objectivity beyond the quality of objectivity, IOW, the projected subjective concept of objectivity. Whether objectivity is seen to be conceptual or concrete, the logical fact that qualities cannot be objective remains. Qualities are, by definition, subjective. How does the fact that objectiveness is one of those projected subjective qualities somehow abrogate the fact that qualities can only ever be subjective?

The fact that the quality of subjectivity is necessarily interrelated with the quality of objectivity seems irrelevant to what we're discussing to me. How is it relevant?

What has 'dependency through causality' got to do with what things are by definition?

If I'm reading this correctly, you're asking what has the belief in things existing inherently got to do with a belief in the objectivity of qualities. The answer to that would be that a belief in the objectivity of qualities implies a belief that qualities exist beyond the mind, which implies a belief that things possessed of qualities exist beyond the mind, which is as good a definition of inherent existence as I've seen.

Sap: otherwise, absolutely all that one can think or imagine are but "qualities", but are real nonetheless

DT: Yes indeed, that is reality.

Sap: OK, and hence objectivity or any thing for that matter is but a sensed quality.

Not necessarily a sensed quailty but a quality nonetheless. Specifically, objectivity is the quality of reality independent of mind. So again, if all is qualities, and qualities are of mind, how can qualities have reality dependent of mind?

Sap: otherwise, I see no reason to take you seriously

DT: You have no certain reason to take others seriously at all (if, by taking them seriously, you mean they objectively exist). You can be provisionally confident that you can take others seriously, but never certain

Sap: I said nothing about “objectively exist”; it holds no meaning for me, but I do take the objective quality of each individual thing-to-thing interaction as real and quite seriously, otherwise there is no logical reason to value one conclusion over another.

Mate, as far as I can see, that doesn't make sense. Could you explain it to me in a way I can make sense of?

I guess I'm misunderstanding you when I read that as 'Existence beyond mind holds no meaning for you but qualities beyond mind does'?

I must have reasons to take OTHERS and their conclusions seriously because others and I am not one and the same thing, and that has nothing to do with “objectively EXIST”,

I think I might be starting to get my head around your view. There is you and there is other. Other is not you and so has an objective quality. Is that right?

If that is the case then I would say you can't be sure of that either. I would rather say that there is what you are conscious of and there is what you are not conscious of. And you can't be sure that what you are not conscious of is not you.

but all things do have an objective quality that are experienced subjectively, and that I can be certain of.

We're back to the simple formulation here, regardless of our definitions: All things have qualities independent of mind (not you) that are experienced by mind (you). Seems to me that, whichever way you cut it, that makes you a metaphysical objectivist. Yet you say that objective existence holds no meaning for you. What am I missing here?

Sap: and that is where I see two subjectivities sensing that objective quality of each other. It is not ALL in MY mind you see

DT: How can you know that for sure?

Sap: For one, I am not Dave.

You might not be Dave but you cannot know for sure that Dave isn't 'of you'.

And, at the very least, you can say for sure that all you know of Dave is all 'of you'.

DT: Just as you can be only provisionally confident of taking others seriously, you can only be provisionally confident of objective existence and that it's not all in your mind.

Sap: May be I’m a bit over confident that you are not me; tell me otherwise.

You should not be so confident because you have no reliable way to prove it to yourself without doubt.

Feel free to be as provisionally confident as you like that, contingently, you're not me. You'll get no argument from me on that score. But the fact remains that you cannot be certain.

DT: So, for instance, I made a joke above, intending no offense whatsoever. That was the (objective) quality of my intention, of which I can be subjectively certain. But all you can see is your subjective understanding of it, the qualities of which may or may not be correct, objectively.

Sap: So, in effect what you are saying is that my subjectivity is independent of your subjectivity, isn’t it? The fact that I may be subjectively correct or incorrect, itself, tells me that your subjectivity is not entirely dependant on my subjectivity.

You're taking my above paragraph out of the context it was in before it was separated from the preceding paragraph; that context being the realm of the contingent. In that context, yes, I can be provisionally confident that your subjectivity is independent of mine. But again, I cannot be certain that you are independent of me, or whether anything is.

I and the rest of totality is not one and the same thing.

Just to reiterate my view and to make the point that I've yet to be convinced otherwise, you cannot know that for sure. There is what you are conscious of and there is what you are not conscious of. You cannot be sure that what you are not conscious of is not you creating what you are conscious of.

My subjectivity, “I”, has an objective relationship to all that is not it, and ‘objective’ does not mean totally independent of any causal relationship in my books.

Indeed, objective doesn't mean that, it means reality independent of mind (how mind relates to causal relationship is another topic).

You (your subjectivity, "I") has a relationship to all that it is conscious of. Whether that is a relationship which has any reality independent of mind, you cannot be certain.

DT: So if it's all a matter of perspective, qualities included, how can one possibly be certain of the objective quality of qualities?

Sap: By being certain that fundamentally neither consciousness nor its contents are illusory in and off any given causal moment.

That's a non-sequitur mate. You're right that you can be certain that neither consciousness nor its contents are illusory but it doesn't follow that said contents have any reality independent of mind.


Looking at how straightforward my last question (and the original question) was, and the answer you've given, you must be employing a different definition of objective than I am.

Objective - the quality of being possessed of reality, independent of mind.
Quality - characteristics projected by mind.

Objective quality - oxymoron.

There's only one way you could disagree and that's if you're employing said differing definition.

What definition of the word 'objective' are you working with?

Dave; sorry for the delayed response.

Looking at how straightforward my last question (and the original question) was, and the answer you've given, you must be employing a different definition of objective than I am.

Of course that is obvious; so lets agree on the definitions first, and see how you have arrived at your definition.

Objective - the quality of being possessed of reality, independent of mind.

How do you define ‘reality’ and ‘mind’? Does ‘mind’ have a quality of being possessed of reality, independent of mind?

Quality - characteristics projected by mind.

We can talk about characteristics “projected BY mind” once I know what you mean by “mind”.

I can in no way see that given all conditions, the ‘quality’ possessed by an apple tree to produce apples and not mangoes is a characteristic projected by mind, but instead is a logically deduced objective (logical) quality (nature) of the apple tree, realized through a process of reasoning we call the “mind”. This in no way means that that quality (nature, characteristic) is independent of any other thing in and off totality, including the process of reasoning (mind) that tells me that I do not have the quality of producing apples, nor can it produce mangoes either.