Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - Printable Version

+- Bring4th (
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (
+--- Forum: Strictly Law of One Material (
+--- Thread: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity (/showthread.php?tid=17727)

Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - Asolsutsesvyl - 11-05-2019

How does objectivity and subjectivity relate to polarity? In short, I think you can keep them separate at the level of definition, though both positive and negative dynamics have much to do with both objective and subjective reality.

This a big subject area, and touches on the history of metaphysics in terms of the Fourth Way, the Ra contact, and the Cassiopaean Experiment. The third of these tried to unify the metaphysics of the first two, introducing serious distortions in the process.

Don Elkins, Ra, and keeping it simple

In the original introduction to the Ra material, Don Elkins refers to a natural element of subjectivity in spiritual activities. He does not question its role in mystical affairs.

Ra recommends a balance between an intuitive and an analytical approach in spiritual matters. More generally, as an approach to life, neither is more positive or negative in itself.

My guess is that Don Elkins considered positivity and objectivity to be independent variables. That is, a two-dimensional picture could be given where they are separate axes.

In such a picture of the mind, a balanced and positive approach would lead to the positive half of the picture being filled along a continuum reaching from the most subjective to the most objective. That's not a simple matter, and people differ in their capacities in subjective and objective areas, so in practice, such a picture will always be much more uneven.

A key point is that suppressing exploration and activity, or inwardly distorting the attitude towards, subjective and/or objective experience and activity, means blockage or imbalance, and is ultimately something to move past in learning one's lessons.

People who reject objective reality scramble large areas of awareness, and end up projecting other things onto what exists, instead of accepting what exists. It also makes it much harder to respond to catalyst successfully, since viable means and actions are likely to be rejected in advance.

In the case of subjective parts of reality, rejection is likely to lead to a counter-productive fighting with the self, which may spill over outwards in various ways. When it gets bad, and increased control is the only way seen to resolve the problems perceived, it can spiral sharply into something strongly negative. Or, if the focus is more strictly one of self-control, then a self-suffocating approach may result, or a detrimental leap into an external source of help which does not correct the imbalance, but instead furthers it.

Gurdjieff's thinking

This will be sketchy, because Gurdjieff's thinking is a very tricky topic. Gurdjieff directly perceived reality in a multi-layered way, and accepted far more as "real" and existing "out there" than is dealt with by materialistic science. He was a superb systems thinker from a time before that label came of use, and developed models taking into account all the levels of reality he found real.

He didn't care much for materialistic science, except for its practical uses. What was objective to Gurdjieff was what had a "concrete" existence, whether the substances involved were material in materialistic terms, or something different. God itself was objective in Gurdjieff's terms, as a kind of atom with a role unique in the cosmos, indivisible, yet containing everything.

The main concern for Gurdjieff was that humanity was asleep, hypnotized by forces which keep it under control, and that humanity - or a sufficient number - needed to wake up in order to prevent disaster. What Gurdjieff called imagination can be translated roughly as "distortions in consciousness separating it from reality", and he saw it as the great evil to be eliminated. (In Gurdjieff's own terms, "consciousness" has several levels and meanings, not elaborated on here.)

Gurdjieff saw people as malfunctioning machines whose souls were either absent or not in charge, leading to a deranged circus on the collective level, and making things like World Wars I and II (during his time) not only possible but inevitable. Only by a sufficient number waking up, becoming truly conscious, and influencing the rest of humanity, could humanity prevent destroying itself and all its future possibilities.

He made many sharp distinctions running contrary to the mentalities of all the surrounding cultures, and the Work he instructed people in was anything but easy. All the difficulties, harshness, and control involved was organized in a complex and dynamically regulated way, intended to add up to the "harmonious development of man".

While Gurdjieff seems to have helped at least a few people greatly, on the whole the results of his teaching were very mixed, and for the most part, what was hoped for never happened. Entering the final years of his life, and following a serious car accident, Gurdjieff suddenly downscaled his teaching activities and wrote books for future generations. After the accident, he claimed that he had "died" in some sense, and his energy then went into elaborating a message out of a newly inspired hindsight.

The mental models Gurdjieff developed included layers and distinctions of both inner and outer reality which, in principle, do not leave anything out, and which honor what is conventionally referred to as objective and subjective. (Book-length material is needed for a decent overview.) But something seems to have been askew in how it was applied to the people he came in contact with. An imbalance, combined with the intensity of what he was doing, ruined the good intentions.

Oversimplification doesn't scale

The thinking at the core of what Montalk distinguishes as a second phase of the Cassiopaean Experiment, from the early 00's and on, is built on ideas and tendencies part of the picture from early on. The big shift in mentality he chronicled is a matter of how the dots are connected; they became connected more firmly, in a very simple pattern.

The QFS philosophy centered around the unification of the ideas of objectivity and subjectivity, in a Gurdjieffian sense, with the positive and negative polarities, respectively. Subjectivity became a defining characteristic of STS consciousness, and its elimination seen as the key in striving towards STO consciousness.

Over the years, the boundary between what's seen as subjective and objective has changed. The earlier "Cassiopaean spirituality" is now seen as New Age nonsense which has been moved past through a long and difficult learning process. Gurdjieff's thinking is not the basis of how objective and subjective is defined, as most of the intricate structure of Gurdjieff's ideas has been stripped away and replaced by much simpler thought.

From the beginning of the mentioned phase of the Cassiopaean Experiment, Gurdjieff was a major inspiration, but his ideas not at the center, but rather draped around the actual core mentality, and fuel for its development. In the era of the online forum, a metaphor of the online community as a "house" made clear that Gurdjieff's ideas were part of the furniture and decor rather than the architecture.

A problem with the very wide-ranging use of two words, objective and subjective, when given an increasingly nuanced and fuzzy range of meaning, is that the semantics become slippery. The flow of words will look good, but on examination, the meaning may subtly shift from thought to thought, without the thinker noticing. Ironically, this core feature of the teaching furthers subjectivity. The result is what Gurdjieff observed regarding thought and language, where people think they agree or disagree based on words rather than actual meaning, the two at odds.

Then enters a sense of urgency, and hyperbolic expressions of what is positive, negative, important, and dangerous. Over time, the idea that only those who "pay strict attention to objective reality" (C's) become part of the future, others reduced to dreams in the past, has morphed into an extremely imbalanced psychology. Inner burdens are unresolved, and in response to catalyst, people look outwards and harden their resolve to be "objective" at all costs. A barrier grows between an increasingly stormy world of the soul and the outer world, while signs related to the 4D activity of the community intensify.

If the core of a "system" is made too simple, it may be possible to build around that core for a time, and maybe more quickly and efficiently than possible on a more complex foundation. But eventually, the oversimplification at the core leads to confusion and overcomplication when the "system" is extended, dysfunction increasing over time. For a clean design and a sane implementation to be possible as a "system" scales up in size and scope, oversimplification of basic components must be avoided (though it is optimal for them to be as simple as they can without being oversimplified).

General thoughts

There's several kinds of "simple". The teaching of the Ra contact has a simplicity at the core which "scales" well, and seems to be carefully constructed to avoid leading people to leave any major part of the big picture out.

What are the pitfalls of wisdom teachings? They go wrong when they magnify some areas of reality out of proportion while blinding people to other areas. Too many hard and fast guidelines, overgeneralizations, hyperbolic maxims, etc., and "wisdom" will lead to mixed-up mental and emotional patterns.

The Law of One books do not lead people particularly strongly in choosing how to approach reality. The teaching on the polarities goes the farthest in so doing, but is at the same time full of subtleties often missed or selectively ignored by readers. As part of a positive path, a balanced approach is, in general, recommended. (There seems to be major overlap with Jungian insights regarding that.)

The subjective reaches of consciousness are part of life, and as part of a balanced approach, not something to be avoided. A positive orientation will only manifest fully when the personal subjective world becomes part of a positive psychic landscape. And I think subjectivity may be inseparable from individuality; consciousness perhaps extends in that direction whenever there is separation from unity with all in the structure of the consciousness. If so, subjectivity is always part of existence in density 4 as well, and probably 5.

There's also several kinds of "quixotic". Ironically, trying to destroy subjectivity in oneself as an individual being may be a "quixotic" striving on a scale similar to that of trying to fully become "one with all" without going through the journey of the densities in-between in the octave.

In order to choose one's personal brand of "quixotic" quest wisely, it may help to, basically, be wise about wisdom. A good maxim when not wise enough to be wise enough may be the classic "keep it simple, stupid". If in doubt as to which kind of simple, then something which basically makes sense in relation to experience, instead of being disconnected from it, intuitively seems the best bet.

Returning to Gurdjieff for a final thought, there's a point to exploring the structure and "things" of non-materialistic realities in a serious way. If "objective" is to be redefined to include things belonging to more levels of reality, as investigators in paranormal areas may want to do, then it is however best to keep the dictionary as clear and unambiguous as possible, avoiding mixing too much into the most basic words used.

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - Loki - 11-05-2019

For me true objectivity is separation from self when assessing the world. It is pure logic vs feeling. Thus objectivity does not help polarization or polarity. Objectivity though does not harm polarity. Objectivity is a form of self-control while subjectivity is freedom to chose what you feel.
Sometimes I do what I believe is objectively right but I do not enjoy much the experience and other times I do what I believe is objectively wrong but I enjoy the experience a lot.

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - RitaJC - 11-05-2019

I don't believe there is anything objective in any experience

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - Loki - 11-05-2019

(11-05-2019, 10:13 AM)RitaJC Wrote: I don't believe there is anything objective in any experience

Your answer is truly objective but also truly subjective Smile

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - AnthroHeart - 11-05-2019

(11-05-2019, 10:13 AM)RitaJC Wrote: I don't believe there is anything objective in any experience

Bashar would disagree. According to them, there are 5 laws:

[Image: 5laws.jpg]

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - RitaJC - 11-05-2019

(11-05-2019, 11:03 AM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote:
(11-05-2019, 10:13 AM)RitaJC Wrote: I don't believe there is anything objective in any experience

Bashar would disagree. According to them, there are 5 laws:

[Image: 5laws.jpg]

I didn't say they don't exist I said every experience is subjective Smile

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - Asolsutsesvyl - 11-09-2019

I do agree that there's subjective elements to all experience. Objectivity is more like a way of filtering, structuring, and making use of experience. It is a way of examining the relation of different things at levels of existence in which they appear as separate. (The ways in which things are connected, or interact, is also part of the reality at such levels.)

A rigidly objective focus can take a lot of joy out of things, but the potential still exists for the joy of discovery, or invention, and similar, in connection with objective exploration. And there's a range of positive subjective experience connected with learning and teaching of more objective kinds.

A more objective approach to inner life is a trickier subject, and there's various conflicting philosophies as to what that means, and whether or not it's possible.

The Fourth Way ideas go the farthest in terms of aiming at a structured exploration which, in principle, parallels the structure of the cosmos. A fundamental difference exists compared to the way in which empirical science is conducted: instead of accepting ideas in the absence of conflicting evidence, ideas are accepted when there is "inner" evidence to support them. (Though comparison and changes in ideas when evidence points in different directions is still part of the picture.)

In the first Gnosis book, Mouravieff also points out that the objective can only be approached through the medium of the subjective. (Esoteric studies are described as a means of giving objective validity to a subjective mentality, though a more far-ranging objective consciousness ultimately requires an enormous inner change referred to as the "second birth".)

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - unity100 - 11-10-2019

The infinite parallel universes and realities existing does not change the fact that the observer that inhabits this particular reality exists in this particular reality.

In that respect objectivity becomes a fundamental part of existence and understanding. Otherwise, the entity will be detached from the happenings in this reality, and will live in a subjective reality of its own. Which will cause the presence of the entity in this reality pointless due to the entity not being able to interact with the reality and its events, keeping it from learning and progressing.

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - Trinity2Infinity - 03-25-2020

Things are subjective in the same way a rorshock test is subjective. The ink is objectively in one shape or another, but the meaning you get from it is purely subjective. Hope this makes sense. The path of the Law of One and the Law of Foreverness is the path of dissolution into the wind and becoming all that is.

Quote:3.10 Questioner: Then if an individual is totally informed with respect to the Law of One and lives, and is the Law of One, such things as the building of a pyramid by direct mental effort would be commonplace. Is that what I am to understand? Am I correct?

Ra: I am Ra. You are incorrect in that there is a distinction between the individual power through the Law of One and the combined, or societal memory complex mind/body/spirit understanding of the Law of One.

In the first case only the one individual, purified of all flaws, could move a mountain. In the case of mass understanding of unity, each individual may contain an acceptable amount of distortion and yet the mass mind could move mountains. The progress is normally from the understanding which you now seek to a dimension of understanding which is governed by the laws of love, and which seeks the laws of light. Those who are vibrating with the Law of Light seek the Law of One. Those who vibrate with the Law of One seek the Law of Foreverness.

We cannot say what is beyond this dissolution of the unified self with all that there is, for we still seek to become all that there is, and still are we Ra. Thus our paths go onward.

Quote:6.7 Questioner: How were you able to make the transition from Venus, and I assume the sixth dimension, which— would that be invisible when you reached here? Did you have to change your dimensions to walk on the Earth?

Ra: You will remember the exercise of the wind. The dissolution into nothingness is the dissolution into unity, for there is no nothingness. From the sixth dimension, we are capable of manipulating, by thought, the intelligent infinity present in each particle of light or distorted light so that we were able to clothe ourselves in a replica visible in the third density of our mind/body/spirit complexes in the sixth density. We were allowed this experiment by the Council which guards this planet.

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - Asolsutsesvyl - 02-02-2021

As an abstract topic, objectivity and subjectivity in relation to positivity and negativity, may be further from matters in which concrete experience may lead to clear-cut views. I think that on examination, however, it branches out into smaller questions very close to practical matters in life, where views cluster more strongly into matters connected to ideology, culture, and more.

A main subtopic is that of honesty vs. dishonesty, and what it leads to. Honesty in mind, with oneself, is plainly a question of objectivity, or one of the ways in which a person can be objective. The ways in which this relate to social relations, honesty and dishonesty between people, and positive and negative dynamics, is more complex.

An easy argument for objectivity in social relations is that its absence isolates participants into irreconcilable bubbles, far more than is neccessary. If the external results are cared about, as opposed to purely being concerned with whether inwardly felt intentions were good or not within each isolated participant, then in practice there is no escaping caring about objectivity, if the approach is to be mentally coherent.

(With that conclusion, in theory most people seem to agree about most things. Exceptions include ideologies asserting that reality is a social construction to the point where questions of fact do not exist, and ideologies in which criteria at odds with logic are used to evaluate which facts are true, and similar, e.g. religious variations on that theme.)

As soon as "positivity vs. negativity" is looked at on a larger scale than an isolated individual, and takes more participants functioning as a whole into account, it becomes more difficult to separate the objectivity of participants from their positivity, though the relationship between the two is not necessarily simple.

In general, the type of honesty which is internal, and in turn that type of objectivity, would seem to be absolutely crucial for accommodating others. Without it, external honesty is reduced to something very superficial in its significance: internal dishonesty and external honesty can easily look like internal honesty and external dishonesty on the outside.

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - unity100 - 02-08-2021

Objectivity/subjectivity is not the right termage to use for this.

Reality is objective. What they entity experiences - if its senses and understanding and mental capacity are enough - is objective.

What the entity feels or interprets about the actual reality can be subjective. Even in that, the reason why the entity feels what it feels is linked to the actual existing reality, so even that is objective.

The resulting thinking can be subjective. The entity may ignore parts of the reality, may pay more attention to some other parts, and completely make up some other parts (more in 3d veiled experiences probably) and get a different 'view' of the event.

When an entity is greatly detached from reality by ignoring many parts of that reality and making up sizeable parts, that's not subjectivity, its just being detached from reality. Making up one's own reality on the go, is far more unproductive.

For the catch and the issue with that are, that entity is not in Reality X of Creation Y. The entity is in this particular reality, in this particular creation.

Which is, as you can understand,, is not a healthy situation. Since the entity is literally not where it needs to be, actually experiencing what it needs to experience and doing what it needs to do.

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - Asolsutsesvyl - 02-09-2021

(02-08-2021, 12:44 AM)unity100 Wrote: Objectivity/subjectivity is not the right termage to use for this.

Reality is objective. What they entity experiences - if its senses and understanding and mental capacity are enough - is objective.

What the entity feels or interprets about the actual reality can be subjective. Even in that, the reason why the entity feels what it feels is linked to the actual existing reality, so even that is objective.


In that, though not sure about all the rest, no conflict that I see. What I had in mind in the previous post was zooming in on inaccuracy in perception or understanding of reality as a type of subjectivity. And in turn, how that in relation to the self can stand in the way of good results when it throws off the "aim" in how external reality is dealt with.

(In judging inner matters and making the distinctions giving rise to accuracy and inaccuracy in that, there is then "subject and object in oneself". In principle the pattern of the objective and the subjective then repeats, similarly to between the judging self and the external world.)

The philosophy which I was critical of in the opening post, associated with the Cassiopaea community, mainly associates subjectivity with error and STS consciousness and problems and limitations which would ideally be transcended, though humans can't go all the way. I questioned the fast and hard association between inaccuracy and STS-ness (and more), but left inaccuracy as a type of subjectvity an unaltered part of the thinking.

(In turn, the Cassiopaea community lifted and brutalized the thinking found in the Fourth Way philosophy, where Boris Mouravieff's Gnosis books in particular introduce self-development and self-understanding as strivings of esoteric science. Standing in the way of objectively knowing oneself is problems and limitations with the measuring apparatus, meaning parts of the self, issues which self-development aims to solve as part of the overall striving.)

I returned to this thinking a little, briefly, but I've questioned whether the basic categories are really that good. Maybe Peter Naur, in his Antiphilosophical Dictionary, has a point?
Quote:Objectivity: The word enters into the philosophers' explanation of certain -isms (p. 32). Thereby these become as unclear as the word objectivity.

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - Patrick - 02-09-2021

I have come to believe that true objectivity can only be perceived within Unity. Which would mean that while veiled everything is pretty much subjective.

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - Asolsutsesvyl - 02-10-2021

In the opening post, I didn't describe my own worldview in any detail, instead I zoomed out to give a thin outline of a larger mental landscape. I don't know if that confused unity100, who in his first post in this thread expressed a very similar line of thought to my own usual thinking. I don't find it to contradict my own thinking in general, though it is more specific than what I've written so far.

(02-09-2021, 08:08 PM)Patrick Wrote: I have come to believe that true objectivity can only be perceived within Unity. Which would mean that while veiled everything is pretty much subjective.

In Unity, there's no subject and object, no comparisons at all, thus no way to distinguish between objective and subjective. Of course, when there's no problems, everything's fine.

All the tricky stuff enters when being-capabilities are limited. Each type of conscious being has its own limits of perception, but within for example human limits, it is possible to err more or less in trying to perceive and understand reality, as Gurdjieff pointed out. Working on the self as an existentialist striving of sorts depends on the quality of perception, and so the quest to improve accuracy or what's done with the hardware nature has given us then follows as part of that great striving.

P. D. Ouspensky, in describing Gurdjieff's teaching, probably had in mind as a contrasting view his own earlier descriptions in the book Tertium Organum. Ouspensky emphasized how human perception was too limited in dimensionality, and how we failed to perceive a 4th dimension of space and more dimensions of time than we took into account existed. More than half a century later, some descriptions of 4D beings and realms touched on such ideas, but obviously that's still very far from Unity, though it's one solid step up from human limitations of perception. But at the human level, a striving, in a little sub-octave, could eventually lead up that one step to the 4D-level.

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - Patrick - 02-10-2021

Yes so starting at the first distortion, everything becomes subjective. Wink

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - Diana - 02-10-2021

Another way to look at this is manifested and unmanifested, explicate and implicate, particle and wave. I would agree with Patrick that only in unity (unmanifested, implicate, wave function) can there be objectivity, with no distortions, biases, preferences, outcomes inherent. Once any distortion is manifested, there is now an outcome from infinite possibilities—which lines up with subjectivity.

RE: Objectivity & subjectivity in relation to positivity & negativity - Asolsutsesvyl - 02-10-2021

I can see how you end up there if you think of the subjectivity not of a human being, but of the cosmic mind distorting itself to fit the existence and "viewpoint" of a human being.