02-09-2021, 05:52 PM
(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.