--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> God has only a first person perspective on his Creation.
Bzzzzzzt. Any argument that depends on "buy in" to either
the concept of God or belief that you or anyone else knows
what his/her/its perspective is is of no interest to me. You
react to my question about considering subjective belief
to be objective fact by declaring your subjective belief to
be objective fact.
Not for the first time, all that this inspires in me is a sense of
incredulity that people in Fairfield could ever have considered
your narcissism worth listening to, much less following. No
offense, but I do not share their level of gullibility. Thanks
for your reply, but run your stuck-inside-your-own-head
egotrip on someone else, eh?
> That first person perspective obviates the need for a third person
perspective (in the case of this necessary being whose substance is the
same as his existence: he is his own existence: we aren't; our nature
[human being] and our individuality [person that we are] are distinct
from our existence).
>
> Now as a contingent being whose existence and substance are not the
same (our sense of a personal I can never be the same as the objective
truth that we existour existence is not our own doing, it is being
done for us, to us) we can never be certain of the truth of our first
person perspective: our subjectivity. The fact of our existing in the
first place always exceeds the potential truthfulness of our
subjectivity, else our subjectivity would be equivalent to the final
causality which resulted in us being alive.
>
> Whereas our subjectivity itself has a cause, and it is not, despite
how it feels, something of, originally at least, our own making.
>
> Only in God, then, is it possible for subjectivity to be the same as
objectivity. And for God, this is always the case. Because he *is* his
own existence.
>
> Now the challenge for us is, since our first person point of view (our
experience of ourselves and reality) is itself a creation of God, then
it stands to reason that the only theoretically truthful subjectivity
(subjectivity that is objective) can occur when God, who knows our
subjectivity, our first person perspective, better than we do: he could
write not only our biography, but our autobiography,*determines to make
it come about* that our subjectivity perfectly accords with his
determination that we apprehend a given moment in time-space-causation
that does not violate in any way his (God's) own way of seeing things.
He chooses to have us see reality the way it really isgiven our
limitations as a created (and maybe fallen) human being. (Our
subjectivity, after all, can never equal in nature what his subjectivity
is.)
>
> Now this admittedly must be a rare event; but given that our own sense
of subjectivity is a reflection (we are made in the image of God) of
God's own subjectivity, it must at the very least be possible to *know
when we are closer to seeing reality as it really is*, or understanding
something about reality the way God would have us understand it
this being the instantiation of objective subjectivityand when we
are not. When our subjectivity lacks a sufficient quotient of
objectivity.
>
> What are the criteria of determining the reliability of one's
subjectivityand thus the approximation of a subjectivity that is
objective? Here is my best guess:
>
> 1. We experience that our first person subjectivity is not being
expressed, or being driven to be expressed, at the expense of a purely
disinterested and dispassionate third person perspective. If there is
some high order of truth in our experience of something (or even
someone, or an idea, or an event) we will find that our subjective point
of view is, to some significant extent, being determined by reality, by
a sense of truth *which exists independent of that first person point of
view*. We could call this, not "Support of Nature" but support of
reality. A third person perspective gets embedded in our first person
perspective as it were.
>
> 2. We find ourselves seeking, like Socrates, to know what is knowable
and what is not knowable. We are inspired to find out what the truth is
in and of itself; not to have the truth necessarily correspond to what
we want it to be, what we are certain it is. We let life, reason,
reality, into the process of forming our subjective point of
viewand this is felt to be an empirical variable in our pursuit of
the truth. {Obviously this could from another viewpoint be seen as
'grace'.]
>
> 3. We are in our subjectivity always open to having that subjectivity
altered, adjusted, shaped, redefined, even overturned by reality, by
reason, by life: we do not double-down in our first person point of view
when it comes into collision with a different and opposing point of
view. We don't want to be isolated, defensive, compulsive, or reflexive
in processing data which seem to be in conflict with our own way of
seeing things, knowing things, experiencing things.
>
> 4. We are determined always to argue against ourselvesor are
prepared to do thiswhenever we run up against points of view which
are at variance with our own. And we always seek the strongest point of
the argument against our point of view (POV here meaning a POV rooted in
our subjectivitynot, for instance, the doing of science, or the
carrying out of some mechanical activity). Indeed, sensing what our
subjectivity favours, embraces, is predisposed to think and experience,
we always act at some level as a potential devil's advocate of our own
POVconsidered, as I say, subjectively.
>
> 5. We have the experience of being able to test out experimentally how
our subjective point of view is playing, is being received, is being
adjudicated silently by reality. We scrupulously avoid becoming
isolated, locked-in, enclosed, cut off with respect to our own
individual subjectivity. We are always doing our best to get the
feedback from reality as we go to articulate our own subjectivity as it
takes the form of thoughts, experiences, emotions, intuition and action.
We are constantly subjecting our subjectivity to the reality test: as
in: to what extent does my subjectivity get support (how true it is) by
experimental knowledge: that is, *how it is being received by life, by
reality*? Do I have evidence that the universe is some way is giving me
objective feedback that tends to confirm or disconfirm the validity of
my own subjectivity?
>
> 6. We are willing to have our subjectivity altered in a more immediate
and spontaneous senseor at least we discover this is a possibility;
and given the immense complexity and mystery of life, this should always
be a live contingency in our experience of living out our life. Our
subjectivity, then, is not solely to serve the purpose of reinforcing
and sustaining a certain POV; it is there, as an imitation of God, and
therefore we owe it to ourselves to treat it as the most miraculous gift
we have; therefore we want, as much as is possible, to bring our
subjectivity into a formwith the help of life and all that we
suffer throughwhich appears to have the right fit for usgiven
our unrepeatable uniqueness as a personagainst the backdrop of all
of creation. We are, after all, right inside of creation.
>
> 7. If God exists, it does not seem far-fetched for him to decide that,
in the case of a given individual human being, he might wish to make
their (his or her) subjectivity correspond, at least for a certain
period of time, to what objectively is the case, what is the truth. In
other words, God wants us to experience reality the way he wishes us to
experience it. And this, it seems to me, is the circumstance that
prevails in the case of the most heroic saints: like St Francis of
Assisi, like St Teresa of Avila, like St Ignatius of Loyola, like Saint
Catherine of Siena. If this is a possibility, it counts towards the
realism of objective subjectivity.
>
> 8. If there is really such a thing as objective subjectivity, it is
quite evident that turquoiseb's subjectivity has, *subjectively*,
determined this is impossible. How are we to determine whether this
[T's] judgment has been arrived at objectively? Well, let us ask him to
test his conviction against the criteria I have proposed. For me, the
way in which he seeks to refute this possibilityan objective
subjectivityitself tends to prove my thesis, because I do not sense
any experimental knowledge here that is being put before me. Turquoiseb
has already decided the issue. But has the universe? And when it comes
the the experience of dying, will we not have to, for the first time,
really understand what it means to have our subjectivity entirely
determined by reality? That it seems to me, is what death is all about.
Death being the ultimate experience we will have. And it will be all
about to the extent to which we can bear the amount of reality which
gave us existence in the first place. This is the perfect instance of
the challenge to us for our subjectivity to become objective.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > I seem to have a subjective memory of glimpsing, in that half-second
> > between realizing that a post I've clicked on is from MZ and
reaching
> > for the Next button, him saying something about his mind having an
> > objective component. I got the impression, in the second that I
paused,
> > considering this, that he believes that the very fact that he has
had a
> > subjective experience or belief that something is true *makes* it
true,
> > objective fact. I shrugged and clicked Next. In retrospect, I might
not
> > even have seen this. I might have imagined it in that
second-and-a-half
> > before Nexting away. I'm honest enough about the nature of MY
subjective
> > experience to admit that this is a possibility.
> >
> > Today, fresh off my McLuhanist rap, I'm pondering this possibility
> > further. CAN one's subjective experience ever be considered to be
> > synonymous with objective fact?
> >
> > I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say No.
> >
> > I know that I said earlier that this discussion was one that I no
longer
> > had much interest in, but that was before I saw many people I had
> > formerly considered sane, rational beings say that their subjective
> > impressions of what it was like to spend time with a powerful
spiritual
> > teacher trump fact. Their subjective experiences *are*, to them,
fact.
> > Anything else is an illusion, or a minor diversion, not worthy of
> > consideration. According to a few of these folks (fortunately very
few),
> > the teacher in question never forced his attentions on any of his
female
> > students, even though they have now heard first-hand testimony from
> > several of their fellow students saying that this was the case. They
> > assert that he was an impeccable and talented CEO in the world of
> > business, even though they have now heard testimony from guys who
sold
> > the business they co-owned with him for 180 million dollars less
than
> > its real value *just to get out of having to do business with him*.
> >
> > To be honest, some couch their choice to favor their positive
subjective
> > impressions of the guy as perfect as opinion, and that is just fine
in
> > my...uh...opinion. Nothing I know or believe about the guy is
objective
> > fact; it's just MY opinion, and I respect them having their own. But
a
> > few present their opinion as if it were objective fact, and that I'm
> > less down with.
> >
> > Suffice it to say that I've seen the same 'tude here. I would
suggest
> > that many more people on this forum believe that their subjective
> > impressions of reality constitute fact than would ever admit to
> > believing this in public. But is it true? CAN your subjective
experience
> > ever be considered fact? CAN it ever be considered reflective of
> > objective reality? CAN it ever be considered Truth?
> >
> > I throw this question out hoping that some who believe the answers
to
> > these questions are Yes will take the time to explain why they
believe
> > this. Robin? Jim? Rory? JohnR? Nabby? Others? I don't think I"m
alone
> > here in suspecting that you believe this. If you do, WHY? What has
> > convinced you that subjective really does equal objective? Can you
> > explain it to those of use who don't quite get it, and can see other
> > possibilities?
> >
>
