There is much to say about frame of reference in the world of communication and it's role in not only harmonious resolve but also discord and conflict that can lead to violent upheavals. The jury reference aside from it's hilarity is another case in which I've seen subjectivity create an environment where the participants actually work against themselves by inhibiting progress. When situations require expedient decision making, subjectivity can be disastrous. I think that is the main reason I don't like to go shopping with my wife.
On Sep 18, 11:57 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > " Obviously my statement becomes subjective, only as interpreted by > you ... " > > Your reply says a lot, Slip ! The point is that your statement is > subjective even as you are making it. It is not abstraction that is in > play here. It is just how difficult understanding anything is, and > expressing it is, both while speaking and while listening. The > reference frame of our respective knowledge, understanding, and the > resulting perspective from or into which we project or receive, makes > it almost impossible. So, we do the next best thing ... we make do > with approximations and consent to locate ourselves in common at one > or the other perspective. > > The jury anecdote reminds me of a practice in the business world : > What is the busines of our business ? This question is not only valid > but the most important one there ... one that is repeatedly asked, by > all key persons from top down, including by the owners or promoters > who might have been in the same business since decades. The practice > says, we do not really know enough, not accurately or exactly enough. > That, it is easy to be certain, about what is almost always mere > assumptions. > > In democratic practice too, what one says is not important. What one > hears is ! > > On Sep 18, 8:43 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Again, you are trying to break it down on peripheral understandings. > > Something subject to the senses cannot be fact because you might think > > something smells nice, I might think it stinks and someone else may > > not be able to smell but the "Fact" IS Vam that all three of us each > > has a nose, ruling out abnormalities of course. > > Also note that my post was a reply directly to Chris, one who knows > > how to read and understands the language I'm using. For you to > > generalize the comment out of context unfairly creates the > > subjectivity. My reference to subjectivity as being weak was part of > > a whole context which should remain as such and not be construed as an > > abstract statement. Obviously my statement becomes subjective, only > > as interpreted by you, and therefore supports my statement of how > > subjectivity is a means of fragmentation that weakens the > > foundation. > > > It would probably be a nightmarish experience to take part in a jury > > deliberation if the jury were comprised of all Minds Eye members. I > > can't imagine it. After 3 weeks of deliberation, "No your Honor, we > > haven't reached a verdict", "We're still working on whether or not > > facts exist". > > > On Sep 18, 1:00 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > " One thing is for sure, that is the it is "Fact" that you are > > > reading > > > this. Unless of course your not, which would be the obverse fact." > > > > Sure. But what is it, both your ' post ' and what constitutes ' > > > reading ?' Nobody denies that they are something. But, what are these > > > ' facts ?' > > > > Take, for instance, your post. It speaks of ' empiricism.' Does it > > > include the senses, the ability in the senses, depending on the > > > species, age, weather, medical condition ... or does it include more > > > advanced precision instruments ? If it includes the mind, as a > > > requirement for what is perceived empirically, which to me it seems it > > > does, then the state of the mind, its accumulated learning, cultural > > > disposition, mental conditioning, illness, etc. become relevant. Then, > > > the language, the terms ... what you meant by what you wrote and what > > > is understood, or not understood, by the reader of your post ! > > > > Then, you also admit subjectivity, however " weak." That's an > > > abyss ... take pages to fathom. > > > > With so many variables, and pending determinations, it does leave > > > matters in limbo ... > > > > Same with the act of reading, what it results in understanding, the > > > meaning ... > > > > What is ' it ?' > > > > On Sep 18, 8:29 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Not like you to ride the fence Chris. As one of the most stringent > > > > empiricists here you should emphasize the actuality of fact in > > > > empiricist terms. Surely philosophical challenge on the level of > > > > "being", in itself could dismantle the most basic human existence. > > > > However, we do exist, we are here, we feel, we dream, we explore and > > > > most of all we establish fact within our existence. Obviously fact is > > > > what we experience as reality in our world not construed with outer > > > > dimensions beyond our physical world. I know in my dreams there are > > > > occurrences that could never be construed as earthly experiences but > > > > we don't live in our dreams, we live here in real time which your > > > > alarm clock will reveal to you in the morning. > > > > Lee might argue that not everyone has an alarm clock but that is not > > > > the issue. The subjective is weak because it is a means of > > > > fragmentation which further weakens foundations. Our planet is our > > > > foundation, on which we are poised to exist, without choice and > > > > without direct control, we only live accordingly to what the world > > > > delivers, ergo, we are not in control. Experiencing the objective > > > > subjectively does not change the objective and perhaps the > > > > subjectivity is resultant of denial, failure to recognize, failure to > > > > understand or simply the lack of knowledge or comprehensive skill > > > > necessary to discern the difference. > > > > One thing is for sure, that is the it is "Fact" that you are reading > > > > this. Unless of course your not, which would be the obverse fact. > > > > > On Sep 17, 8:36 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I think we run into the same problem anytime we have a thread on > > > > > Objective/Subjective. As a materialist, I think that there is an > > > > > objective > > > > > reality, but recognize that it can only be experienced subjectively. > > > > > This is > > > > > why it's so hard to define what a fact is...is it the thing, or the > > > > > perception of the thing? I tend to agree with your hard pressed points > > > > > regarding objective facts, but I'm sympathetic to those who struggle > > > > > with > > > > > that. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > No I don't get the point you don't have. > > > > > > The point is: IF data can have multiple interpretations, > > > > > > perceptions, > > > > > > leading to multiple conclusions the data cannot be deemed "fact". > > > > > > Facts are immutable and have no malleable quality. > > > > > > There are many facts that no one can dispute and I'm sure you can > > > > > > name > > > > > > a few. If you dare you might want to dispute some facts concerning > > > > > > our solar system or the fact that if you chop your hand off a new > > > > > > one > > > > > > wont grow back or that castration renders the male unable to > > > > > > reproduce. Lee might waste time arguing some cryogenic sperm > > > > > > storage > > > > > > process but the point is clear; "Fact" at it's core is exactly that, > > > > > > "Fact". > > > > > > > Some Dictionary blurb: > > > > > > fact > > > > > > –noun > > > > > > 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth. > > > > > > 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel > > > > > > is now > > > > > > a fact. > > > > > > 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; > > > > > > something known > > > > > > to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. > > > > > > > I find it all so simple and wonder why the conundrum. Facts are not > > > > > > enigmatic but simply truths. > > > > > > > The "Only" facts I've ever known to be false (pure bull) are the > > > > > > facts > > > > > > that come from witnesses during a trial or a myriad of other > > > > > > fabrications stemming from marital disputes. > > > > > > Of course those are just lies and not fact at all. > > > > > > > On Sep 17, 5:08 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > Perhaps you are technically correct. But you get my point No? So > > > > > > > help me > > > > > > out please. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Slip Disc <[email protected]> > > > > > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Sent: Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:09 am > > > > > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > > > > > > > herefore, 1+1=2 is not a "fact" to begin with except as viewed by > > > > > > > hose who accept, understand and acknowledge it's numerical base. > > > > > > > It > > > > > > > s only subject to interpretation by those living by an alternately > > > > > > > efined numerical system or those who would debate whether > > > > > > > athematical systems are simply human constructs. 1011 might be > > > > > > > iewed as one thousand eleven unless your a computer analyst, so > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > xample presented in regards to the 'fact topic' appears to be > > > > > > > nvalid. > > > > > > > On Sep 17, 7:47 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > A fact is a fact but like all data this factual data has to be > > > > > > interpreted. > > > > > > > hen interpretation is added into the > > > > > > > > mix - the same or dofferent people may well view the same fact > > > > > > > fropm > > > > > > multiple > > > > > > > erspectives. Case in point: > > > > > > > > most people would probably agree that one plus one is two. > > > > > > > However 1 + 1 > > > > > > might > > > > > > > alidly be viewed as 11. > > > > > > > > Then again one plus one might be viewed as three as in the Law > > > > > > > of Threes > > > > > > - or > > > > > > > ealian Logic or the mystery of the > > > > > > > > trinity. Thus the initIAL FACT is transformed into a variety of > > > > > > alterrnative > > > > > > > eanings depending on the scale of > > > > > > > > observation of the observer in question. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Don Johnson <[email protected]> > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > Sent:20Wed, Sep 16, 2009 3:06 pm > > > > > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
