When I use the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' I'm referring to the
dictionary definition as defined by www.thefreedictionary.com. Definitions
are in English and I rely on the commonly understood meanings to embody
context.

*subjective*: Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than
the external world: a subjective decision.

*objective*: Of or having to do with a material object.

(other definitions edited for brevity)

While it's true that differing philosophical perspectives on reality might
skew the interpretations, I tend to try and stick with the mainstream
meaning of the definitions in order to avoid a breakdown in communication.


On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:57 PM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:

> Well, this could get murky depending on the individual/culture and the
> filters used to define and experience both objective and subjective
> reality plus languages differ and can have a huge effect upon ideas
> and understanding. Also, you have to figure in the influence of family
> and the emotional health of an individual- let's face it, we are
> subjects of our enviornment whether a dysfunctional family or a
> screwed up culture, etc. However, the individual is capable of change,
> adaptation, or whatever if dedication, circumstances, luck, fate, etc.
> are favorable. In that regard, we are our own hero/heroine, On the
> other hand, life is too grim to ever change for some humans.
>
> On May 4, 3:06 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > All objective things are dependent in some way also. Just in a different
> > way.
> >
> > I think subjective things are dependent in the way we associate them with
> > each other. Objective things are more physically dependent.
> >
> > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:46 PM, ornamentalmind
> > <[email protected]>wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > To me, what Chuck said about ‘dependence’ is of utmost importance
> > > here. All subjective things are dependent.
> >
> > > On May 3, 9:30 pm, the taoist shaman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > PSK  if at some point someones conciousness dident tell them not to
> be
> > > > selfish then how is it possible that you were ever told not to be
> > > > selfish ?
> >
> > > > pol.science kid wrote:
> > > > > selfishness is contrary to collective consciousness true..but isnt
> > > > > that the most real thing about us..i wonder..i wasnt told that
> > > > > selfishness is bad...would my conscience strike me...keep me in
> > > > > check...because...sometimes...my thoughts...they shock and repulse
> > > > > me... i loathe myself for having such  thoughts..and then i
> > > > > wonder...if that is not me...but it is me...it is hard ...to know
> that
> > > > > oyu are what you might condemn in someone else...and so i ask
> > > > > often...
> >
> > > > > On May 3, 1:04 pm, the taoist shaman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > PSK selfishness arouses discontent because it is contrary to
> > > > > > collective consciousness ,   try reading the meditations of
> marcus
> > > > > > auralius chapter 2 verse 1 from the harvard classics .
> >
> > > > > > gabbydott wrote:
> > > > > > > From a top-down perspective this is correct. But I understood
> that
> > > PSK asked
> > > > > > > for individual responses from each of us.
> >
> > > > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:09 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > But you have to admit there are humans who haven't the chance
> to
> > > even
> > > > > > > > consider this type of thinking as their lives are miserable
> due
> > > to
> > > > > > > > poverty, war, sickness and all other ills. Plus- what does a
> > > culture
> > > > > > > > celebrate? Wealth? Power? Etc.? You can hardly fault some for
> > > buying a
> > > > > > > > false self and image if that is what their culture teaches
> them,
> > > can
> > > > > > > > you? It takes a brave rebel to contradict society or
> challenge
> > > group
> > > > > > > > thought.
> >
> > > > > > > > On May 2, 12:20 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > If the selfish would truly search their self, they'd
> quickly
> > > die out.
> > > > > > > > > Problem is how they don't see themselves but see themselves
> in
> > > the others
> > > > > > > > > with the poor others not knowing that they are not taken
> for
> > > themselves
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > for someone else. My explanation.
> >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:57 PM, pol.science kid <
> > > [email protected]
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > at the first glance of your reply came a thought to my
> mind
> > > about
> > > > > > > > > > collective consciousness...rather a question...does the
> > > collective
> > > > > > > > > > consciousness exist independently...what does it mean
> > > exactly...to put
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > crudely is it the realisation that you are not the only
> > > phenomena..but
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > i feel is....it is very difficult to transcend ones own
> > > person...but is
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > important....why do we really get irritated with self
> > > absorbed or self
> > > > > > > > > > seeking people....why do we condemn selfishness..in any
> > > sense...are we
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > insecure as to feel deprived because of that ...or is it
> > > something
> > > > > > > > more.. i
> > > > > > > > > > hope i make sense.. and i hope you get waht i am trying
> to
> > > ask...i
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > like all to answer...cos i really want to know....
> >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:36 PM, DarkwaterBlight <
> > > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > >> This take appeals to my understanding. Perpetually
> changing,
> > > evolving
> > > > > > > > > >> and reforming. Input has an outcome and causes an
> expanded
> > > "mind
> > > > > > > > > >> space", if you will. Is logic all logical and what is to
> be
> > > said about
> > > > > > > > > >> rationalizing the "irrational"? Should my thinking be
> > > correct by the
> > > > > > > > > >> standards of others or to my own? What of "raising the
> bar"
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> consciousness and of a paradigm shift to a more correct
> > > thinking of
> > > > > > > > > >> our "collective mind" ? Of all that goes into into
> thought
> > > and mind is
> > > > > > > > > >> this not the desired effect?
> >
> > > > > > > > > >> On Apr 30, 9:23 am, "pol.science kid" <
> [email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > might thought be colored by the mind that engages it
> > > ....what is the
> > > > > > > > > >> realm
> > > > > > > > > >> > of pure thought that you mention here .... is it logic
> and
> > > > > > > > > >> > rationalisation...do you mean the method of employing
> that
> > > > > > > > > >> thought...because
> > > > > > > > > >> > ....knowing...percieving something for the first time
> the
> > > mind will
> > > > > > > > > >> > automatically fall back on the things it thinks it
> does
> > > know....
> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Chad Moore <
> > > [email protected]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >  Knowledge unites, in being or in identity. Thinking
> > > separates, in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > subject-object relationship.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Knowing has no place in the ordinary thought
> process.
> > > Thinking
> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > >> > > something
> > > > > > > > > >> > > which has to be known is wrong, since it moves in a
> > > vicious
> > > > > > > > circle.
> > > > > > > > > >> You
> > > > > > > > > >> > > cannot think
> > > > > > > > > >> > > of anything you have not known. Such thinking can
> never
> > > take you
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Truth.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > But when you direct your thought to something (say
> > > yourself) which
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > > > > >> > > otherwise
> > > > > > > > > >> > > visualized, the thought loses its own
> characteristics
> > > and limits,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > stands
> > > > > > > > > >> > > revealed as that Self (Consciousness) itself.
> Thought is
> > > thus
> > > > > > > > reduced
> > > > > > > > > >> into
> > > > > > > > > >> > > its essence.
> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > --
> > > > > > > > > >> > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -

Reply via email to