Is the concept of objectivity a myth?

[sdi]

I've been meditating on subjectivity and objectivity lately, courtesy of an exchange with barefootwisdom. We're all taught as children that there is such a thing as objective Truth, and that even though we are limited by our subjective senses, the Truth can be discovered through the scientific method. In the last week, though, I've come to think that even a subjective universe can be consistent enough to admit the use of the scientific method; and that if we don't need to resort to the notion of objectivity in order to model the universe, then (by Ockham's Razor) we shouldn't.

(Why, then, is the concept taught? Presumably to propagandize children into an implicit belief in a mechanistic universe in which gods and goddesses have no place.)

That's all good enough for me, but I thought I might be better served by asking someone less bound by a lack of perspective as I am.


I am represented by Cauda Draconis in the the I (a traditional indication that I already know, or think I know, the answer and am shopping for a confirmation), while the concept of objectivity is represented by Amissio (the figure of loss) in the IX (of deep knowledge). The I perfects to the IX by a conjunction through the X (strengthened slightly by company capitular). The I is in planetary company with Rubeus in the II (of things held closely, indicating my prior worldview), while Amissio also occupies the V (of pleasures) and VII (of the being I'm asking my question to). Interestingly, these three figures (Rubeus, Cauda Draconis, and Amissio) also make up the court.

All told, I think this says: "Yes, for whatever it's worth, I agree with you and think that the world is more fun and interesting if you drop the concept altogether. You were misinstructed as a child, but you managed to figure things out for yourself in the end."

Comments

[emmanuelg]

Fascinating ideas!
Oddly, I've been thinking along the same lines, that what we think of as objective and subjective may be something else entirely. Suppose we use computers as a model to think about these things. Suppose I open a spreadsheet program. Let's say I have a vague idea of what spreadsheets do, but there is no "Spreadsheets for Dummies" reference available. I have to learn how to use it by experimentation.

While the spreadsheet is open, it has rules that govern what happens within the spreadsheet.. If I don't know the rules, I can discover them, and consult with other spreadsheet users who may have discovered functions that I don't know about. The spreadsheet does not do things on its own. I have to interact with it, and to a limited extent, it interacts with me. I can interact with other spreadsheet users through spreadsheets that I share with them. '

Now I close the spreadsheet and open a graphics program. I can put numbers into the graphics I create, but the rules for how they interact are much different from those that govern numbers in the spreadsheets.

Yet, underlying all of that are the binary gyrations of the Windows 7 Operating System (It's true, I haven't upgraded to Win 10). So Windows 7 is the ultimate objective ground level of reality here--- No wait! I have a dual-booting laptop, and I ALSO run Linux, so the OS is not the objective reality.

Maybe its the hardware that's the objective reality here. Nope, can't be that. My sister runs only Macs and can use a spreadsheet I created on her Mac...

So applying all this to the experience of reality that we share--
Geomancy could be like the spreadsheet program. It is a tool through which we interact with each other and with other being(s) that have a different view of (or perhaps a higher vantage point on) reality than our own. I interact with a Geomantic reading, and it has boundaries and rules, but they are more like a framework for meditation that takes me outside of my usual frame of reference.

Interacting with a spreadsheet is similar, in that I can use the spreadsheet to guide my mathematical meditations and arrive at answers that would not otherwise be available to me.

But its more than that. It is also like playing chess with a partner that wants you to make the best possible next move.

Quantum physics says that the presence of an observer changes the outcome of an interaction between particles. That should tell us something about objectivity!

So, no objectivity. Perhaps that is so, but there are games with rules, constructs in which we can participate. When we do, our presences change the outcome.

Is that at all like your understanding?

[sdi]

So, no, I don't think so: but that's not because it's wrong (or even incompatible), but rather I don't really think in terms of tools or utility, but instead in terms of relationships. Let me see if I can explain myself better.

They way I think of it is that there really are no rules to the universe at all, either fundamentally or at the level we operate at. Instead, I think that the "laws of nature" are more like a style guide or the guiding aesthetic of an art movement: it's a negotiation of sorts, in which all the participating beings each contribute a little to the way the world works itself out.

But, just like as in human society, the power or influence of each being has something to say about how much it can dictate. Think of it like a painting: minerals are quite minor and can maybe influence the particular tone of paint as it touches canvas; humans are less so, and can maybe influence the shape of brush strokes; angels, perhaps, can influence the subject matter of the painting; and gods are more powerful still, and can influence the stylistic forms being enacted.

As such, the world itself has no universal or objective rules... if the gods got together and decided, say, that they want to start working in watercolors instead of oil paints, all the things we take as fundamental (like gravity or the weak nuclear force or whatever) could simply cease to exist at once. And, of course, since it's consensus based, if the gods decided to make exceptions, they could do so and cause, say, a planet made out of strawberry cupcakes to appear from nothing. (But, of course, this doesn't tend to happen in practice, since there are many beings involved and all democratic processes are inherently extremely conservative, since there's so much inertia. Populus is Populus, after all.) That said, even though there's no fundamental rules, we're still subject to the constraints placed upon us at our level of being, right? You aren't an angel, you don't think like an angel and you don't have the power to act like an angel, so you don't get a seat at that table. Instead, you're limited to negotiating with the beings that operate at a similar level to you on what the rules are.

Since the rules are subjective, you can bend them. For example, as a human, you can choose to opt out of human society almost entirely if you wish; that is difficult and comes with a cost, but it is an option. But since you're not a higher being, you can't opt out of material existence; if you could, you would be an angel or a god by definition, right? So just because the rules are subjective or even arbitrary, your capacity to play with those rules is limited to your capacity as a being.

Consequently, I think "spiritual growth" is about growing the capacity to think like higher beings (philosophy?), act like higher beings (magic?), or else developing a special relationship with some of those beings such that they're inclined to listen (with however many caveats) to what you have to say (mysticism?). Thereby you may end up with a seat at a larger table, and get to help determine a larger (but still insignificantly tiny) slice of those subjective rules and transcend some of the limitations you have at your current level of being-hood.

[emmanuelg]

Maybe the keyword is 'objective,' since it implies dead objects acted on by impersonal forces. But in a totally subjective universe, the most important thing is the interplay and interaction of beings at many levels, and everything in our experience arises from that, one way or another.