What is objectivity based on?

[tridean]

What's an objective fact? Grass is green. If it's not, then there are no objective facts and everything that we perceive is just the representation of that thing as understood by the limits of our perception. How's that?

YES! A colour blind person is only colour blind because the majority says he or she is.

Sometimes it takes an awful lot of words/conversations to happen before I can find out why I asked a question in the first place. I became and still are afraid to post on this forum because I could not and still can not substantiate anything I read/see and/or think/feel and/or theorize with any proof. Grass is green to me but not to my dog or a colour blind person.

When reading the wave, I became fascinated by the 353535 code. Being a student of the markets and a theory (yes it is called a theory) called Elliott Wave theory I wondered if this was what the C's were referring to. A man by the name of Robert Prechter is very famous for his studies of EW theory and has taken it far beyond the stock markets, and to claim it is the basis of all physical existence from the universe itself to and psychological behaviour including mass social mood. Many of the words/descriptions used in some of the transcripts between Laura and the C's, which seemed at times to be beyond Laura's current understanding of them at the time (I don't know if I am wrong and do apologize if I am Laura), are repeated in Prechters book many times over.

I posted this http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=12078.0 but got no response from anyone. I still to this day do not know why I got no response other than it was a ridiculous theory from the outset, or I broke some rules, or that the message behind the 3-5 code had already been answered, but doing a search of 3-5 and 353535, I am the most recent person to bring it up. Therefore it seems it is still open to suggestion and that it is either one of the first two reasons.

My interest into whether or not this is what the C's was referring to stopped there. I saw no reason to even consider it anymore because no one else did. But it was only a theory, it still is, and any other suggestion as to what 353535 is always going to be theory. Is there anyone out there who is researching what this code means? What have you found? I can't bring anymore to the table other than what I have read. I sure don't think I know how to experience a theory personally, other than to see how a tree grows, a spiral occurs naturally and it all fits in nicely with Prechters theories of fractals, the golden ratio and so forth. :/

 

[Approaching Infinity]

What's an objective fact? Grass is green. If it's not, then there are no objective facts and everything that we perceive is just the representation of that thing as understood by the limits of our perception. How's that?

YES! A colour blind person is only colour blind because the majority says he or she is.

Sometimes it takes an awful lot of words/conversations to happen before I can find out why I asked a question in the first place. I became and still are afraid to post on this forum because I could not and still can not substantiate anything I read/see and/or think/feel and/or theorize with any proof. Grass is green to me but not to my dog or a colour blind person.

Actually, I think it is more correct to say that a colour blind person is colour blind in relation to the majority, because of a genetic defect that messes with perception of different colours. In relation to a hypothetical being who can perceive more of the light spectrum, all humans are "colour blind" to an extent (though not in the same way). Objectively, humans can perceive a certain range of the light spectrum as a range of colours. Objectively, some humans cannot perceive the same range in the same way. Objectively, some beings could hypothetically perceive even more. OSIT.

 

[scifiscriptwriter]

Thanks Laura for sharing this.

It reminds me of an experience I had as a child about 7 or 8. I was living in England, and with my sixpence worth of allowance had just bought my favorite magazine, The Bunty. I'm standing on the corner street looking down the high street and it suddenly occured to me that everyone else but me was a 'robot'!!!

 

[Leo40]

Actually, I think it is more correct to say that a colour blind person is colour blind in relation to the majority, because of a genetic defect that messes with perception of different colours. In relation to a hypothetical being who can perceive more of the light spectrum, all humans are "colour blind" to an extent (though not in the same way). Objectively, humans can perceive a certain range of the light spectrum as a range of colours. Objectively, some humans cannot perceive the same range in the same way. Objectively, some beings could hypothetically perceive even more. OSIT.

Hi, AI:

Your thoughts on Colour Blindness prompt me to respond,
This subject deals with sensory perception. All sensory input is processes by the
brain or mind which we know is programmed. We cannot evaluate DIRECT input.
This is the reason for working to de-program ourselves.
Now, I have worked for most of my professional life in Colour TV Broadcasting.
But according to "scientific" tests I am red-green colour blind.
How do you explain that I am able to colout match monitors?
It is a fact that RED is not one specific frequency but a range of frequencies.
So if my optical sensors are in a slightly different range of the RED I will perceive
the colour but will be unable according to the narrowly defined TEST.

 

[Buddy]

Your thoughts on Colour Blindness prompt me to respond,
This subject deals with sensory perception. All sensory input is processes by the
brain or mind which we know is programmed. We cannot evaluate DIRECT input.
This is the reason for working to de-program ourselves.

Hi Leo40. I'm curious about something. Please correct me where I'm off. Does the quote above indicate a mixing of the programming of hard-wired biology with the programming dealing with conceptual illusions, where it refers to the "reason for working to de-program ourselves"?

Considering that biological receptors are provided to translate certain energy frequencies to red (for example) in some meaningful way to the organism, it seems to me the thing of primary importance is that whatever the phenomena 'red' is to a particular individual, it doesn't change. We wouldn't want to de-program ourselves from seeing colors, would we? I tend to think direct input of such environmental data would be meaningless to a "wave-reading consciousness unit". Or did I miss the point?

I understand your point about tests, though. One is compelled, by the desire to understand, exactly where the line is between data and evaluation of it, including all the assumptions underlying the interpretation of the data. :)

 

[Leo40]

Hi, Bud:

My remark was very general about all sensory perception.
The sensory inputs are processed by the brain/mind.
Now, this processing is learned and therefore subject to programming.
I hope this is clearer.

 

[Acaja]

hi guys,

It's been a while. Nice thread, I don't know if what I'm about to say is going to be of any use, but here's what subjectively came to my mind about fact and objectivity

I kind of agree with Anart's general idea, that is a fact does not NEED anything: it just is. Can we be sure that something that's been declared a "fact" is 100% a fact? well I'm not sure.

I'm not sure a fact needs to be 100% approved by anything or anyone. Maybe objectivity's allways there around us but for many reasons we're incapable of seeing it properly,pure as it is.
Instead, we interpret what we perceive, intellectualise what we think, we put word on things in order to name our world and understand eachother. But from my subjective perspective I wonder if the very action of putting words isn't already the first step of the trap, you know, like when after naming something like let's say a "stone" (just a simple example here) , we get the impression we know what we're talking about.You know : you hear stone, you get a mental picture of the object, the use of it, add some emotional response, now there you have a general idea of the stuff so you can feel safe.
But if there is objectivity in this "stone" , by the simple act of naming it, we've lost it. If this objectivity could speak, i imagine it would sound like "hey you, why would you call me anyway?"
Sometimes I wonder how we are supposed to approach this Objectivity, with only 26 letters of the alphabet within our pockets. It's frightening, vain, even funny. But thank god the alphabet is not our only tool, let's find where the other ones are.

In the end we are machines, but of some very special type, the one that can realize it is a machine. And that's good news.

 

[Buddy]

I kind of agree with Anart's general idea, that is a fact does not NEED anything: it just is. Can we be sure that something that's been declared a "fact" is 100% a fact? well I'm not sure.

Not referring to anyone here, necessarily, but, in daily life, it amazes me how people will confuse "fact" with "point of view" and then claim there is no fact anywhere to be found.

The present moment is fact. That you are reading this post is a fact. The present moment and whether or not you are reading this post is accessible to direct examination. Let me draw attention to another fact: I am not 'God.'

People will question anything except their own thinking and what they find up their own backsides. Why is that you reckon? :D

 

[ana]

I find the next interesting and relevant to this topic, it helps me understand better what objectivity is about:

"One of the most central of the ideas of objective knowledge," said G., "is the idea of the unity of everything, of unity in diversity. From ancient times people who have understood the content and the meaning of this idea, and have seen in it the basis of objective knowledge, have endeavored to find a way of transmitting this idea in a form comprehensible to others. The successive transmission of the ideas of objective knowledge has always been a part of the task of those possessing this knowledge.

In such cases the idea of the unity of everything, as the fundamental and central idea of this knowledge, had to be transmitted first and transmitted with adequate completeness and exactitude. And to do this the idea had to be put into such forms as would insure its proper perception by others and avoid in its transmission the possibility of distortion and corruption. For this purpose the people to whom the idea was being transmitted were required to undergo a proper preparation, and the idea itself was put either into a logical form, as for instance in philosophical systems which endeavored to give a definition of the 'fundamental principle' or from which everything else was derived, or into religious teachings which endeavored to create an element of faith and to evoke a wave of emotion carrying people up to the level of 'objective consciousness.'

The attempts of both the one and the other, sometimes more sometimes less successful, run through the whole history of mankind from the most ancient times up to our own time and they have taken the form of religious and philosophical creeds which have remained like monuments on the paths of these attempts to unite the thought of mankind and esoteric thought.
"But objective knowledge, the idea of unity included, belongs to objective consciousness.

The forms which express this knowledge when perceived by subjective consciousness are inevitably distorted and, instead of truth, they create more and more delusions. With objective consciousness it is possible to see and feel the unity of everything. But for subjective consciousness the world is split up into millions of separate and unconnected phenomena. Attempts to connect these phenomena into some sort of system in a scientific or a philosophical way lead to nothing because man cannot reconstruct the idea of the whole starting from separate facts and they cannot divine the principles of the division of the whole without knowing the laws upon which this division is based.
"None the less the idea of the unity of everything exists also in intellectual thought but in its exact relation to diversity it can never be clearly expressed in words or in logical forms. There remains always the insurmountable difficulty of language. A language which has been constructed through expressing impressions of plurality and diversity in subjective states of consciousness can never transmit with sufficient completeness and clarity the idea of unity which is intelligible and obvious for the objective state of consciousness.

"From this point of view another formula. Know thyself, is full of particularly deep meaning and is one of the symbols leading to the knowledge of truth. The study of the world and the study of man will assist one another. In studying the world and its laws a man studies himself, and in studying himself he studies the world. In this sense every symbol teaches us something about ourselves."The understanding of symbols can be approached in the following way: In studying the world of phenomena a man first of all sees in everything the manifestation of two principles, one opposed to the other, which, in conjunction or in opposition, give one result or another, that is, reflect the essential nature of the principles which have created them.

To be able to understand speech when it becomes symbolical it is essential to have learned before and to know already how to listen. Any attempt to understand literally, where speech deals with objective knowledge and with the union of diversity and unity, is doomed to failure beforehand and leads in most cases to further delusions."It is necessary to dwell upon this because the intellectualism of contemporary education imbues people with a propensity and a tendency to look for logical definitions and for logical arguments against everything they hear and, without noticing it, people unconsciously fetter themselves with their desire, as it were, for exactitude in those spheres where exact definitions, by their very nature, imply inexactitude in meaning.

Q: (L) Now, Stephanie wants to know about the elements: air, earth, fire and water, in 4th density?
A: Again, descriptions do not compute for you. We have attempted to explore this avenue already, but it was more for symbolic purposes. Literal definitions restrict.
Q: (L) Well, Barry had some interesting ideas about the progression of densities, so maybe this is the point to bring them up.
A: Let Barry roll!
Q: (B) While reading "Wave 6" on the website, there was a section in there that was trying to compare awareness of 2nd density to 3rd density in order to create a framework in which to conjecture about the awareness of 4th density. It was stated there that we recognize objects by their similarity, and that 2nd density recognizes objects by their difference. Making a
progression, does that mean that on 4th density, we would recognize the commonality of all objects, therefore allowing an aware manipulation of things in 3rd density? Also, if animals see in two dimensions, and sense the third as transience or movement, such as we sense time, then maybe in 4th density we would sense time as a 4th dimensional measurement. For 2nd density, the third dimension is the illusion factor, and for 3rd density it is also an illusion, but we are aware of the illusion and therefore interpolate it into the reality. So, on 4th density, would time become concrete, and therefore manipulatable because it is no longer an illusion?
A: Quite close. Now, pay attention! What if: one on 2nd density perceives objects due to their similarity. One on 3rd density perceives objects due to their difference, and one on 4th density perceives objects in terms of their own union with all of them?
Q: (B) In terms of their own union with all of them? I kind of thought that would be the NEXT step up.
A: No.
Q: (B) So, 4th density, instead of being an incremental step, is a GIANT step? (L) Yup. I guess the steps follow some sort of mathematical square progression rather than simply numerical. (B) Well, that would have to be true because if you consider the difference between 1st density and 2nd density, that's a MEGA jump! (A) I have a problem with this sentence. It says: "one on 4th density perceives objects in terms of their own union with all of them?" Who is in union with the objects?
A: Perceiver.

Q: Would you please tell us what constitutes objectivity?
A: The effort on the part of the observer to leave prejudice "at the door."
Q: How does the effort on the part of the observer to leave prejudice at the door relate to the objective existence of an atom?
A: An atom, as with absolutely everything else, cannot exist without an observer.
Q: So, in the case of the objectivity of an atom, if the human observers are not objective, where is the observer who makes the atom objective, or does the atom not exist if there is no observer? A: Yes. to the latter comment.
Q: Yes to which part?
A: The latter comment.
Q: So there must be an observer. Must the observer be human?
A: The observer must be a consciousness. Q: If you say that an atom has an objective existence, yet it only exists if it is perceived by a consciousness, then an atom does not have an objective existence, correct?
A: No.
Q: Okay, what is the distinction? You say that objectivity is the ATTEMPT on the part of the observer to leave prejudice at the door.
A: Without consciousness, there is neither objective or subjective!!
Q: So the crux is the attempt to leave prejudice at the door in the same manner as one would be non-anticipatory in order to create?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, that is a VERY tricky... (A) Is consciousness objective?
A: Consciousness is objective, until it has the capacity to choose to be otherwise.

The nonlinear dynamics of love and complex systems -Debugging the Universe

The teachings of the Cassiopaeans are based on a nonlinear, complex, self-referencing and self-organizing cosmos. That is to say, when they answer our questions at any given moment, the answers are exactly correct for that moment in space time; that "branch of the universe" in which the question is asked. However, that information, if it is utilized, changes the complex system via a process of "back-propagation" or "feedback," and the universe can branch and change in a nonlinear way.

Q: (L) So at the closing of this grand cycle everything will just start all over again?
A: Not exactly; you see, there is no start.
Q: (L) Are a lot of souls on the earth going to recycle into these new bodies coming onto the earth?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) As ancient mankind?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And do the whole thing all over again?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) So, in other words, a lot of people are going back to square one?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Is this punishment.
A: No. Nature.
Q: (L) Are some of the souls, at that point, going to move into a higher density level?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Could you give us a percentage on this?
A: No. Open at this point.
Q: (L) Now, getting back to the planet, if at some point in the cycle, bodies were generated on this planet and brought to earth, who brought them?
A: Realm crossing.
Q: (L) It was not a who, it was a what, is that correct?
A: All is who and what. ... What is chosen? Only you can choose. The choice comes by nature and free will and looking and listening. Where you are is not important. Who you are is and also what you see.
So we begin to have an inkling that linear thinking must be tossed out the window and that we must turn to Nature with all the powers of both our intellect and our intuition in order to weigh and measure the forces at work here, in which we figure as points of nonlinear confluence.

When we look at the table, the chair, the salad and the dog, they seem to be solid and stable -- but the physicist can assure us that they are a dance of atoms ever moving into and out of being -- the atoms making up the table a minute from now being perhaps an entirely different group from the atomic constitution a moment before.
So, we might say that reality is a continuous flow or invisible something passing momentarily into a focused object much like a light shining through a slide creates an image upon a screen. What is the screen? you ask. We will come to that when we discuss the nature of matter itself. But for now, let us say that the slide is our mind and the source of light is our consciousness!

The probability of us experiencing ourselves doing something is just the sum of the probabilities for all the different Nows in which that experience is embedded. Everything we experience is brought into existence by being what it is. Our very nature determines whether we shall or shall not be. ...We are because of what we are. Our existence is determined by the way we relate to (or resonate with) everything else that can be. ...

 

[HiThere]

My remark was very general about all sensory perception.
The sensory inputs are processed by the brain/mind.
Now, this processing is learned and therefore subject to programming.

It is of course possible/probable that each of us has our own unique perception of what characterizes the colours or other sensory input we recieve, but the colours are defined after their wavelength, which is a measurable unit that is constant.

For red the definition is (according to _http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&client=firefox-a&hs=Hcd&rls=org.mozilla:nb-NO:official&defl=en&q=define:red&sa=X&ei=YeffTL7iH4-WOoiIxZkP&ved=0CBYQkAE):

"Red is any of a number of similar colors evoked by light consisting predominantly of the longest wavelengths of light discernible by the human eye, in the wavelength range of roughly 630–740 nm".

So the personal interpretation of what red looks like is impossible to share, but it is possible to agree upon exactly what is observed, i.e. the colour red. m2c.

 

[tridean]

My remark was very general about all sensory perception.
The sensory inputs are processed by the brain/mind.
Now, this processing is learned and therefore subject to programming.

It is of course possible/probable that each of us has our own unique perception of what characterizes the colours or other sensory input we recieve, but the colours are defined after their wavelength, which is a measurable unit that is constant.

For red the definition is (according to _http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&client=firefox-a&hs=Hcd&rls=org.mozilla:nb-NO:official&defl=en&q=define:red&sa=X&ei=YeffTL7iH4-WOoiIxZkP&ved=0CBYQkAE):

"Red is any of a number of similar colors evoked by light consisting predominantly of the longest wavelengths of light discernible by the human eye, in the wavelength range of roughly 630–740 nm".

So the personal interpretation of what red looks like is impossible to share, but it is possible to agree upon exactly what is observed, i.e. the colour red. m2c.

Good point, never though of that. So then it becomes an agreed upon fact. This sort of reminded me of the 432Hz vs the 440Hz thread a bit where some perceived the 432HZ to be more natural, but the system (it seems) prefers the 440Hz and that has become the standard

 

[Acaja]

Interesting, relevant indeed Ana!
I too cannot think about Objectivity without the implication of Unity and Consciousness

 

[don pedro]

I reason that objectivity does not exist, that one cannot be objective because everything in ones' life is based upon all that man/woman/child has experienced in his/her life up to that point therefore, it is subjectivity rather than objectivity. An acquaintance once said to me that "all I had been told was false and my beliefs were equally false" and, I knew intuitively that he was correct. Why, because I'm right brained and view, define and interpret life subjectively rather than objectively. I had come out of the Viet Namese war with my belief and value systems in tatters. I had experienced the falsity of all that I had been told which also included my beliefs. I discovered that there is no god out there someplace; that government and its' institutions are frauds, designed to enslave rather than to enlighten. I think that quantum theory also supports this line of reasoning although please don't ask me for quotes, I don't have those kind of credentials. I'm simply a human with a BA who has withdrawn from two graduate schools because of the rigidity of the curriculum in each institution.

Be easy,

don pedro

 

[Buddy]

I reason that objectivity does not exist, that one cannot be objective because everything in ones' life is based upon all that man/woman/child has experienced in his/her life up to that point therefore, it is subjectivity rather than objectivity.

Hi don pedro. Welcome to the forum. Why don't you stop by the newbies area and introduce yourself. You don't have to provide any identifying info. Thanks.

 

[don pedro]

Thanks Bud, I shall do so.