What is objectivity based on?

[davey72]

http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Truth

To know absolute truth in this reality would be impossible. We can discuss things with certain probabilities though. OSIT.

Didn't the c's say that if one is sincerely trying to gain knowledge, without any agenda, or expectation, that he won't absorb false knowledge?
That false knowledge basically comes from wishful thinking?
Or am i missing the boat on this one?

 

[Buddy]

http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Truth

To know absolute truth in this reality would be impossible. We can discuss things with certain probabilities though. OSIT.

Didn't the c's say that if one is sincerely trying to gain knowledge, without any agenda, or expectation, that he won't absorb false knowledge?

Well, if the C's didn't say that, they probably could have, because it makes sense to me. If false knowledge is equivalent to wishful thinking (and vice versa), and wishful thinking is a sign of an agenda or expectation, then "sincerely trying to gain knowledge, without any agenda, or expectation" would mean that the student has "left the possibilities open" for the 'knowledge' to be validated or invalidated. And that would be a good thing, OSIT.

That false knowledge basically comes from wishful thinking?

To me, false knowledge and wishful thinking are in a reciprocal relationship - they 'feed' each other and feed on each other. If this is true, anything you could say about them in terms of their relationship, is just as good as anything else you could say about them, OSIT. I could be wrong, though. This is just how it appears to me. :)

 

[obyvatel]

http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Truth

To know absolute truth in this reality would be impossible. We can discuss things with certain probabilities though. OSIT.

Didn't the c's say that if one is sincerely trying to gain knowledge, without any agenda, or expectation, that he won't absorb false knowledge?
That false knowledge basically comes from wishful thinking?
Or am i missing the boat on this one?

Hi davey72,
Not absorbing false knowledge would not necessarily imply that one can have the whole truth. One most likely cannot have the whole truth at this level where we are in because of the limitations inherent to this level of existence. We can however approach towards the truth - and this approach is hugely facilitated when we have a colinear network. I do not see any essential conflict between what RyanX has written and what you have written.
Being 3D STS by default, it is practically a big challenge to get to the state where one is sincerely trying to gain knowledge without any agenda and expectation. It seems to me that certain amount of expectation is to be expected in our attitudes since we are STS at this level. We can use that expectation for the aim of increasing knowledge and strive towards a STO dynamic. Acquiring knowledge with no expectation or agenda is an ideal towards which we strive for but perhaps it is not completely attainable at this level. Personally I find it useful to remind myself of the reality of this level of existence - because to me it seems ignoring this aspect (of being a 3D STS with associated limitations) would amount to falling into wishful thinking.

 

[Flux2012]

I am reading about objectivity on the Cassiopaea Glossary and was wondering if someone could clarify what the following paragraph means:

Objectivity, in the sense understood here implies ''epistemological realism,' which is simply the proposition that reality is knowable by many observers in a compatible and contradiction free manner. This does not imply that absolute identity of experience or experiment were possible but does propose that an apprehension of the world shared between multiple observers can be approached, even while the observers cannot be entirely or demonstrably free of all bias or 'reading error.'

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I am reading about objectivity on the Cassiopaea Glossary and was wondering if someone could clarify what the following paragraph means:

Objectivity, in the sense understood here implies ''epistemological realism,' which is simply the proposition that reality is knowable by many observers in a compatible and contradiction free manner. This does not imply that absolute identity of experience or experiment were possible but does propose that an apprehension of the world shared between multiple observers can be approached, even while the observers cannot be entirely or demonstrably free of all bias or 'reading error.'

Truth can be approached by using a network, but not known in and of itself (i.e. knowledge on the level of God). Epistemology is the study of how we know things, and realism implies it's directly applicable to our world, abilities, and conditions. So there is truth, we can come to know it, but we can't know it completely and absolutely.

 

[Buddy]

I am reading about objectivity on the Cassiopaea Glossary and was wondering if someone could clarify what the following paragraph means:

Objectivity, in the sense understood here implies ''epistemological realism,' which is simply the proposition that reality is knowable by many observers in a compatible and contradiction free manner. This does not imply that absolute identity of experience or experiment were possible but does propose that an apprehension of the world shared between multiple observers can be approached, even while the observers cannot be entirely or demonstrably free of all bias or 'reading error.'

AI just did a good one I think. :)

How about this analogy:

Reality (that which is real) is that thing in the middle of a circle. 360 of us occupy each of the 360 degree points of the circle looking in towards the middle at that thing. We take our own point of view of that thing and compare it with the 359 other points of view to get the 'total view' of the thing.

In this metaphorical example, the 3D reality (objective existence of the thing) can be constructed in everyone's mind from descriptions that come from the multiple points of view, even though each description given by each viewer on each point may not be 100% free of all subjectivity.

At least that's how I see it from my point. :)

 

[go2]

I am reading about objectivity on the Cassiopaea Glossary and was wondering if someone could clarify what the following paragraph means:

Objectivity, in the sense understood here implies ''epistemological realism,' which is simply the proposition that reality is knowable by many observers in a compatible and contradiction free manner. This does not imply that absolute identity of experience or experiment were possible but does propose that an apprehension of the world shared between multiple observers can be approached, even while the observers cannot be entirely or demonstrably free of all bias or 'reading error.'

Since absolute objectivity is impossible given the admitted subjectivity of the multiple observers, the term ‘epistemological realism’ means the multiple observers have subjective opinions which we assert can collectively approach objectivity.

In other words, our ‘epistemological realism’ is ‘ontological idealism’. I wouldn’t look to closely at the foundations, Godel thought the universe was rational.

Who pays any attention
To the syntax of things
Will never wholly kiss you.
e.e. cummings

 

[caballero reyes]

caballero reyes

Do the subjectivy helps to calm struggles and stress of hypertension?

Is there any cure without pills. I can·t get the E. E. yet.


Ayuda la subjetividad a calmar el stress y la angustia que lleva a la hipertension.

todavia no he podido conseguir el curso E. E.

[moderator: fixed spacing]

 

[kryon]

Oh my , Dear Dingo, objectivity in whole is a tough subject.
I am so moved by your honesty.
I read somewhere, and wouldn't be surprised if it was Laura's writings about a British seawreak back in the late 1600 around the Papua islands, the only survivor was a new born male baby who washed out on the shore to be found by natives.
Later own it grew up to be the leader of the tribe due the status of a God born and at least 2 feet taller than anyone else there,
So, to make the story short, another expedition arrived , recognizing the Caucasian taking him back to England and realizing it was the perished captain's son, etc etc.
Life continued by educating the bright man in the ways of Western civilization.
One day after he was deemed "educated" and released in society he found him self in a brawl at the local pub.
Needless to say, he killed his opponent and cut his heart out, taking a bite right in front of everyone inside the pub.
Sad but true, he was executed.
Who was right and who was wrong? My personal way of seeing all this is by who's "group" of information deemed acceptable to you do you "resonate"- for the lack of a better word-
Universal objectivity? does it exist? If it did and we understood it I think we will have done being homo sapien sapien.
Just my thought
Be certain that your inner understanding of correct and incorrect will be honed by your innate understanding of knighthood and down to earth -honest first to your self- disency.

 

[Gimpy]

Oh my , Dear Dingo, objectivity in whole is a tough subject.
I am so moved by your honesty.
I read somewhere, and wouldn't be surprised if it was Laura's writings about a British seawreak back in the late 1600 around the Papua islands, the only survivor was a new born male baby who washed out on the shore to be found by natives.
Later own it grew up to be the leader of the tribe due the status of a God born and at least 2 feet taller than anyone else there,
So, to make the story short, another expedition arrived , recognizing the Caucasian taking him back to England and realizing it was the perished captain's son, etc etc.
Life continued by educating the bright man in the ways of Western civilization.
One day after he was deemed "educated" and released in society he found him self in a brawl at the local pub.
Needless to say, he killed his opponent and cut his heart out, taking a bite right in front of everyone inside the pub.
Sad but true, he was executed.
Who was right and who was wrong? My personal way of seeing all this is by who's "group" of information deemed acceptable to you do you "resonate"- for the lack of a better word-
Universal objectivity? does it exist? If it did and we understood it I think we will have done being homo sapien sapien.
Just my thought
Be certain that your inner understanding of correct and incorrect will be honed by your innate understanding of knighthood and down to earth -honest first to your self- disency.

kryon, none of this makes any sense. Is there another way you can state what you mean? How does a story about a lost boy relate to what objectivity is based on? And the last sentence makes no sense at all....?

 

[kryon]

kryon, none of this makes any sense. Is there another way you can state what you mean? How does a story about a lost boy relate to what objectivity is based on? And the last sentence makes no sense at all....?

I see.
sense and objectivity.
How can one be objective if one can not extrapolate the meaning of a story. I grew up with stories that showed me the meaning of things all around me. Stories about giants, hurtling rocks in the sky, stories about angry gods keeping the protagonist at sea for years in a row, stories about goats attacking each other on a tiny bridge- stories, all of them with a meaning behind them.
Ok, The meaning behind the story, I had read somewhere and remembered when I read your honest- but wait, are you genuinely upset by people saying how they feel about you?
Anyway, the meaning of the story is:
-to be objective about something one has to be at the appropriate place of their commonly accepted sense of objectivity.
For example:
If you were a christian, per say, and you end up in a certain province in China , where monogamy is a joke, then your objectivity as a christian would be, how to say, hamperred?
Are you saying to me you are completely withdrawn from Earthly actions and you are absolute in your objectivity? I would not believe you if you said that, but to be frank I have met people like before, but nevermind them. The issue is with you, now, you seem to be resentfull toward stories, I have noticed it through my posts. Lets do a bit of speaking about it, what do you say, lets talk about this on another post. I believe it would be beneficial for both of us. We will talk about stories and the meaning of them.
I invite you, what do you think?
With affection and brotherly love,
Kryon

mod fixed quotes

 

[Tigersoap]

Hi Kryon,

I don't think Gimpy has anything against stories ;)

I am not quite sure either about what you were trying to say, that we all see things differently depending on the context ?

Although on this forum, we are all trying to get more objective about ourselves and the world around us and for this we try to reach a common understanding on how things works despite our own emotions or social programming.

This definition as it generally accepted on the forum will maybe help you Objectivity

 

[go2]

There is an excellent article by Bernhard Guenther on objectivity and subjectivity on sott.net. The article is balanced, as this is a subject which is subject to wiseacring. :)

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/223050-The-Positivity-of-Objectivity-and-the-Time-of-Transition

 

[Gimpy]

Hi Kryon,

I don't think Gimpy has anything against stories ;)

I am not quite sure either about what you were trying to say, that we all see things differently depending on the context ?

Although on this forum, we are all trying to get more objective about ourselves and the world around us and for this we try to reach a common understanding on how things works despite our own emotions or social programming.

This definition as it generally accepted on the forum will maybe help you Objectivity

Tigersoap summed up my point pretty well. (Thank you, btw.)

No, I have no problem with stories. I was raised with them, too.

In this forum, I work hard to say what I mean to say, without using colorful language or metaphors where none need be. In keeping with this goal, and to keep the noise factor down, recounting stories with you

wouldn't be helpful for anyone else here, so I'd have to respectfully decline.

Networking with like minded others is a start on the way to finding as much objectivity as possible. Tigersoap and go2 have demonstrated it here for you.

Do you see it?

So far, from reading your posts, all I'm seeing is disjointed simile and metaphor, and allusions to your thinking that, for whatever reason, you don't state in plain language. You're new, and it does take time to read

through the many threads....after a time maybe you'll be comfortable enough to just say what you mean. It took me a while, but now that I've got the hang of it, I like it better. :)

Happy reading. :D