Subjective, Intersubjective, and Objective Reality Stance

[tylers100]

- Introduction

The reason for this thread is to bring up a possible discussion about the premise behind the 'Theory of Everything' journey presumed to be undertook by some people and possibly make refinements (e.g. ascertain, articulation, and clarification) with it for ranging from layman to technical and / or vice versa. The 'Theory of Everything' has to be objective-oriented or at least try to be approximately close to that, to be fair and make an inclusion of considerations for different and major but otherwise simplified categories of existence or reality; unbiased spirit, mind, and physical aspect and transition or interaction between these.

There surely are some philosophical differences, attitudes, and / or stances toward the 'Theory of Everything'. To have it is to formally define, explain, and use reality.

- Reality

A real existence.

- Subjective Reality Stance

Reality depends on minds.

- Intersubjective Reality Stance

A middle ground between subjective and objective reality stance; Reality and minds; both depend on and are independent of with each other albeit at varying levels of interaction.

- Objective Reality Stance

Reality is independent of minds.

- Transition Between Stances

A potential transition between subjective, intersubjective, and objective reality stance as situational dependent and conceptual timing.

I made an inclusion of situational dependent and conceptual timing, because of fair consideration of possibilities with transition (e.g. not fixed to a stance and because sometime some of us are learning, thus shifting between is possible).

- Diagram

See an attached image of diagram I developed pertains to this thread. It consists of reality as umbrella of three different reality stances and a transition between these, and definitions for all of these.

- Reference

The termed word and its meaning, intersubjective, was found and adapted from the following quotes and links:

"Intersubjectivity can be viewed as the middle ground between objectivity and subjectivity because it contains characteristics of both epistemological stances. Intersubjectivity is focused on the belief that research is neither purely objective nor purely subjective in nature. In this entry intersubjectivity is described as agreement among scientists occurring via communication and the sharing of meanings regarding their research objects and research contexts."

From link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0123

"Intersubjectivity is considered crucial not only at the relational level but also at the epistemological and even metaphysical levels. For example, intersubjectivity is postulated as playing a role in establishing the truth of propositions, and constituting the so-called objectivity of objects."

From link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity

I included subjectivity alongside with intersubjectivity and objectivity, because these intersubjectivity and objectivity are inherited from subjectivity from my point of view. If without subjectivity, how what else can we interact (intersubjectivity) and constitute objectivity of objects (objectivity)?

- Other Comments

For some reasons I see:

Subjective Reality as principle (e.g. made of).

Intersubjective Reality as interaction (e.g. psychological relations/relationships and fundamental interactions in physics).

Objective Reality as emergence (e.g. 'result' from relations/relationships and interaction).

I'm not sure if these as I see have connection(s) with above or not, I just thought it'd be interesting to point these out.

[naitche]

My best hypothesis atm  is that objective and subjective realities are equal, as One.

If Objective reality is the state of being,  with out relationship.

and subjective, in relationship.

Where a state of being is decided  or final, its in decline. Nothing is the only enduring statehood.

Its measure must be evidenced.

Its equal. The balance between something and nothing is its measure.

Identity/Identification is always objective. Without relation to. Defined from the  relationships/environment that assign it value.

So any measure/value is attributed subjectively, to the relationship between its measure, and its being.

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by naitche

[naitche]

Only relationship can provide the balance. The subjective.

It leads the way. Form/state follows function/direction

Identification is objective/reductive.  Any measure or value is subjective. Supports the purpose.

Subjective values can't be applied objectively, with out creating a double negative. A negative bias.

Objective values can be applied to the subjective, but only in service to the whole of reality. Equal in consideration.  To provide equal structure.

Realities equal as one, otherwise, Naught.

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by naitche

[naitche]

Reality can only hold what it will assume or except.

Edited June 23, 2022 by naitche

[naitche]

20 hours ago, naitche said:

Only relationship can provide the balance. The subjective.

It leads the way. Form/state follows function/direction

Identification is objective/reductive.  Any measure or value is subjective. Supports the purpose.

Subjective values can't be applied objectively, with out creating a double negative. A negative bias.

Objective values can be applied to the subjective, but only in service to the whole of reality. Equal in consideration.  To provide equal structure.

Realities equal as one, otherwise, Naught.

 

Ugh. My poor wording again. 

Value can only go one way, to direction. 

Application of the objective, to an objective, is the double negative. The value is assumed into the negative, and has become a 'value' since it can only be applied that way, subjectively.

Objectives applied subjectively direct structure. Structure which will only support the reality assumed in/by? its implementation.

Seems to underpin biological and evolutionary process of recognition and response., and to work in the social sciences, explaining the use or purpose of belief or bias to organic structure.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by naitche

[tylers100]

I wonder since a fair inclusion of subjectivity, intersubjectivity, and objectivity is made, I wonder if empirical evidence(s) produced by either natural or experiment phenomena within the domain of objectivity - would eventually dig all the way through intersubjectivity back to subjectivity?

Granted, subjectivity and intersubjectivity are seemingly not "scientific" - but the inference of theses existence (e.g. we or things obviously are engaging in communication / discussion / and or interaction) are inferred itself/self-evident? That raises a question: What borders between subjectivity, intersubjectivty, and objectivity - also at what level or how much?

[dimreepr]

This is just a rehashing of the old question, "if a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?".

58 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

I wonder since a fair inclusion of subjectivity, intersubjectivity, and objectivity is made, I wonder if empirical evidence(s) produced by either natural or experiment phenomena within the domain of objectivity - would eventually dig all the way through intersubjectivity back to subjectivity?

You're over thinking it...

1 hour ago, tylers100 said:

Granted, subjectivity and intersubjectivity are seemingly not "scientific" - but the inference of theses existence (e.g. we or things obviously are engaging in communication / discussion / and or interaction) are inferred itself/self-evident? That raises a question: What borders between subjectivity, intersubjectivty, and objectivity - also at what level or how much?

It depends on who's doing the thinking, for instance:

A trained philosopher/scientist would, probably, score the highest, because they're fully aware of the potential that their own bias can skew the answers.

A drunken Trump supporter mid-rant would, probably, score the lowest...

The rest of us are somewhere in between...

[Sensei]

On 6/22/2022 at 7:08 AM, naitche said:

My best hypothesis atm  is that objective and subjective realities are equal, as One.

Which can be easily disqualified by looking at people with mental problems or other inabilities.. Their subjective reality might be different than yours..

ps. You don't know how some person (any person, including your family and friends), animal or other thing (A.I.?) look at this world..

 

[StringJunky]

An intersubjective position is that where opinions are in concordance with each other as to the evidence and observations presented.

Edited November 13, 2022 by StringJunky

[naitche]

On 11/14/2022 at 1:41 AM, Sensei said:

Which can be easily disqualified by looking at people with mental problems or other inabilities.. Their subjective reality might be different than yours..

ps. You don't know how some person (any person, including your family and friends), animal or other thing (A.I.?) look at this world..

 

Yes, if its subjective its perspective dependent and differences will be evident in the value expressions given. I don't see how that disqualifies the duality of its sum. 

I would expect subjective realities to vary-A different subject is also a different object with its unique state and position in reality. The values recognized to its state and position are limited to those.

State and position in reality  are altered, through subjective expressions of value ie familiarity, recognition and response for biological entities, inanimate objects and entities both  through environmental conditions they are subject to.

A Subjective reality depends on the object the value is attributed to. An object until value is measured from that perspective. The value is subjective. Its expression directing the manifestations of reality.

[naitche]

On 11/14/2022 at 7:49 AM, StringJunky said:

An intersubjective position is that where opinions are in concordance with each other as to the evidence and observations presented.

I see that as recognition of an objective reality. Recognition of a state of being that has no value independently.

The values taken and responses given, are given subjectively. Through individual  relationship to the state recognized.

Peoples can respond in concordance, but as an identified collective, the value is still subjectively accrued to that collective.ie humanity, the US or the body affected.

It seems to me there are 2 values to the duality of reality. The value can be to state/form or to purpose/function/direction.  One or the other only, applies at a given time/context. The application of subjective values to objectives provides direction, structure and is = to the familiarity, recognition and responses given in biology. 

The objective has a value  of One. Only one. It has no value independently, only by its subjective recognition as One.

Subjective application of a second value to the objective is reductive. Its belief, or faith- the object is not recognized for the singularity of its being, but by the value or validity of its state in relationship. it reduces recognition of a state of being to its secondary objective.

Hence the 'old' definition of racism or bigotry. Blurs the line between the objective and subjective realities so that deviation from its secondary 'characterization",  is not recognized in any response, but deemed invalid.

Edited November 16, 2022 by naitche

[naitche]

There are no longer clear margins between the objective and the subjective realities. Subjectivity(or direction) is sacrificed indefinitely to 'fix' the state/form into a state of  entropy.

Edited November 17, 2022 by naitche

[naitche]

The Subjective/ Direction, always leads the potential of an objective reality for positive growth.  A value must be recognized, and expressed, for the existence of a measurable state.

Form follows function.

Edited November 17, 2022 by naitche

[tylers100]

When something is correct, wrong, or n/a (or absence / not yet know / etc) with amount level of approximation for a particular situation in address to the standardization of reality is the question.

Other patterns seem to arise from that amount level determination or amount measurement - examples; amount of differentiation, amount of identification / possession, amount of potentiality, and more "amount of (insert anything or word here) and so on...

What do you think, feel, or both about that?

[naitche]

I'm pretty sure the objective remains just that, and any measurement is always subjective.

It appears to me that this supports and is demonstrated by evolutionary biophysics at all levels, and can account for much of human behavior depending on the perspective assumed in reality. The Objectives provides that.

Edited November 20, 2022 by naitche

[naitche]

On 11/20/2022 at 3:30 AM, tylers100 said:

When something is correct, wrong, or n/a (or absence / not yet know / etc) with amount level of approximation for a particular situation in address to the standardization of reality is the question.

Other patterns seem to arise from that amount level determination or amount measurement - examples; amount of differentiation, amount of identification / possession, amount of potentiality, and more "amount of (insert anything or word here) and so on...

What do you think, feel, or both about that?

The objective is always and only that. One. Reality. Separated out from all relationship beyond its singularity of being.

Only the Value is Subjective. In relationship. A measure of value accrued in relation to one object,  towards its Objective or purpose.