No, i don't think it's possible that there can be awareness of anything specific, without there being some sort of interaction between it and that wich is aware.

I also don't think that time is completely illusory. Time and space may be bound by the perspective from wich they're perceived but are an essential part of counscious experience of any state of affairs.
It may therefore be that time as we percieve it is illusory in the sense that doesn't exist outside of the counscious mind, but it is definately real in the sense that circumstances can be reproduced that will lead to a specific set of perceptions in wich time and space are included.

But you're right that the notion of time and space are nessecarily linked to the concept of interaction.

Even if there is a timeless realm, wich doesn't sound far-fetched to me at all, i still think time and space aren't illusory concepts but rather elements of the structural relationship between a (counscious) perception and that timeless realm.

Simplicity and complexity beget one another.

Subjectivity and objectivity beget one another.

Attention and ignorance are indivisible phenomena.

Logic is as a part of an equation that needs balance, by itself it is incomplete and perhaps even as erroneous as the antithesis it implies. In my opinion it cannot bridge any gap by itself for a gap represents two positions in need or some form of reconciliation, thus it requires an antithesis as an obligatory counterbalance, at least this makes for ironically logical sense.

The question for me is regarding objectivity itself, are we actually capable of logic? I do not believe that our species has any true capacity for objective logic, I believe that in the ultimate sense both logic and objectivity are ideals and do not represent actualities pertaining to critical observation.

In a statement:
The subjectivity of our species is an insurmountable objective reality.

This is for me a subjective belief informed by objective reality, and as such constitutes an opinion, a belief, regardless of my own assertions of the factual accuracy of the statement itself. It is my belief that knowledge itself is an unattainable ideal and that the implied subjectivity of experience is an objective truth, at least for any entity employing sensory perception as a means of validating reality. While I believe that entities may be objective in and of themselves I do not believe that they. Are capable of objective cognition due to the limitations of the nature of mind itself, as we know it.

I do not believe that the mathematic rigor of logic constitutes objectivity, I believe that mathematics are inherently subjective according to an objective sense and thus are symbolic of reality, as opposed to defi native of reality. However I cannot be counted among the typical in most ways. I guess that having nostrils and an asshole makes me typical, but other than such things like that I am a freak.

I cannot distinguish the values of time and space from mass and energy. I perceive them as field relative values whose relative positions inform their constancy. I view a triality of values as definitive to singularities, they are entirety values, separate values and exchange values, to reduce them to practical working values for consideration of phenomena.

Yes, objectivity can only exist as objectivity regarding subjective statements or observations. That has also been uttered more than once within this thread.
Is that reason to dismiss objectivity? I would say that it rather pledges for objectivity because it allows us to verify the claim of objectivity everytime it is made.
The term objectivity practically speaking refers to subjective content that can be communicated and reproduced exactly, according to it's constituting elements.
If a subjective observation can be reproduced, then a specific relationship/interaction between the 'real world' and the 'subjective world' must also be reproduced exactly.
If this would not be so, then counsciousness itself and the world it perceives would be of a totally inconsistent nature and if that would be the case, we would not be able to have this discussion.

If there is any equation that needs to be balanced it is about this relationship between objectivity and subjectivity.

i disagree.
i do not feel that objectivity can only exist regarding subjective statements, i cannot even claim that statements exist in any independent manner.
As for a dismissal of objectivity, well you are free to believe in a subjective manner than we are capable of grasping objectivity in any manner other than as an abstract concept insofar as we are concerned.



what is the claim again?
how is it verified?
is the method of verification independent of subjectivity?

i again disagree, for me the reduction of the word into the parts than make it clearly give it a definition contrasting with your definition of it. Object is simple enough, but -ivity as a suffic reffers to a state, not content. Objectivity is thus a state, one we are incapable of. To say that it is reproducible content is to conflate objects with objectivity, at least that is how it seems to me. I have seen no evidence that objective things are the same as language, which when it all comes down to it is what you get when you mention communication, language is symbolism, to say that a symbol is the same as what is symbolized is not different than to say that objectivity is the content that is communicated.

by definition a subjective observation cannot be reproduced, because it is subject, if it were un-subject there would be no problem.


We, in terms of language, is an entity that does not exist.
We do not "have" this discussion, neither you not i possess it in any objective sense.
What is consciousness? Your last statement contrasts it with what is perceived, what you term "the world" so what is consciousness and how is it contrasted between what it is not, namely what it perceives?
Is is consciousness that perceives as you state?
Does that imply that consciousness perceives?
What is perception?
Do you mean cognition instead of perception?
What cognates? Clearly whatever cognates also can process sense, but does not have to, for example we absorb sensory data we do not cognate, even in a waking state, likewise we cognate what we have not perceived. But again there is no we, and the very concept of I or self is seemingly an artificial construct of language.

I have yet to be objective in any way shape or form with a single exception, that being that the only objective aspect of being that i can identify is the lack of objectivity of being itself.

Is what you are calling consciousness actually consistent?
What does it consist of?

if you read plato you pretty much have to realize that logic is fucked, to put it simply.

This is all semantic mumbo-jumbo. I have read plato and i can say that plato is even more fucked than logic.

If objectivity doesn't exist, then how can you tell objectively that objectivity doesn't exist?

Experiences are indeed subjective. Yet you can say things about them objectively. If a certain constellation of all the elements involved in experiencing something, consistently leads to the same subjective experience, in other words, when content can be reproduced then you can objectively say something about this constelation in relation to the experience it produces.
For instance: when we both look at a clock we can agree or disagree on what time it indicates. In both cases we have come to know a host of objective facts through subjective experience without confusing the clock with our knowledge of it. Without confusing anything realy.

We are having this discussion. Remarks on the meaning of the words 'we' or 'have' don't change that. The fact that we are having this discussion proves that both our counsciousness as the world in wich it exists and of wich it is aware are of consistent nature.

The consistency of this discussion is an objective fact.

Perhaps consciousness is the only “object” that exists, and what you call objective reality is a creation or quality of consciousness?

After all, I’m assuming that you have no doubts regarding the existence of consciousness.
But as has been discussed recently in another thread, the conscious mind is easily fooled (or maybe more accurately, easily fools itself).

Yes, that's possible. But the nature of this system would still have to be consistent to be able to produce what we call 'consensus reality'.
For instance: if within a room, you can always when you stand in a specific corner, look into a specific direction see a specific object. There has to be consistency within the counscious mind to be able to determine that this is the case. Yet the world outside the counscious mind would have to be consistent as well and there has to be something that links the counscious mind to the objects it experiences, and it also has to be in such a way that the counscious mind is able to manouvre itself through this world outside of the counscious mind so that it can experience this consistency.
Now, it is ofcourse perfectly possible that this world outside is actually a world inside, within our own mind, a part of our mind that doesn't directly belong to our counsciousness.
It could be that you don't actually walk through that room towards that specific corner, but that you're mind is just browsing some program or something.
Yet it would have to be a consistent program and we must be able to navigate through it so that it can consistently produce the same subjective experience if the same counsciousness/world outside constellation is being reproduced.

But the mechanisms that fool us will be the same everytime. If we look into the mirror, our left hand becomes our right hand. It doesn't suddenly change to become our left ear instead. So yes, the mirror image fools us, but the relationship between ourselves and our mirror image is very real and consistent. Some of the relational structures out of wich the experience exists, must be real therefore.

Perhaps the dichotomy between objectivity and subjectivity does not exist.

Can't it be both?

In my interpretation of plato:
Plato shows through Socrates that logic itself can be used for anything and does not have merit in and of itself, that those who rely upon logic can be defeated with it, semantically speaking. Socrates does this time and time again in an entertaining fashion, but the character also teaches that ideals must be applied to logic, or the result will be tragic. He teaches that logic defies itself and thus does not confer authority or equate with truth. Plato also seems to want to show that a having an opinion that differs from that of the majority results in persecution.

Found this text about some ideas of Kant at epistemelinks.com
http://www.class.uidaho....r%20-%20History/kant.htm

from the text:

"Our age, as Kant often says, is the age of criticism; and by that word he understands the philosophy which, before affirming, weighs, and, before assuming to know, inquires into the conditions of knowledge. Not only is the philosophy of Kant criticism in this general sense; it is also criticism in the special sense of being a theory of ideas; it is critical, as distinguished from the extreme theories of Leibniz and Locke, in that it discriminates (discernere), in the formation of ideas, between the product of sensation and the product of the spontaneous activity of pure reason. It acknowledges with sensationalism that the matter of our ideas is furnished by the senses; with idealism it claims that their form is the work of reason, - that reason, by its own laws, transforms into ideas the given manifold of sensation. Criticism neither aims to be sensationalistic nor intellectualistic in the extreme sense of these terms, but transcendental; i.e., going beyond (transcendens) the sensationalistic and idealistic doctrines, it succeeds in reaching a higher standpoint, which enables it to appreciate the relative truth and falsehood in the theories of dogmatism. It is a method rather than a system, an introduction to philosophy rather than a finished system. Its motto is th[at] of Socrates . . .: Before constructing any system whatever, reason must inquire into its resources for constructing it."

and also:
"Sensibility, we said, furnishes the understanding with the materials of its knowledge. But the materials themselves, of which the garment is to be made, already have a certain shape; they are no longer absolutely raw materials: the latter have been subjected to the preliminary processes of spinning and weaving. Or, in other, words, our sensibility is not purely passive; it does not turn over to the understanding the materials which the latter needs, without adding something of its own; it impresses its stamp, its own forms, upon things; or, as one might say, it marks the perceived object just as the outline of our hands is traced upon a handful of snow. It is in particular what the faculty of knowledge is in general: both receptive and active; it receives a mysterious substance from without, and makes an intuition of it. Hence, there are, in every intuition, two elements: a pure or a priori element and an a posteriori element, form and matter, something that reason produces spontaneously and something, I know not what, derived elsewhere."

I tend to agree there is only consciousness
I think therefore etc.

Yes, it's an eternal philosophical problem. As i said, i think that the existence of counsciousness implies the existence of at least some kind of 'material realm'.

This thread has evolved in such a way that i've come to a clearer understanding of at least my own thoughts.

It has become clearer to me now that logic cannot produce any knowledge at all, it can not produce anything new. But it CAN help us to reveal 'hidden knowledge': things we already know, things we constantly assume or imply with statements we make, without fully realising it.

"i think, therefore..etc" is such a statement, where something we already knew is being rediscovered by logic: if i know that i'm thinking about something, i already know so much more than i may be aware of initially. There is so much knowledge stored in a simple statement like "i'm thinking about an object".

You could maybe spent a year thinking about one such statement and come-up with thousands of phenomena that are in some way automatically being implied by that single statement.

The question that comes next is then whether a counscious observation contains the knowledge about it's own constituting elements like in the above post about Kant and the faculty of knowledge: If all that constitutes the faculty of knowledge shapes the way objects are being perceived...can we then deduce the shape of the object if we truly know ourselves?
Or are we just as much an object to ourselves, on the other side of the line?