MG's Blog Entry on Objective vs. Subjective Reality

[Dialectic]

Last night, C and I were feeling maudlin so we ended up at Club 71 drinking and arguing over reality versus interpretation (I'm a pretentious fucking depressed person, I've been sort of rereading Wittgenstein, whatever. It's a fucking step up from reading Lacan, although I gotta say her shit still makes me laugh.). I lean towards the school of thought that says that reality exists separate from interpretation, and C is more from the school of thought that reality doesn't exist without interpretation. For her, language is what makes reality "exist," whereas for me, language is only an approximation, an interpretation that doesn't quite get the "real" thing.

Yeah, I know it basically comes down to the tree falling without a fucking noise in the cheebye forest, but we didn't bring that up.

Since emailing mg requires too many clicks, and I thought this would make for an interesting discussion (and don't worry, all those other threads I started here are still on my mind), I wanted to make a brief comment on her latest post concerning the nature of reality.

So this discussion comes down to the subjective and objective aspects of reality. Scientists, engineers, empiricists, materialists, rationalists, and the like, tend to commit a form of "reductionism" which reduces all of reality to that which is objectively measurable: atoms, cells, chemicals, systems, and the like. What many don't see, however, is that all of science is predicated on a value: that reason and empiricism are superior to non-reason. Reason cannot justify its own value or existence: for every response it gives, we can ask another "why?" The use of reason itself requires a strong value judgement, which is subjective. A stance of pure objectivity, then, is unstable and self-contradictory.

Extreme postmodernists, poststructuralists, professors of humanities, and other similar crazy beings take a similar yet opposite stance: that reality is a subjective phenomenon open to endless interpretation, signification, and changing contexts. What they seem to miss, however, is that this stance is itself an absolute, objective, overriding statement: reality is subjective and "localized" except for, well, what I'm saying now, which applies everywhere." Universal subjectivity requires an absolute objective statement. This, too, is unstable and self-contradictory.

Now an interesting note concerning language. In the Critical Theory of Communicative Action by Jurgen Habermas, one of the world's greatest living philosophers, he makes a very interesting observation: that every communicative act carries with it a tacit acknowledgement of absolute meaning. This means that whenever you try to communicate anything, even if the meaning you want to send across is no meaning (i.e. artsy French or Japanese films), that in itself implies some level of absolute meaning. This is the only way communication can even arise: without shared meanings of some universality, there is no way communication can get off the ground in the first place. Language mediates perception and interpretation of reality, this is very true; language also points to real things, but can only be understood when all parties have sufficient understanding of those real things. I explain a dog to you all I want, but that will be meaningless unless you have some experience of dogs. The same goes with dialectical reasoning, orgasms, peanut butter chocolate chip, and enlightenment.

(Dammit, I only meant to write a few lines.)

A "correct" or inclusive meta-approach, then, would incorporate both objective and subjective viewpoints. Every situation of sufficient complexity can be examined from both the "outside" and the "inside," and indeed, must be approached as such to achieve an adequate understanding of the situation or subject/object.

(Also, mg, that comic blog you linked to is brilliant. I'm gonna add it to our links.)

[Dialectic]

I also agree with Wilber, incidentally, that this "subject/object divide," a variation of the "mind-body problem," cannot adequately be resolved through reasoning alone, even higher-level "dialectical" or "network" reasoning. This problem, in his words, can only be (dis-)solved through contemplative realization, generally achieved via some sort of formal mediation/ contemplation practice.

"Ultimately," subjects and objects (much like time, space, matter, and ideas), both arise in and as the Nondual Ground, and more on this I cannot say.

[lycheng]

I whole-heartily agree with what you said, Dialectic. Deductive/Inductive reasoning is a powerful tool that helps us understand our world. D/I reasoning along with empiricism have served the sciences, especially physical sciences well in the last few centuries. I was drawn to science at a young age because of its ability to cut to the heart of the matter and be the arbiter of truth.

However, as I've gotten older, I've realized how central the role of human experience is, both individually and collectively, to our total understanding of the world. It's a theme that I'm exploring more and more with my creative pursuits and general outlook in life.

Sometimes when I read the arguments in this forum and elsewhere, I can't help but think that there's a naÔve trust in pure logic as the arbiter of who's right and who's wrong. The clear lack of perspective, along with reducing an argument to a series of tautologies, is probably the most common "fallacy" that we commit. By we, I include myself as I'm guilty of it too.

Your final point about the problematic nature of language is spot on. The problems of language combined with the fact that communication in this forum is based solely on words, without any non-verbal cues and facial expressions, creates the tension and adversarial attitudes seen regularly here.

I don't know much about Integral Theory, D, but it seems like a solid approach in our quest to understand the world.

lycheng
[edited for grammer]

[Hater Depot]

I explain a dog to you all I want, but that will be meaningless unless you have some experience of dogs. The same goes with dialectical reasoning, orgasms, peanut butter chocolate chip, and enlightenment.

Huh, that's weird. My four favorite things.

[Dialectic]

It's also interesting to note that the more complex a situation gets, or the "deeper" you get, the more the insides start to matter.

Take 9/11, for example. If you talk to a "gross reductionist," someone who says that only atoms, molecules, cells, and other objects studied by the hard sciences are "real," then they will be incapable of giving an adequate explanation for 9/11. What happened there cannot be explained by biology, chemistry, physics, computer science, etc. Unless Taliban/ Al Qaeda aggression is purely caused by some chemicals in what they eat or some crazy electric machines found in the desert, it gives us very little meaningful data.

If we expand our worldview a bit and include the systems sciences, then we learn a bit more about the situation, but not that much. We look at the political, social, educational, ecological, and economic systems, and the main thing we learn there is that they're poor and they're stuck in the desert. Well, lots of people the world over are poor and stuck in deserts or other inhospitable environments, but most of them don't form worldwide terrorist organizations hell-bent on scaring the crap out of Western society. So if we only acknowledge the external world of hard and systems sciences as "real," then we really can't come to an adequate understanding of why fundamentalist Muslims want to hurt Westerners so much (or why, as another example, Africa can't seem to climb out of its downward spiral and crap economic systems).

Studying the outsides, in these complex scenarios, tell us a bit, but not that much. The only way we can really understand why 9/11 happened is to look at the insides: is to examine cultural and religious values, socialization, and indeed, the individual lives and thinking of the terrorists we are aware of. In this fashion, we begin to understand that they're poor, they're isolationist, they're stuck in 12th century feudal thinking, they're desperate, the notion of race, culture, and religion are all essentially the same thing to them, and they believe in the glory, honor, and fundamental rightness of serving God by smiting His enemies, etc.

(A bit more of detailed informal analysis can be found here:
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/iraq.cfm)

Also, on the level of the individual, note that in the formative stages of life, external factors play a much larger role in development than internal. Inside follows outside, if you will. Infants and children do now have well-developed personalities, and their worldviews, feelings, thoughts, and attitudes are shaped to a large extent by their environment: parents, teachers, society. Once you reach adolescence and continue into adulthood, however, your interiors start to matter a lot more. When you're an adult, outside follows inside to a large extent. What's happening inside you - how compassionate, peaceful, wise, healthy, etc. you are - is often directly reflected in your outer everyday life.

[maogirl]

wow, i've been away for a while...


Since emailing mg requires too many clicks,

oh, you know a person who can make it easier to email me...ahem... 8-)


Now an interesting note concerning language. In the Critical Theory of Communicative Action by Jurgen Habermas, one of the world's greatest living philosophers, he makes a very interesting observation: that every communicative act carries with it a tacit acknowledgement of absolute meaning. This means that whenever you try to communicate anything, even if the meaning you want to send across is no meaning (i.e. artsy French or Japanese films), that in itself implies some level of absolute meaning. This is the only way communication can even arise: without shared meanings of some universality, there is no way communication can get off the ground in the first place. Language mediates perception and interpretation of reality, this is very true; language also points to real things, but can only be understood when all parties have sufficient understanding of those real things. I explain a dog to you all I want, but that will be meaningless unless you have some experience of dogs. The same goes with dialectical reasoning, orgasms, peanut butter chocolate chip, and enlightenment.

yeah, wittgenstein (and his critics) also touch upon the need for a universal (or at least, common) understanding of meanings before language can be used.

however, i didn't actually make it clear what C and i were talking about exactly, so here's how the conversation went:

have you ever seen the brilliant "the gods must be crazy?" that coke bottle (nabeh, i keep typing "cock bottle" what the fuck is wrong with me) was what actually sparked the conversation between me and C. according to C, it didn't matter whether or not the cock bottle (fuck it! i don't care) was originally used for containing a soda. to her, how it was "interpreted" was more important to its "reality" than its intrinsic purpose.

i disagreed with that because even though the cock bottle could be used for many other purposes as demonstrated in the movie, and "reinterpreted" as such, it was still essentially A COCK BOTTLE.

it's pretty sticky ground because then we started talking about transgendered people, etc.

then the ex-monk showed up and was like, "everything can just be solved through reducto absurdum" and got our attention.


(Also, mg, that comic blog you linked to is brilliant. I'm gonna add it to our links.)

oh, good! you should feel free to leave comments. i had a really great talk with david. we also talked about reality and subjective interpretation according to buddhist beliefs and it was really fascinating.

it actually ties in with the philosophies in "fearless" (by the way, I TOLD YOU THIS MOVIE WAS DAMN GOOD)...i'm starting to appreciate the underlying themes of the movie more and more.