Monday, July 28, 2014

Re: [jcs-online] Re: Subjectivity is nonobjective, is antimaterialistic, so nonscientific


I appreciate your question and will do my best to answer it for you.  At the outset, I acknowledge that the distinction I am raising is slightly paradigmatic, basically relating to how or whether one nests and/or structures their tenets. Thus communications may be a bit rocky or challenging, at first.
In addition, thank you for pointing out and trying to clarify my own misunderstanding/simplification that subjective/objective  just goes back to Descartes when it apparently goes back further.  The misunderstanding I am referring to as ~yours apparently dates back to Aristotle.  Pardon me and my sketchy civil engineering education.
Also, I have some vague appreciation for the fact that my use of the words, "misunderstanding" and "wrong",  may seem to be or actually be a bit stinging, garish and insensitive. A qualification might be found in: from my perspective [you] are confused, or paradigmatically challenged, or perhaps relying upon limiting, outdated or unhelpful tenets.   
Again the distinction here is paradigmatic, and thus if you were to carefully consider the hugely devastating consequences of running a flawed  scientific paradigm for, say, two or three generations longer than need be, PERHAPS you might begin to see the spirit in which I apply those terms.  A culture believing an incoherent philosophical/scientific paradigm which is clearly false but bathed in, say, a half-century thick film of political correctness, that situation is dangerous, very dangerous -- the essence of wrong.  Take stock., Look around, Roger.   If or after the  sting wears off, I'm hopeful for  an accelerated, productive healthy transition and migration.  A spade is a spade. Wrong is wrong. 

The short version of my answer to your question is, the thing you are are pointing at with the word  "objectivity", is just an occurrence of  strongly repeating subjectivity.  Various categories of repeatable subjective experience are all we have -- for instance: rare, stochastic,  and strongly repeating subjectivity.
Thus, while encased behind the darkened shell surrounding the cul-de-sac which IS the Aristotelian Isle of Cartesia, in contrast to: "Subjectivity is nonobjective, is antimaterialistic,  nonscientific", across the newly constructed 12-lane paradigm  bridge connecting to the wide-open enfolding levels of organization: "objectivity is actually just strongly repeating subjectivity".    So, subjectivity is  intensely scientific.
Thus, ~your model, or let's say due to the erroneous, flat, non-nested  structure of ~your model,  ~your/Aristotle's model contains a pretty obvious and glaring  categorical error.    ~You , or ~Aristotle -- whoever... elevate a secondary label or artifact into the position of a primary tenet.   That imagery is a helpful initial approximation but it's also  just plain wrong.  

---In, wrote :


Misunderstandings ? How so ? Please be specific. It would only be "misunderstandings" to a scientist, who lives in a deliberately  decapitated, mindless world where subjectivity is not possible. Science lives in the objective world of Aristotle, which must therefore be totally objective.  But mind or subjectivity is only accessible to platonists and other idealists, which start with Mind.

- Roger Clouugh 
[rf]  ... Science lives in lots of places. 
As hopefully you can now observe, the misunderstandings can also arise in or within folks who blindly build or adopt a tottering edifice which is slightly flawed categorically where a secondary artifact (objectivity...) is/was assumed as fundamental and then that assumed fundamental trait was then doubly enthroned as being particularly special  ....when it wasn't and isn't.    The edifice collapses.
In the improved philosophy and trial scientific theory that I am advocating, what comes to the fore is frequency and relative count of various artifacts and occurrences -- along with the reduction of one central categorical error in the previously dominant trial theory. These changes constitute and also lead to an increase in accuracy, generality and in rationality.  This amounts to reduction in error. The improved trial theory is less wrong; fostering less misunderstanding.
Have I been specific enough for you, Roger?     Do you have any questions or would you like to comment or express criticism or distress at what I have replied? Please feel free. I am aware this is a difficult transition.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Customer Support
[fSci] --  Frost Scientific

With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

On 7/10/2014 4:29 PM, Ralph Frost ralph@... [jcs-online] wrote:

You might be able to re-think your way through the misunderstandings implied in your post's title by noticing that objectivity is strongly repeatable subjectivity.  There's only the one "thing": repeatable subjectivity.  The objective stuff, most of the time consistently repeats.  

The ~dominant consensus (western scientific paradigm)  radiates from ~Descartes' subjective-objective assumption.   His is a decent initial approximation of a science of consciousness model, and certainly most of us having the  strongly *feeling* that it's sort of valid (despite our massive confusion about it. (Re-read the wiki post.) 

However,  our feeling and our reason are entangled and also are enmeshed with our learned/adopted trial theory(ies).    Just consider some of the roots of your own anxieties and depression and the impressions that accumulate from prior experiences/trauma.   Things are nested. 

Descartes' initial approximation  ~comes close.  But here after 370+ years of research  within that trial theory, look around.  Non-classical reality is nested within classical reality. Descartes' model sort of fails.  Reality is nested ~structured~duality  -- ordered water and structured, synthesized proteins.  Nested fields within nested fields. 

So, you (or Wikipedia authors) can suggest subjectivity is nonobjective, is antimaterialistic, so nonscientific,  you are --What's the word?-- wrong; not thinking clearly; sort of stuck in a flawed set of assumptions. 

Think about it.

Beat regards,
Ralph Frost

Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: https://rclough@.../RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@...

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a comment