Gary,
Gary Jaron wrote:
Can I ask a question? How can you get around the
bias" of being an observer? Which therefore means an
acknowledgment that there can never be pure
objectivity.
[Scott:] At the end of this you make the rather strange supposition that
I started my post thinking that one can be perfectly objective, but at
the end I saw the error of my ways. I think you should have gone back to
the beginning, to see that what I am trying to do is, like a proper
Wilberian holonicist, identify what is of value in SOT in preparation
for going beyond it. Rest assured that I haven't believed in the
possibility of perfect objectivity in many a decade.
As to remembering to be ready to compensate for the fact that we might
not be as objective as we think we are, that "we could be wrong", why do
you think I characterized our current condition (these past few
millenia, but never more than now) as being in a state of "Original
Insanity", or did you miss that post? OF COURSE we're wrong. We can't
help it, and I don't expect to KNOW that I am right about anything
metaphysical short of mystical Awakening, and even then wouldn't expect
to be able to SAY what's right.
[Gary cont:] Our own perspective
is enterally shading what we observe. This is the
"observer/reality DIVIDE".
[Scott:] No. The divide is the creation of subject and object (see below).
[Gary...] which I would call the
Internal Reality [observer] & External Reality
[observed]. Theoretically External Reality is where
100% pure objectivity is, but we are always in our own
mind, own culture, own Q-Intellect and thus never able
to view anything outside of that framework.
[Scott:] If you stop here you have stopped yourself within SOM, a
dualist and sceptical version at that. The next step is to recognize
that at every instant the subject and object are being created in mutual
dependence (the divide, Qaulity on the intellectual level). It is not a
case of a self-existent subject observing a self-existenct object, with
or without bias. But to make sense of this we need to exercise something
beyond SOT.
[Gary cont.]: Therefore: "Quality intellect is S/O intellect, that
is, it shows itself as q-intellect to the extent that
the result is all and only about the object -- no
prejudices resulting from social influences, from
self-interest, etc." Is from the get go a inaccurate
statement. There is never an examination of anything
"only about the object -- no prejudices". We can only
look out at the world from within our perspective.
[Scott:] Not inaccurate. I am describing what SOT thinks it is trying to
do.I am not claiming that it succeeds. On the other hand, I am
applauding SOT for trying to think dispassionately. One gets better
results that way.
- Scott
Gary Jaron wrote:
> Hi Bo and Scott, and all.
> Can I ask a question? How can you get around the
> "bias" of being an observer? Which therefore means an
> acknowledgment that there can never be pure
> objectivity.
>
> This is perfectly okay. It just means that we need to
> always remember to be ready to compensate to remember
> that we could we in error about what we understand
> about our experiences and what we believe about them.
> It just means we could be wrong. Our own perspective
> is enterally shading what we observe. This is the
> "observer/reality DIVIDE". which I would call the
> Internal Reality [observer] & External Reality
> [observed]. Theoretically External Reality is where
> 100% pure objectivity is, but we are always in our own
> mind, own culture, own Q-Intellect and thus never able
> to view anything outside of that framework.
>
> Therefore: "Quality intellect is S/O intellect, that
> is, it shows itself as q-intellect to the extent that
> the result is all and only about the object -- no
> prejudices resulting from social influences, from
> self-interest, etc." Is from the get go a inaccurate
> statement. There is never an examination of anything
> "only about the object -- no prejudices". We can only
> look out at the world from within our perspective.
>
> To use a literary analogy: We are striving for 3rd
> person Omniscient perspective. But we in reality can
> only see the world from a 1st person limited
> perspective. To see the world from "3rd person
> Omniscience" is to be God!
>
> Okay, now it seems that at the end of your dialogue
> you two realize that we can only do the best we can.
> You two seem to recognize that we are operating from
> some kind of limitation in our perspective. At the
> end of this post you seem to have moved away from the
> statement of un-bias objectivity that I point out and
> that I questioned. So, in the end I think you have
> realized that we can only have a 1st person limited
> perspective.
>
> Is that a fair characterization of your
> understandings?
>
> Acknowledging I'm not God,
> Gary
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:26 BST