Is anything really objective?

[konchog uma]

Excellent post and thanks for joining the discussion.

 

I have no desire here to negate the importance of the subjectivity. I am only trying to express the importance of the objectivity.

 

Your use of the word 'spirit' the way you did I normally use the word "Chi". That keeps me away from having to speak of spirituality and then religions.

 

Thanks, and you're welcome.

 

Its an interesting concept, and I'm not purporting to know enough to have any answers... when i re-read my post, I found that I seemed to be expressing more questions, and a generally unsure state. Better that way I'm sure. Thank you for inspiring my wonderment

 

Spirituality and religion are two entirely different things to me, so I don't personally follow the one (spirituality) to the other unless I'm talking about the spirituality of a particular religion. But I respect your point of view, and I think that in this case, that spirit that I am talking about is more synonymous with chi than not. I am not convinced that all things that exist in the physical plane possess shen, although I am curious as to what the general daoist belief regarding this is.

 

I saw your comments about taking root in the physical world and letting that be enough. I am steeped in an elemental understanding which informs me that the physical world is the earth element aspect of reality. To my worldview there is also the spirit/fire, mental/air, emotional/water, and emptiness/akasha aspects. So to me, there are all those kinds of chi, which to me means life energy, or subtle energy, and is found in all aspects of reality. I am not trying to convince you that my way is correct, just to share so you know where I am coming from. I am both spiritual and religious, but neither of those facts bears any relevance to the discussion of objectivity/subjectivity as such.

 

"The world can encompass all of our worldviews at once, but our worldviews can never possibly encompass the world."

[Marblehead]

Again, nice response.

 

I will speak to only this:

 

I saw your comments about taking root in the physical world and letting that be enough. I am steeped in an elemental understanding which informs me that the physical world is the earth element aspect of reality. To my worldview there is also the spirit/fire, mental/air, emotional/water, and emptiness/akasha aspects. So to me, there are all those kinds of chi, which to me means life energy, or subtle energy, and is found in all aspects of reality. I am not trying to convince you that my way is correct, just to share so you know where I am coming from. I am both spiritual and religious, but neither of those facts bears any relevance to the discussion of objectivity/subjectivity as such.

 

Yes, I feel it is very important to remain rooted in the physical realm. I rarely speak about the other realms because there are many, many members here who love to speak about those. Hehehe.

 

But, just because I speak almost entirely about the physical realm doesn't mean that I am ignorant or unconcerned of the other realms. I just don't find a need to talk about them. (My spirituality is a personal thing.) Yes, I am still an Atheist. Hehehe.

[Stigweard]

I don't know about Marbles, but I value your opinion!

Another way to interpret what you just said (the same way really?) is that Daoism, like all other religious/spiritual traditions, is simply about trying to figure out what reality is and how to be a genuine human being. Which takes us back to topic - are we objects or subjects?

And it may be interesting to discuss but I think that for each of us the sum total of our life experience determines which we feel ourselves to be, there will be no convincing, only description.

Are we objects or subjects?

 

Perhaps we are objects when we are being perceived by others and subjects when we are the ones perceiving. So maybe we are both simultaneously.

 

???

 

[Marblehead]

Are we objects or subjects?

 

Perhaps we are objects when we are being perceived by others and subjects when we are the ones perceiving. So maybe we are both simultaneously.

 

???

 

 

Subjectively functioning objects?

[Stigweard]

Subjectively functioning objects?

There you are!!! Answer found ... next topic??

 

[Marblehead]

There you are!!! Answer found ... next topic??

 

 

I think it is time for me to post another chapter of the TTC.

[deci belle]

[dawei]

Daoism, like all other religious/spiritual traditions, is simply about trying to figure out what reality is and how to be a genuine human being. Which takes us back to topic - are we objects or subjects?

What phase or age of daoism are you referring to?

 

If we drop the 'ism' and just said "Dao"; Is Dao about "figuring out" what reality is and how to be human?

 

I see it as we are similar to the mist you see above water on an early morning, or the dew on the grass.

 

On some level, if there is "thinking" going on to understand it, it's already forgotten itself.

[Marblehead]

What you can't use is the real.

 

Interesting post. You lost me but it is still an interesting post.

 

Is there a different way you can say what you said?

[Marblehead]

On some level, if there is "thinking" going on to understand it, it's already forgotten itself.

 

Yeah. I think this is an important concept but I don't know how to build on it.

[konchog uma]

Objectivity shouldn't be definable, nor should it be an objective of practice. Objectivity enables one to adapt to the objective reality. The criteria of objectivity is that ones perspective is selfless. I'd like to be unequivocal about that.

 

i've never striven for a selfless perspective. to me thats sort of like trying to destroy the ego. i'm afraid that if i were egoless or selfless i might get hit by a bus j/k but only half j/k

 

to me, self is ok, and the ego is important. my personal practice involves accepting the ego with the spirit, giving it a big hug, and lifting it into a higher perspective, where my sense of self-reference becomes spiritual and all inclusive instead of selfish and cut off from others in a way thats deluded to the truth of interconnectedness.

 

it might be semantic, and i'm not arguing with you (i love when i have to say that), i just want to talk about it because a lot of spiritually minded people are adamant about selflessness or egolessness and i have never seen the sense of taking this approach. maybe i need to grow spiritually before i can understand mentally. or maybe the self (and awareness of self, or ego) is really important to have a healthy, accepting relationship with.

[Birch]

I quite like that idea.

Not to get too far into the self problem:-) but I read/see/know "ego" as the conditioned self (the shell created around oneself to protect it from whatever it needed protection from - and I'd argue, mainly this culture). Anyway, comes a time one doesn't need the shell anymore and needs to crack it open. Exposing the self to the world without the shell can be painful which is why IMO people seek to grow a bigger one, or insist that their shell now encompasses all of it. Well, i say, why not just let your self dry off a little and see how it goes in the world without a shell? I guess that's when one ends up realising one's strength inside. No shells needed. Of course, I'm only speaking for myself:-)

[Marblehead]

I'm reading. I could say thing but prefer to not speak at the moment. The last two posts were speaking very much to me.

[Apech]

I see that different people are using the term 'objective' differently. This is probably as it should be of course.

 

Objective - as in seeing things as objects.

 

Objective - as in impartial.

 

Objective - as a goal to be reached.

 

Could also add 'object' as thing, or 'object' as oppose as in 'I object your Honour the defense is clearly leading the witness' (I've watched too many courtroom dramas).

 

So many nuances in one word ... maybe we are not meant to agree (?)

[Birch]

I see that different people are using the term 'objective' differently. This is probably as it should be of course.

 

Objective - as in seeing things as objects.

 

Objective - as in impartial.

 

Objective - as a goal to be reached.

 

Could also add 'object' as thing, or 'object' as oppose as in 'I object your Honour the defense is clearly leading the witness' (I've watched too many courtroom dramas).

 

So many nuances in one word ... maybe we are not meant to agree (?)

 

Possibly not meant to agree but to create through the disagreement. If i agreed with everyone, I'd be talking to myself :-)

Anyway, Wittgenstein or someone blethered on about why bother having conversations. To keep having them :-) I think there's a bit more to it than that but I don't have time to discuss it :-) There's a bacon sandwich to be eaten!

[konchog uma]

I quite like that idea.

Not to get too far into the self problem:-) but I read/see/know "ego" as the conditioned self (the shell created around oneself to protect it from whatever it needed protection from - and I'd argue, mainly this culture). Anyway, comes a time one doesn't need the shell anymore and needs to crack it open. Exposing the self to the world without the shell can be painful which is why IMO people seek to grow a bigger one, or insist that their shell now encompasses all of it. Well, i say, why not just let your self dry off a little and see how it goes in the world without a shell? I guess that's when one ends up realising one's strength inside. No shells needed. Of course, I'm only speaking for myself:-)

 

 

like apech mentioned the different meanings of the word objective, i would like to clarify what i meant by the ego. like you, i see ego as completely conditioned. when i was an infant i was as egoless as i have ever been. then i grew an ego

 

but to define it, i use the word ego to mean ones recognition of self. my ego is the part of me that knows what i like to eat, what kind of friends i am drawn to, where i work... practical everyday stuff. my ego as a framework or psychic matrix stores all kinds of information about my practical life. without an ego, i would probably be lost in spiritual bliss, one with everything, but in matters of practical life, would i remember to make that phone call i said i would make? only if the spirit informed me, since its my ego that remembers what "i" have to do.

 

granted, the self is what my tradition refers to as dependent-arising, which is to say that my mind and sense of self are constructs that depend entirely on the external conditions that bring them about. in this way, they have no inherent reality that can be seperate from oneness. because the ego is conditioned, it is incomplete without the primordial or prenatal spirit to balance it, but from the point of view of shaivite tantrism and middle path esoteric buddhism, if one thinks that discarding the ego like a useless husk is a good idea, they are not using their sense of self as a tool. instead of being cast away or destroyed, the adherent seeks to sublimate it and alchemically merge it with the more powerful primordial spirit, so that it will stop its power-hungry chattering and lying. it does these things when it is unchecked by spirit, but as soon as it is accepted and checked (merged and sublimated) it seems to evolve to a higher spiritual perspective. there it remains as a sense of self awareness that can be used to gauge the areas one can improve in, acknowledge accomplishments, and do a host of other self-awareness type feedback loop tasks. the primordial spirit alone doesn't seem to care about these things because it knows that what i like to eat is irrelevant, where i work will change when i die, but my primordial spirit will not.

 

i know that in some daoism i have read, the primoridal spirit (yuan shen) is seen as being inherited from the parent's energies, so i don't know how put it in daoist parlance. maybe i would be talking about the wuji, if there is a counterpart to that on a personal level. i don't mean to mislead anyone when i talk about primordial spirit. i don't use that phrase in an "official daoist capacity" so my apologies!

 

i dunno -K- it makes a lot of sense to me, but i am not trying to convince you. just sharing some philosophy that i have evaluated logically and found to hold water. i am perfectly willing to admit that maybe i'm just in a stage of development that can't let go of ego yet. i think that acceptance and rejection are just two paths towards wholeness, and the entire issue is sort of a paradoxical conundrum similar to desiring to be desireless. some schools say negate the desires (eg theravada), and some say accept them and work with them lovingly (eg tantra).

 

i think that if one is sincere and has the intention to evolve into a whole and holistic being, either path will work to transport them there. i guess thats why we each have to find our own path.

[Apech]

Ok since it's been raised ... I would like a view on whether Taoism actually has the concept of 'ego' ... which is a kind of objective self. When we see ourselves as 'something' ... talk to ourselves internally (out loud if you are me!) we are objectifying our own being. Do the Taoist philosophers talk about this - otherwise we are getting drawn back to the B-word.

[Marblehead]

Ok since it's been raised ... I would like a view on whether Taoism actually has the concept of 'ego' ... which is a kind of objective self. When we see ourselves as 'something' ... talk to ourselves internally (out loud if you are me!) we are objectifying our own being. Do the Taoist philosophers talk about this - otherwise we are getting drawn back to the B-word.

 

That question was posed to me once before and I found nothing that I could say was a 'Taoist view of ego'. I think that it is a given with both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu that ego is a part of the totality of what we are but never found a reason to talk about it.

[deci belle]

When I read of the human mentality, it seems to be a code-word for the ego-reflective function.

Edited August 18, 2011 by deci belle

[konchog uma]

Ok since it's been raised ... I would like a view on whether Taoism actually has the concept of 'ego' ... which is a kind of objective self. When we see ourselves as 'something' ... talk to ourselves internally (out loud if you are me!) we are objectifying our own being. Do the Taoist philosophers talk about this - otherwise we are getting drawn back to the B-word.

 

i've never seen an authentically translated ancient text mention ego once. i don't think anyone really mentioned ego, buddhists included, before freud popularized the concept.

 

good point, thanks.

Edited August 18, 2011 by anamatva

[Informer]

I see that different people are using the term 'objective' differently. This is probably as it should be of course.

 

Objective - as in seeing things as objects.

 

Objective - as in impartial.

 

Objective - as a goal to be reached.

 

Could also add 'object' as thing, or 'object' as oppose as in 'I object your Honour the defense is clearly leading the witness' (I've watched too many courtroom dramas).

 

So many nuances in one word ... maybe we are not meant to agree (?)

 

"Objective Reality

We are using the term objective reality in contrast to subjective reality, which is reality seen through our inner mental filters that are shaped by our past conditioning. Objective reality is how things really are. Although it is possible to perceive objectively, we cannot take in the totality of reality and say anything about it; we can only point to some of its characteristics. So whenever we explore reality in any specific manner, we have to leave out something. For example, when you describe an orange, you cannot say anything about its totality. You have to talk about its color or its taste or its shape. If you want your description to encompass the whole thing -- its color, shape, and taste all together -- you can only say, "orange." It is the same with objective reality. If you want to say anything about it, you have to focus on its specific characteristics. (Facets of Unity, pg 206)"

 

http://www.ahalmaas.com/Glossary/o/objective_reality.htm

[Marblehead]

"Objective Reality

We are using the term objective reality in contrast to subjective reality, which is reality seen through our inner mental filters that are shaped by our past conditioning. Objective reality is how things really are. Although it is possible to perceive objectively, we cannot take in the totality of reality and say anything about it; we can only point to some of its characteristics. So whenever we explore reality in any specific manner, we have to leave out something. For example, when you describe an orange, you cannot say anything about its totality. You have to talk about its color or its taste or its shape. If you want your description to encompass the whole thing -- its color, shape, and taste all together -- you can only say, "orange." It is the same with objective reality. If you want to say anything about it, you have to focus on its specific characteristics. (Facets of Unity, pg 206)"

 

http://www.ahalmaas.com/Glossary/o/objective_reality.htm

 

I agree with the above and this is basically what I have been trying to say in my own way.

[Birch]

Thanks for your post Anmatva. Very interesting.

I guess my description of the difference is that the e-word is what I consider "about" myself. It's the story "about". The other one, doesn't rely on stories. Just is. So maybe we have them crossed? Anyway, at some point, yes I believe there is a merging of both but I'm

neither sure it happens all at once, nor that it will ever stop happening. I feel it to be the collison (or the meeting) of spirit and the world, in the world and vice versa.

I don't think I get that understanding from any particular tradition but I did do practices that were pretty tantrically inspired, so maybe that idea just comes with the territory. Which in itself would be a) weird and lend some grist to the mill for some other arguments that I'm seeing discussed

Thank you for not trying to convince me:-)

 

I agree with the post about the orange. I think people try to get to such understandings sometimes because of their experiences with other people and not oranges. I guess if the orange were less tangible...anyway, I think I do. I try to remember simple ideas like that when dealing with people (including myself:-)) but I think people are weirder than that in totality:-)

[Marblehead]

... but I think people are weirder than that in totality:-)

 

Yes, people are wierder than are oranges. Hehehe.

[steve]

Ok since it's been raised ... I would like a view on whether Taoism actually has the concept of 'ego' ... which is a kind of objective self. When we see ourselves as 'something' ... talk to ourselves internally (out loud if you are me!) we are objectifying our own being. Do the Taoist philosophers talk about this - otherwise we are getting drawn back to the B-word.

The Classics are full of discussion of that which gets in the way between man and Dao.

To me, the implication is that this is the "objective" self, the self that is separate from Dao, that is - the illusion. And that returning to Dao and Wu Wei are about letting go of that illusion by letting go of all of those things that get in the way. Subject and object disappear and what remains cannot be named.