Jump to content

Subjective, Intersubjective, and Objective Reality Stance


Recommended Posts

- Introduction

The reason for this thread is to bring up a possible discussion about the premise behind the 'Theory of Everything' journey presumed to be undertook by some people and possibly make refinements (e.g. ascertain, articulation, and clarification) with it for ranging from layman to technical and / or vice versa. The 'Theory of Everything' has to be objective-oriented or at least try to be approximately close to that, to be fair and make an inclusion of considerations for different and major but otherwise simplified categories of existence or reality; unbiased spirit, mind, and physical aspect and transition or interaction between these.

There surely are some philosophical differences, attitudes, and / or stances toward the 'Theory of Everything'. To have it is to formally define, explain, and use reality.


- Reality

A real existence.


- Subjective Reality Stance

Reality depends on minds.


- Intersubjective Reality Stance

A middle ground between subjective and objective reality stance; Reality and minds; both depend on and are independent of with each other albeit at varying levels of interaction.


- Objective Reality Stance

Reality is independent of minds.


- Transition Between Stances

A potential transition between subjective, intersubjective, and objective reality stance as situational dependent and conceptual timing.

I made an inclusion of situational dependent and conceptual timing, because of fair consideration of possibilities with transition (e.g. not fixed to a stance and because sometime some of us are learning, thus shifting between is possible).


- Diagram

See an attached image of diagram I developed pertains to this thread. It consists of reality as umbrella of three different reality stances and a transition between these, and definitions for all of these.


- Reference

The termed word and its meaning, intersubjective, was found and adapted from the following quotes and links:

"Intersubjectivity can be viewed as the middle ground between objectivity and subjectivity because it contains characteristics of both epistemological stances. Intersubjectivity is focused on the belief that research is neither purely objective nor purely subjective in nature. In this entry intersubjectivity is described as agreement among scientists occurring via communication and the sharing of meanings regarding their research objects and research contexts."

From link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0123

"Intersubjectivity is considered crucial not only at the relational level but also at the epistemological and even metaphysical levels. For example, intersubjectivity is postulated as playing a role in establishing the truth of propositions, and constituting the so-called objectivity of objects."

From link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity

I included subjectivity alongside with intersubjectivity and objectivity, because these intersubjectivity and objectivity are inherited from subjectivity from my point of view. If without subjectivity, how what else can we interact (intersubjectivity) and constitute objectivity of objects (objectivity)?


- Other Comments

For some reasons I see:

Subjective Reality as principle (e.g. made of).

Intersubjective Reality as interaction (e.g. psychological relations/relationships and fundamental interactions in physics).

Objective Reality as emergence (e.g. 'result' from relations/relationships and interaction).

I'm not sure if these as I see have connection(s) with above or not, I just thought it'd be interesting to point these out.

subjective-intersubjective-and-objective-reality_0-1v_by-tyler-s_2022.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My best hypothesis atm  is that objective and subjective realities are equal, as One.

If Objective reality is the state of being,  with out relationship.

and subjective, in relationship.

Where a state of being is decided  or final, its in decline. Nothing is the only enduring statehood.

Its measure must be evidenced.

Its equal. The balance between something and nothing is its measure.

Identity/Identification is always objective. Without relation to. Defined from the  relationships/environment that assign it value.

So any measure/value is attributed subjectively, to the relationship between its measure, and its being.

 

Edited by naitche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only relationship can provide the balance. The subjective.

It leads the way. Form/state follows function/direction

Identification is objective/reductive.  Any measure or value is subjective. Supports the purpose.

Subjective values can't be applied objectively, with out creating a double negative. A negative bias.

Objective values can be applied to the subjective, but only in service to the whole of reality. Equal in consideration.  To provide equal structure.

Realities equal as one, otherwise, Naught.

 

Edited by naitche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, naitche said:

Only relationship can provide the balance. The subjective.

It leads the way. Form/state follows function/direction

Identification is objective/reductive.  Any measure or value is subjective. Supports the purpose.

Subjective values can't be applied objectively, with out creating a double negative. A negative bias.

Objective values can be applied to the subjective, but only in service to the whole of reality. Equal in consideration.  To provide equal structure.

Realities equal as one, otherwise, Naught.

 

Ugh. My poor wording again. 

Value can only go one way, to direction. 

Application of the objective, to an objective, is the double negative. The value is assumed into the negative, and has become a 'value' since it can only be applied that way, subjectively.

Objectives applied subjectively direct structure. Structure which will only support the reality assumed in/by? its implementation.

Seems to underpin biological and evolutionary process of recognition and response., and to work in the social sciences, explaining the use or purpose of belief or bias to organic structure.

 

 

 

 

Edited by naitche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.