Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

subjectivity

Expand Messages
  • Delia Friedberg
    Randy, you are right. My response wasn t very clear. I was reffering to the emphasis on subjectivity and individualism. i agree with you re reply. Delia
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 23, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Randy, you are right. My response wasn't very clear. I was reffering to the emphasis on subjectivity and individualism.
      i agree with you're reply.
      Delia
    • yeoman
      What is subjectivity?? Dictionary.com provides the following definition 1.. 1.. Proceeding from or taking place in a person s mind rather than the external
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 21, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        What is subjectivity??



        Dictionary.com provides the following definition



        1..
        1.. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind
        rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
        2.. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective
        experience.
        2.. Moodily introspective.
        3.. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
        4.. Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's
        mind.
        5.. Medicine. Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or
        condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
        6.. Expressing or bringing into prominence the
        individuality of the artist or author.
        7.. Grammar. Relating to or being the nominative case.
        8.. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.


        I would take the first definition as applicable to the
        discussion on existentialism. Subjectivity relates to what
        comes from the mind, rather than from the external world.



        But does this mean that subjectivity cannot be known by
        science??



        There is a good article in this month's Scientific American
        on "Hearing Colors, Tasting Shapes". It pertains to a study
        of people with "synesthesia", whose senses blend together,
        and provides valuable clues to understanding the
        organization and functions of the human brain.



        The Scientific American article gets into the subjective in
        that it provides a rationale for why synesthetes make
        subjective judgments such as to seeing the number "5" as
        appearing red and "2" as green, whereas to the normal person
        these numbers are seen as the usual black color.



        Understanding the subjective view of synesthetes leads into
        the understanding of other mixing that occurs within the
        broader population, and may give explanation for the
        creativity of painters, poets and novelists. It may also
        give explanation as to why we have certain metaphors such as
        a rude remark "cutting like a knife" where the word itself
        has the connotation of "sharp" and "cutting" which are
        senses of touch that is mixed with the sense of hearing.



        My point being that this area of subjectivity is open to
        scientific study.



        Now I can expect that one might argue that this is not the
        "personal" sort of subjectivity that each of us has
        individually. However, that is exactly what science is
        looking at -- our personal subjectivity.



        eduard
      • Mark and Bev Tindall
        ... Subjectivity is only known by science OBJECTIVELY because that is the methodology of science - objective methodology. Subjectivity can be known
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 21, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Eduard wrote:

          > But does this mean that subjectivity cannot be known by
          > science??

          Subjectivity is only known by science OBJECTIVELY because that is the
          methodology of science - objective methodology. Subjectivity can be known
          SUBJECTIVELY by existentialism because that is the methodoloy of
          existentialism - subjective methodology. Science could measure in a
          subjective manner if it wanted to (i.e. it is abole to do so) but measuring
          in a subjective manner is excluded from objective scientific methodology.
          If science measured in a subjective manner it would no longer be science but
          something else - a pseudoscience.

          Example: Astronomy is objective science. Astrology is subjective
          pseudoscience (i.e. It purports to be run on objective scientific principles
          but is really subjective in its interpretation and allocation of life
          situations to the movement of planets and stars.)

          Example: Science can film a person undergoing severe depression. It can
          measure and record all the symptons and prescribe medication to work on
          areas of the physical brain to relieve symptoms. This is all objective,
          quantitative and impersonal. The patient is another client to work on.
          Science cannot feel the same as the person who is undergoing depression for
          every person is unique and science cannot read the person's innermost being.
          Science cannot know the individual's non-physical mind as it has no method
          of measuring it. It cannot be measured objectively. It can only be
          experienced by the person him/herself.

          Some areas of science may try to access the unmeasurable non-physical mind
          and subconscious through methodologies such as psycho-therapy (one of the
          few interdisciplinary areas of science). In truth the psycho-therapisit
          does not subjectively measure the patient. The patient progressively
          reveals him / her self to him / her self and finds his /her own unique
          individual answer. The psycho-therapist is a catalyst for the self
          exploration and can only be partially subjective in his / her compassion and
          empathy for the patient. The psycho-therapist cannot enter the patient's
          non-physical mind. The patient does the subjective entering of his / her
          own non-physical mind. The psycho-therapist probes so that the patient
          answers themself.




          > There is a good article in this month's Scientific American

          This is all objective quantitative measurement of subjectivity not
          subjective qualitatiuve measurement of subjecvtivity. They are not the
          same.


          > Understanding the subjective view of synesthetes leads into
          > the understanding of other mixing that occurs within the
          > broader population, and may give explanation for the
          > creativity of painters, poets and novelists.


          Science can never reproduce the artist. Art is more than objective
          technique. It is intensely subjective, personal and individualistic. It is
          to do with both the conscious and non-conscious non-physical mind,
          creativity, fantasy, the transcendent, metaphor, symbolism, etc etc etc.

          My introduction to this area was through Paul Tournier (a Christian) but by
          far the best work is that by C G Jung in 'Memories, Dreams, Reflections'. In
          particular, his work on Mandalas and his house, Bollingen, are related to
          art.


          > My point being that this area of subjectivity is open to
          > scientific study.

          Yes it is! But only OBJECTIVELY and therefore only gives a partial answer
          to the whole because it cannot study subjectivity in a SUBJECTIVE manner.
          That is the problem! Science only studies subjectivity in an OBJECTIVE way
          because objective methodology is the only methodology it uses.


          Mark
        • yeoman
          Mark, ... that is the ... Subjectivity can be known ... methodoloy of ... measure in a ... so) but measuring ... scientific methodology. ... longer be science
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 21, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Mark,



            > Subjectivity is only known by science OBJECTIVELY because
            that is the
            > methodology of science - objective methodology.
            Subjectivity can be known
            > SUBJECTIVELY by existentialism because that is the
            methodoloy of
            > existentialism - subjective methodology. Science could
            measure in a
            > subjective manner if it wanted to (i.e. it is abole to do
            so) but measuring
            > in a subjective manner is excluded from objective
            scientific methodology.
            > If science measured in a subjective manner it would no
            longer be science but something else - a pseudoscience.



            ---> But this ignores that science is presently studying
            the subjective. I have already pointed this out in the
            article in Scientific American. All of this is available in
            the present literature.



            > Example: Astronomy is objective science. Astrology is
            subjective
            > pseudoscience (i.e. It purports to be run on objective
            scientific principles
            > but is really subjective in its interpretation and
            allocation of life
            > situations to the movement of planets and stars.)



            ---> I agree. But we are not talking about something like
            the difference between astronomy and astrology. We speaking
            about mental condition which science does study and I don't
            think that neuroscience is considered as a pseudoscience.
            But then if you do wish to hold onto the example, then
            perhaps I could say that your restriction of existentialism
            to only religion, produces a pseudophilosophy



            > Example: Science can film a person undergoing severe
            depression. It can
            > measure and record all the symptons and prescribe
            medication to work on
            > areas of the physical brain to relieve symptoms. This is
            all objective,
            > quantitative and impersonal. The patient is another
            client to work on.
            > Science cannot feel the same as the person who is
            undergoing depression for every person is unique and science
            cannot read the person's innermost being. Science cannot
            know the individual's non-physical mind as it has no method
            of measuring it. It cannot be measured objectively. It can
            only be
            > experienced by the person him/herself.



            ---> This is true. But science can delve into the
            subjective [as you have said] and that is what I am saying.



            But you do bring up an interesting point. If science cannot
            read the person's innermost being, then it follows that
            neither can religious existentialism. All that religious
            existentialism can do, is the same as science, in that it
            only provides a generalized statement. It cannot specify
            what "my" innermost being is. What is not valid for the
            goose is not valid for the gander.



            > Some areas of science may try to access the unmeasurable
            non-physical mind and subconscious through methodologies
            such as psycho-therapy (one of the few interdisciplinary
            areas of science). In truth the psycho-therapisit does not
            subjectively measure the patient. The patient progressively
            reveals him / her self to him / her self and finds his /her
            own unique individual answer. The psycho-therapist is a
            catalyst for the self
            > exploration and can only be partially subjective in his /
            her compassion and
            > empathy for the patient. The psycho-therapist cannot
            enter the patient's
            > non-physical mind. The patient does the subjective
            entering of his / her
            > own non-physical mind. The psycho-therapist probes so that
            the patient
            > answers themself.



            ---> Does religious existentialism enter the patient's
            unique mind?? Again, it is the mind of the patient and is
            unique to himself or herself. Such subjectiveness is also
            remote from religious existentialism. It is all
            generalization.



            > > There is a good article in this month's Scientific
            American
            >
            > This is all objective quantitative measurement of
            subjectivity not
            > subjective qualitatiuve measurement of subjecvtivity.
            They are not the
            > same.



            ---> You are simply making labels, as you see fit, and
            applying them without any proof.



            > Science can never reproduce the artist. Art is more than
            objective
            > technique. It is intensely subjective, personal and
            individualistic. It is
            > to do with both the conscious and non-conscious
            non-physical mind,
            > creativity, fantasy, the transcendent, metaphor,
            symbolism, etc etc etc.



            ---> I did not say that science can reproduce the artist.
            What i was saying was that the artist could be understood.
            That is an entirely different matter.



            > My introduction to this area was through Paul Tournier (a
            Christian) but by
            > far the best work is that by C G Jung in 'Memories,
            Dreams, Reflections'. In particular, his work on Mandalas
            and his house, Bollingen, are related to
            > art.



            ---> My introduction to this area was a book on brain
            science by Dr. Andrew Newberg, and recently one on
            neuropsychology by Michael A. Persinger. So you have read a
            book and I have read a book. Which proves nothing other
            than we have read books.



            > > My point being that this area of subjectivity is open to
            > > scientific study.
            >
            > Yes it is! But only OBJECTIVELY and therefore only gives
            a partial answer
            > to the whole because it cannot study subjectivity in a
            SUBJECTIVE manner. That is the problem! Science only
            studies subjectivity in an OBJECTIVE way because objective
            methodology is the only methodology it uses.



            ---> Which brings us back to my original point. What then
            studies individual existence in any manner?? You have
            already said that individuality is unique. How is the
            unique and subjective viewpoint of "I love Doris" studied by
            religious existentialism??



            eduard
          • Mark and Bev Tindall
            ... It is studying the subjective OBJECTIVELY ... by OBJECTIVE methodology which excludes SUBJECTIVE methodology! Read above. ... It can only delve into the
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 21, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Eduard wrote:

              > > Subjectivity is only known by science OBJECTIVELY because
              > that is the
              > > methodology of science - objective methodology.
              > Subjectivity can be known
              > > SUBJECTIVELY by existentialism because that is the
              > methodoloy of
              > > existentialism - subjective methodology. Science could
              > measure in a
              > > subjective manner if it wanted to (i.e. it is abole to do
              > so) but measuring
              > > in a subjective manner is excluded from objective
              > scientific methodology.
              > > If science measured in a subjective manner it would no
              >> longer be science but something else - a pseudoscience.

              >

              > ---> But this ignores that science is presently studying
              > the subjective.


              It is studying the subjective OBJECTIVELY ... by OBJECTIVE methodology which
              excludes SUBJECTIVE methodology! Read above.


              > > Science cannot feel the same as the person who is
              >> undergoing depression for every person is unique and science
              >> cannot read the person's innermost being. Science cannot
              >> know the individual's non-physical mind as it has no method
              >> of measuring it. It cannot be measured objectively. It can
              >> only be
              > > experienced by the person him/herself.
              > ---> This is true. But science can delve into the
              > subjective [as you have said] and that is what I am saying.


              It can only delve into the subject in an OBJECTIVE manner and therefore
              looses an important area of subjectivity ...SUBJECTIVE METHODOLOGY. Read
              again.


              > But you do bring up an interesting point. If science cannot
              > read the person's innermost being, then it follows that
              > neither can religious existentialism.

              It can when it is INDIVIDUAL, PERSONAL AND SUBJECTIVE. Faith is not a group
              exercise but an individual, personal and subjective experience! An
              individual can read his / her own innermost being and that is what Christian
              existentialism says. Furthermore this is where the meeting with the
              transcendence of God ad ground and Source of all being occurs ... in the
              depths of the individual's spirit / non-phyical mind.



              > Does religious existentialism enter the patient's
              > unique mind??


              The unique individual enters his / her own non-physical mind belonging that
              same unique individual him / herself. Existentialism is a subjective
              philosophical methodolgy not a physical item.



              > > > There is a good article in this month's Scientific
              > American
              > >
              > > This is all objective quantitative measurement of
              >> subjectivity not subjective qualitatiuve measurement of
              >> subjecvtivity. They are not the same.
              >
              > ---> You are simply making labels, as you see fit, and
              > applying them without any proof.


              Reread. Description and words mean something and are not there for pure
              decorative purposes.


              > ---> I did not say that science can reproduce the artist.
              > What i was saying was that the artist could be understood.
              > That is an entirely different matter.

              Sciuence cannot subjectively understand the artist. All science is capable
              of is objectively understanding the artist. If it does anything else it is
              not science.

              Is Paul Davies wrong about science?





              > > > My point being that this area of subjectivity is open to
              > > > scientific study.
              > >
              > > Yes it is! But only OBJECTIVELY and therefore only gives
              > a partial answer
              > > to the whole because it cannot study subjectivity in a
              > SUBJECTIVE manner. That is the problem! Science only
              > studies subjectivity in an OBJECTIVE way because objective
              > methodology is the only methodology it uses.
              >
              > ---> Which brings us back to my original point. What then
              > studies individual existence in any manner??


              SUBJECTIVE EXISTENTIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              [.... banging my head on a brick wall ... doh! doh! doh! ................]



              > You have already said that individuality is unique.

              Yes!



              > How is the unique and subjective viewpoint of "I love Doris"
              > studied by religious existentialism?

              The same as any other type of EXISTENTIALISM ...SUBJECTIVE METHODOLOGY ---
              it is still EXISTENTIALISM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              [.... banging my head on a brick wall again ... doh! doh! doh!
              ................]


              Mark
            • yeoman
              Mark, This whole discussion is pointless. You make up your own labels and then argue against them, as if they were my words. I have pointed out that there
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 21, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark,

                This whole discussion is pointless. You make up your own
                labels and then argue against them, as if they were my
                words. I have pointed out that there article in Scientific
                American dealt with the subjective. You may well repeat
                that this is objectivity, but your arguments are not
                convincing nor illuminating. Lets drop this subject.

                eduard

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Mark and Bev Tindall" <tindall@...>
                To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 7:58 PM
                Subject: Re: [existlist] subjectivity


                > Eduard wrote:
                >
                > > > Subjectivity is only known by science OBJECTIVELY
                because
                > > that is the
                > > > methodology of science - objective methodology.
                > > Subjectivity can be known
                > > > SUBJECTIVELY by existentialism because that is the
                > > methodoloy of
                > > > existentialism - subjective methodology. Science
                could
                > > measure in a
                > > > subjective manner if it wanted to (i.e. it is abole to
                do
                > > so) but measuring
                > > > in a subjective manner is excluded from objective
                > > scientific methodology.
                > > > If science measured in a subjective manner it would no
                > >> longer be science but something else - a pseudoscience.
                >
                > >
                >
                > > ---> But this ignores that science is presently
                studying
                > > the subjective.
                >
                >
                > It is studying the subjective OBJECTIVELY ... by OBJECTIVE
                methodology which
                > excludes SUBJECTIVE methodology! Read above.
                >
                >
                > > > Science cannot feel the same as the person who is
                > >> undergoing depression for every person is unique and
                science
                > >> cannot read the person's innermost being. Science
                cannot
                > >> know the individual's non-physical mind as it has no
                method
                > >> of measuring it. It cannot be measured objectively.
                It can
                > >> only be
                > > > experienced by the person him/herself.
                > > ---> This is true. But science can delve into the
                > > subjective [as you have said] and that is what I am
                saying.
                >
                >
                > It can only delve into the subject in an OBJECTIVE manner
                and therefore
                > looses an important area of subjectivity ...SUBJECTIVE
                METHODOLOGY. Read
                > again.
                >
                >
                > > But you do bring up an interesting point. If science
                cannot
                > > read the person's innermost being, then it follows that
                > > neither can religious existentialism.
                >
                > It can when it is INDIVIDUAL, PERSONAL AND SUBJECTIVE.
                Faith is not a group
                > exercise but an individual, personal and subjective
                experience! An
                > individual can read his / her own innermost being and that
                is what Christian
                > existentialism says. Furthermore this is where the
                meeting with the
                > transcendence of God ad ground and Source of all being
                occurs ... in the
                > depths of the individual's spirit / non-phyical mind.
                >
                >
                >
                > > Does religious existentialism enter the patient's
                > > unique mind??
                >
                >
                > The unique individual enters his / her own non-physical
                mind belonging that
                > same unique individual him / herself. Existentialism is a
                subjective
                > philosophical methodolgy not a physical item.
                >
                >
                >
                > > > > There is a good article in this month's Scientific
                > > American
                > > >
                > > > This is all objective quantitative measurement of
                > >> subjectivity not subjective qualitatiuve measurement of
                > >> subjecvtivity. They are not the same.
                > >
                > > ---> You are simply making labels, as you see fit, and
                > > applying them without any proof.
                >
                >
                > Reread. Description and words mean something and are not
                there for pure
                > decorative purposes.
                >
                >
                > > ---> I did not say that science can reproduce the
                artist.
                > > What i was saying was that the artist could be
                understood.
                > > That is an entirely different matter.
                >
                > Sciuence cannot subjectively understand the artist. All
                science is capable
                > of is objectively understanding the artist. If it does
                anything else it is
                > not science.
                >
                > Is Paul Davies wrong about science?
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > > > > My point being that this area of subjectivity is
                open to
                > > > > scientific study.
                > > >
                > > > Yes it is! But only OBJECTIVELY and therefore only
                gives
                > > a partial answer
                > > > to the whole because it cannot study subjectivity in a
                > > SUBJECTIVE manner. That is the problem! Science only
                > > studies subjectivity in an OBJECTIVE way because
                objective
                > > methodology is the only methodology it uses.
                > >
                > > ---> Which brings us back to my original point. What
                then
                > > studies individual existence in any manner??
                >
                >
                > SUBJECTIVE
                EXISTENTIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                >
                > [.... banging my head on a brick wall ... doh! doh! doh!
                ................]
                >
                >
                >
                > > You have already said that individuality is unique.
                >
                > Yes!
                >
                >
                >
                > > How is the unique and subjective viewpoint of "I love
                Doris"
                > > studied by religious existentialism?
                >
                > The same as any other type of EXISTENTIALISM ...SUBJECTIVE
                METHODOLOGY ---
                > it is still EXISTENTIALISM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                >
                > [.... banging my head on a brick wall again ... doh! doh!
                doh!
                > ................]
                >
                >
                > Mark
                >
                >
                > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                > Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give
                You Thirty Dollars for Trying!
                > http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/ACsqlB/TM
                > ----------------------------------------------------------
                -----------~->
                >
                > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                >
                > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.