First of all, I wanna thank you sirnex for having this discussion with me. I would be very very sad if no one questioned my ideas.
Originally posted by sirnex
I'm talking about subjective perception as in, red is red because it is red.
What? Im having trouble getting any meaning out of that phrase. I dont relate your explanation to the concept of subjective perception. Seems like you
understand subjectivity as being some kind of self-validating circular reasoning which in the end has no value at all? Is that it?
If so, I must disagree. I think subjectivity is the only means for reasoning. If you want to discard subjectivyty, fine. But then we would have to
discard reasoning as well. If it helps to understand my point, Im kind of a mystic. I believe objectivity is beyond our capability of reasoning. We
are able to experience it, but we arent able to talk about it making perfect logical sense.
If you throw away subjectivity because of its self-validating aspect you would have to also throw away the scientific method which works specifically
for self-validation of theories that spring from a subjective experiencer. If indeed we were able to experience and reason on top of the objective
world there would be no need for the scientific method at all.
Are you against the scientific method also? If so, why?
We have instruments that are able to perceive the universe without conscious subjectivity and abstraction to label what is seemingly seen to
exist.
Do we? What instruments are those? An instrument needs an instrumenteer. It needs someone to use it, someone that has conscious subjectivity and
enough abstraction to realize that the instrument is indeed an instrument and can be used to achieve something else. What is the value of anything
that is perceived by something that has no abstraction? How would the experience keep growing or evolving?
An instrument that senses the same wavelength but is devoid of consciousness itself is unable to apply that subjective perception to what it
detects and in my opinion would be a much more accurate depiction of reality. It isn't biased by the conscious subjective perception.
Whats the use of an accurate depiction of reality if there is no consciousness to actually apply that depiction somehow? That instrument that
accuretlu depics reality but isnt affected by subjectivity seems completely useless and not even worth of existing. And still, how would such an
instrument even come to existence without consciousness or abstraction to create it?
I disagree and I believe it's the ability to abstractly think about the subjective experience that muddies the actuality of events occurring
in our lives. I think the reasons we do thing's is much more fundamental and involved than what subjectivity dictates.
Subjectivity dictates nothing. What does subjectivity dictates? You are being quite contradictory and redundant on that first statement. You believe.
Belief is a product of the ability to abstractly think. The subjective experience is made of abstract thinking or beliefs. So you believe that its
beliefs that make us believe that we believe unnecessarily?
Objective reality is defined as reality that exists outside of our minds and subjective reality is defined as reality inside our minds. At
least that is my understanding of the terms. The objective reality must inherently exist as the conscious human subjective experience of reality
didn't always exist and yet we evolved to exist over time, I see no reason to doubt the objective world.
To sum it up, no I don't think we're special nor do I think we're Gods.
I dont doubt the objective world. I just think we are not capable of being logical when talking about it. All our reason is a product of our
experience of the subjective world. Most of the time all we experience is the subjective world. The subjective world produces definitions as much as
definitions produce subjective worlds. The subjective world is full of concepts, and concepts are full of subjectivity. The objective world is beyond
concepts, beyond any kind of filters, beyond any kind of definitions. Because definitions are the separation of things. It delineates boundaries. The
objective world has no boundaries thus defies logic that is made of definitions which creates boundaries.
I disagree, your abstracting and sensationalizing the emotive word.
No, Im not abstracting or sensationalizing the emotive word. We can stop using the word love if that is what confuses you. Im talking about inherently
different things and one definition didnt come from the other at all. We can stop using the word genuine love and simply change it for understanding.
Then love will be simply an emotion as you like to put it. Im talking about two really different things that we now can call love and understanding
respectivelly. I think culture is getting you strong on this one, so lets get around culture and use our own words. Compassion is made of
understanding. It has nothing to do with the love you know.
I disagree with your attempt to sensationalize the terms. It's great that we are capable of abstract thought, but sometimes I think we push it
ahead to far.
Im not sensationalizing terms. Im separating terms because culture made us mix up two very different concepts without realizing so. Two very different
ideas are mixed in only one word that is culturally passed on to us. That word is love. But that love has actually two meanings. One is emotion, the
other is understanding. Again, its not sensationalizing, its redefining or reconceptualizing.
I disagree, the reason we find contradictions/paradoxes is not because they inherently exist but more because we don't have the right answers.
I equally disagree. The reason we find contradictions/paradoxes is because our reason is not the perfect tool for understanding. Just like trying to
draw a beautiful sunset only with a pencil. Something will be missing. I agree that they exist because we dont have the right answers, but these
answers are never going to be realized or produced by the mind or by reason, so in a way we shouldnt even call them answers.
Are you enjoying talking with another aspect of your Self? I am... 
