Subjectivity/Objectivity

[samseva]

This topic has fascinated me for a few years now, since it is so intricate to our most basic understanding of reality.

Most people—especially in the 21st century—think that life is this planet, with its countries and cities. It is clearly defined, with its people, its cultures, its beliefs and so on. Its a well-structured system; that is life and that is how it is. Every day, we wake up in the world, with 'our body', we leave our house and drive to work. There are other cars, tress, buildings; that is life. The way things occur in this understanding of the world is that the reference point of reality is external. It is an outside-in paradigm; that which I call objectivity.

Isn't that a completely erroneous model of reality? It is reality flipped on its head. Like described in the teachings of the Buddha, reality is what we see, touch, hear, think and feel. It is our perceptions, both of our internal and external world. It is predominantly our internal world, since what we perceive of the external world is filtered by our internal world. When we change, the would around us changes. No matter where one goes, all that changes are the perceptions we experience. This is what I call subjectivity; it is an inside-out paradigm.

You often hear people say that you are not the centre of the universe, but—with narcissistic connotation aside—each of us is in fact the centre of the universe. It can be debated days on end, but the answer is right in front of you: reality is the continually changing formations/perceptions and it is primarily subjective. If our internal world changes, so does the external world; if our subjective world ends, so does the objective world.

Note: I know the opposites of internal/external, inside/outside and subjective/objective are not exclusive, but please bare with these concepts with an open mind for the course of the discussion. Furthermore, this differentiates itself from similar ideologies such as solipsism, since the mind can be as objective as the material or external world, and other minds or the external can in fact exist; we simply cannot perceive the external world without bias from our subjective senses, beliefs, understanding and conditioning.

[pegembara]

"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."


It's not to be reached by traveling,
the end of the cosmos —
regardless.
And it's not without reaching
the end of the cosmos
that there is release
from suffering & stress.

So, truly, the wise one,
an expert with regard to the cosmos,
a knower of the end of the cosmos,
having fulfilled the holy life,
calmed,
knowing the cosmos' end,
doesn't long for this cosmos
or for any other.

Rohitassa Sutta

Yes, each of us is in fact the centre of the cosmos. The ultimate subject.

[SarathW]

Yes it is the glimpse of ultimate equanimity.
However you have to go beyond that to reach Nibbana.

[Pinetree]

Isn't that a completely erroneous model of reality?

There's a dude, Scotty, who teaches models for a living, and who said in a lecture "All models are wrong".

But the point is ... they are good enough... until they stop being good enough and you need another model.

And there is a problem with the "internal" model. It's ability to generate reality is limited ... by the laws of the external objective reality.

[Spiny Norman]

If our internal world changes, so does the external world; if our subjective world ends, so does the objective world.

Sure, but the reverse is also true. The goal of Buddhist is "to see things as they really are", so does that mean we practice to achieve objectivity?

[samseva]

If our internal world changes, so does the external world; if our subjective world ends, so does the objective world.

Sure, but the reverse is also true. The goal of Buddhist is "to see things as they really are", so does that mean we practice to achieve objectivity?

Yes, I think so. However, not matter how objectively you perceive reality, subjectivity is predominant and inseparable from objectivity.

[samseva]

A good example to illustrate this is someone who has colour blindness.

Someone that has red-green colour blindness will see an apple of a certain colour, while another person who isn't colour blind sees another. No matter what you do, the colour blind person will never see the object as the other person can and vice versa.

Both of these people see the same object, but objectively, what does the apple look like?

[SDC]

A recent post in the PD forum may be of interest.

[samseva]

A recent post in the PD forum may be of interest.

In what way does the linked post describes or refutes the thread?

[SDC]

A recent post in the PD forum may be of interest.

In what way does the linked post describes or refutes the thread?

Did you read it and disagree with its relevance or are you asking me to elaborate?

[samseva]

Did you read it and disagree with its relevance or are you asking me to elaborate?

I did read it and understood it to some extent (it is a fairly complex text), but I would like to know your opinion or stance on the matter and how this describes or refutes the thread.

[SDC]

Did you read it and disagree with its relevance or are you asking me to elaborate?

I did read it and understood it to some extent (it is a fairly complex text), but I would like to know your opinion or stance on the matter and how this describes or refutes the thread.

My stance is that I saw the title of your thread and remembered the post. I though perhaps you would like to read it.

[samseva]

My stance is that I saw the title of your thread and remembered the post. I though perhaps you would like to read it.

Okay, thank you. It does describe rather well the unconscious creation of a self in an ordinary person, as well as how it relates to subjective and objective reality.

[pegembara]

Yes, each of us is in fact the centre of the cosmos. The ultimate subject.

Yes it is the glimpse of ultimate equanimity.
However you have to go beyond that to reach Nibbana.

There is nothing beyond that.

There is no ultimate subject. The moment one points to it, it becomes an object! In a sense the so called ultimate subject is best left undescribed.
That is where the cessation of perception and feeling makes it clear that the ultimate self is just another construction.

Sabbe dhamma anatta - all things are not self.

"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, lady, to what does his mind lean, to what does it tend, to what does it incline?"

"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, friend Visakha, his mind leans to seclusion(?nibbana), tends to seclusion, inclines to seclusion."

.......

"What lies on the other side of clear knowing?"

"Release lies on the other side of clear knowing."

"What lies on the other side of release?"

"Unbinding lies on the other side of release."

"What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"

"You've gone too far, friend Visakha. You can't keep holding on up to the limit of questions. For the holy life gains a footing in Unbinding(?ultimate equanimity), culminates in Unbinding, has Unbinding as its final end.

Culavedalla Sutta

With the realization of 'ultimate reality' (paramatthadhamma), there is the freedom of Nibbana. We are free from the delusions of desire and fear; this freedom from conventions is the Deathless.

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Ajahn ... _it_is.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SarathW]

I agree Pegembra