| Home Forums Library Media Gallery Glossary Links |
 |
April 27, 2005
Objectivity Bias
It's been a long while since I wrote anything for the site. I have an hour to spare, so I thought I'd share some of what's been on my mind. Synchronicity has been in the air this spring. Just as I've been rethinking the whole mind-body duality issue, along with materialism, "objective" science, subject-object duality, I get contacted by someone here in Reno twho tells me there is a local Institute of Noetic Sciences group. This couldn't have come at a better time, since they delve into the areas I'm specifically researching for my book. Just a few weeks ago I was speaking to a friend about what I call the 'Objectivity Bias'. And recently, Colin Macgee submitted an article about the philosophy of science and some of its seemingly inherent limitations. Unlike most scientists who believe that science must remain objective and materialist, I believe there can be a science of inner space. John Lilly managed to create a scientific framework in which to explore and map inner spaces. His book Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer is a groundbreaking work in this regard.
It was John Lilly who spoke this very simple yet profound insight, "Science is the Yoga of the west. Yoga is the Science of the East".
It was many years ago when I became tired of seeing things as either subjective or objective. Is there really such a thing as objective anyway? The answer would seem to be no. Everything we experience, that we know, understand, touch and feel, is the cumulative result of electrical impulses reaching the brain, from which the brain paints a picture we then call 'reality'. There is no way for us to experience any so-called REAL reality without it being, at the very least, heavily filtered by are very limited, and ultimately arbitrary genetic-neurological structures. Likewise, with subjectivity, we could say that many of our subjective thoughts are the result of what's happening "out there" in "reality". So where does subjectivity end, and objectivity start?
It was around that same time many years ago I coined my own term transjectivity - the transcension of the objective/subjective duality. And all this seems the obvious conclusion without having to refer to quantum mechanics at all. Take quantum theory into account and it gets even more blurred, mysterious and weird.
Whatever the case, I find that anyone who argues their point from an entirely objective-materialist point of view to be operating with an objectivity bias. There is nothing wrong with that as long as they recognizes that it is still a bias. Biases have all sorts of uses, and when used properly keep things in a contained and workable space. If it wasn't for "keeping things objective" we probably wouldn't have the scientific tools to land people on the moon, build computers and so on. Besided I love science and technology. It's one very important side of the coin. However, I think it's long overdue at this point that to acknoweldge the other side and embrace a more holistic transjective point of view - a new paradigm to take us forward.
Pinchbeck on Steiner: "Another important aspect of Steiner, for me, is the philosophical underpinnings he provides for thinking about cognition, and about human freedom. An amazing early book of his is Philosophy of Freedom, where he refutes Kantian dualism. He notes that you can't really make a final distinction between our thoughts about things and the things themselves. Thinking, for him, is a part of reality - as much a part of reality as any physical object. He points out that we have no right to consider a plant's ability to produce leaves, roots, and blossoms as separate from the thoughts we have about that plant. It may be that our thoughts about the plant are as much a property of that plant as its blossoms, stems, and leaves. If thinking is recognized as a part of the world in this way, then we can also see that thought is neither subjective nor objective, but a universal world process in which we participate."
Read the rest here: http://www.newworlddisorder.ca/issuethree/interviews/pinchbeck.html
"Is there really such a thing as objective anyway? The answer would seem to be no."
The answer is definitely no. But there is such a thing as an extremely persistent subjective state, that we tend to agree on as being objective. Its only when one looks back into the reaches of history that one begins to understand that so many things that we take for granted now are actually learned behaviors or evolutionary traits that once we agreed upon them sufficiently were merged into accepted doctrine.
We need more psychedelic futurism, that's for sure. I am noticing more and more lately that humanity seems to be spinning its wheels in a quest to better itself, and the reason that I think it is not getting anywhere is because the next level of acuity that is needed is a very fine level of understanding of the workings of the human psyche itself. A level that seems impossible with the current language constructs that we use. Although, I'm not sure where this is going to come from. I work in a psychology department of a university and it certainly isn't going to come from here, not to say that some brilliant reseacher couldn't publish a paper or write a book to change that.
Love the page.
Posted by: greg at April 29, 2005 02:42 PMI run into this sort of thinking a lot, especially over at Key23. We often get materialist interlopers telling us that magick and it's psychological variants are worthless against the mighty edifice of objective science. What magick is, really, is the weight of attention and thought as it resides across the human consciousness. Science get's nervous if it can't measure something so it often declares such unmeasurables as nonexistent, rather than admit the limited tools and models with which they do the measuring.
Science is one side of the coin. It presumes, or at least strives for, objectivity. Life is subjective, however. And that's the other side of the coin.
Science offers explanation. Magick/religion/numinous experiences offer meaning.
Posted by: lvx23 at May 2, 2005 01:28 PMthere is no scientific device for measuring or calibrating conciousness.it brings some scientists to tears to even discuss the clearly evident effects of conciousness on reality.there is no number or value in the calculus for thought.if there was it would hold more interest for me.material measurement is wonderful but it cannot measure determination,will,insight,love or the healing hand.
the shaman can,but cannot prove it.
is there a middle ground to meet on?
and the language constructs of science and psychiatry doesn`t help the cause.
Posted by: alistair at May 6, 2005 12:43 PM