PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:24 am**

A health professional was seriously troubled and seeing a psychiatrist. He said to his shrink, "I think....hey, I'm not the first medical professional to have sex with a patient. But then this little voice says....but George, you're a veterinarian".

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:52 am**

On 2005-04-08 07:52, kensuguro wrote:
I'll repeat in saying that objective reality comes from consensus. There is no such thing as objective reality, but only an agreement. It is even true in mathematics I think. There is nothing inherently true about 1+1=2. It's only true because we have agreed on it's objective true-ness. Even

Can it be 'true' that objective reality came from consensus? If nothing is really 'true', how can it be 'true' that nothing is really true?

The sun is x million miles away from the earth right now, regardless of what you or I think (or agree) about it.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:21 am**

Nice thread Nestor - good to have a reason to think a bit again

I believe, that we deal with our knowledge in an "objectiveish" way. It is very inconvenient in our everyday life to think we know nothing for sure. "Knowing" things - or to say it in other words - to have decided some knowledge - makes decisionmaking possible. If you "know" nothing, you will have no ability to make decisions - since, on which parameters should you base your decision - and on which parameters should you decide, what is a positive outcome, and what is a negative outcome?

The subject of objectivity is closely realted to the subject of reality. Here there are different concepts about reality:

Decartes said, that we can not be sure of anything but our own existence (poor man). "I think - therefor I am". We can not know, if we are awake or asleep. We can not know if there is a crocodile under our bed. We can not know anything. Now, while Decartes philosophical statement is quite solid in a philosophical discussion, it goes against common sence. It is my impression that most people will disagree with him. Most people will say, that if they see a cow and then turn around - the cow will still be there. Decartes said, that we can not know that. Common people will likely say he was a freak.

So on one hand we have Decartes saying, that we can not know anything ... there goes objectivity about anything but our own existance. Most people will say we can know some things. If you go to the dessert, dump 2 cows in the middle of nowhere, and 10 out of 10 people, stainding around the spot with the cows, says there are 2 cows, then they will all believe there are 2 cows. They have all observed the 2 cows, and they all agree on the count of cows, therefor they say, that it is an objective truth, that there are 2 cows. This kind of reality is much more traight forward to common people than the reality presented by Decartes. However you can argue against their observation. They could have a group hallucination. Each person could be dreaming and thus making up the other people, who will see nothing more than himself - even though a third cow was hidden behind the other 2 cows. Decartes would always be able to come up with reasons, that we can not know for sure. Therefor you may say, that the objectivity that the 10 people agreed on was in fact based on a decision to believe in their own visual perceptions. Boom - there goes objectivity.

Personally I have decided that one can be objective about some things. This belief is based on myself trusting my own sences. I have decided, that I probably will not be fooled by hallucinations, when I see a cow on the field. I have also decided that it is unlike enough, that space creatures will take away the cow when I turn around, for me to believe that the cow is also there, when I do not see it. Also, I do believe in math with numbers which are not endless. I agree on 2+2=4, and I have decided that this is objective (I have found no reason not to believe this). I will also to a great extend believe math with endless numbers, if enough numbers are used, and if I believe the uncertainty to be irelevant. But when to know if it really is irelevant? The Chaos Theory about the bug creating a storm suggests that it is difficult to know, when enough is enough. Still I don't care if I have to pay 325.45684568€ or 352.45684569€ in interests on a loan. Therefor the variation from exact reality doesn't bother me, and it is real enough for me. But I may be drifting of the off-topic about objectivity in this off-topic thread about judging others in this off-topic forum ... about soundcards

However, there are things in life, which can not be measured in numbers - and if they can the measurement tools will only be as objective, as we subjectively have decided them to be (for convinience). Even though some social scientist may say, that I am 1.3 happy, that is nothing but bull*hit. It may be usefull bull*hit though. The important word here is may. Lets say I meet some stranger on the street and I say hello - if the stranger looks angry at me, what is the reason? Maybe he does not like me. Maybe he has had a bad day. Maybe he has a neurological ilness that makes him express other feelings than the ones he actually feels? Maybe he was walking in his own thoughts thinking about some person he does not like, and he was still partly in his own world - thus responding to the person in his mind and not to me. If a child falls into a harbor, and I jump in the water risking my life to save teh child - why do I do it? Do I feel that the life of the child is more important than my life - and if so, on what back-ground is that evaluation based? Am I actually just tirred from living and looking for a way to commit suicide in a way which may cause less pain to my relatives than if they really knew my intentions - as if I hung myself? Do I do it because of strong moral rules? Do I do it because I expect some award? People are mysteries. They have all sorts of reasons for their actions. They have all sorts of thoughts about the reasons for their actions. But they do also have all sorts of unconcious reasons for their actions. If a beggar asks me for money, I may not be aware of the fact, that I will be more likely to give if the sun is shining and I am happy. There are tons of reasons behind our actions, and I don't believe in the ability to truly know them all. This is my reality. If I was grown up in another culture with another religion and other philosophies and psychologies, I may have had more belief in human ability to really reach such levels of awareness.

Objectivity
Do I believe in it?
Yes, to some extend.
Do I use it?
Yes, far more than I actually believe in it.
Do I believe my objectivity to be better than others'?
In a lot of situations, yes. If I didn't, it would not be very usefull to me, and I would be drifting from on "reality" to another all the time.
If you give me a good reason, I may change my mind - but that will have to depend on a lot of other factors too - of which I am only consciously aware of a few.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:54 am**

On 2005-04-07 19:48, skwawks wrote:
Definitions are funny things aren't they in that once you start trying to define you then have to define your definition and that then requires another definition...is that a logic trap??
anyway another two cents worth ....
Objectivity is an imaginary state wherein one imagines one isn't there .
Of course though when Elvis Costello sang "I'd rather be anywhere else than here...." he was being subjective
Cheers
Paul U.F.O.

I can’t by say that i am overwhelmed by the amazing response to this thread, i mean, the reflections people are doing about “objectivity”. I am also amazed at how many exceptionally attention-grabbing points of view you are throwing here you guys.

I am surprised that musicians have this rather developed philosophical side of things and thinking, and I am glad to read all this…

Now, to what you say about definitions… I think Atom gave here a good point in saying that we all agree to something be good or bad, depending on the utility that this item gives us. And we also have speak about the difference between knowledge and wisdom. I think that you can more and less define some knowledge, as there is mathematical representations or known to all facts that will allow you to pin point to each other some complex philosophical things… but wisdom can’t really be transferred without the experience. A simple example would be the feeling of somebody that has had a baby… he would like to tell others what he feels, but people do not understand it in depth, it’s impossible, it’s a personal and unique experience that gives the person some also, unique understanding of love, life, human begins, relationships, etc., too deep to be explained in simple words, this belongs to the heart.

Of course, if we were to look for perfect definitions, they will worth not much among us even if they were lets say… “objective” , as everybody will understand it in a completely different way. The problem so, for me, it’s not a better or worst definition, but the way you understand it. Bay the way, this is what I can see here, you guys are giving such unexpected answer to what I have written in the first place, I am surprised. But for me this is great, as this allows me to open my mind to many other aspects I have never taken into account. Thank you for this!

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:56 am**

On 2005-04-08 05:02, Casper wrote:
undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal";

Now I don't believe humans can shut this emotion off. But I do believe in a discussion wich is nothing more that talking about a certen subject and revealing positive and negative sides ( and the ones that blend both way's) A discussion becomes unobjective when people are mixing archuments with there opinions.

You can say
A) " I am against the war because it makes me sick to think of it"

Or B) "I am agains the war because in war there are no winners only losers because of losses on both sides" .

Now wich one is the objective one ? Or were they both unobjective?

Cool, but what do you thing gets distorted within us? You are by this saying that THERE IS something within us which is sort of an essence of something like this, that could be untouchable and objective, but that there are layers or additions that make this something objective, to be affected and so, becoming subjective.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:06 am**

On 2005-04-08 07:52, kensuguro wrote:
I'll repeat in saying that objective reality comes from consensus. There is no such thing as objective reality, but only an agreement. It is even true in mathematics I think. There is nothing inherently true about 1+1=2. It's only true because we have agreed on it's objective true-ness. Even with simple things like wavelengths of light. Staments using hertz or other such "scientific" units are true only because it is based on an agreement. The agreement within a certain community is what creates an illusion of objective reality. It's not perfectly objective, because it is a collection of subjective realities, but it's damn close. So, in a sense, you can call it objective reality.

I think the underlying issue may be the question self awareness, which has a different description than the objectivism vs subjectivism conflict.

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2005-04-08 07:54 ]

Hello Ken!
Well, interesting point, but this is perhaps applicable to human beings only, as nature does not behave this way. I explain myself: nature has laws, and those laws are clear, and they rule for everybody and everything. Those laws have been many times studied by man (let better say that they have tried it many times without success), and man has never arrived to the inside of it, but amazed by the “intelligence”, have had to say: wow, nature is much more intelligent than us, we better not change it too much, or we will destroy the stability of the world… which is already done by the way. Many could say: no, this is no true, there are great discoveries etc., but the real thing is that those discoveries are “dissociated” of the rest, they are not the understanding of the workings of nature. They are like little drops from different rivers, but by all means not the discovery and understanding of how water moves through mountains, creating lakes, and then arriving to the ocean. All science knows are little pieces of an immense, incommensurable reality beyond any perception.

Now, as we ourselves are part of nature, there mast be within us some reality as well, don’t you think? There must be some sort of natural parameters, or inborn sense of things, that could allow us to be objective, calling objectivity all this which is en perfect accordance with the laws of nature.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:58 am**

On 2005-04-08 09:21, Immanuel wrote:
Nice thread Nestor - good to have a reason to think a bit again

I believe, that we deal with our knowledge in an "objectiveish" way. It is very inconvenient in our everyday life to think we know nothing for sure. "Knowing" things - or to say it in other words - to have decided some knowledge - makes decisionmaking possible. If you "know" nothing, you will have no ability to make decisions - since, on which parameters should you base your decision - and on which parameters should you decide, what is a positive outcome, and what is a negative outcome?

The subject of objectivity is closely realted to the subject of reality. Here there are different concepts about reality:

Decartes said, that we can not be sure of anything but our own existence (poor man). "I think - therefor I am". We can not know, if we are awake or asleep. We can not know if there is a crocodile under our bed. We can not know anything. Now, while Decartes philosophical statement is quite solid in a philosophical discussion, it goes against common sence. It is my impression that most people will disagree with him. Most people will say, that if they see a cow and then turn around - the cow will still be there. Decartes said, that we can not know that. Common people will likely say he was a freak.

So on one hand we have Decartes saying, that we can not know anything ... there goes objectivity about anything but our own existance. Most people will say we can know some things. If you go to the dessert, dump 2 cows in the middle of nowhere, and 10 out of 10 people, stainding around the spot with the cows, says there are 2 cows, then they will all believe there are 2 cows. They have all observed the 2 cows, and they all agree on the count of cows, therefor they say, that it is an objective truth, that there are 2 cows. This kind of reality is much more traight forward to common people than the reality presented by Decartes. However you can argue against their observation. They could have a group hallucination. Each person could be dreaming and thus making up the other people, who will see nothing more than himself - even though a third cow was hidden behind the other 2 cows. Decartes would always be able to come up with reasons, that we can not know for sure. Therefor you may say, that the objectivity that the 10 people agreed on was in fact based on a decision to believe in their own visual perceptions. Boom - there goes objectivity.

Personally I have decided that one can be objective about some things. This belief is based on myself trusting my own sences. I have decided, that I probably will not be fooled by hallucinations, when I see a cow on the field. I have also decided that it is unlike enough, that space creatures will take away the cow when I turn around, for me to believe that the cow is also there, when I do not see it. Also, I do believe in math with numbers which are not endless. I agree on 2+2=4, and I have decided that this is objective (I have found no reason not to believe this). I will also to a great extend believe math with endless numbers, if enough numbers are used, and if I believe the uncertainty to be irelevant. But when to know if it really is irelevant? The Chaos Theory about the bug creating a storm suggests that it is difficult to know, when enough is enough. Still I don't care if I have to pay 325.45684568€ or 352.45684569€ in interests on a loan. Therefor the variation from exact reality doesn't bother me, and it is real enough for me. But I may be drifting of the off-topic about objectivity in this off-topic thread about judging others in this off-topic forum ... about soundcards

However, there are things in life, which can not be measured in numbers - and if they can the measurement tools will only be as objective, as we subjectively have decided them to be (for convinience). Even though some social scientist may say, that I am 1.3 happy, that is nothing but bull*hit. It may be usefull bull*hit though. The important word here is may. Lets say I meet some stranger on the street and I say hello - if the stranger looks angry at me, what is the reason? Maybe he does not like me. Maybe he has had a bad day. Maybe he has a neurological ilness that makes him express other feelings than the ones he actually feels? Maybe he was walking in his own thoughts thinking about some person he does not like, and he was still partly in his own world - thus responding to the person in his mind and not to me. If a child falls into a harbor, and I jump in the water risking my life to save teh child - why do I do it? Do I feel that the life of the child is more important than my life - and if so, on what back-ground is that evaluation based? Am I actually just tirred from living and looking for a way to commit suicide in a way which may cause less pain to my relatives than if they really knew my intentions - as if I hung myself? Do I do it because of strong moral rules? Do I do it because I expect some award? People are mysteries. They have all sorts of reasons for their actions. They have all sorts of thoughts about the reasons for their actions. But they do also have all sorts of unconcious reasons for their actions. If a beggar asks me for money, I may not be aware of the fact, that I will be more likely to give if the sun is shining and I am happy. There are tons of reasons behind our actions, and I don't believe in the ability to truly know them all. This is my reality. If I was grown up in another culture with another religion and other philosophies and psychologies, I may have had more belief in human ability to really reach such levels of awareness.

Objectivity
Do I believe in it?
Yes, to some extend.
Do I use it?
Yes, far more than I actually believe in it.
Do I believe my objectivity to be better than others'?
In a lot of situations, yes. If I didn't, it would not be very usefull to me, and I would be drifting from on "reality" to another all the time.
If you give me a good reason, I may change my mind - but that will have to depend on a lot of other factors too - of which I am only consciously aware of a few.

Cool description of Descartes philosophy brother… he he… I think people think the caw is real, most of all when they are in a barbecue, just kidding.

There has been an experiment in Egypt, about how people perceive things. The experiment started by sending 20 persons from different places in the world, to visit Egypt, they agreed to be observed, to take notes about them and being filmed. Well, by the end, all 20 had an interview of several hours, with questions about places, people, and questions were must of all, those kind of difficult questions like: “How do you think people feel in this country?” and things of the like. Well… you can imagine what happened; the answers were so distinct from each other that psychologists said that their perception was no doubt, quite subjective. Nevertheless, they remarked that subjectivity was a point, but there was another important one, the one you are have described with the caws Immanuel, the perception from different angles!

So, if many people have observed many things, and they all have seen AND “perceived” different things that means that there are of course, many realities going on at the same time. Those realities are not FALSE to each other. If somebody sow one caw, he would swear that there was only one, but somebody taller than him sow clearly three, and there start the discussion, but both things were real.

If objectivity is possible in somebody, he should be able to perceive all those things at the same time, so to know reality as is. We all know that it is impossible to see everything physically speaking, as we only have a pair of eyes, and in the same order, a pair of ears, etc., our senses are quite restricted if you put them against the universe.

But, what about INTUITION?, if intuition is possible, and allows somebody to perceive many things at the same time, so perhaps there is something beyond the boundaries of matter, that belongs to the inner worlds or workings of mankind.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:21 am**

Maybe the term "objective" was designed for the purpose of communication in a peacefull matter.

I didn't first understand the term "concences" but hey now a goodle define later and I think I do understand it now. And more important see that link with "objective". Concences discribes an agreement between those who wish to communicate with eachother. Otherwise they simply won't understand or agree on what the other is saying(with mouth or body). There would be a moment in a discussion(communication session

) where every party comes to the same conclusion. And doing so create an agreement on a subject or thing or problem. Also an agreement that on there point of view is objective or can be simply because they gained 'something' on the moment there was Concenes in the first place

So agreaing on 1+1=2 and that counting goes from 0123456789 and then 10 , you would get all these new trick to do with them.

Oh and for the peace part, if there wasn't an objective state of mind , wouldn't we still be hunting in the woods and living in a cave?

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:43 am**

About reality/intuition/perception:

Sometimes I have had this strange thought, that while the "me" as I feel, sence and think myself is only a fairly dumb "lower state of awareness". We humans process loads of information all the time - and we filter multiples the amount of the information that we actually think about. Walking down the street, endless things happen in a minutte, but I only realize very few of them. I don't "see" the person across the street, but if he falls I see him falling. So who is this "über-awareness" that filters all the information I process, and only lets a minimum come through to my conscious awareness? Who is this person calculating all the little details that sums up to my decicions? All I know is, that this person is so much more intelligent and capable than me. Maybe it is, when this person gets tirred, that we do dangerous things like walking out in front of a truck, which we do not notice? This person knows all about me. All the data are there. All the stuff, which I do not remember. It is there - inside of me - and I can not reach it. Only "that person" has the keys to the archives. I wonder, if there is some sneaky way to learn the language of that person, so I can talk to him. But honestly, I kind of think that the day I find this language, that person will sit laughing at my foolish belief that I am really talking to him, while he is feeding me with all sorts of crap. I don't know - maybe.

Anyway - don't take this too seriously. It is not like it is my view of reality. It is however a fun alternative to think of. Anyway, I chalenge anybody to disproof it

Bonus story about intuition:
I am probably only alive (or walking on my own legs anyway) today because I once senced that there was something wrong with a van which stood still at a crossroad. I saw it driving to the crossroad and stopping there waiting for room to get in. I walked across the crossroad at the place where pedestrians are supposed to walk. Suddenly, when I was right in front of the van, it started to drive. I was probably less than 2 feet from it. Like hit by a lightning, I made a very fast, very awkward but also very efficient jump and got away just in time. I could hear it was a quick acceleration. I was lucky, that I had this strange feeling about the van, as I believe it was my increased adrenaline level which had made the fast escape possible. The driver must have seen me jumping, because he had stopped. He waved smiling to me with his cell-phone in his hand. I guess his smile was covering up, that he in fact was very scared about the fatal accident, he by luck did not coarse.

Oftentimes I think intuition is based on processing of data, which we are not aware of. I have sometimes, through analysing a number of concious parameter, come up with the same conclusion as someone else does by pure intuition. But then, maybe it was in fact some unconsious paramters, which led me to my conclusion? I don't know, but I think that intuition about the "now" is often based on such data. Still, I do not know how to anaylse the story with the van. Intuition about the (unintenden) future. Some future happenings can be analysed pretty well with awailable data, but some predictions about the future remains mysterious to me.

Maybe that other guy knows

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:50 pm**

Cool Casper, nice point.

Immanuel, I think we are getting slowly into some serious answers to all this… Amazing experience, fortunately you were able to “feel” something about this van.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:32 pm**

On 2005-04-08 16:25, stardust wrote:
Yet this does not work very well with complex systems that tend to behave non deterministic , but in chaotic ways.

exactly. science works well for mechanics, a very limited subset of the universe, not so well on the universe itself. one who is in the universe cannot know the universe objectively, except as a limited, small part of a larger connected whole. objectivity is a paradoxical lie designed to convince you of it's existance, to give a grail to seek, so that you may miss out on life itself and self-destruct. to be objective would be to see the whole. i repeat, men do not even understand themselves or their full meaning and purpose(many know a lot, some are called gurus, but they are also blind), so how can they say to know the rest of the totality. a limited mind cannot grasp the fullness. that there is this and that is the first sign of limitation.

accept that there is no true objectivity and nothing to be known or gained(i'm not saying you are forbidden to study this or that, just know that whatever you learn, it's meaningless) and no one gets hurt. now step away from the vehicle with your hands on your head. have you been drinking tonight?[lot's of flashing lights as the police are here.....]

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:36 pm**

i think that the point is, that in a world like we live in, one must be wary of others and make certain snap judgements for the purpose of self-preservation. but still, if we make a negative assessment of another person, it's important to remember that we could be wrong.........

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2005-04-08 20:10 ]

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:39 pm**

From my memory of psych studies .........people who make rapid decisions are "generally" found to be less intelligent than those who take a long time. (Intuition recognised and accepted). There is often a question in psych profiles for Human Resource Management.

"How often is your first or early decision right?"

Always Usually Occasionally Rarely Never

If you want to be considered highly intelligent (which may render you unsuitable for the job) answer towards the "rarely" end of the scale.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:52 pm**

gee this is interesting

objectivity and science ??most of what I read or come across about sudden leaps of understanding say that the discoverer had been obsessing about whatever the subject was he was working on and then out of the blue a concept that expains it all appears in the guy/gals mind . now thats not what I would call an objective experience ! I'd put that more in the area of a mystical experience .I guess I'm more with the people who if they saw more cows suddenly appearing or disappearing would get a shiver up the spine and say "Yeah I've been expecting that for a while now"
The idea that we all walk around with the filters turned on and filtering everything to keep us able to concentrate on what we NEED to perceive so that we can ,
1] not be overwhelmed with info and
2]have enough processing left over to realise that we want an espresso and we want it now ,I agree with completely . I think the psychadelics are actually a filter off switch which is why they're so exhausting and usually just a phase people go through . I think WE ARE the filter and so when people say
"Er..I'm being really objective now"
what they are really saying is
"I am now entering hyperfilter mode and although I am trying to impress you with my ability to be absolutely unemotional and impartial about this you are now going to get MEMEMEME"
however hyperfilter mode can be useful cant it cos it's kind of like obsession mode isn't it ?
Oh Jesus......... I think I just disappeared up me own arsehole....if I get back I'm going to have words with you Nestor.

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:01 pm**

Sturdust, Garyb, Mikka, Skwawks, you definetely have made my day… That was so fun

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:10 pm**

I got back

Being in hyperfilter mode for a longer time than is usually healthy for us leads to the degradation of the filter which allows the perception of alternate realities i.e. another way of doing things i.e. a new model of the universe i.e. free cows for everyone .
gonna have a shower now

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:55 pm**

I am surprised that musicians have this rather developed philosophical side of things and thinking, and I am glad to read all this…

Couldn't agree more. I think even without my saying this, we all realize perhaps atleast in part, that art and philosophy is closely related, and it seems only natural that a group of thoughtful musicians have highly developed viewpoints on the very interesting issues we're discussing here. Such thought is the material that makes us become aware of the external world, our internal world, and everything in between.

I guess this is one of those things that are so obvious, but you don't actually see so much of. And this place is full of it. This thread is an art in itself I think.

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2005-04-08 21:55 ]

Posted: **Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:48 pm**

Yea, ya’rigt Ken! It seems we are a bunch of flaying-astronauts-feeling-minding-heads-kind of composers, or something similar…

I am really happy of having a Pulsar! Believe me, I am objective about that!

Posted: **Sat Apr 09, 2005 7:37 am**

I think we all agree on your objectiveness on that

Posted: **Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:59 pm**

Back to the subject:

I deeply velieve in the possibility for a human being to be objective. Practically all of you denied “objectivity”, saying that it is an ambiguous state of mind, and that human beings cannot be truly objective. But, absolutely nobody has denied, and even has accepted, “subjectivity” as a fact.

If subjectivity exists, objectivity must also exist. If there is darkness, there must be light. If there is humidity, there must be an opposite that is dryness, and so forth.

Nothing can exist without an opposite, this is not philosophy you cannot observe, it is a reality, complex as you may want, but it is there.

I have asked many times the same question about “which” is the particular item in human nature that makes us, beings with the possibility of “discerning” between what is convenient and inconvenient. Nobody answered me with the right word, to my understanding, and this word is the very bottom line of it all, the real perception-strength behind human nature and all its possibilities, and this something is called:

CONSCIOUSNESS

I firmly believe that when a person has more consciousness than other, he or her is more objective, and that the power to perceive nature and understand it lies in consciousness. The capacity of feeling how others feel, the wave of being aware of things that surround us and that nobody told us that they exist. Intuition is the son of consciousness, the more consciousness you have, the more intuition, too. To me, consciousness is the key of being “aware” and so, “objective”.

Of course, as you all, I believe that absolute objectivity is not in the reach of human nature, but that there are levels of grasp to it. To me it is shockingly obvious that there are people with MORE, and people with LESS consciousness; and that people with more consciousness are better than those with little consciousness.

Some have proposed to be “asleep” against being “aware”. I couldn’t agree more with it. I think we all sleep within ourselves, and that our natures can give tremendous amounts of positive things and work, and that because our consciousness is in a sleeping state, we unfortunately, don’t.

I believe that only unconsciously enough people are able to harm others, extort, lye all the time, be perverse, torture… If somebody were to awake his consciousness from his terribly deep sleep state, life would be different.

For me, this is a conclusion.

_________________
Music is the most Powerful Language in the world! *INDEED*

[ This Message was edited by: Nestor on 2005-04-09 13:59 ]

PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Concepts about people, and real people beyond concepts