User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 57

  1. #21
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    "Objective" and "subjective" are sometimes used to describe both the functions themselves, and where they were used. I was trying specifically to understand how they shaped directing and informing communications in the eight three letter groups (STJ, SFP, etc) that Keirsey had identified. So I began paralleling things up along the line of subjective and objective. (I had thought that "directing" communications, such as S and T together might have had to do with "objectivity". Turned out it might work to some extent for judging functions, but it seems for perception it is the opposite).

    "extraverted attitudes" (outside use) are considered "objective", while introverted attitudes are considered "subjective", because they are taking place within the person. Jung had originally defined the attitudes as being focused on "the object" and "the subject". (For perception, the attitude is the "source" it is taken from, and for judgment, it is the source of the "standard" it is based in, and in some descriptions, the "realm" it is used in).

    Thinking is also frequently condsidered "objective", based on logic and facts, while Feeling is considered subjective "values".

    Sensing (concrete perception) is also occasionally considered more "objective", while iNtuiting (abstract) is considered subjective, because it involves the person drawing from patterns and stuff.

    Then, perception in itself can be considered objective, because it is taking information (of an object) in, while judgment is what the subject does with the information.

    With this:
    Objective processing=Perception (P)
    Subjective processing=Judgment (J)
    Objective data=concreteness (S) or logic (T)
    Subjective data=abstractness (N) or value (F)
    Objective source=external (E)
    Subjective source=internal (I)

    Objective processing of Objective data from Objective source (OOO): Se
    Objective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (OOS): Si
    Objective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (OSO): Ne
    Objective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (OSS): Ni
    Subjective processing of Objective data from Objective source (SOO): Te
    Subjective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (SOS): Ti
    Subjective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (SSO): Fe
    Subjective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (SSS): Fi

    This basically reduces the four dichotomies down to one!
    Yes.

  2. #22
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I can usually follow wildcat, but here I am grasping at straws.

    A few thoughts occurred to me regarding his OP.

    1) The objectivity of "pure thought." --that is thought without error or "contamination," a perceptions of pure truths that perhaps finds codification in mathematics.

    There are a few issues here...

    Is math really the "universal language?"

    Is it possible our mathematics is simply our mathematics and that it is based on the visceral notions brought forth by the human mind embodied in a human body?

    But since the body is brought forth through nature, and subject to its constraints, is it merely a reflection of the objectivity of nature?

    Then what about dance, sport, music, and other forms connected to this visceral nature? Is it as objective as thought?

    Is objectivity, a perception of the visceral without judgment or contamination? --a seeming contradiction, as this is often very emotion laden.

    2) Our "thoughts" are illusions. They are what we perceive after our brain/body has done what it has done to create the thoughts. Thoughts are echoes of our own biological processes.

    There is actually a large fraction of a second between when an event actually occurs and when we perceive it to occur. In this delay, our brains do a sort of perceptual "pipelining," to keep our senses of time coherent.

    Again, I come to the same questions. Does objectivity come from a tacit trust of our instincts?--the very things we consider so "subjective?"

    3) Many religious people believe that we (or our souls) are reflections of God. As a scientifically minded person, we can look at our make-up and see how we are similar to (even made up of) our environment.

    This reflection of the divine...does it give us objectivity?
    I have no disagreement.
    The object does not have a hand.

    Is it out there?
    Not in the hand.

  3. #23
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    Objectivity could exist if a person managed to find a subject to which they felt very little emotional connection I suppose.

    Or if you want to get into it- perhaps you could be objective about a situation that is human but you are not connected with the humans involved.

    Of course, the question would be- are ideas of morality and justice subjective? In which case, most forms of human observation- with the rare exceptions of some documentary photographers- would be subjective.

    For instance, this photograph is objectively taken, but generally provokes a subjective response in the viewer (or objective, depending on how you're looking at it- if identification with the fact that human suffering could affect any of us could be considered objective- as it is the straight truth with no tinting, the response is objective as well)

    Cooking from a recipe book is objective- cooking without a recipe is subjective. Showing what's there, or merely following instructions is objective- an inclusion of passion subjectifies it up, it seems.
    I agree.
    The subject does not condition the object.

    We think objection is freedom.
    Subjection is.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Llewellyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INtj
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Objectivity is a concept. In language. Language is practical and leads back to a truth.

    Objectivity could be "what has the least life".

    Objectivity is: shared subjectivity (I like this one a lot).

    Objective is "from the outside". But still it is an impression.

    It is what can be derived with as little force as possible.

    (Where have I taken this one sentence structure from?...)

  5. #25
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Llewellyn View Post
    Objectivity is a concept. In language. Language is practical and leads back to a truth.

    Objectivity could be "what has the least life".

    Objectivity is: shared subjectivity (I like this one a lot).

    Objective is "from the outside". But still it is an impression.

    It is what can be derived with as little force as possible.

    (Where have I taken this one sentence structure from?...)
    I say a good observation.
    The linguists say etymology is about the origin.
    Origin is only by the way.

    Life is behind.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Llewellyn View Post
    Objectivity is a concept. In language. Language is practical and leads back to a truth.

    Objectivity could be "what has the least life".

    Objectivity is: shared subjectivity (I like this one a lot).

    Objective is "from the outside". But still it is an impression.

    It is what can be derived with as little force as possible.

    (Where have I taken this one sentence structure from?...)
    Definantly these are some coherent definitions from linguists. The one that catches my eye though, objectivity=shared subjectivity, it sounds an adequate definition in most situations, but it can prove questionable. For example Galileo, believed the earth was round, if we take this definition of objectivity, the Earth was flat. Galileo was being subjective.

    To take CaptainChick's quote. A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens. (Great quote btw )

    Shared subjectivity couldnt change the fact the Earth is round, so if objectivity is the closest thing to truth, this perspective is contradicted by factual scientific observation. So who is really objective here? Its an interesting question, if we take the position that objectivity is shared subjectivity then that means subjectivity doesnt have to be emotion filled, it is logical, in certain variables.
    Last edited by Siegfried; 11-18-2008 at 10:39 AM.

  7. #27
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    I agree.
    The subject does not condition the object.

    We think objection is freedom.
    Subjection is.
    True- and beautifully concise

    There's fewer paths by which to be objective- the difference is like the choice between traveling on foot or by car- the car may be more efficient, but you can only go on certain paths with it- feet will take you anywhere.
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  8. #28
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    True- and beautifully concise

    There's fewer paths by which to be objective- the difference is like the choice between traveling on foot or by car- the car may be more efficient, but you can only go on certain paths with it- feet will take you anywhere.
    Exactly.
    Walking is freedom.
    Only your feet can take you to the thick forest or to the top of the mountain.

    They built a new highway that units Turku and Helsinki. Very efficient. Now they complain you see nothing from the road. If you had walked that stretch before the highway, you could have seen a lot of wildlife. Not any more.

  9. #29
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Exactly.
    Walking is freedom.
    Only your feet can take you to the thick forest or to the top of the mountain.

    They built a new highway that units Turku and Helsinki. Very efficient. Now they complain you see nothing from the road. If you had walked that stretch before the highway, you could have seen a lot of wildlife. Not any more.
    what a shame- sometimes when you give up on rushing everywhere you see and learn a lot more- not to mention that you enjoy things much more as well.

    Walking will take you closer to things than driving, just as subjective approaches will let you approach a subject of study closer than objective ones at time. Like an anthropologist living with a remote culture as opposed to a visitor interviewing villagers and photographing them.

    I rarely drive on the interstates when the backroad is an available option
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  10. #30
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    what a shame- sometimes when you give up on rushing everywhere you see and learn a lot more- not to mention that you enjoy things much more as well.

    Walking will take you closer to things than driving, just as subjective approaches will let you approach a subject of study closer than objective ones at time. Like an anthropologist living with a remote culture as opposed to a visitor interviewing villagers and photographing them.

    I rarely drive on the interstates when the backroad is an available option
    A good choice.

    In the 50s Finland had only backroads. When you took the bus to Tavastland you could sense the huge forests. It gave you a queer feeling of participation.

    When I lived in Valko I used to walk to the nearby town through the backroads.
    It was very rarely you encountered a car on those roads.
    Once I did, but that was only because I was crossing a highway. The driver was my neighbour, and he picked me in his car.
    He thought I had been walking along the highway!

    I did not tell him the truth.

Similar Threads

  1. Why is nihilism "objective" when subjectivism technically is?
    By danseen in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-18-2014, 12:10 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-03-2009, 06:11 AM
  3. Order is Independent of Thought
    By wildcat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 12-08-2007, 07:02 AM
  4. To understand the object of study is to leave it
    By wildcat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-23-2007, 03:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO