Subjectivism And Objectivism And...

[Insanctuary]

Obstructivism?

Yes, I am still questioning my previous question I had earlier. If someone were to say ''God externally affects the world around us.'' That would be obstructive to the natural objectivity behind our reality; hence the reality of ours speaks of no God and only demonstrates a simple system of naturally functions and a simple group of of inhabitants scattered across the unknown world with no supernatural influences.

So if you want to be literal about it all and tell me that it is neither subjectivism or objectivism due to semantics - then what the hell would you refer to this interesting concept? People can truly convince themselves that what they see inside their heads is inside the objectivity of this world and attempt to cheat the laws of nature in all actuality for their own fictitious fairy tale that we can not contest with our own interpersonal subjective theories for our world. We are all create subjectivity rather we like it or not. Subjectivism is always cancelled out by other subjectivism. Essentially, imagine a sword fight. By arguing against another's subjective POV with your subjective POV, you are ALWAYS clanking with another's sword. This is WHY I let the world see for me, for the world is objective and un-bias unlike my own head.

Anyways, do we need to create a new word for all of this? Would obstructivism become the new term to explain this pseudo-reality bending concept? I'm not sure, but please, share your thoughts!

[Strength]

At 5/14/12 05:01 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Obstructivism?

Yes, I am still questioning my previous question I had earlier. If someone were to say ''God externally affects the world around us.'' That would be obstructive to the natural objectivity behind our reality; hence the reality of ours speaks of no God and only demonstrates a simple system of naturally functions and a simple group of of inhabitants scattered across the unknown world with no supernatural influences.

So if you want to be literal about it all and tell me that it is neither subjectivism or objectivism due to semantics - then what the hell would you refer to this interesting concept? People can truly convince themselves that what they see inside their heads is inside the objectivity of this world and attempt to cheat the laws of nature in all actuality for their own fictitious fairy tale that we can not contest with our own interpersonal subjective theories for our world. We are all create subjectivity rather we like it or not. Subjectivism is always cancelled out by other subjectivism. Essentially, imagine a sword fight. By arguing against another's subjective POV with your subjective POV, you are ALWAYS clanking with another's sword. This is WHY I let the world see for me, for the world is objective and un-bias unlike my own head.

Anyways, do we need to create a new word for all of this? Would obstructivism become the new term to explain this pseudo-reality bending concept? I'm not sure, but please, share your thoughts!

The founding leader of the group, David Chemla was born in Tunisia and raised in France. He was a former IDF officer who served in the Yom Kippur War in the Paratroopers Brigade. He left for France in 1977 after 10 years in Israel. He is chairman of Peace Now in France. He said the group seeks to support Israel's long-term future because "as friends, as Jews, we want to tell you that you are going down a wrong path. I think our initiative is actually helping Israel's image in Europe. It is a pretty low image over here these days, because of what happened in Gaza, mainly, and it is commonly believed in Europe that Israel is the provocative, negative side of the conflict - the one that is blocking the peace process." He claimed that "WeâEUTMre not saying that only Israel is responsible for the problem. As Jews tied to Israel, we speak to the Israelis. So this is a call to the Israelis, but of course [the Palestinians] have a lot of the responsibility for the continuation of the conflict." He affirmed, on behalf of the membership that "our connection to the state of Israel is part of our identity," but in Europe "Israel is seen as responsible for all the problems [in the region]." Chemla added that the group's was not a movement as such after the first petition but hoped to become one

Patrick Klugman, a French lawyer and spokesman for the groups said the foundation "comes from the European Jewish communities who are profoundly attached to Israel and who want to say that current Israeli policies are both a source of anxiety for us and a source of insecurity in the long term for Israel as well as a source of injustice for the Palestinians."

Attendance at the inaugural JCall meet also featured Israeli professor Zeev Sternhell, former ambassador to France Eli Bar-Navi, and former envoy to Germany Avi Primor. The organisers of the meet said they sought to ensure Israel's well being and existence as a Jewish and democratic state through immediately working to establish two states.

[Insanctuary]

At 5/14/12 05:01 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Obstructivism?

Yes, I am still questioning my previous question I had earlier. If someone were to say ''God externally affects the world around us.'' That would be obstructive to the natural objectivity behind our reality; hence the reality of ours speaks of no God and only demonstrates a simple system of naturally functions and a simple group of of inhabitants scattered across the unknown world with no supernatural influences.

So if you want to be literal about it all and tell me that it is neither subjectivism or objectivism due to semantics - then what the hell would you refer to this interesting concept? People can truly convince themselves that what they see inside their heads is inside the objectivity of this world and attempt to cheat the laws of nature in all actuality for their own fictitious fairy tale that we can not contest with our own interpersonal subjective theories for our world. We are all create subjectivity rather we like it or not. Subjectivism is always cancelled out by other subjectivism. Essentially, imagine a sword fight. By arguing against another's subjective POV with your subjective POV, you are ALWAYS clanking with another's sword. This is WHY I let the world see for me, for the world is objective and un-bias unlike my own head.

Anyways, do we need to create a new word for all of this? Would obstructivism become the new term to explain this pseudo-reality bending concept? I'm not sure, but please, share your thoughts!

Obstructivism?

Yes, I am still questioning my previous question I had earlier. If someone were to say ''God externally affects the world around us.'' That would be obstructive to the natural objectivity behind our reality; hence that the reality of ours speaks of no God and only demonstrates a simple system of naturally functions followed by a simple group of of inhabitants scattered across the unknown world that is NOT affected by supernatural influences.

So if you want to be literal about it all and tell me that it is neither subjectivism or objectivism due to semantics - then what the hell would you refer to for this interesting concept? People can truly convince themselves that what they see inside their heads, is inside the objectivity of this world, and attempt to cheat the laws of nature in all actuality for their own fictitious fairy tale - that we can not contest with our own interpersonal subjective theories of our world. We are all creating subjectivity rather we like it or not. Subjectivism is always cancelled out by other forms of subjectivism. Essentially, imagine a sword fight. By arguing against another's subjective POV with your subjective POV, you are ALWAYS clanking with another's sword. This is WHY I let the world see for me, for the world is objective and un-bias unlike my own head.

Anyways, do we need to create a new word for all of this? Would obstructivism become the new term to explain this pseudo-reality bending concept? I'm not sure, but please, share your thoughts!

I had to fix all of those mistakes

[Insanctuary]

At 5/14/12 05:16 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Do you think that General is the best place to discuss this?

Not at all; esp. on Newgrounds. I really do enjoy a good challenge though. : ) It isn't like every one turns a blind eye or trolls me.

[Sensationalism]

I don't think separate subjective experiences means they compete or cancel each other out. I think they all work together with each other and objectivity to create the universe.

Kind of reminds me of this experiment where they tried to see what the brain would pick when given some word. There would be a word like "palm" which could be referring to the hand or a tree. It's been a while since I read about it and my google searches failed, not an easy thing to find words to search lol. Anyway when the brain was unconscious or something like that, no choice was made about what palm meant, even when the other words in the group were meant to sway the answer. Only when the person was conscious (or whatever it was) did they decide which meaning to give to "palm". It was about the effect the observer has on the world.

[Insanctuary]

At 5/14/12 08:13 PM, Sensationalism wrote: I don't think separate subjective experiences means they compete or cancel each other out. I think they all work together with each other and objectivity to create the universe.

How do they work together? There is no way a Christian and an atheist can truly get along. Maybe when they are kids and do not take their beliefs to a broader spectrum, but as they grow older, their ideas will latch onto their POV and these ideas will meet inevitabel confliction.

Kind of reminds me of this experiment where they tried to see what the brain would pick when given some word. There would be a word like "palm" which could be referring to the hand or a tree. It's been a while since I read about it and my google searches failed, not an easy thing to find words to search lol. Anyway when the brain was unconscious or something like that, no choice was made about what palm meant, even when the other words in the group were meant to sway the answer. Only when the person was conscious (or whatever it was) did they decide which meaning to give to "palm". It was about the effect the observer has on the world.

Sounds interesting. I understand it, I believe. The reason why the brain did not pick either or, is because the brain is prompted by an abstract language of its own. A palm of your hand or a palm tree was manifestated with our ability to interact with our world via experiences and action. Our abstract mind does not correlate with our conscious system. They only co-exist. Everything we create on the surface will only be broken down the deeper you go inside the ocean, because the deeper you go, the heavier the pressure. The external part of us can not survive down there - only our internal abstract manifestation can interact with the deeper functions of our mind.

I hope that makes sense. I feel as though I was having difficulty putting that in words.