5 ms·

An interesting thought a friend of mine had the other day is that the ONLY HOPE for objectivity is in exactly this, the moment of conversation. In the moment wh

An interesting thought a friend of mine had the other day is that the ONLY HOPE for objectivity is in exactly this, the moment of conversation. In the moment where a clear thought passes from one person to another, it exists in a space where we can recognize it as lacking subjectivity, as it must pass through that point of perfection to make the leap from one mind to another. But as soon as it gets to its endpoint it becomes muddied - I can't guarantee that you read what I write the way that I intended it.

rhizome 10y ago
This is exactly why objectivity doesn't exist in human behavior. You can argue that there is a objective sense of something, but that is always filtered by a person's subjectivity, so the muddling you mention starts at the first step of meaning. Communicating this to other people is essentially starting a balancing act between subjectivities, between interpretations of the thing. Furthermore, saying that a clear thought has passed from you to another person is yet another layer of interpretation of their response and reaction. To say this transfer lacks subjectivity is to make a category error due to an apparent (i.e. interpreted) congruence in the subjectivities between e.g. the speaker and listener. tl;dr: Hope only comes into play because objectivity in this context is an article of faith.
- astazangasta 10y ago
  To be clear, I am not in the camp of trying to recover objectivity, and generally feel that the attempt is a sin: God is dead, etc. I thought it was an interesting attempt to find a space where it might exist, though, in the moment of the joining of two minds. Undeniably something happens in the act of conversation, since we know we can speak to each other in a useful way that is not entirely subjective. We must at least be responsible to each other in conversation, and we might call that act of (partially) successful transmission/reception "objectivity".
  - rhizome 10y ago
    I think you're just describing the topic of conversation, which I guess could be called an object with definition(s), but in the context of conversation I don't think it could be said to have inherent objectivity, since definitions themselves are subject to variations of meaning. "Oh, I thought you meant/told me to...!" Further to the "something" that happens in conversation, I think of Gilles Deleuze and his concept of sense-making, or cognition. You may be interested in some of his writings along these lines if this page resonates with you at all (just to save you the google, autopoesis means "self-creation"): https://books.google.com/books?id=rcVvAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42 https://books.google.com/books?id=rcVvAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=P...
nostrademons 10y ago
Relevant: Wiio's 1.3rd Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiio%27s_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiio%27s_laws
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Let's say I ask you for a Pepsi. Now, when I think of Pepsi, I almost undoubtedly think of different things than you do (I think of drinking it as a kid out of shot glasses, among other things). But there's enough overlap that, when I ask you for a Pepsi, I can get something that I recognize as Pepsi. We mean somewhat different things by "Pepsi" - at least in the things that the word carries with it in our minds. We can't pretend that the meaning is identical. But it is equally wrong to pretend that there is no overlap. There is enough common ground that real communication can happen. (I stole this from Francis Schaeffer, though his example was about tea.)
- maxerickson 10y ago
  There are people that would bring you whatever cola was handy (without feeling the need to mention any discrepancy).

rhizome 10y ago

This is exactly why objectivity doesn't exist in human behavior. You can argue that there is a objective sense of something, but that is always filtered by a person's subjectivity, so the muddling you mention starts at the first step of meaning. Communicating this to other people is essentially starting a balancing act between subjectivities, between interpretations of the thing. Furthermore, saying that a clear thought has passed from you to another person is yet another layer of interpretation of their response and reaction. To say this transfer lacks subjectivity is to make a category error due to an apparent (i.e. interpreted) congruence in the subjectivities between e.g. the speaker and listener. tl;dr: Hope only comes into play because objectivity in this context is an article of faith.

astazangasta 10y ago
To be clear, I am not in the camp of trying to recover objectivity, and generally feel that the attempt is a sin: God is dead, etc. I thought it was an interesting attempt to find a space where it might exist, though, in the moment of the joining of two minds. Undeniably something happens in the act of conversation, since we know we can speak to each other in a useful way that is not entirely subjective. We must at least be responsible to each other in conversation, and we might call that act of (partially) successful transmission/reception "objectivity".
- rhizome 10y ago
  I think you're just describing the topic of conversation, which I guess could be called an object with definition(s), but in the context of conversation I don't think it could be said to have inherent objectivity, since definitions themselves are subject to variations of meaning. "Oh, I thought you meant/told me to...!" Further to the "something" that happens in conversation, I think of Gilles Deleuze and his concept of sense-making, or cognition. You may be interested in some of his writings along these lines if this page resonates with you at all (just to save you the google, autopoesis means "self-creation"): https://books.google.com/books?id=rcVvAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42 https://books.google.com/books?id=rcVvAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=P...

nostrademons 10y ago

Relevant: Wiio's 1.3rd Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiio%27s_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiio%27s_laws

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

Let's say I ask you for a Pepsi. Now, when I think of Pepsi, I almost undoubtedly think of different things than you do (I think of drinking it as a kid out of shot glasses, among other things). But there's enough overlap that, when I ask you for a Pepsi, I can get something that I recognize as Pepsi. We mean somewhat different things by "Pepsi" - at least in the things that the word carries with it in our minds. We can't pretend that the meaning is identical. But it is equally wrong to pretend that there is no overlap. There is enough common ground that real communication can happen. (I stole this from Francis Schaeffer, though his example was about tea.)

maxerickson 10y ago
There are people that would bring you whatever cola was handy (without feeling the need to mention any discrepancy).