Tear my ideas apart if you must, but I'm gonna post a few

[Telarus]

Mathew, I was recently exposed to the term 'intersubjective' . Dig into that and it may help.

[matthewsquires]

i know a lot of you guys have thought about this or read this idea somewhere or something but i was just reading principia discordia and thinking. it seems like all of us, or most of us are sufferers of paranoid ideation.  like an idea is either delusional or it's not, so just because my delusions are socially accepted and don't directly harm others, that doesn't mean i'm not delusional.  like if a child dies, most people (including myself) are going to see that as sad, but in reality it's just lacking any inherent qualities like sad, ugly, beautiful, etc.  so we're reading into everything and applying qualities and meaning where there is none.


but even to believe this is to be subscribing to some sort of ideology, so it's like inescapable if i'm even correct in my thinking.

[LMNO]

Are you trying to say that all experience is subjective?



Because well... Yeah.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

In other news... the earth has all this weird wet stuff all over it called "water".

[matthewsquires]

haha, i state the obvious i guess.  just more pointing out i'm annoyed i can't have an objective understanding of anything except for things being subjective but even that is probably a subjective understanding of things.

[Telarus]

Seriously, go read about intersubjectivity. It's the closest we get to 'Objective viewpoints'.

"Universe is nonsimultaneously apprehended." -Bucky Fuller

[Cramulus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity

that was an interesting read

Empirically, the intersubjective school is inspired by research on the non-verbal communication of infants

that's cool


also check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjective_verifiability

Congruence and incongruence

When an external, public phenomenon is experienced and carefully described (in words or measurements) by one individual, other individuals can see if their experiences of the phenomenon "fit" the description. If they do, a sense of congruence between one subject and another occurs. This is the basis for a definition of what is true that is agreed upon by the involved parties. If the description does not fit the experience of one or more of the parties involved, incongruence occurs instead.

Incongruent contradictions between the experience and descriptions of different individuals can be caused by a number of factors. One common source of incongruence is the inconsistent use of language in the descriptions people use, such as the same words being used differently. Such semantic problems require more careful development and use of language.

Incongruence also arises from a failure to describe the phenomena well. In these cases, further development of the description, model, or theory used to refer to the phenomena is required.

A third form of incongruence arises when the descriptions do not conform to consensual (i.e., intersubjectively verifiable) experience, such as when the descriptions are faulty, incorrect, wrong, or inaccurate, and need to be replaced by more accurate descriptions, models, or theories.

kind of dense, but very interesting if you dig information and science theory

tl;dr version:

• A lot of confusion can be avoided by using more accurate language. See also: E-Prime
• A lot of confusion can be avoided by being aware of alternate models and being able to use them as the situation demands. See also: Model Agnosticism

[matthewsquires]

read up on intersubjectivity.

very intewesting.

too tired to think to hard about it, but will definately pop a concerta or two tomorrow and absorb it again and then think think think.

[minuspace]

F-U-C-K gestalt