To begin replying to the question, please consider that there is no 'objectivity' independent of 'subjectivity.' 'Objecitvity' is a sub-set, a 'special case', of subjectivity. All '3rd-person perspectives' are also '1st-person perspectives.' "Objectivity' is based on agreement across individual observers -- it is 'inter-personal' consistency/agreement based on 'intra-personal' consistency. These papers, e.g., examine the key issues in detail (all full-text, open-access on ResesarchGate.net):

'The Scientific Method as Practiced: Its Successes, Limitations, and How to Progress Deeper";

A Psychological Critique of Mathematicians";

"Vedic Model of Mind."

Best wishes, Bob (RW Boyer)

Thank you for your response. Although objective and subjective realities are interconnected, they are different and present ccontrasting sides of things. Objectivity is based on real facts, which are not conditioned by individual opinions or perceptions. While subjectivity is the reflection of one's own interpretation of reality, combined with one's educational, professional, and socio-cultural background.

Thanks Amalya,

You expressed nicely your views that 'objecitivity' is, as you indicated, "based on real facts, which are not conditioned by individual opinions." This is a long-held, popular science misunderstanding about the relationship between 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity.' Please read at least the paper 'The Scientific Method as Practiced: Its Successes, Limitations, and How to Progress Deeper", and then let's discuss after. Look forward very much to discussing it deeper with you.

Thanks,

Bob (RW Boyer)

Dear Amalya Sukiasyan and Robert W. Boyer , fascinating discussion! I would also like to hear a definition of 'real facts' as used above, as this seems to presuppose the existance of an objective reality and hence prejudice the question discussed. Though to put my cards on the table too, I tend to agree with Robert W. Boyer that for objectivity you need agreement between two people or more - though i recognise that my answer to this question is the relativist one.

Best Wishes,

Haris

Thank you, Robert W. Boyer and Haris Shekeris, for your insights. I've read the article. It was interesting. Reason and experience are means of gaining knowledge, but their level of subjectivity depends on whose reason or experience it is. In the context of the universe, objective facts can be identified more easily. In the sphere of conceptual knowledge, subjectivity plays a more important role. Regarding the objectivity of agreement, if individuals or certain groups of people agree on something, it doesn't necessarily mean their thoughts and decisions are based on objective facts. Sometimes, objective reality may even be against the majority opinion.

Amalya,

I agree completely, and was explained in my article, which you said you read. Our discussion seems to be progressing well.

However, you're statement that "In the context of the universe, objective facts can be identified more easily" seems inconsistent with what you stated just before it (namely, agreeing that the means of gaining knowledge are reason and experience. Both are fundamentally subjective. Your statement seems to imply that there are other means of gaining knowledge besides reason and experience. In a way, I agree with this also (if you mean direct validation, and more loosely, intuition). However, I think you would agree that these are also 'subjective'. Reason. experience (and intuition) are subjective -- yes? Again,' objectivity' is a special case, a sub-set, of subjective mental functions necessary for any knowledge. Knowledge is based on and resides in the subjective knower -- can you see that must be the case? I hope so, because it is essential to comprehend levels of nature, levels of 'reality', and levels or states of consciousness.

If you think there is 'objective knowledge' and 'objective means of gaining it' that are not also subjective, it would be fascinating to get your explanation please explain it and give examples, so we can address the issue deeper. Thanks much for this dialogue -- I appreciate it.

Bob

Objective truth is the unexpirable passport of reason. Objectivity is the mirror of reality, while subjectivity is the psycho-cognitive dust that distorts it. Sensory knowledge demonstrates objective reality, whereas conceptual knowledge is more susceptible to subjectivity. Besides reason and experience, imagination is another means of gaining knowledge. As Albert Einstein said, 'Imagination is more important than knowledge.' Throughout human history, conventional thinking has been questioned by groundbreaking innovations and creative solutions, all of which have relied on the power of imagination, which can challenge and transcend the limits of reason.

Thanks Amalya,

Please consider. In the world of subject/object duality (of ordinary waking state scientific understanding), it is important to appreciate that, more fundamentally, any knowledge is in a subjective knower of the knowledge (e.g., knowledge is not in a book, only printed shapes interpreted by a subjective knower). Any "objective knowledge" is also 'conceptual knowledge" in the subjective mind. "Imagination", "ground-breaking innovations and creative thinking" are types of subjective reasoning. All sensing, perceiving, thinking, conceptualizing, imagining, reasoning, feeling, being -- and any kind of mental activity including any "objective" experiences -- are in the subjective mind. More fundamentally, levels of mind underlie and permeate the physical universe we sometimes call the 'outside', 'independent', "objective' world.

You bring up a beautiful point: the "power of imagination, which can challenge and transcend the limits of reason." But imagination also is a process of mental activity/thinking/reasoning/feeling that remains within the subjective mind. The paper you said you read discusses this (in the final section -- 'how to progress deeper.' It also describes the crucial point of how to settle the mental activity of reason and ordinary experience (including imagination) and naturally transcend deeper inside beyond all mental activity to inner silence -- pure consciousness itself without mental activity, transcendental consciousness, the 4th natural state of consciousness -- turiya, samadhi. It might be helpful to read these papers (available on ResearchGate.com) that goes into more detail about levels of mind and states of consciousness to clarify further "objectivity" and subjectivity.

Vedic Model of Mind

Ignorance and Enlightenment: What's the Difference?

I appreciate very much your investigation of the relationship between "objectivity" and subjectivity in your pursuit of deeper knowledge. Thanks for our working together on this fundamentally important topic toward addressing your initial inquiry.

Bob (RW Boyer)

Thank you for your insights and recommendations. I will read the papers to deepen my knowledge.

Much appreciate you taking time to think through these fundamental issues, and look forward to any further dialogue about them you wish to have.

Very best wishes,

Bob (RW Boyer)

Dear friends,

Very fascinating and inspiring discussion, I'd like to bring though two other considerations: first of all, an alternative to 'subjective' and 'objective', that is, relative: this allows us to have objectivity within a community but no objective facts; also, word meanings: consider the following:

a) Pluto is a planet.

and

b) This slab of white Cyprus cheese with the name 'Halloumi' as a brand-name is actually halloumi cheese.

Now, whilst a) may sound like an objective fact about the universe, it actually isn't: the word 'planet' was defined by an institution, and then the institution changed the meaning of the word based on consensus and made a) false.

b) it's possible that b) is true in one area of the world and false in another, based purely on the interests of a few specific communities in the world (the cattle farmers and cow farmers in Cyprus) and some institutions such as the protected designation of origin in the US and the EU. So one may have two particle-for-particle duplicates of this 'thing', and one being halloumi whilst the other not, depending on where they are in the world.

I hope this helps advance our conversation!

Best Wishes,

Haris

Thanks, Haris, for your point about relative degrees of 'objectivity/subjectivity -- not just an 'either/or' distinction. The further point I've been making is that a phenomenon can be both 'objective' and 'subjective' at the same time. 'Objectivity' is a special case/sub-set of 'subjectivity'. All 'objectivity'' is more fundamentally 'subjective' -- there is no 'mind-independent' world, no 'objective' experiences of objects in nature that are not also subjective. 'Objectivity' is based on inter-subjective agreement. This recognition is crucial for understanding how nature is phenomenally structured in levels: the ordinary gross physical level underlain and permeated by the subtler non-physical levels including subjective mind, all within the all-inclusive unified field that is consciousness itself -- the Vedic 3-in-1 model (see papers on ResearchGate.net for detailed explanations).

Best wishes,

Bob (RW Boyer)

Dear Bob,

I think you'll find many convergences on my view and yours, I similarly believe there's no 'mind-independent' world or that even if there is, there's an epistemic block such that we cannot 'truly' cognize it and hence the best we can do is all agree about our subjective experiences, and that will *make* them 'objective'. Though not sure about the Vedic 3-in-1 model, will need to spend a lot of time reading about it to make up my mind about it :)

Best Wishes,

Haris

Thanks, Haris.

Direct experiential evidence goes can be reliable far beyond the limitations of the ordinary waking state of consciousness (which has been the primary mode of investigation in the modern scientified method.

When you become interested in the deeper, more integrated approach in

Vedic science and have time, a good intro is my book published by Routledge, 'Pointless: The Reality behind Quantum Theory' -- which covers a vast scope of material on matter, energy, mind, and consciousness. A brief overview is 'Evidence of Vedic Renaissance: From Veda to Modern Science and Back' -- as well as several others in the past 2 years -- all available 'full-text, open-access' on ResearchGate.net. I would appreciate any feedback/questions. Best wishes,

Bob (RW Boyer)

Dear Bob,

Many thanks, it all sounds quite interesting! Though please grant me some time as I also have some other projects running and things I should be reading, and, I may have said, I would like to do yours justice rather than just browse through for the sake of it!

Best Wishes,

Haris