[FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum

[Steve Smith]

Let me try:

I segment this into a modal continuum of subjective - intersubjective - 
objective. with some fuzzy/moving thresholds.

Underlying this are mappings and models where a model is a mapping which 
exposes exploitable consequences of what is mapped.

Our sensorium is a transduction layer at it's simplest.  Our perceptions 
layer a very low level model of meaning or relevance or actionability 
via various categories and valences (good/bad, fight/flight, ...).

  What we conventionally call "Modeling" is a bit more abstract and may 
be an artifact of, or at least thresholded by language.  We have a 
grammar and vocabulary of "what matters" (proto-meaning?) which we can 
both share and/or save/revisit/operate logic or intuition over.

I would claim that even sensing is "subjective" in the sense that the 
transducers represent a proto-model... while the pulse train traversing 
our ganglia, cortices, and other neural structures are in some sense 
"objective reports", they have already been 
transduced/produced/conditioned/compressed by the sensory hardware in an 
idiosyncratic way to the organism's (significantly nature-formed, but 
nurture-modified) hardware/firmware.

Perception is yet more "subjective", but sill in a very limited or 
constrained and normative way.   The (possibly) apocryphal) business of 
folks raised in the country-side vs those in the city having somewhat 
different edge/shape detector firmware, etc...  Fight v Flight is also 
significantly "conditioned" by nurture and experience.   Valence 
(good/bad) is yet more conditioned by expectation and collective norms.  
Thus proto-intersubjective.  We fight or flee from the things our 
instincts bias us towards but also what we are taugh/modeled by 
parents/community.

Without any *language* as such, these intersubjective norms can be 
established and transmitted but language gives them more reach 
(space/time/social-network) and more "stiffness" ("as it is written, so 
it shall be").   The more explicit and elaborate and abstract models 
(e.g. truth, beauty, and the American Way) we consider, the more 
intersubjective they may be.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident" does a lot of complex, heavy 
lifting across "we" (collectivity) and "self-evident" (introspection) 
and "truths" (implied objectivity).   The very declaration is an attempt 
to fix an intersubjective reality Model across a nation/culture with 
implications of it being held across time and aspiring (implicitely) to 
influence others outside the in-group ('Murricans).

While my instinct/habit is to defer to an imagined idealized "objective 
reality",  I see no evidence to the contrary that we construct a highly 
agreed upon Model which eventually reaches the declared quality of 
"objectively real" when enough of (the right) people agree on all the 
nuances and claim to have verified the evidence on the table, up to and 
including discovering/presenting yet new evidence through repeatability 
under current standards of such.

My Q-Anon and/or MAGA and/or KryptoKreacher friends believe they are 
part of a network of TruthSeekers/Tellers with who hold and follow 
equally "stiff" procedures and filters, yielding *equally* objectively 
true Truths like Michelle Obama and the Williams' sisters are male, that 
Barack was born in Kenya and is a Crypto-Muslim, and that Chelsea 
Clinton is not Bill's child.  Aside from "whose business is this?",  all 
such also smells of confirmation bias-generated nonsense.    AntiVaxxers 
(seem to) believe the same about the CDC and Anthony Fauci (and claim 
they have their own objectively validated counter-narrative).

So... in psuedo-summary, the spectrum seems to be something about where 
one's models are sourced (evolution, development, enculturation, 
theological/philosophical tradition, scientific (or other) method).

I prefer (choose?) to live in a world where my world-view is (mostly) 
aligned with lots of other people, even though I long ago came to 
understand that many/most people don't even think, much less care about 
many things I have come to.

Mumble,

  - Steve

a

On 8/29/26 1:49 am, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> Hmmmh maybe you are right and there is some kind of subjectivity 
> paradox. As we grow older we become both more subjective and less 
> subjective. More subjective because our subjective 1st person view 
> becomes more unique, more specific and more singular. Less subjective 
> because we gain an additional objective view - Nagel's objective 3rd 
> person "view from nowhere". Should we name it Glen's paradox of 
> subjectivity?
>
> -J.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: glen <gepr at ropella.name>
> Date: 8/28/26 11:34 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
>
> FWIW, there is a kind of "suck it up" that's less "macho" and 
> definitely not MAGA. I aspire to the old saying about not being able 
> to control what happens, only how you react to it. It's amazing how 
> the tables have turned on who gets labeled a "snowflake". It's 
> literally trivial for me to goad an outrageous reaction from a MAGA 
> type. But it's really really hard to get a queer person to react in an 
> uncontrolled way ... at least here in Olympia. They're so tough. 
> They've heard everything. Experienced a lot of hate, often capricious. 
> They're some of the toughest people I've ever met. They put the 
> stoicism bros to shame.
>
> While I agree that subjectivity is better understood as 
> multidimensional, I disagree *entirely* that a baby is all or 
> extremely subjective. Being largely against narrativity, I'd argue 
> that babies are more objective than any adult. They measure the world 
> and have a minimum of bias/narrative to pervert those measurements 
> [⛧]. Maybe "objective" is the wrong concept, though. Maybe "empirical" 
> is a better one.
>
> So I'd argue that babies->toddlers->...->grownup goes from less to 
> more subjective. Plop any adult next to me at the pub and it's nearly 
> impossible for me to avoid the attempt to find the edges of their 
> narrative, their self-told story, their navel-gazing, masturbatory, 
> subjectivity.
>
> [⛧] Now, to make such things consistent with superdeterminism and 
> reification of concepts like consent, we need some lessons from 
> plectics, the appearance of inscrutable detail from algorithmic rules. 
> There, we might say that babies are executing the crispiest rules 
> without the grit and crystallized grime that accumulates in the 
> machine as it executes over time ... like that hitch I get in my elbow 
> every time I lift something heavy after typing for hours at a time.
>
> On 8/28/26 1:15 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > Sure, I just mean in contrast to the loud, incoherent, complaining 
> man baby.
> >
> > *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm 
> <jofr at cas-group.net>
> > *Date: *Friday, August 28, 2026 at 12:47 PM
> > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam at redfish.com>
> > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
> >
> > This sounds like a MAGA fantasy to me. A strong Rambo-like character 
> who acts as a just avenger, has superpowers and roams like an 
> invincible knight-errant through the country. The Jack Reacher novels 
> are a nice read, but a person who can flatten any problem or bad 
> person with absolute certainty is pure fiction. The promises to the 
> MAGA followers to reduce prices and costs of living have apparently 
> been fiction too. The trade war against Canada is certainly not 
> helpful to reduce prices. And why start a trade war against a close 
> friend and neighbor? Jack Reacher would shake his head.
> >
> > If I had to pick a fictional character then I would pick Indiana 
> Jones, not Jack Reacher. But that's of course subjective.
> >
> > -J.
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
> >
> > From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> >
> > Date: 8/28/26 9:04 PM (GMT+01:00)
> >
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam at redfish.com>
> >
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
> >
> > One of my guilty pleasures is the Reacher series on Amazon. The 
> protagonist (Alan Ritchson), a beast of a man, finds himself only a 
> bit concerned about his latest brush with death.   (These brushes 
> occur several times per episode.)   This is just what he does and must 
> do.   The only thing he won’t tolerate is the reactive individual.   
> Whatever happened to the male role model that can suck up their doubts 
> and fears to push through?
> >
> > *From:*Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AM
> > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam at redfish.com>
> > *Subject:* [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
> >
> > For the new book I have read the famous philsophers like Dennett, 
> Searle, and Nagel, and used AIs to summarize their books. Nagel's book 
> "The view frok nowhere" is a bit simplistic. Reality is more complex 
> than having just two views, subjective and objective, isn't it?
> >
> > In the desperate cries of babies we see pure desires and raw 
> emotions. Babies are cute but naturally egocentric. Lacking language 
> they only can perceive the world in a subjective view, and helpless as 
> they are they need to communicate their needs to their parents.
> >
> > The only view they have is a 1st person view (characterized by "one 
> great blooming, buzzing confusion" as William James said, which they 
> interrupt by intense bursts of emotions). Everything a toddler 
> perceives is extremely subjective. In a sense a toddler knows nothing 
> else.
> >
> > Grown-ups have learnt to follow social rules and norms. They learned 
> the value of politeness and friendliness. They are able to reach a 
> more objective view of the world. Thomas Nagel called this view the 
> "view from nowhere" in his book of the same name.
> >
> > As we grow older we move along the spectrum from high selfishness to 
> low selfishness. We are still driven by emotions and do not become 
> fully objective, but we acquire the ability to view the world from an 
> objective view. Nagel calls this ability to move from a subjective to 
> an objective view detachment. We see it normal child development:
> >
> > Babies -> Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers -> Grownups
> >
> > There are exceptions: evil psychopaths and vile narcissts are still 
> as selfish as toddlers or use emotions to manipulate other people. 
> Artists, musicians, poets and critics are intentionally using personal 
> feelings and emotions to be creative in their works.
> >
> > Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose) <-> Creative 
> persons (subjectivity for good purpose)
> >
> > Would you agree that seeing subjectivity as a spectrum is more 
> useful that postulating only two views (subjective vs. objective) ? 
> ChatGPT has created the attached image for it.
> >
>
> -- 
> 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
> ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα 
> σώσω.
>
>
>
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>    1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260829/f7df1e9a/attachment.html>