[FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum

Sat Aug 29 18:35:06 EDT 2026

> On Aug 30, 2026, at 2:24, Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
> "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).
> 
This one always bothered me as the most brittle leg of the founding documents and aspirations, and one that attackers know is brittle and so constantly go after.  

If one thinks that the point of the Enlightenment was that revelatory truth was a problem because it forecloses correction, then this way of putting things also denies the Enlightenment premise that the rest of it claims to be defending.  

Since a whole variety of groups from the fascists (of how many different eras now?) to the slavers to the Black Yi didn’t consider this self-evident, there is no bridge between the We who “hold” them that way, and the others.  I can accept that fights and struggles over social power, like constructivist proofs, can go on indefinitely, and that they are the alternative to the axiomatic approach in which one can get lovely compact syntactic proofs by admitting infinitary categories and accepting the game that anything well-formed under some syntax is then required to be regarded as having a semantic referent.  But if the fight is indeed going to continue happening, then the Rules of Engagement would be helpful if they included terms for argument under which people can be steered in one direction versus another, by putting feet into something Pragmatically more primitive and then pushing the higher-level premises from there.

But probably the Declaration’s version is still better than mine, because it puts a stick in the ground and declares intent to defend it.
> 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.
> 
For me this string of sentences unravels.  Do you know what you mean by “objective reality”?  I don’t start out knowing what I would mean, and find myself very cautious in throwing down for some gloss.  Does it root as far down as you can go into the body?  If so, then that rooting didn’t come from anybody’s intersubjectively-granted permission.  Wouldn’t that count as “evidence”?  If not, what does the term refer to?  If the higher-level models are just models, then you aren’t granting them any impulse to behaving metaphysically, and you didn’t need the extra term, no?

Eric

> 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> <mailto:gepr at ropella.name>
>> Date: 8/28/26 11:34 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: friam at redfish.com <mailto: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> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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 Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,2q7xTeXD9tli_JAGTpE81zE_Te9f11XV9WypQZc_HF4-Utw5vngfbA4-qxDguKw_micwJDXUaSPed2-A-iLDV8pwfPwdcWnjWP7z9lPr4UoLrz4,&typo=1>
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,1j1DxREcMq1AfZgqly3OD1rCoGuGsThGvCz8R23QqP-ts-8AazSp1m05uSZFHvtYPOE66GLblO0HvbLiGqBfHjwrWcj-ttQaaYhbrumC3pPhEpW3Yw,,&typo=1>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,JwB1beJI0-gdmHcUT-oKk23_9Pbgjgmc2Dt22KNmLZfKyXrzuZKVyP5ppps-89r8pYmjouC4b_KUwf6gfdCx7lmNYIrEsmalOm6Yta37568dfD21&typo=1>
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,5S9xvNXwuaUf9kUbwQSOp4YUdf9NnkqXo4fJdcXg4xAZs2T1V7DzzaKD8m_waonr33lB-UJ9Uyhh6ZQPqGFPjaTjJLxfZTyNDjLH19T_gw,,&typo=1>
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,Uycgi4bbE_v07WCSOe1wO6Bb_F6oBTLA4aortTKTJgg4QcJcRZcJ6lNUBNFRVKDefe22jKZOI6oInjVMTzd5rIFY4WRYvTup2YV3eIcz6RgmQ2i4EQSWKA,,&typo=1
> to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,1rEVi9QWlmb-8B97FTvZDGMKiNTf2IWLcvU3zOYSbX_ZiBAgSDZ1QbehbtNPRT2aH_UceXTEInNxNwC5m1_9iaoNDlYsNPsvMGFBs_s_pVeCA3K32NSwng,,&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,OLA0b49YmcKKU7shzbUelLOFUAjzARjMlQQOYlFRF2TYxf-6l9unlWdk8Lch-xK1YicxacotJBcCmjhic-rK2NwXbgzJ9_r5mxRbKZQWVQ,,&typo=1
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,TUjTh4RXaZgN-H9yO1s9FCVHpvS0YXFN4bZRVGzBVxgFfDKS2q1l88SjGQX9bW7ZXVkpFtqFJ46uvqLohuSn04-4iHucSw908ACfATBcPmdN&typo=1
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260830/69620b3e/attachment.html>