On Hell and Forgiveness

[Angrboda]

Feel free to enlighten me about what objective means in the ontological sense.

It means that it’s nature is based on something outside of and independent of the subject. Whereas subjective would be based on and dependent of the subject such as tastes or feelings.  It’s like the sci-fi shows, where they always use numbers to communicate with ET, because numbers are a universal and not dependent on us.

Fine. What is figure and ground independent of mental operations distinguishing figure and ground? Can you have number without figure and ground?

[The Grand Nudger]

If I could be so bold as to suggest....jorg has a more expansive or permissive view of subjectivity.  That which is related to subjects.  What you might call objective, jorg might call intersubjective.

Intersubjectivity could qualify as epistemic objectivity.....but it might not (and often doesn't) qualify for ontological objectivity.

Let me give you an example. Is a venomous snake actually terrifying, is that a property of the snake? Or is it, more accurately, a property of the terrified observer (granted, many observers feel that way, still...not all)? A function of how we separate figure from background. Signal from noise.

[RoadRunner79]

It means that it’s nature is based on something outside of and independent of the subject. Whereas subjective would be based on and dependent of the subject such as tastes or feelings.  It’s like the sci-fi shows, where they always use numbers to communicate with ET, because numbers are a universal and not dependent on us.

Fine. What is figure and ground independent of mental operations distinguishing figure and ground? Can you have number without figure and ground?

I don’t know what you’re trying to say.

[Angrboda]

Fine.  What is figure and ground independent of mental operations distinguishing figure and ground?  Can you have number without figure and ground?

I don’t know what you’re trying to say.

Don't try to guess what my endpoint is, just answer the questions. If you prefer, we can speak of parts and wholes. Do parts and wholes exist independent of the machinations of the mind?

[robvalue]

I was thinking about this the other day.

If we were to say that all abstract concepts “exist” in some hypothetical field, then that leads to further problems. To be sure two people are talking about the same concept within that field, a simple label isn’t enough. We would have to make sure that every aspect of that concept, as their minds perceive it, is identical. This would require their perception of every concept used to qualify those aspects to be identical too, and so on.

[polymath257]

[RoadRunner79]

I don’t know what you’re trying to say.

Don't try to guess what my endpoint is, just answer the questions. If you prefer, we can speak of parts and wholes. Do parts and wholes exist independent of the machinations of the mind?

I’m not trying to guess where you are going. As I said, I don’t understand what you are saying.

A simple answer to your question here, I do believe that the whole exists and the parts of things exist, outside of human conception. I believe that hydrogen and oxygen exist, as well as the combination of them known as water, apart from a persons knowledge of it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that jorg gets that you do believe that.  Describing your beliefs is to describe the contents of your mind.  That's ontological subjectivity even if it were epistemic objectivity (and even if there really were parts and wholes outside of your mind).

It may not seem like it, but an invocation of your beliefs is a straight "no" to jorgs question.

[Amarok]

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not really an issue of admission, though.  It's clear that he want's to express an answer in the affirmative.  I'm not saying that he can't or that there isn't a sufficient answer...only that an invocation of belief falls directly under the header of what jorg takes (and what can be sensibly described) as ontological subjectivity.  

The things that exist inside of our minds and pertain to our minds, not (necessarily) apart or outside of them. Same as the figure-background distinction. Which is which? Well, you'd have to ask the designator. There's nothing obvious about the universe that determines that.