I think Einstein shreds relevant light on this subject of "objective" versus "subjective", though he doesn't use those terms exactly.
In Einstein's theories of relativity he talks about 1) the observer, 2) what is being observed, and 3) the relationship between the two. The state of the observer, insofar as motion is concerned, determines HOW and WHAT the observer experiences. Simply stated, the state of the observer limits and defines the "experience of the universe". WHAT is experienced is defined and determined by WHERE the observer looks from (and how it is moving).
People have asked Einstein, "what is the REAL universe then, as an absolute reality"? His response was something like, "there is NO absolute perception or experience possible by an observer; as soon as an observer steps into the picture, as a defined viewpoint, in some state of motion, THEN there is a "relative" and ONLY a "relative" experience and perception of some limited aspect of the universe".
In a very real sense "subjectivity" is a
result of a human being having such a limited isolated RELATIVE viewpoint that looks out upon one tiny slice of the immense universe at a specific time and place. "Objective" would refer to some "truth" outside of any unique observer or viewpoint, but as Einstein clearly explains, there is no EXPERIENCE possible without some arbitrary viewpoint that also always severely limits, molds, and defines WHAT is observed. There IS NO "the way it REALLY is". The way it really is, is that the observer and the observed have a RELATIONSHIP that determines what exact perception and experience will be "pulled out of the infinity of possibilities". Studies in quatum physics and sub-atomic particle physics seem to indicate that on a VERY REAL LEVEL, the universe exists, at THAT level, ONLY as "a range of infinite possibilities", and that an actual event or experience ONLY occurs when an observer steps into the picture to detect and measure some aspect of the infinite. So, what is it really? Apparently, the universe is a near infinite range of possibilities, and the exact details of any of these many possibilities is determined by YOU.
People tend to use "objective" to refer to those things and situations that exist no matter what you think or believe about them. Or, conversely, refers to things that most sane and aware people all agree to "be the same" - basic laws of Nature, mathematics, gravity, etc.
Here's a simple example. Let's say there is a large oak tree setting in the middle of a garden in a park in France. A person can come along and view or examine it from any of an infinite number of locations; from the left, from the right, from the top, looking up from the base of the trunk, far away, close away, through a kaleidoscope lens, with filtered glasses,
ad infinitum. Each person will see and experience a different "version" of the tree. Which is right? Which is wrong? They are ALL "right". And, NONE give a perception or experience of what the tree "really is".
A biologist and ecologist can come along and add all sorts of detailed examinations, on a cellular level, on a microscopic level, on a system level, on a scan-over-time level, on a "how does it interact with its environment" level, on a historical level, on a genetic level, etc. Again, EACH EXPERIENCE is determined by the view taken. Notice too that things look VERY different far away or close up. EXPERIENCE CHANGES as "resolution" (proximity, distance from the observed) changes.
I have worked a great deal in a recording studio. People always say that they want to get the music to "sound as it really is". Really is? So, I would at times take the time to run a few tests for the person. First, taking a guitar amplifier with a microphone used to record the sound, I would move the microphone to various places in front of the amplifier, while having the person listen in the control room. It changed at every different microphone location. Second, I would have them sit directly between the expensive monitor speakers, and then have them slowly move their head and stop. Move 1" to the right, DAMN, the mix sounds different. Move 1" to the left, again, a change. Move down 1", 2", 4" and then get your head on the floor - now, tons of added bass. So, there is NO "what it really sounds like". It ONLY depends on where you listen from. It is all an amazing array of relationships. In the end, as far as music goes, in fact, you are NOT aiming for "what is real", but for "what sounds the best to experienced musicians and sound engineers".
Again, what REALLY is the tree? As in "objective" versus "subjective", I suppose what it "really" would be is some combination of all possible viewpoints taken over all possible times. Some would say that some "ideal" or "model" exists in the mind of God, and that this "real tree" manifests as these many different possible experiences of a tree. I don't agree with that, and I consider such a notion to be entirely based on FAITH (which is okay). There may be a power in "faith" that few recognize.
As long as you have an isolated viewpoint, from a fixed location and time, then you will always have a
subjective experiences of any slice of the universal pie. And, as Einstein would say, as far as EXPERIENCE and PERCEPTION are concerned, this is NOTHING ELSE.
Some eastern philosophers posit the notion than there CAN BE an experience of the absolute, or of the "objective". But, to do so one must eradicate all vestiges of "self" as the limiting and defining "observer", vanquish subjectivity (and separation as an isolated viewpoint), leaving only an observation or experience of all-that-is, on the same level apparently as the Consciousness, Intelligence and Creative Source that underlies all-that-is.
But, outside of that, participants of the
western philosophical tradition will talk and talk and talk, and argue and argue and argue about
significances, that for the most part, are ALWAYS subjectively defined, just as Mr. Baker correctly asserts.
In the end, who cares what the tree "really is"? It matters to nobody, outside of curiosity and something to discuss on quiet Sunday afternoons. Most things have "meaning" according to your life as a human being. For me, the tree acts to shade my back yard, it functioned as a support for my child's tree house many years ago, I hang my bird feeder from it, when dead branches fall I use them for firewood, I tacked a picture of George Bush to it and my brother and I enjoyed target practice with the 22 rifle, from a distance of about 600 feet it loses all detail and appears as a fairy-tale picture book tree, and so forth.
I saw a movie the other day, "Akeelah and the Bee", and one of the main characters read a poem, and one line stated something like, "YOU are God's way of experiencing the joy and wonders of His amazing creation". From THIS viewpoint,
subjectivity and
relativity are part of "the plan", and are the ONLY way for ANY being (including God) to experience the DETAILS of this incredible and amazing universe.
Time has a purpose, you know?
It stops everything from happening all at once (quote from another great movie:
Grand Tour). And while, the
absolute may exist "beyond space and time", the only way to EXPERIENCE any of it is IN space and time. And, once "in space and time", you are severely limited. But, THAT'S OKAY!!!!!!!!
I had a big realization awhile back. Scientology and other subjects are constantly trying to somehow take you OUT of space and time, they attempt to get you to "transcend" the temporal, they claim to aim to take away your limitations as a human being, but guess what? You will NOT EVER be here to experience the wonders, the beauty, the joy and the immensity of all-that-is unless you do so as an isolated, temporal, limited, finite, restrictive and subjectively-based entity. The variety is endless! Is is GOOD to be HUMAN. I might posit that some of you actually fought long and hard, even knowing ahead what you might suffer and have to go through, JUST TO BE ABLE TO SPEND ONE LIFETIME as an arbitrary viewpoint in this physical universe able to participate in some tiny part of it all.
See, the wonder and joy is only possible when one steps down and out of the absolute, and takes on the attire of an "observer". You "witness" the constant MIRACLE, from any of an infinite possible number of "angles" (views).
What is so great, and sadly many do NOT see this as great, is that DIFFERENCE OF VIEW, even conflicting views, are an essential aspect to this, it will always be an essential aspect to this, and personally, I revel in the amazing diversity of views, opinions, beliefs, etc. Of course, it isn't just about thinking of and observing "what is", but participating in another attribute that you share with the creator - the ability to create, the ability to imagine, the ability to set whole new universes into motion. Make something up, put something there that wasn't there before, use your creative birthright, create something nice, something pleasing, something joyous.
Subjectivity (and the relative nature of human experience) becomes a disease and a curse when some person or group demands and enforces his or her TINY ARBITRARY view of all-that-is on everybody else. Granted, there has been no shortage of that throughout human history. And, THAT is part of why Scientology is such a mess. My own personal subjectivity includes a high tolerance for the wide variety of subjectivity of others. A decent "spiritual practice" would do the same. Many don't, including Scientology, and manifest a severe lack of tolerance for differing views. Possible humanity will finally grow up, as a species, when it comes to recognize this about subjectivity, and when human beings each manifest such "knowledge" in routine dealings with all others. And, possibly not . . . .
