Saturday, 6 September 2014
Written by Mathew Naismith
I had an interesting discussion with a bloke in relation to my last post titled, Subjective and Objective Analysis, it seems I didn’t explain myself too well. The post wasn’t about being anti-subjective thinking, which is analysing through feelings, but balancing out our subjective analysis when we have distaste for something we are analysing. To me the world at present is a good example of how subjective analysis of each other is distorting our reality making it more volatile, all I am saying is in this situation, we need to use more objective analysis to balance out our over emotional reactions. Hopefully the following will elaborate on this a little further starting off with this blokes queries of my last post in question.
I do not believe we disagree on the general thrust of your claims. I take issue solely with one claim: the imaginary possibility of objectivity as a perspective from which we may safely acquire knowledge. There is no other perspective than the one into which we are thrown. Mood or emotion is part of our experience, as it is with our memory. It may no more be extracted and preserve the original experience than we may detach ourselves from our bodies and imagine that experience is possible without them (dreams, perhpas, although they will still reference the body and the physical sphere). That emotions can cloud our judgment or distort what we are seeing is not being denied. What is denied is that we can (or should) be without emotion in the appropriation of experience that becomes knowledge. We achieve critical distance from our emotions and biases by re-examination of our experiences and by making conscious that lens by which we came to understand this or that experience.
It sounds like a claim doesn't it, it's just a generalization brought about by my own observation.
I don't think we are disagreeing as a whole, we just don’t see each other’s perspectives on this matter that is all.
Emotions are a part of how we learn, there is no doubt to that however, what the post is about is analysing something we are anti to, if we are analysing anything we have distaste for, what I’m am stating is subjective analysis will distort our feeling even more where’s objective analysis will balance out such feelings. We don’t need to add more fire to the fire for the fire to burn, it’s burning quite well on it’s own, the world at present, with it’s subjective analysing, is to me quite clearly showing how subjective thought is emotionally distorting reality.
Subjective analysis is about analysing a wrong or right, black and white, if we are too emotional when we analyse in this way, we will over exemplify what actually is. Yes, in a situation where we are not showing distaste, subjective analysis works fine but what I am saying, if we are showing distaste to something we are analysing we will distort reality, the truth. As soon as we show distaste, we quite automatically use subjective analysis instead of objective analysis, in my mind we need to be more aware of this.
I’m not anti-subjective thinking but the post is about subjective and objective analysis when in distaste of anything we analyse.
The funny thing is, spirituality takes away the black and white judgment of subjective analysing when using subjective analysis, this in turn gives us more of balance between subjective and objective thought however, I might not be totally correct in this analysis but I think I’m close to it. Being spiritually aware, feelings become a major part of our lives and that is what we analyse through however in this case because we are spiritually aware and non-judgemental, the black and white are not judged as being opposite to each other or opposing each other. Because we are not judging, we are less likely to be influenced by our over exemplified emotions allowing us to be as objective as we are subjective within our analysis giving us balance.
There is also big difference between emotions and feelings when spiritually aware; we actually become less emotional even though at times it seems to be the other way around. What we feel makes us emotional but the feelings themselves aren’t emotional, they create emotions within us through us opening to such inner feelings but these feelings aren’t themselves emotional. How do we become less emotional? We end up taking these feelings within our stride, in other words we become less emotional about these feelings the more they become the norm. Don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t take away the feelings we get and in actual fact the more the normal these feelings are to us the more we will feel.
It is quite interesting observing how spiritualty quite automatically balances out the way we subjectively and objectively analyse, this kind of mentality dispels fanatical thinking, a thought process that over exemplifies it’s opposites causing further chaos. We no longer see extremes but a reality of similarities brought about by our inner feelings that are no longer emotionally controlled or choke by such emotions, we become balanced with our truer selves. There is no longer a struggle between the push and pull effect, subjective objective analysis.
Yes I could be incorrect with this analysis however I could also be correct, each to their own perspective.
Supplement: My Reply
This is why I concurred with what was written in the link supplied that referred to the psychological aspects of this, instead of just analysing through objective analysis, they need to also analyse through subjective analysis. This is turn balances out the analysis between objective and subjective thought giving us a better evaluation.
What you seem to be saying is you deny such equivocation exist, there is no separation between subjective and objective thought, this is true to an extent. To us this separation exists, that is true, however in true reality this separation doesn’t exist, but we don’t exist in a true reality as per se.
To un-separate such mentalities, we need to give balance back into our thinking by using both subjective and objective analysis at the same time as stipulated in the article on psychologists abandoning the subjective—objective divide.
The reason I stated that subjective analysis is about a wrong and right, black and white is it’s about judgment and separation of supposed opposites giving us a more emotional response. What I am saying is we don’t need to be any more emotional when we are analysing anything we have a disdain for and gives us more separation. What I am also saying is objective analysis gives us the balance we need in this case.
I agree with you, there is no true separation between objective and subjective analysis however at present, we are living as if there is, that is what I’m working with at present. It is easy for people like you and I to see this but is it that simple for others to see this without bringing in balance between subjective and objective analysis? The answer is no, we could tell them there is no separation but is this alone going to change their mentality? They need to become aware of living in balance between objective and subjective analysis before they will realise there is no separation between these two modes of thought.
Friday, 5 September 2014
Written by Mathew Naismith
Extract: Objective analysis
“The testing procedure that attempts to eliminate emotion and feeling, and analyze facts and quantitative comparisons among subjects.”
Extract: Subjective analysis
“Testing that attempts to measure the otherwise unquantifiable. These tests would analyze likes, dislikes, and otherwise subjective intangibles.”
Can religious/spiritual people, who are anti-science and fixated to their principles, question and/or judge science principles unbiasedly and objectively? I would think the answer would be no.
Can anyone in the science community, who are anti-religion/spirituality and fixated to their principles, question and/or judge science principles unbiasedly and objectively? Again the answer would be no.
The reason for this is anyone who is anti-anything they are analysing, will only analyse through subjective reasoning, not objective reasoning, which of course will only give us a bias/subjective evaluation not a true evaluation. A religious/spiritual person who is anti-science will evaluate science and the science community using subjective analysis giving us a bias evolution not a true evolution. This is of course the same with science minded people who are anti-religion/spirituality; their analysis is governed by subjective analysis which is more emotional than objective analysis. As soon as you bring emotions into the equation, any final evaluation is likely to be flawed even though we have supported our claims with evidence. This is due to being subjective instead of objective within our analysis of anything we are anti to, due to our emotions.
If we subjectively analyse anything we are anti to, we will only find evidence to support our emotions, we will not look for any evidence to support anything we are anti to, but if we do, we will discard or ignore such evidence due to our emotions. As soon as a person who is of an ideological principle we are anti to points out evidence to support their claims, we will ignore or discard any such evidence of being of evidence, this is again due to the way we subjectively analyse.
What this is saying is try to be more of an objective analyser than a subjective analyser unless we don’t want a correct evolution of course, but a bias evolution that supports our dislikes. A correct evaluation can only be sought through objective non-emotional analysis, once we bring in such emotions; our final analysis is liable to be incorrect and bias.
The strange thing is the bellow article, on subjective and objective analysis in psychiatry, tells us that psychologists needs to bring this divide between subjective and objective analysis together to give us a truer evaluation which I totally concur with. So should we be using both subjective and objective analysis together as equal partners to give us a more precise evaluation? I would agree with this however if whatever we are evaluating we are anti to, any kind of subjective analysis isn’t going to give us a true evaluation, this is due to our subjective emotions. If we are evaluating anything we are anti to, we must be totally objective within our evaluations otherwise we won’t get a true precise evolution, it will be bias and untrue.
“In the mental state examination, a standard method of describing the clinical encounter is to contrast the patient's supposedly ‘subjective’ account with the doctor's ‘objective’ description. In this model, the doctor is granted a privileged position: the clinician's perspective is taken to be superior to that of the patient. The doctor's objective approach is considered neutral, scientific and representing the truth of the matter. In contrast, the patient's subjective report is regarded as unreliable, distorted and potentially false. The lowly status of the subjective perspective is further emphasised by the frequent use of the accompanying prefix, merely.”
So in all the use of subjective and objective analysis’s at the same time gives us a more balanced view however, we must at times realise the ideological principles we are anti to, we are likely to be subjective within our analysis, therefore there is a need to be more objective within our analysis in these cases rather than just being subjective. It all comes down to being more aware when we evaluate everything within our environment.