post #26 regarding "subjective" vs "objective"
Honestly, I don't use 'objective/subjective'. I have seen how often those terms are used in the 16t as well as in regular life, and I've yet to figure out what a person actually means when they are using the term.
I am also of the mind that, in essence, all information is subjective at heart, meaning that no matter how 'objective' we think the information is...in order to make sense of it it still has to pass through our own brain..it still has to be interpreted and/or experienced. Now, a computer may obtain data. But the moment it gets put into our hands, and we read the data, it's the individual who has to interpret it into himself and process it in himself. No matter how 'objective' he may think he is, he is still human and thus subject to the limitations of being human.
There is, however, a perception of being objective. This is the perception of being detached from our processing/interpreting of the information. It is also often combined with the external. For example, we can both be looking at the elephant, and talking about. But it's still MY senses and MY experiences that I'm drawing from to come up with the words I'm using to represent what I'm seeing of the elephant. Just as in order for you to make sense of it, you have to draw from your own senses/experiences. For example, I start talking about the trunk and that the trunk is spraying water onto the baby elephant. You'll use your senses to either see the trunk yourself...or what you remember about an elephant's trunk, as well as senses/memory to access "baby elephant" and "water" and "water spraying out of trunk" and "water spraying onto baby elephant". During our discussion we perceive ourselves as talking about something 'objective', yet we are still having to access data
from our own minds/experience to decode and encode the information.
As for the object/field thing where in one definition field is defined as being 'through the subject', and right next to it field is defined as the link between objects (without necessarily being through the subject), it's easy to get confused. But when you look at "object" as a "node" and "field" as a "link" then it makes more sense that we can discuss nodes and the links between nodes without necessarily being the other node.
* = node; Xe
-- = link; Xi
The subjective interpretation says that *--*Me (the node is connected to me). That if I deal with a node, then I must necessarily be the other node to which it is being linked to.
The other interpretation says that *--* (the node is connected to another node) That I can deal with two nodes, and the links between them, without myself necessarily being that other node.
In my experience, and I'm sure yours as well, I am fully capable of talking about *dog--runs after--*cat, without having to reference myself at all. I can however say *I--see--*(*dog--runs after--*cat). In this example 'dog runs after cat' is a node, and I also am a node.
In english, we have two kinds of sentences that technically mean the same thing...but one is perceived as being 'subjective' and the other as 'objective' just because a certain phrase was dropped off.
Example situation: Two people are watching a dog running after a cat.
"subjective" statement: I see the dog running after the cat.
"objective" statement: The dog is running after the cat.
Is one somehow more truthful than the other? No.
All that happened was that one 'dropped' himself as a node when he communicated his experience of seeing a dog running after a cat. The other kept himself as a node.
I think that some languages make more usage out of specifying the "I see" part. Where in almost every sentence there is an implied (if not flat out stated) portion that says that whatever is being stated is being stated as perceived by the speaker. I don't know if Russia is one of those languages or not.
In usamerican schools, we are often taught to drop ourselves as a node, (so we can become 'more objective').
I don't know if this is done in other countries, nor do I know if Russia does this.
On the other hand, I guess we can also be perceived as the link between two nodes. If this is the case, however, every type is Subjective
since every single type deals with links between nodes. Which only serves to prove part of my previous point . . . as humans, with the limitations of human beings, we are all subjective when we process information.