Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00459)

On Tue, 14 Jan 97, be94bmp wrote:

>Bart:

>>Once again, what is the difference between the objective and the >>subjective?

>In my view, the objective is illusion,based upon the creation of the idea by
>the soul to enter the physical plane to gain experience of "death". The idea
>sent forth an impulse to create a myriad of forms in order to satisfy the
>soul that he had experienced the form aspect of Life. The subjective can
>either be real or illusion. It would be illusion if the subjective object
>was formed from the divine impulse which generates "form", but it would be
>real if the object was not of substance at all, wouldn't it? 
>So, the "objective" and "subjective" universes are illusions because they are
>based on an idea, but that which "generated" the idea is not.Perhaps, the
>spirit/matter aspect of all forms is also an illusion, but that which ties
>the threads together, so to speak, is real.   
>
>Love and Light
>Ben  
>

What I find interesting in the relationship between the objective and the
subjective is that the impossibility of demonstrating that one can exist
without the other is obvious.  If there was anything purely objective, no
one could know about it, since knowing requires a subject.  And neither can
a subject be observed without becoming an object.  I wonder if
self-awareness is the identity of subject and object, or if such identity
is impossible and that it is only different aspects of a self which can
observe each other.  

Fact and opinion relate to each other in the same way.  They are on the
same continuum, and it is only the degree to which a perception is
objective or subjective that determines whether it is fact or opinion.
There is some uncertainty about the most obvious facts, and there is some
truth in the most whimsical opinions.  The idea that there is nothing that
is not both subjective and objective is consistent with the idea that
consciousness is all-pervasive.