Rand, Perception, Reality

Reality is tightly coupled to perception, so agreeing to one person’s reality is either agreeing to: a) A concept of stated reality in which one’s own reality is projected onto the essence of another. b) A willing override of one’s own reality to accept someone else’s perception.

Seldom would it be, imo, that two people would come to the same existence of reality at the same time and share it with enough definition of existence to be considered objective even for them alone, thus defeating the essence of objectivity at all.

Words themselves are often poor symbolic measures we use to display, represent or confer a sentiment or idea. With each word some dichotomous things happen, we come closer to an understanding but at the same time we lose definition behind the sentiment. Words and definitions are parts of the consciousness not only influenced by the subconscious (or nonconscious) but memory and emotion themselves. Emotion & memory are not only finicky, but deeply individual. This can be easily illustrated by bringing in words like love, martyr and selfishness. Not only are these definitions inherently different to each individual, but necessarily different in scope and sentiment.

When I say martyr you may get a visceral sentiment of an idea I want, perhaps this is more accurate and less precise, let me then bring up the example of Jesus, well this also depending on your background, ideology, current teaching and self will may also be more accurate and less precise, or perhaps the opposite. Who is to say with enough definition to be certain, when the necessary instrument of communication is affected (and sometimes hampered) by a framework that has an uncertain limit or influence?

Someone who compares Jesus’ sacrifice can in no way hope to truly understand what that means in someone else’s brain. We may come close to a certain degree, but the vast seperation in sentiment and thought will always be there as long as words themselves are imperfect symbols based on developed & developing archetypes from our experience. Indeed we would also have to separate perceived intent of the receiver to even come close. Not to mention the unknown and often inexplicable forces at work through us because of our nonconscious.

There is a certain degree of understanding we can agree to, but to define it as objective is beyond our current perception. Until we can defeat the inchoate nature of emotions, understand the obfuscated methods of delivery of memories, conquer the seemingly immutable precipice of symbolism in language and integrate intent, we shall never truly be objective.