The Objective Subject, the Villain of All-knowing

Introduction

(1:1) The apex epistemological question for every knowledge epoch is – what is the first primordial posited subject? In today’s knowledge, subject has been speciously and perniciously posited as an objective subject thereby confining epistemology within its principality (by the ‘Villain of All-knowing‘). This consequently gives rise to and validity to epoch appointment, a time period where knowledge was in-and-of this/a type; namely a Knowledge epoch. This article serves as an exposé of this Knowledge epochs objective subject and argues for its categorisation by-and-of this objective subject type thereof; clearing the way for alternate knowledge, in virtue of a truer knowledge.

(1:2) This articles position is pointedly not to show what subject is and in doing so, point-in-fact duplicitously articulate and decree another specious Objective Subject. With due respect, many splendid philosophers of the past have audaciously attempted such colossal endeavour and have produced only, pointedly only, a fable or disseration perhaps pointing in the pragmatic direction of subject but posit only, yet another, insufficient/inadequate Objective Subject. It does not go without saying, this has merit yes indeed. The works of Hume, Hegel, Descartes, and many other brilliant philosophers romance with the splendours of the epistemological primordial of subject though indeed fail to consecrate it; what a courageous failure of mental gallantry, ergo one of philosophical nobility indeed. When pondering such works, perhaps an intuition of the works’ precedes premonices the reader via seemingly pointing to a general direction of the infinite subject and thus irrefutably validates its esoteric utility. However, it is only another allegory which in-and-of-itself is ‘coalescent verbiage’ of the infinite subject; which point-in-fact; is no-more-or-less ‘longwinded Objective Subject’, another Objective Subject posit infinitely short of the truest subject…This articles purpose is not to refute such fable, simply and pointedly just to recognise it for what it is, Objective Subject allegory, ultimately clearing way for a truer truth.

(1:3) Incontestably, the ad-infinitum challenge to all philosophers is to represent the infinite subject in finite words, to present the subject chronologically in, finite; to ‘square the circle’… the challenge of all philosophical challenges indeed..

squaring a circle’ in 4 words literally, figuratively and metaphorically
(from the article Words rape Infinity)
squaring a circle’ in 20 words literally, figuratively and metaphorically
(from the article Words rape Infinity)

(1:4) This article serves not as – another – bold longwinded fable of ‘subject allegory’; ‘Objective Subject profession’. This articles purpose is to exhibit that all ‘infinite subject articulation’ is just and-only-just another deficient Objective Subject. Further it shows that Objective Subject is the genesis of a knowledge species; and, an entire knowledge species is an Objective Subject per se, a knowledge type denominated by its first primordial Objective Subject, of subject (All-knowing). Finally, it shows anointment of an ‘Objective Subject Knowledge species’ is philosophically futile where anointment is willed post ones recognition or; unwilled as a consequence of one void of recognition, pointedly recognition of one’s knowledge’s genesis, one’s knowledges Objective Subject.

If this article serves its purpose well; philosophers should be able to:

a. recognise infinite subject articulation as just and-only-just a deficient finite profession of the infinite subject; an Objective Subject

b. join the liberation of philosophy from this knowledge epochs ‘Objective Subject ceiling’. Escape the penitentiary of warden ‘the Villain of All-knowing’ who robbed from the infinite subject and speciously supplanted a finite Objective Subject in its throne…

c. ponder new Objective Subjects, contemplate new knowledge genesis’ in all their splendour. Juxtapose, contemplate and play with new knowledge types and consequently birth truer knowledge, liberated from ‘the subjugation of’ an – epoch defining – ordained Objective Subject and the ‘thought penitentiary’ of its bequeathed categorical Knowledge…

(1:5) The article consists of two Thought Experiments that unquestionably expose and ensnare this epochs Objective Subject tot he reader. Followed by Discussion and Implications section and then a Conclusion. Like illustrating a circle, the reader should refrain from conclusion until the reader reaches its end and perhaps retrace it again to embolden your understanding.

Thought Experiment Zero – The Pro-centric Thought Experiment and the Introduction of the mind/Mind Problem

(2:1) The thought experiments of all thought experiments termed the Pro-centric Thought Experiment eliciting contemplation and subsequent revelation of the Objective Subject fallacy is as follows:

  1. The object/subject is a continuum of contraries, agree? 
  2. Tell me, what is the principle object/subject continuum denominated in?

(2:2) In today’s knowledge epoch, wikipedia posits the subject (in philosophy) “is a being who has a unique consciousness, and/or unique personal experiences, or an entity that has a relationship with another entity that exists outside itself

(2:3) Applying the above thought experiment to this definition one recognises that this is pointedly not the superlative infinite subject, this is a – proceeding – object of the – preceding – ‘infinite subject’; that is the/an Objective Subject. This is the object Son of the subject Father. This is object denomination in/from the infinite subject; that this knowledge epoch has erroneously posited as the subject; perhaps more rightly termed the ‘bastard subject’ if you will. 

(2:4) All bold words in the above wikipedia (subject wikipedia) definition are unequivocally recognisably objects (or implicit object modifiers) of the infinite subject. This inadequate definition should be blatant and subsequently viewed as dubious, likened to the futility of using finite numbers to define infinity; infinitely inadequate in-truth. Left unchecked (un-philosophised or void of knowing), infinity has ‘fallen-to’/’adulterated-to’ a finite posit and that very said finite, in todays – knowledge epochs – case is subject (philosophy) wikipedia.

(2:5) The divine subject has been usurped by the ‘Objective Subject Villain’ (subject wikipedia) and has proceeded in germinating orthodoxical knowledge (indeed orthodox can be applied to knowledge in light of this). I have termed the above, philosophy’s first problem, The mind/Mind Problem. A speciously solved mind/Mind* Problem is the preference/posit ‘Mind’ (or appellationsBeing”, “Person”, “Consciousness”…) and clandestinely assumes an epoch’s primordial origin of epistemology, it’s ‘kernel’, it’s ‘Super Axiom’, and all proceeding dendritic knowledge is of its species and fashions it’s gene, it is denominated in, it sports the radical, a knowledge-kind of type Objective Subject if you will…

*Semantical/appelational alternatives for nomenclature mind/Mind perhaps more recognisable to the reader where capitalisation is intended – subject/Subject, i/I, self/Self, conciousness/Conciousness, one/One, brain/Brain, singularity/Singularity, universe/Universe, god/God respectively, to name a few…

(2:6) The choice of name “mind/Mind” is elected on the grounds of what is ultimately the most fundamental of today’s and indeed all knowledge beginnings/origins. Of essence evident in this knowledge epoch, all arguments, criterion and even words sport relativity of and from Mind (an assumed solved mind/Mind Problem). Where specifically, mind is the infinite subject mind and Mind is an object of said subject mind, an ‘object de subject’ or the villainous Objective Subject if you will…Yes a colossal admission where the readers understanding is (…and will be) as arduous as explaining water to a fish…but the process is worth its transcendental reward.

“fish truely flees essence of fish if it has knowledge of water”…somanywhys.com

(2:7) The mind/Mind Problem is ad-infinitum philosophies principle problem; inarguably preceding the Mind/Body problem and; inarguably preceding today’s Hard problem of Consciousness (ref: wikipedia)…(yes indeed). In the article, one need go no further than:

(2:8) “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness” (1995), Chalmers wrote:[ref]

“It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience…presupposes a solved mind/Mind Problem, an Objective Subject Mind. The bolded words are of this epochs type Objective Subject (subject wikipedia) – overtly.

(2:9) When an epoch ceases it’s Objective Subject contemplation, the said epoch per se is ‘germinated’ of its Objective Subject ‘seed’, its profession. This Thought Experiment and article should entrap and parade todays Objective Subject for all philosophers to recognise. Presenting, the subject (ref: wikipedia), todays knowledge epochs Objective Subject, fashioning a solved mind/Mind Problem, Mind.

Thought Experiment One – Exposition of the Fallacy of today’s Truth Validation

(from the article What is Reality – somanywhys.com)

(3:1) A supporting thought experiment exposing the Fallacy of this knowledge epoch’s Truth Validation. It also reveals the necessity for an epochs Objective Subject to denominate it’s – orthodox – knowledge to which the epoch self-validates as truth. Essentially, this thought experiment will reveal to you the reader, what you have hitherto assumed as unequivocal truth is a-lessor-truth or indeed a falsity.

STEP:

  1. In the ‘real world’, you point to a goat and say “that is Goat”. 

Case 1

  • You validate this with/by 10 other conscious persons or subjects (subject wikipedia). Lets call them Validators.
  1. Now repeat the same however, you imagine the scenario. 

Case 2

  • We are safe to posit that you (the imaginer) determine the validation choice of each Validator. 
  • Also, by the wikipedia definition of a person or subject (subject wikipedia), your imagined persons or subjects are not real.
  1. Ask yourself, which case is more valid? By/from the wikipedia definition of person or subject (subject wikipedia), one will conclude Case 1 unequivocally right? Specifically, on the grounds of:
    • Case 1 is what is known as ‘real’. Case 2 is what is known as imagined
    • Case 1’s validators are Real people/subjects (subject wikipedia) independent of me
    • Case 2’s validators are imagined people/subjects controlled by me (my imagination) and, are not Real people/subjects (subject wikipedia).
  1. Ask yourself, how can one validate that ‘the real’ case in Case 1 is not imagined like Case 2? Consider this as a case and let’s term it Case 3.

Case 3

  • In this case, you in Case 1, are being imagined by an imaginer…where this can be repeated/cascaded so forth and so on

(3:2) Ask yourself, can one unequivocally state that truth is no more valid in Case 1, Case 2 or Case 3? The greater truth is an answer of “yes” to this question.

(3:3) Contemporary thought, this knowledge epoch explicitly and thus erroneously states that truth exclusively resides in Case 1, termed the “Real World”. Further this knowledge epoch self-validates/appellates truth as ‘Real’… proven by this simple thought experiment to be no-more-or-less truth proclivity or truth cheerleading (who’s followers will expectedly cry blasphemy!!…) What we can safely state is that this posit is indeed, a lesser truth in light of the above experiment and to state otherwise is willed ignorance.

Implications – i.e. What does this mean?

(4:1) Truth is not explicitly stated here though a higher truth can be unveiled by pointing/recognising a lesser-truth…as follows: 

Preceding this epochs “Objective Subject Villain” person/subject (subject wikipedia),

  1. Person/Subject/Mind/Consciousness (subject wikipedia) are un-incorporated, are undefined and are undefinable
  2. Person/Subject/Mind/Consciousness are not epistemological Super Axioms or the truest epistemological primordial gene

(4:2) and, the implications are:

  • There is no provable difference between the ‘Real’ and the Imagined world
  • there is no truer independent (…see article INDEPENDENT) validation of truth
  • Truth in the ‘Real World’ is no-more-or-less a belief than truth in the imagined world. To state otherwise is no-more-or-less ‘Objective-Subject-denominated-knowledge cheerleading’ – period.
  • The truest definition of subject, precedes the Objective Subject being posited on wikipedia (subject – wikipedia) and can only be ‘the inexplicable’ and can thus only be become to; let’s name it the ‘all knowing’ if you will…this is specifically not a decree of knowledge despair no; perhaps likened to that of a skeptic with criterion nothing is knowledge no . This is simply a call for ‘explicit Objective Subject denominated Knowledgerecognition in virtue and clearing way for truer un-proclivous knowledge that is, other Objective Subject denominate Knowledge.

“a wrench can be useful but is not, the entire garage…and…other wrenches do exist”…somanywhys.com

Discussion

“When a knowledge epochs subject is an ‘Objective Subject play’, an epochs subject admission bastardises away…” – sonmanywhys.com

(5:1) The Objective Subject is ‘Objective Subject-pro-centric’ (from anthropocentric) origin in all 3 cases. In all 3 cases, the ‘Imaginer’ is the pro-centric indeterminate and ‘the Imaginer’s‘ genera (imagined) are determined (relative to the Imaginer). 

(5:2) All 3 cases are no-more-or-less truth. Determinism/indeterminism in all cases cannot be validated, the mind/Mind problem in all 3 cases cannot be validated – period. What we can unequivocally state as truth – however – is that not truth or a lesser truth is deriving truth explicitly from within one of the cases. And, this fallacy can only befall if ‘the Imaginer’ and all ‘validators’, that is all people in the Imaginer’s – non-imagined – world believe in an adulterated finite subject, an Objective Subject. A staggering truth indeed!

The biblical phrase “god created man in his own image” (Genesis 1:27) could perhaps be more aptly interpreted as, “man created man in his own image-ination”… somanywhys.com

I think therefore I am…simplified

(6:1) A slight – though this author feels necessary – bonus digression. The mind/Mind Problem’s utility is no-better on display in simplifying one of this knowledge epochs principles, Descartes’ ” I think therefore I am”. This accepted primordial philosophical principle can be transposed to “mind thinks therefore Mind (is)” . Application of the mind/Mind Problem here shows that the infinite subject mind becomes an Objective Subject Mind via the mind mode thought or the thought mode mind (a splendid paradox indeed). Where, thought (knowing) and mind (preceding Mind; in the realm of the infinite subject) are yes dichotomies in/of finite object though in-and-of-the-same in infiniteun-criterioned‘ subject; that is having resident essence of nothing-more-then the same; a false dichotomy if you will. Therefore further simplification applied, “mind thinks therefore Mind (is)” becomes “mind therefore Mind” (or “thought therefore Mind”) to which clarifies the finite Objective Subject Mind is no-more-or-less a belief, a choice, a will of the infinite mind/thought subject… or concordantly and romantically vice-versa. In all it’s finality, the mind/Mind Problem.

“I think therefore I am” simplified using the mind/Mind Problem becomes “mind therefore Mind”…somanywhys.com

Conclusion

(7:1) All philosophers citing Wikipedia’s subject (subject wikipedia), and it’s supporting criterion, recognise now that this is an, and-will-always-be an, Objective Subject – period. An object of the infinite subject. Further, this (subject wikipedia) citations’ produce, it’s generations is a Knowledge species defined/indexed/denominated in/of the gene, let’s title the Wikipedia Subject (subject wikipedia). A Knowledge type proceeding the mind/Mind Problem with offspring sporting the knowledge radical, Mind.

(7:2) From the mind/Mind Problem, today’s knowledge epoch has chosen (willingly or unwillingly) to dispense truth from the Objective Subject Mind side of the mind/Mind problem, perhaps put Mind/mind or chronologically principally put “Mind therefore”. Conversely, an epoch that recognises the precedes of Mind dispense truth from the infinite subject mind, perhaps put mind/Mind or chronologically principally put “mind therefore”. Verily, we can state that choosing either as a primordial genesis Objective Subject for knowledge is ok, if-and-only-if one recognises this as choice, and its assertive knowledge produce. Otherwise, the Villain of All-knowing will has chosen one…

(7:3) All knowledge proceeding a solved mind/Mind Problem can be pragmatically stated as a lesser truth, post recognition of the mind/Mind Problem and it’s precedes. Perhaps handy, like a wrench, but not anoint-able, not infallible, not the pernicious ‘fact’, not explicit, but just another, knowledge species.

Just another species, indexed by an epochs audaciously decreed Objective Subject, to be placed on the “Cabinet of the ‘Canon of Subject’ “… not to be venerated; ‘out of reach’ of ‘fact coronation'”...somanywhys.com

(7:4) All knowledge proceeding a solved mind/Mind Problem is Objective-Subject-pro-centric, where the Objective-Subject is the Super Axiom, the gene forming a knowledge generation/species, a knowledge-kind. This (today’s) knowledge generation can be constituted as/a doctrine, a knowledge epoch by/of its Super Axiomatic constituent (criterion) the Objective Subject decreed in the wikipedia article (subject wikipedia), the Mind side of the mind/Mind Problem. Philosophers short of this recognition are unequivocally indoctrinated or are ‘indoctrinates’ of this knowledge epochs principality, the Objective Subject (subject wikipedia) Mind.

(7:5) Pondering on the precedes of the mind/Mind Problem, one is in the truer realm of the infinite subject. Throughout eastern/western philosophy/theosophy/theology this ‘realm’ has fashioned titles Ain, Ain Sof, Elohim, Monism, Non-Duality, Dark Matter, the One, the indivisible or individual Brahman/Adi Parashakti, the Uncaused Causer, Parabrahm, god, Ahura Mazda, Awareness, Consciousness, Buddha Within or Anatman, Nothingness, the cause (the precedes) of Quantum Fluctuations, Christos Consciousness and so on…All are ‘anthropocentric personifications’ if you will or ‘somewhat recognisable expressions’ of the precedes of the mind/Mind Problem, the infinite or realm thereof, the truer subject. However, whilst ever these titles are titles per se, they serve as a coalescent pointer to/of the ‘inexplicable un-coalescable subject’, they will ad-infinitumly always be shortcoming. Pointedly, the moment one or an epoch shifts such ‘subject pointers’ from belief-type shortcoming to belief-type ‘fact’, the infinite subject ‘anthropocentrically falls to‘ the Objective Subject…again…

this epochs primordial Objective Subject, Mind

(7:6) Whilst ever we fail to recognise the mind/Mind Problem, today’s knowledge will not be recognised as an epoch; as a kind and remain in the mind/Mind Problems ‘Mind expliciticity. What’s more, the Objective Subject Mind will evermore impel our egos for more Objective Subject Mind productions/generations/germinations calcifying a truer subject in shrouds of ‘Objective Subject Mind righteousness’. Deployment and appointments of the knowledge certainty type “fact”, prefixing “smart” to names of knowledge, the foregone conclusion of intelligence to then be artificial of (AI), arrogantly denominating in consciousness (e.g. sub-conscious) prior to conscious being understood per se, are all evidence ‘Objective Subject Mind righteousness’ or plainly, self-righteousness. The prevalence of such names should serve as mere metrics, as indicators of the presence of the Villain of All-knowing rife within a knowledge epoch.

I want to know what self is to be (suffix) -ish of“…somanywhys.com

it is a counterproductive journey to the source under the charter of ego“…somanywhys.com

(7:7) The question to the reader is – Are you willing to recognise subject? Or are you part of producing proceeds, the ‘culture‘ of an Objective Subject?…are you subjugated to the Villain of All-knowing? 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s