What is an object’s location, without a subject?
Without a subject, what is the size, or present state of any object?
An object without a subject cannot be pointed at, so where is it?
Subjectivity places an object in time, because without a subject: “when is an object?”
I am the subject of my own experience. What I experience is limited to the point of view that I inhabit. The so called “objective world” is said to be the ground of existence from which I, the subject have emerged. But what is the order of existence without the sequential perception of a subject?
Imagine existence without a subject to observe it. I can’t do that, can you?
Just imagining no subject requires using my perspective and my subjectivity to first imagine a universe. But what I am asking for is a universe from no subjective point of view, not seen on a human scale, or any scale, for scale is subjective – I must be a certain size, in order to judge scale, when I talk about micro, or macro, I mean this from the perspective of my scale.
An objective view is actually a generic type of subjective view, which is to say, that there must always be a subject when and where there is an object. An object without a subject, would have no location, because location is determined based on subject perspective, so if I do not use the perspective of a person to determine a location, then what do I choose?
Do I call the universe large based only on my size, surely that is not an objective statement.
This cup, on this table, is actually only on this table and, not on the moon, based on subjective scale, if I zoom out to Andromeda, the difference between the distance from the atoms of the cup and the table and those of the cup and the moon become relatively negligible.
Without my subjective sense of this particular moment in time, what criterion do I use to select from all moments in all time? Without the subjective bias towards a particular moment, and sequence of events, the cup might as well be dust in space, or mud in the earth, in a cafe, or in a landfill, or it might be distributed all over the universe after a supernova, or contained in a singularity before the big bang. Each of these locations is measured from the bias of a subject, that tethers it to a relative point of view.
The problem of believing in objectivity is that it implies some kind of truth independent of subjective bias, some kind of stand alone fact, and test-ability, and when I say independent, I mean, not dependent on a subject.
All objects are properties and features of subjects. Of course there are facts, but not objective facts that exist independent of subjective perspective, because what we call objectivity, is just a generalized subjectivity.
The size, shape and location of the cup in front of me are features of my size, shape and location. As I subjectively change, so, the cup changes too, if my perspective goes down to the quantum scale, the cup behaves very differently, but consistently with my perspective. It is only strange when I compare how it behaves on a quantum scale to how it behaves from my non-quantum perspective.
If I try to map the location of the cup, but I do not have a subjective location from which to map it, at any objective point in space, it may or may not exist. Only subjectivity provides material certainty. Objects without subjects have no identifiable size, location, or moment in time, because all these are given by subjectivity, yes time itself a property of subjectivity.
If I speed up time to a non human time scale, then the cup comes and goes too fast to register in the history of the universe. It is subjectivity that gives linearity to time, without a subject events have no particular sequence. The arrow of time moves along a subjective sequence of subjective moments.
If I look at a star from near by and form far away, what I think of as a star will be different. The subjective perspective is so powerful that it produces two very different realities, in one I can test “objectively” that there is a star there, in the other, I can also test that there is no actual star there at all. If there were such as thing as an objective reality, how can it be both one where an object is there and also not there?
So, if I am far enough away from a planet, and because the expanding universe keeps it moving away from me, I can be moving away from this planet at the speed of the light I use to see it, then I can look at it in the same state, like its is frozen in time. If the earth were seen this way, airplanes or dinosaurs would not move, and because velocity does not apply in general relativity, if my perspective is far enough away, I can go faster than the speed of light away from things that are expanding far enough away from me, so I will see distant events move backwards. What then is perspective, if it can alter time itself?
What can be called “objective” if there is a subjective perspective on that objective reality, from which it does not exist yet, or no longer exists, or will always exist, or is all in one place, such as before the big bang (or collapsed from every point of view,) or is distributed into a soup of everything when the universe has expanded it apart, into everything else that has been expanded apart?
Any division between the subject and the object is unreal. The false idolatry of an objective world that is “out there” without any subject is simplistic, comforting and wrong. What is stable and continuous about reality, once we remove the continuity of the subjective perspective?
There is no object without a subject, nor is there anything objective that can be described, observed, tested, measured, or conceived of without a someone to do it. Of the world around us, we intuitively know, that what we observe, “material reality,” is as much a part of who we are, as the observer, the processor, the perceiver of that reality, as we are participants in its material identity. Objects are there because we are here.
People objectify the arbitrary, and our perspective on material reality makes it objective. What is material without people? Without someone looking down a microscope, what are particles? The largest whole and smallest component parts of all material reality exist as extensions of the existences of people. What a person is, extends beyond their body, like a cloud of time and space it extends and thins out from each of us into all existence.
A person is always alive giving perspective and scale to their specific place, but matter without a subjective point of view cannot be pointed at, so its position is as uncertain, like a quantum particle, it is and maybe it also is not, and the changes it goes through are not really changes, because change requires a subjective perspective that imposes sequence, remembering what it was to contrast with another perspective that observes what it is now.
Matter is only what it is instantiated in the subjective now, while I am here with it, it is not what it was, or what it is when I am not, or where no one is.
Subjects place eternal objects in sequential instances. It is not the objective world but the subjective perspective that gives concrete location and scale to objects, order to moments, location to places, that retrieves actuality from the databases of infinite possibility, and information out of the dark seas of uncertainty.