In the previous posts, I asked whether questions or observations can create reality, or whether they instead form an intersection where reality appears.
I now want to sharpen the issue.
Many discussions seem to assume that there is a fully formed, objective structure of reality “out there,” and observation merely reveals it.
But what if objectivity itself is not prior to observation, and instead emerges through repeated, shared intersections of perspectives?
In that case, observation would not be a causal force, nor a passive recording device, but a stabilizing process.
My question is simple but uncomfortable:
Can we meaningfully talk about a “purely objective structure” without already presupposing a standpoint from which it is identified as such?
I’m curious where others locate objectivity: before observation, after it, or nowhere at all.
If objectivity requires the removal of all standpoints, who or what is left to recognize it as “objective”?
The issue, then, is not whether material reality pushes back — I think it clearly does — but whether objectivity should be understood as something that exists fully formed prior to practice, or rather as something that emerges and stabilizes through practice itself.
What led me to take this question seriously was reading a paper that attempts to support precisely this kind of view not at the level of philosophy alone, but through scientific experimentation.
The way it approaches the relationship between observers and physical systems — not in terms of simple causation, but in terms of intersection and stabilization — had a strong impact on me.
To be honest, after reading that paper, I haven’t been able to let this question go. That’s why I keep returning to it here as well.
Reality, the material world, is constantly shifting and changing. It moves forward through contradiction, dialectically. It isn’t that practice creates reality, or affirms it, but instead that there is an all-encompassing system. Practice is material reality interacting with itself.
I understand the direction you’re pointing to, and I don’t feel that our positions are that far apart.
That said, there is one phrase I’d like to pause on: “an all-encompassing system.”
What exactly does that system refer to?
Because the moment we say that there is a system, we are no longer speaking only about material interactions as such, but about the conditions under which those interactions are intelligible as a whole.
This is the point that keeps catching my attention. If reality is nothing more than material reality interacting with itself, then where does the basis come from for those interactions to cohere as one system?
I’m not suggesting that practice stands outside reality. Rather, I’m asking whether the very coherence of an “all-encompassing system” already presupposes some point of unification that cannot be reduced to material interaction alone.
This is the question that keeps drawing me back to this issue.
I think I may be explaining myself poorly. The basis of the universe being composed of one whole is itself, interacting materially. I don’t see how something could stand beyond that.
Thank you for the clarification. I understand your position: that the basis for the universe being one whole lies in material interaction itself.
What I keep getting stuck on, though, is what allows interaction itself to count as a single whole.
There seems to be a non-trivial gap between saying that interactions occur and saying that they constitute one universe or one system.
If reality is nothing more than countless material interactions unfolding, then where does the basis come from for identifying that unfolding as one universe rather than mere dispersion?
I’m not trying to deny material interaction. Rather, I’m asking whether the very fact that interaction is intelligible as a whole already presupposes a point of integration that is not identical with interaction itself.
I’m not claiming this must be something “beyond” matter — only that the condition for saying “this is a whole” does not seem to follow automatically from the sum of interactions alone.
I suppose I’m not following what you mean by a “basis” that corresponds to “unfolding” or “dispersion.”
I think that even what breaks or resists our frameworks already presupposes a form of subjectivity through which reality appears as one.
Are you referring to the subject vs. object?
Not quite. My concern isn’t the subject–object split itself. I’m approaching subjectivity not as something opposed to objectivity, but as a different kind of condition under which reality can appear as one at all.