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”?
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.
I see, perhaps I need to do more study to actually answer this effectively.
That makes sense — thank you for engaging with it so carefully. If you’re ever curious, I’d be happy to share the paper that prompted this line of thinking for me.
I’m good for now, I have enough to study on my plate for now, haha, but thank you!