You'd have to be omniscient to corner the market in objectivity,imo.(And imo is a central point.)

   A priori, we can't be. In other words, we strive for objectivity; i think we ever need to accept from the outset that the goal is unattainable, because we'll never be omniscient.

   The objectivity/subjectivity conundrum is one heart of these problems. We aim to be objective (when it suits us) and it's people, humans, making the effort.

   Another is the scientific/non-scientific one. i.e. the relationship between mind and the rest of us (tho' to put it that way seems to assume that the mind is separate, itself a difficult debate). An interesting aspect of that is the part non-rational parts of, let's say scientists, plays in the success of their objective enterprise. Like insight and intuition.

   Another, related to the first para.and already mentioned, is that we are speaking about people, a particular species, with its own characteristics. Including its own hardwiring characteristics. And its inbuilt limitations.

   I'm interested in the psychotherapeutic side, too.

   So, there's a difference, for example, between being interested in " insight into the self", and insight into myself (or oneself). The first sounds scientific, the second deeply personal.

   there is a bit of a taboo (breaking down???) in the West into exploring one's self. I like to say that scientists are interested in exploring every thing you can think of in the universe (and beyond), down to "strings", with one exception.

Themselves.

   So it's a taboo. Regarded as a taboo because regarded as self-indulgent, frightening, navel-gazing, unnecessary, pointless and other, what, reasons? defences?. rationalisations? (Periodically when I've brought up this sort of thing in more than one site, it turns out a bit of a thread-killer).

   I mean the mighty Goethe once wrote,"If I knew myself, I'd run away." To which the mighty Ivor replies,"How do you know?" :-)

   Defences/avoidances like projection may or may not be 'primitive', but they are used highly sophisticatedly, and people using them are usually unaware that they are doing any such thing.("I'm not projecting. It's true/obvious" etc.)


   The accounts, upthread, have emphasised science in general, and biology in particular. Just as people have necessary limits - we can't jump off cliffs and fly - so does science. Some scientists don'y like that kind of talk.

   What goes with lack of omniscience is our variabilities in knowledge (and who says,'I'm ill-informed' [alas I am]), variabilities in ability to understand, and social and individual pressures and encouragements to know or not know, be willing/unwilling to experience.

   About that I heard a couple of peole saying recently, "For a long time, I didn't allow myself to know................".

   Then there's the unconscious   


   Regarding integration, all of us experience conflicts within ourselves, which manifest in many ways from inertia to lack of fulfillment of one thing or another to perfectionism to addiction to ..............and so it goes on. One aim of at least my sort of therapy is to nurture integration of these self-conflicting parts of oneself. Many people would rather stick to 'the devil they know' , thank you very much.


   Then there's awareness, a theme of the Gestalt I do. That in itself, like everything said on the thread so far , could lead to (and has already) vast debate and exploration. As far as a lot of philosophers, saints, religions, therapists, etc.etc go, vast numbers of people are in some state or other of lack of awareness.

   Then there are levels of consciousness - the most obvious to all being as among children up to puberty, youngsters between puberty and around 21, and "adults". Three basic differing levels of awareness. In each people, it can be hard to grasp that peole with other levels of consciousness are really in 'a different place'.

   And, CRUCIALLY, imo, how much of all this do business people,journalists, lawyers, and politicians know about, or even think is important.

   A BBC broadcaster John Humphries, said only the other week,"But it's the government who live in the real world.(pause to explain that, then ) They have the power."

   Ah, so that's where the real world is located.


    Ivor