The definition of "objective" is a subtle but important issue when it comes to dealing with issues that are in some way transcendental to the normal continuum of objects. Because when you are dealing with this area, objectivity gets wonky. What's "objective" to God? It's a similar issue. Objectivity in Bill's sense is a self-fulfilling premise.

It's paradoxical -- one the one hand you have the self-fulfilling premise of material space time and objects, which by its nature makes "proving" anything outside that real impossible on its own terms. On the other hand you have the self-fulfilling premise that thought and consciousness are in fact where objective frames of reference COME from, and their "plasticity of authorship" makes objectivity an essentially hollow proposition. These two engines, both internally self-consistent and both mutually exclusive, like the battle between the sexes, make for a never-ending carousel ride of circular argument.

"Thought is a byproduct of matter and energy and its nature must be proven in alignment with the fundamental premises of objectivity as experienced in the physical universe."

"The whole framework of space-time is an artifact of perception, which is born from the creative power of the non-material viewpoint that is the true nature of selfhood; therefore the notion of objectivity is just another mock up to try to force the spirit into alignment."

These are poles in an arguing machine which has achieved perpetual motion.


A