The Objective Context Antithesis
On the impossibility of objectivity.
Geoffrey Hamilton
January 12, 1995
Four important questions can occur to someone offered an 'object', whether it be
a statement or a physical body of some kind. First, where in space is the object
situated exactly? Second, how do we do an accounting of that space? Third, who's
definition of the object's space, or context, is accepted? The fourth is why is
it accepted?
We are told by scientists and we can gather from personal experience
that given enough time we can observe that everything changes. Chaos theory
indicates how the smallest event can have relevance across the universe; which
in turn indicates that the subtlety and complexity of effects is often beyond
human sensory data. A corollary is here claimed that it is a gradual process
not one of stops and starts.
Take a block of iron. Given that it is formed by humanity it is accepted that
this context has not always existed. Given that earth will not remain in the
same context and that the block will change shape, or melt, or disintegrate,
sometime between now and then, then it is possible to say that it won't always
be a block of iron. Now if one makes a specific claim at a specific time that
the objective reality of this block of iron is that it is 'the true' block of
iron, the one and only block of iron in front of oneself, then if a mono-polar
magnetic particle or some other dark matter passes through the iron previously
claimed to be 'the one and only' it will no longer be the object talked about. The
seemingly unchanged object will have become a different object from the one and
only that was claimed of the previous manifestation. One can go on believing that
it is the same object as the one said to be 'the one and only' true object but this
object has long since passed out of existence. Therefore given that objects are
always changing where is the objective context?
If one is to take a broader view
of the objective context of a block of iron - for example, the block is still a
block of iron even when it is not always the same block - the object then moves
into the realm of language as the object: a block of iron is what? Is it a thing
which we, like Adam, go about naming as this or that. But if one were to see
something and to call it iron who can say to oneself at the naming whether one
is being naive - after-all it could either be 'real' or a mirage. It only needed
to convince us to name this 'object' iron for it to be iron to us.
Extending from the physical problem of objectivity and its language signifier,
is language as object. Can a statement such as, "She was tired," have a completely
objective context? If it did no knowledge of English would be needed. No
instruction as to the signifier's relevance would be required. In fact all
humans and all other 'objects' would 'see' the 'object' for exactly what
it is.
But since this is not the case, since we are instructed to understand the
'object', what if one person is instructed to believe that "She is tired"
always means "there will be no sex tonight", while a second person is told
to believe it means that "she can't do work today". Who is believing the correct
objective meaning and, more significantly, where is the context of the 'object'?
For has not the teacher's instruction become part of the context within which
the object is to be understood? Further, who and what influenced the teachers
in their belief? One can look back infinitely for the source of the 'object',
or the objective context, that one may have once considered so simple, so
'understood'.
Even if one were to find this elusive 'object' and forget that it is never
the same object from moment to moment, how is one to approach it? As an
accumulation of parts? As a whole? As part of a whole? Take the iron block again.
Is it a billion iron atoms? Is it one block of iron? Is it one trillionth of all
the iron on earth? Is all the iron on earth one trillionth of all the iron in the
galaxy? And so on. How does one see the object? Which is right? Only one can be
chosen per statement - so which is the true objective context? None are - there is
no one great context - there is no ultimate position to stand in. Therefore any
context chosen to make a statement will ignore all the other legitimate ways to
also state the 'object'. The choice is arbitrary.
All humans can participate in
the arbitrary selection of these relational contexts which describe the
'object'. They can pass on meaning from numerous different contexts to signify
the 'object' - "She is tired" - they can even be ignorant that the 'object'
described is never the same object from moment to moment. So who decides the
'objective context'? We all do but some are more capable than others.
When Samuel Webster created his dictionary of American English he was attempting
to create 'objective contexts' for Americans. His only authority to do this was
derived from the power of the press and his luck to be the first to attempt to
anchor Americans to his 'objective contexts'. He changed colour to color
for no other reason than that he decided it was better. He decided and we all
can do the same thing given our individual power and the Samuel rest of the
universe's weaknesses. Power is the arbiter of 'objectivity', as the power
of chaos is the arbiter of the 'object' - the iron block. We accept the
arbitration when we believe we have no choice. Power has that effect.
Finally the observer, whether it be a perfect sentient robot, an alien or a
human, has his/her/its own positional context that is impossible to overcome.
Time, place, society, interests, instincts and beliefs of the observer are
always different from the observed. These discordant qualities only approach
reconciliation by negotiation, where possible, and which can only result in
a spurious pact where both parties are unaware how different their perceptions
actually are.
From the 'object', through to the method of
communication, to the observer, I have shown how objectivity is an
impossible dream. It is interesting, though, that this short essay attempts
to persuade its readers while undercutting its power to create 'objectivity'.
A paradox, in one sense, that only functions if the readers believe in the
above argument. Perhaps this 'subjective' argument's paradox is why there
are so many believers in 'objects'. "How can I live in a world without
absolutes," they might say. My aim in writing this is if the believers
realize that it is not evidence nor argument that informs them but faith
in objectivity then maybe their power to be dogmatic will diminish.
GRH
home
