intersubjectivity becomes objectivity in the limit

> To the best of my understanding, something (i.e. a statement) is objective if it refers to a property of the object (the observed) and something is subjective if it refers to the subject (the observer). What naturally follows is that something is transjective when it refers to a property of the relationship between the subject and the object. For instance, when you say that, there are 40 degrees celsius outside, that is objective because it is a property of the object you are referring to (the weather). If you say that it's too warm for you outside, than that is a subjective statement because it refers to a property of the subject, it refers to the fact that you find 40 degrees to be too much. And when you say, I find my relationship to rock climbing meaningful, that is transjective. Meaning is not a property of the subject (you can put someone who finds rock climbing to wash toilets and he will not find it meaningful), nor is it a property of the objects (you can put someone else through a really awesome rock climbing experience and he will not like it). Meaning is a property of the right relationship between subject and object. This is why Dr. John Vervaeke, insists on the term tranjective, because he focuses so much on meaning and meaning is transjective. Now, to go back to subject vs object, I think the confusion comes from the fact that people equate objective with true. That is beacuse, an objective claim, which refers to a property of an object, should not depend on the subjects (that is, if another subject comes and looks at the same object, he should make the same claim as I). However, objective does not mean true. Objective, just means that it refers to a property of the object. You can make an "objective" measurement with a broken tool, and get a false measurement. The measurement is still objective, because it measured a property of the object (even if it's not the one you want), but false. Objective just means that it's a property of the object. True means it's true. You can have objective statements, which are false.

> Posting this here because I fucking adore it: "So the distinction between "objective" and "subjective" is not binary, but a matter of degree, depending on how much the subjects have in common. Particles interacting with one another are at one pole, but people interacting with art are not all the way at the other; their reactions aren't random."

which seems to imply something of an ordering

I've been over this before, but it's newly salient having been thinking about cultural evolution and the meta-protocol, which has this convergent intersubjective quality, while enabling increased diversity & originality!!

something about coming into deeper relationship with reality, here

and ofc the tribal mythologies are tried and tested and good at answering all the questions they're good at answering, which may include situated ones like "when do the salmon come up the river?" that convergent astronomy doesn't

this is the sense in which meta-protocol is a science of trust

but unlike most sciences which try to start with the completely objective (at least physical sciences, idk wtf soft sciences are doing) and move towards increasing precision & predictive power

it's starting with the subjective and then moving towards increasing intersubjective!