Arguments supporting Non-Objective Reality (NOR) do not seek to prove it correct.
The concept of correctness is most at home in mathematics where conventional symbology has pre-agreed significance, and values can be stated or calculated correctly with an exactness beyond all but philosophical doubt. For example, we understand 3 + 11 = 14 to be absolutely correct in mathematical terms, albeit it is ultimately mere convention that makes the symbols intelligible at all.
But it is notable that mathematics has no tangible subject matter – it is just a set of conventions, procedures and abstract ideas. By way of contrast, the material and psychological worlds always contain room for dispute. The crudest possible examples of supposedly correct statements make the point.
Lead is heavy.
Heavy is a comparative quality; lead is of course light in comparison to certain substances.
Copper is an element.
Copper, like all so-called elements, is in fact composed of sub atomic particles as far as current understanding goes. Therefore it is not elementary. The idea that it is an element is mere linguistic and conceptual convention.
The Earth has a Moon.
Without arguing for an Earth devoid of a Moon, it can be reasoned this statement is misleadingly simple. The two supposedly separate bodies we think of as Earth and Moon cannot be properly separated beyond dispute. On a journey from the one to the other there would be no position at which we unequivocally exited one or entered the other. Moreover, there is no place on either where the influence of for example, the other’s gravity, is not present. Hence the idea that the two are separate entities is misleading – even if we need to entertain it to prove the point.
Water is wet.
Steam and ice are not thought of as wet, and yet both are considered as forms of water. But even if the statement is altered to Liquid water is wet, there is a problem in that glass is technically a liquid according to some theories, and could therefore be considered wet if the issue is that liquids are wet. But this of course is against all common ideas of wetness. It seems wetness resolves to nothing more than whatever the mind considers it to be. And although someone can always claim some correct definition of what wetness or any other concept really is, others can easily contest any such definition.
Apples are apples.
Although this is logically correct in the sense 5 = 5 is logically correct, it tells us nothing at all about what is to be considered an apple. So given the inevitably loose use of language, the statement can be disputed on the basis that whoever says it may change their intended meaning midway through. A coherent real world comment about a seriously rotten apple may run along the lines of That apple is no apple. Outright linguistic contradictions can be no less meaningful than other statements.
With absolute correctness proving inappropriate for ideas of the physical world, it can be assumed that the wooly psychological world fails more significantly in this respect. I am not really me or I feel myself again are both comprehensible statements making the apparently correct statement of I am definitely me as dubious as it is pointless.
Given the liquid nature of the mind’s linguistic, cognitive and abstract toolsets, as well as of reality in general, NOR sees all absolutist ideas as potentially deceptive artifacts of abstraction, rather than as true reflections of reality.
Not only are NOR arguments not concerned with being correct, but it can be shown that correctness within objectivity – the view of reality on which modern science is founded – is ultimately an illusion. However, this illusion is thoroughly obscured by human consensus, including the widespread notion that science uncovers some sort of absolutely correct truth. It is this absolutist quality within human ideas NOR challenges – together with the consequences of not looking beyond its constraining and illusory nature.
Pro-NOR argumentation centered on the physical world generally illustrates how at the extremes of scientific understanding, objective thinking runs into intractable problems. There is no denying the objective view of reality has done much for mankind’s understanding, but the paradigm is seen as ultimately flawed – much as classical physics has already been revealed as ultimately flawed.
Argumentation centered on human affairs illustrates how our long human evolution to where we are today is the story of a species effectively empowered mentally beyond anything its intelligence has yet learned to manage responsibly. Being rather obsessed with our ability to dominate both our environment and one another, we have become alienated by our technological environments, and a positive danger to ourself and other life sharing this planet.
So although NOR ideas inevitably sound philosophical, they are a pragmatic critique of objectivity based on proving and transcending its limitations and faults. NOR encompasses the objective perspective within an expanded view that better understands why our supposedly wonderful human intelligence has in fact saddled us with serious existential problems.
Such an understanding is not prescriptive. There are neither instructions for how the individual should conduct himself, nor any social engineering manifestos. The very idea that this endlessly changing reality could ever be understood in such depth that the human mind could follow a set procedure to improve matters on a grand scale is seen as ridiculous. Human history has in fact tried this strategy often and failed consistently. NOR is not a form of advocacy.
Progressively ridding received ideas of the demonstrable errors in objectivity can increasingly reveal dynamic and immediate ways of understanding the human mind itself, plus the true nature of the human condition. This can also create a more responsible individual who looks less to others and their set ideas to organize his unique life.
The reader who in any way grasps any elements of the NOR arguments amidst the current blanket cultural faith in objectivity is already opening his or her mind. There is no doctrine to be learned. But there is plenty to be unlearned, challenged or ignored.