The Objective Realm

[seeds]

_______

Trajk Logik wrote to Advocate:

If Actuality is objective but you cannot access it then how did you come to know, or how were you informed, that actuality exists and is objective? This is the same problem that Wiz is making in claiming that there are aspects of reality that we cannot access, yet we can know about. This is a contradiction.

It's not a contradiction.

We each know (or at least are pretty darn sure) that other minds exist, yet we cannot directly access the interior reality of those other minds.

I did not use the qualifier, "direct". What does it mean to "directly" access something as opposed to simply accessing it?

I can "directly" access my own internal thoughts.

On the other hand, you are "indirectly" accessing my thoughts (and vice versa) via the intermediary process of the words appearing on this screen.

What information is lost by simply accessing something rather than "directly" accessing something?

If we could "directly" access each other's internal thoughts, along with the intended meaning of those thoughts, then the information we are attempting to convey to one another in these debates would be precise and not misunderstood as is usually the case.

When you cut an apple in half are you "directly" accessing its seeds when looking at it?

No. You would be "indirectly" accessing those seeds.

The only apple seeds that you have "direct" access to are the ones in the vivid 3-D apple you may have dreamed about last night within the closed spatial arena of your very own private universe (i.e., your mind).

Why can't we do the same thing with a brain but cutting it open and "directly" accessing the mind?

Are you being serious now?

Do you actually believe that you could cut open a human brain and "directly" access a palm tree in a lucid dreamer's dream of a tropical island paradise in such a way that would allow you to count and measure its individual palm fronds?

When looking at a human body are you "directly" accessing it?

Again, no.

Your physical eyes are but mere "windows" that allow you to peer outward from the inner dimension of your own private universe (again, your mind) and "indirectly" access the phenomenal features that reside within the inner dimension of yet another universe of which your physical eyes (and body and brain) are a part of.

In other words,...

(and this is where the possibility of the existence of a higher Being enters the picture)

...your material body is simply a multi-sensory "interface" that gives your mind temporary access to the inner reality of the higher mind to whom this particular universe belongs.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

The problem is resolved in understanding that there is no "outside".

Wrong again.

All of the phenomenal features of the universe (including your own body and brain) exist "outside" of the interior reality of your mind. Indeed, your mind is like a parallel universe, not only relative to the universe in which these words are appearing on a screen,...

...but a parallel universe relative to the other minds reading these words.

Does it make sense to say that the skin of the apple is outside its seeds and do we assert that the seeds are in another universe than the skin of the apple? If not, then why does that make any sense when describing the relationship between the mind and the body? Why do we not need to invoke parallel universes when talking about how a plastic container is "outside" the of the juice that it contains?

Well, in metaphorical terms, the outer film (i.e., the all-encompassing spherical light barrier) of this fanciful depiction of the universe...



...can be thought of as being the skin of an apple with us being its literal seeds (the seeds of the universe itself) which are momentarily held within it.

Now, it is logical to assume that the quantum fabric that forms our physical "seedpods" (our bodies) is most assuredly an inextricable aspect of the overall quantum fabric that forms the universe.

Indeed, I even created an illustration that highlights that very point...



However, as is suggested in the illustration, our minds are not an inextricable aspect of the quantum fabric of the universe, and can thus be imagined as being capable of existing outside of this particular universe, similar to the way materialism imagines the status of other universes as represented by this image... 



So, it's not a matter of comparing the apple's "physical" seedpods to the apple's skin, or juice to that of its plastic container. No, it's the comparison of the future status of our minds relative to the higher mind that momentarily contains us.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

In alluding to my arguments with VA (in an alternate thread) regarding the noumenal nature of a superpositioned electron as it traverses the interim space between the slitted wall and the phosphorescent screen of the Double Slit Experiment,...

...no matter how far we extend our senses via our technological advances, we will never be able to directly access the true status of an electron - (as it really is) - while it resides in its superpositioned context.

Again, what do you mean by "directly" accessing the true status of an electron? How does that differ from simply accessing the true status of an electron? It seems like you are describing simple access, not "direct" access - whatever that is.

I explained that in the first of these three consecutive posts.

However, it's even trickier in the case of the superpositioned electron, for not only can we not "directly" access an electron in this universe (as described in my earlier post),...

...but in the case of the superpositioned electron, it goes to an even deeper level of inaccessibility, for it exists in a context that physicists call "non-local" reality where we are denied even the "normal" (indirect) level of access that you keep alluding to.

Access is a relation between one entity and another. How is access established? I don't know of any theory or explanation of access that implies that the accessor becomes what is accessed.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "...the accessor becomes what is accessed...," however, I will suggest that when you access your own thoughts and dreams, in a limited sense, you do become (or already are) "what you access."

In other words, you already are what you access because the apple you may have dreamed of eating last night is literally a part of your being and you are a part of its being.

The same cannot be said for the so-called "real' apple you may have eaten for lunch today.

How can you even assert what that we can't access the true status of an electron unless you know there is some other status the electron has that is true? To lie, you have to first now the truth. To know that what you perceive isn't the truth, you'd have to know what the truth is that you're not perceiving. How did you come to know that the electron has some kind of property that you are not able to access and what makes this property "true"?

I'm sure you already know this stuff, but the inferred (and inaccessible) property in question is derived from the appearance of an interference pattern on the measuring screen, for no one can quite figure out what it is that is interfering with itself. Indeed, it's all part of the mystery associated with the "measurement problem."

And the problem is that there is no way of finding out what is truly taking place in that "non-local" (noumenal) context of reality without instantaneously changing whatever the electron was doing before you looked to see what it was doing.

It seems to be a baked-in feature of reality that is similar to the "uncertainty principle."

As I suggested earlier, without being able to access the actual status of a superpositioned electron via any sort of direct or empirical means, we can still "know" (be "informed" of) its objective "actuality" via the intellect and intuition.

What does that look like? What is it like to be informed of its objective actuality via intellect and intuition? What are the contents of your mind that allow you to say that you know or are informed of its objective actuality? Knowing entails having access to the facts. It seems to me that you are saying that we still access the truth but not directly. But it is you that brought this term, "directly" into the conversation, not me. So you seem to creating a straw-man, or putting words in my mouth that I did not say, and are actually agreeing with me that we can know the truth by simply accessing it with our senses and reason.

Well, the limited "truth" in this particular instance is that we know for certain that there is an actual piece of "the objective realm" (an electron) that appears to be a real and existent Kantian-like noumenon, which, according to Wiki...

"...is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..."

In other words, even though we know that an actual piece of "the objective realm" is traversing the interim space between the double-slitted wall and the phosphorescent screen of the Double Slit Experiment,...



...we will only be able to deduce what is taking place in that space by means of our intellect and intuition, and never by any direct or empirical means.

Anyway, that's what it's like to be informed of an objective actuality via intellect and intuition.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, it appears I am the only one who had introduced "absolute" in reference to mind-independent.

It is very necessary when the relevant nuances has to be considered.

When p-realists claimed there are mind-independent things [or and reality] they assumed anti-p-realists in contrast believed things and reality are "dependent" on one's mind; as if the person's mind is creating reality and things on the go which is absurd.
This lead them to charge [mock] anti-p-realists with solipsism.

As stated, the point is anti-p-realists [mine=Kantian] i.e. Empirical Realism also believe in mind-independent things [reality], but not in the sense of the p-realists which is in the absolute sense without compromise.
This is why there is a need to qualify the p-realists' mind-independence as absolute, while that of the anti-p_realists are relative.

Not necessarily. Some materialist-realists wave the mind off as illusion, or assert that it is materialistic, or physical, like the rest of the world. So not all of them are independent absolutists in their view of the mind vs. the world. There is also the distinction of epistemological idealism vs ontological idealism with the former logically reducing to solipsism and the latter to an idealistic-realism. I lean towards the latter except that I don't see the mind as fundamental. Mind is a complex arrangement of information and information is fundamental. This is what allows the existence of other things that are not minds, or ideas, but are still related substantively and causally. So I reject both materialism and idealism as well as panpsychism and adopt a type of relationism/informationalism blend with Whitehead's process philosophy.

I can agree with "processes" since it is said
"the only thing that is constant is change".
Noting Heraclitus “You cannot step into the same river twice.”
"Processes" are so ubiquitous that it is a default of reality and that is undeniable.

The idea of "Process Philosophy" is a realistic paradigm shift from those of Aristotle's 'substance theory' but I have some reservations with Whitehead's Process Philosophy related to his provision for the idea of 'God' leading the pansychism or panentheism.
I noted you rejected panpsychism.

Do you have some text or article references for your sort of atheistic process philosophy?

My approach with Framework and System of Reality is basically 'processes' and nothing more ultimate. That is the idea of the continual emergence and realization of reality as process and nothing more.

I like to use the term, "aboutness" instead of "externalness". I think it compliments the theme of everything being information. The contents of your mind have an aboutness to them in that they are informative. Colors and shapes inform you of various states of the world. They are not the states of the world unless we are talking about minds themselves, which are a part of the world. This is what it means to confuse the map with the territory - when we believe that the apple really is colored red rather than as you being informed that the apple is ripe.

My concept of "externalness" is quite distinct from "aboutness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboutness

About Aboutness
https://philosophynow.org/issues/132/About_Aboutness

The concept of 'aboutness' is more sophisticated than "externalness"

The sense of "externalness" in introduced is adapted from early stages of evolution of animals where every organism perceived foods and threats [humans and things] as physically external to their body [implied mind] with a gap of distance.
This is necessary and critical to facilitate basic survival.
This sense of externalness is basic and adaptive.

Since it was adapted from the very early stages of evolution, it "instinctualized" and an evolutionary default within the DNA of all living animals and still exists in modern humans.

My point is to highlight to p-realists that they have converted the above evolutionary default to a fundamentalistic ideology which they are not aware of, i.e. they are clinging to some very primal and primordial thinking.

I think I see what you mean in a way.
Visual, auditory and tactile sensations have an extended feel to them. Objects appear and sound separate from the observer, as if they are a homunculus inside the skull and seeing and hearing objects "out there", apart from the body.
My cat's purr emanates from her body. It sounds like it is "out there", apart, or external to me and inside her.
I usually attribute this way of thinking about the mind as naive realism, as if the observer is seeing and hearing the world as it actually is, with colors and sounds being "external" to the observer. But science has shown us that colors and sounds are only properties of minds, and do no exist out in the world.

Noted "naive realism" but what I was targeting is Philosophical Realism [& Metaphysical Realism].

• Philosophical realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
  WIKI

Philosophical Realists believe to the extreme that 'the moon pre-existed humans and the moon will continue to exists even if humans are extinct'

There are those [e.g Peter Holmes] who deny 'mind' exists, so, I will use the cumbersome 'human-conditions-independent" instead.

It logically follows that if colors and sounds are only part of the mind and not out in the world, then everything about how the world appears in the mind must also exist only in the mind. The extended part is also just information like colors, shapes and sounds. Sound just doesn't carry information about volume and pitch, but also distance and direction. The extended feeling of visual and auditory sensations is itself part of the information. Visual depth with the sensation of empty space and distance and location relative to the eyes is all part of the visual information we access.

Given the new understandings that science has provided in how we perceive the world, including why we experience visual "illusions" like bent straws in a glass of water, anyone that still clings the naive, or direct realist notions of mind are literally fooling themselves. Illusions are dispelled when we realize that we do not see objects, we see light and our minds construct objects using the information in the reflected light that reaches our eyes. Bent straws in water are what you expect to see given the nature of light.

Since colors do not exist out in the world then colors in the mind must inform us of some property that isn't color out in the world. Red apples are ripe apples. Red informs us of the state of the fruit we eat so that we don't get sick eating rotten apples. It logically follows that our senses inform us of states of the world and are not a clear window to the world. This is what it means for our sensations to possess an aboutness to them, in that they are not the objects themselves, but carry information about other processes apart from, but relative to us. So yes, the concept of aboutness is not like the instinctive view of the mind that you described, but comes about by incorporating the latest scientific explanations and what logically follows from that.

I can agree with the above re "aboutness", however I deliberate things are not absolutely things-in-themselves from various other perspectives and fundamentally they are grounded in 'processes' as conditioned within a human-based Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge of reality.

[seeds]

______

Sorry, double post.

_______

[Wizard22]

I think what you missed in what I said was that whilst I agree that persons are objects; objects which persist after they are observed, that is not a warrant for saying that another person can necessarily have an objective view of any of them.
In fact we know from experience that whilst we can agree about the mundane facts about another person we each of us have a different view of them; sometimes the difference is subtle other times shockingly different.
So yeah Biden has white hair and Trump has what looks like a blond wig, but none of us would ever agree exactly about what they are. To be truly objective requires that sort of exactitude.
Generally what can be agreed to be objective facts are easy enough to establish. Trump did try to overturn the last election result is a FACT. What you might believe about justifications is subject to a range of prejudices such as loyalty to Republicanism, hero worship and cult thinking.
The court will decide whether or not Trump and his crime gang forged Elector Documents. They will use evidence to determine that. There will be an element of subjectivity as to whether that amounts to insurrection, and there will be an element of subjectivity when determining the level of punishment that he ought to receive.
But no matter how hard I try I cannot express this point without some degree of subjectivity. For example the phrase "crime gang" might be 100% accurate, since there were a group of them and they conspired to commit a crime. I could have used softer words. Magas would never use such a phrase.

I the last vid of Trump, by his own words he called the NY judge "hostile" to him. It is simply a fact that for most people that would be considered contempt of court. And when we learn that the reason he said that was because the judge told him to stop making remarks when other people's testimony was being heard.
So what are the perfect "objective" facts here?

You criticize the religious-right about claiming 'Objectivity' to validate and defend their theology—yet you see no problem in utilizing Objectivity for your political agenda. Isn't that hypocritical?

That's precisely the challenge, though, to analyze how small discrepancies of Subjective-perspective difference, can manifest exponential changes of ideology. Two different people, who are identical in almost every way, can only differ on one small issue (like Israel/Palestine), and that's enough for a world of difference.

Objectivity, at least, imposes a challenge to understand the roots and causes of such differences and origins. This usually involves self-consciousness. You need to understand your own Biases and cognitive blind-spots. That's not as easy as it seems. For example, most human beings are consciously unaware of their own physical visual and auditory, blind-spots and deaf-zones.

[promethean75]

"You need to understand your own Biases and cognitive blind-spots. That's not as easy as it seems."

And believe me Sculp, Wiz speaks from experience here as an election denier for three years.

[Wizard22]

Tell me, when thinking logically about the world, what form does that take in your mind? What objects exist in your mind when thinking logically? How do you know when you are thinking logically if not by your mind forming some objects within it, and don't these objects possess shape, color, sound and/or feelings? Even logical symbolism takes the form of some scribbles in your mind and their relations.

It doesn't make any sense to talk about empirical knowledge and rational knowledge separately. Neurons are both sensory and rational. They receive information from the senses for the purpose of (logically) processing it to produce some behavior. Brains did not evolve without senses and senses did not evolve without brains. They both evolved together. Brains actually evolved from neural nets that were established in organisms like jellyfish and starfish, but that doesn't mean that these organisms did not use senses or logic in the way that they processed information from their environment to produce behavior. They did, just on a very basic, primitive level compared to human brains and senses.

When I think of 'Objectivity', reason, logic, rationality—I think of mathematics, physics, geometry/trigonometry, and justifications for arguments. I think of things that are presumed 'below' or 'before' our conscious-awareness, or 'outside' of immediate awareness in general. For example, what is a "Number 1" or a "Number 9"? Nothing, it refers to nothing directly. So how is it a thing? How is it a process? How is it a relation? What is the act of cognizing or imaging or rationalizing "Numbers"? When I imagine "one apple" or "an apple", I first imagine the outline of the object (Geometrics). This is basic in all drawings. And it is what everybody's mind/brain does un-consciously anyway. Your brain associates "an apple" as an outline of an apple first, approximating a size. An apple isn't as big as a skyscraper. An apple isn't as small as a grain of sand. Instead, apples are expected to be about palm sized, can fit in your hand, can be grasped.

All of these concepts are happening "beneath" your direct conscious awareness and experience. So it doesn't really matter all the different ways that apples are subjectively-experienced, by humans or any animal, but rather about the innate processes involved which preclude any experience in the first place. In other words, your brain has logical circuits, primed for sensory-awareness and experience. The apple, is an exterior object, "in the world", Existent, yet-to-be experienced, but comprised of what you later (a posteriori) know through experience.

What I largely see in your arguments and analysis, is rationality applied to the a posteriori "Subjective-Reality", but not as you've already stated, the 'rational' aspect beforehand...the way in which it could possibly be, that you could come to know of "apple experience" without ever seeing an apple...or without ever tasting an apple beforehand. Your claim of an infant's solipsism, or of Subjectivism in general, is that Existence is dependent upon Subjective-awareness and experience first and foremost, rather than Subjective-awareness and experienced dependent upon Existence. Perhaps this is the focal point of our disagreement then...

I believe, after an infant learns/intuits/discovers Object-Permanence, then this should lead to an Existential/Objective perspective about the universe, the world, life, experience, relations, whatever you want to call everything. Because our Subjective-Perspective cannot possibly come to any sort of realization of Object-Permanence, without logic/rationality primed for it beforehand. Otherwise it makes no sense. And a person's "personal experiences" have no means or method of validity pitted against anybody else's. And it would never explain the 'vague, mystical' notion of Object-Permanence, or the many ways in which living beings come to form subconscious expectations about physical movements and actions of bodies in general.

In summation, it doesn't really matter when or at whichever point in a lifetime, a human being becomes Self-Conscious, aware of one's own Subjectivity as-if it were an Object (hence Object-Permanence applied to Self/Subjectivity), rather what matters are the ingredients which make it possible to begin with. Why can't animals attain such levels of intellect/rationality? Why can't many humans? Is it really something "taught" or "learned"? What if it's a Hardware matter or problem? What if some brains have the Hardware, and others don't? What if it's not a Software problem?

Simple. You have more than one sense. You can hear your mother when you cannot see her. If the mother you hear is the same as the mother you see then your mother can exist even when you cannot see her. And to explain how things in your environment change over time when you have no memory of changing it yourself, then there must be unseen events producing these changes. Object permanence requires both sensory data and the logical processing of that sensory data.

I think you're arguing against your own position here, aren't you?

Which sense is then 'Primary' if not sight? You won't believe your eyes, but you'll believe your ears? What of smell? Will you believe your sense of taste, and then distrust food which you have seen and appears to be cooked/healthy/not-poisonous? "All of the senses"? Why must all senses explain an object's permanence? Isn't your mother still there, whether you cannot see her, cannot hear her, cannot smell/taste/feel her?

[Wizard22]

"You need to understand your own Biases and cognitive blind-spots. That's not as easy as it seems."

And believe me Sculp, Wiz speaks from experience here as an election denier for three years.

Imagine shutting down an entire US election on election day, because your Democratic candidate is losing, prom...can you imagine that?!

And then finding just enough votes you needed, between 1 and 4am...I mean, damn!?

[Sculptor]

I think what you missed in what I said was that whilst I agree that persons are objects; objects which persist after they are observed, that is not a warrant for saying that another person can necessarily have an objective view of any of them.
In fact we know from experience that whilst we can agree about the mundane facts about another person we each of us have a different view of them; sometimes the difference is subtle other times shockingly different.
So yeah Biden has white hair and Trump has what looks like a blond wig, but none of us would ever agree exactly about what they are. To be truly objective requires that sort of exactitude.
Generally what can be agreed to be objective facts are easy enough to establish. Trump did try to overturn the last election result is a FACT. What you might believe about justifications is subject to a range of prejudices such as loyalty to Republicanism, hero worship and cult thinking.
The court will decide whether or not Trump and his crime gang forged Elector Documents. They will use evidence to determine that. There will be an element of subjectivity as to whether that amounts to insurrection, and there will be an element of subjectivity when determining the level of punishment that he ought to receive.
But no matter how hard I try I cannot express this point without some degree of subjectivity. For example the phrase "crime gang" might be 100% accurate, since there were a group of them and they conspired to commit a crime. I could have used softer words. Magas would never use such a phrase.

I the last vid of Trump, by his own words he called the NY judge "hostile" to him. It is simply a fact that for most people that would be considered contempt of court. And when we learn that the reason he said that was because the judge told him to stop making remarks when other people's testimony was being heard.
So what are the perfect "objective" facts here?

You criticize the religious-right about claiming 'Objectivity' to validate and defend their theology—yet you see no problem in utilizing Objectivity for your political agenda. Isn't that hypocritical?

WTF are you talking about?

That's precisely the challenge, though, to analyze how small discrepancies of Subjective-perspective difference, can manifest exponential changes of ideology. Two different people, who are identical in almost every way, can only differ on one small issue (like Israel/Palestine), and that's enough for a world of difference.

Objectivity, at least, imposes a challenge to understand the roots and causes of such differences and origins. This usually involves self-consciousness. You need to understand your own Biases and cognitive blind-spots. That's not as easy as it seems. For example, most human beings are consciously unaware of their own physical visual and auditory, blind-spots and deaf-zones.

Where have I claimed objectivity?

[Wizard22]

Where have I claimed objectivity?

When you asked for the 'objective' facts regarding your political analysis and opinionate perspective.

The problem with politics, and religion, is that its "objective facts" are usually relative to social consensus—meaning that a social group dictates and "determines" the beliefs of the group. Republicans can claim that 2020 Election was defrauded, and Trump won. Democrats can claim that 2020 Election was not defrauded, and Trump lost. The "objective reality" is in dispute, because neither faction is willing to concede its political power to the other.

The objective reality is a dispute in process.

[promethean75]

"Imagine shutting down an entire US election on election day, because your Democratic candidate is losing, prom...can you imagine that?!

And then finding just enough votes you needed, between 1 and 4am...I mean, damn!?"

Here's your problem bro. U seem to think it matters whether a democrat or republican is in office, or whether or not the voting system is rigged. But the problem does not concern honest party principles and apple pie values and any of that bullshit. It's the superstructure of global capitalism (and religion) that's causing the big crunch the world is headed toward.

And none of this is part of some grand conspiracy becuz there are too many approximately equal parties involved, scrambling for power in the mass confusion; they cancel each other out and the momentum of conspiracy falls apart.

The world falling apart will be by accident. It will happen becuz of the internal contradictions, tensions and conflicts of global capitalism. Not the zionists. Not the nazis. Not the reptilians. Not the catholic church.

It's six one half dozen or the other, homes. And the only thing that will stop it is world revolution organized and led by the international working classes.

If not, u can put anybody into the president's office u want and it won't make one fuck bit of difference.

[Sculptor]

Where have I claimed objectivity?

When you asked for the 'objective' facts regarding your political analysis and opinionate perspective.

Please cite!

[Sculptor]

"Imagine shutting down an entire US election on election day, because your Democratic candidate is losing, prom...can you imagine that?!

And then finding just enough votes you needed, between 1 and 4am...I mean, damn!?"

Here's your problem bro. U seem to think it matters whether a democrat or republican is in office, or whether or not the voting system is rigged. But the problem does not concern honest party principles and apple pie values and any of that bullshit. It's the superstructure of global capitalism (and religion) that's causing the big crunch the world is headed toward.

And none of this is part of some grand conspiracy becuz there are too many approximately equal parties involved, scrambling for power in the mass confusion; they cancel each other out and the momentum of conspiracy falls apart.

The world falling apart will be by accident. It will happen becuz of the internal contradictions, tensions and conflicts of global capitalism. Not the zionists. Not the nazis. Not the reptilians. Not the catholic church.

It's six one half dozen or the other, homes. And the only thing that will stop it is world revolution organized and led by the international working classes.

If not, u can put anybody into the president's office u want and it won't make one fuck bit of difference.

The US voting system has always been rigged.

It is rigged in favour of GOP. GOP is seen as the establishement, and always attracts wealth and power.
But when this goes unchecked you end up with megalomaniacs. Control of the media agenda goes along with that.
So the two main crooks in modern times are Trump and Nixon, people with absurd amounts of power they both abused.
Nixon himself had and extra-establshment band of thugs who committed several crimes such as beatings and break-ins to gain information for Nixon, and his various campaigns.
The real truth about Trump has yet to come out by so far what is emerging is a rather clumsy version of Nixon without the cunning and the brains.
But as we all see plain enough, his control of the media (although now slipping away quite badly) has managed to re-direct attention of the minor infringements of what is laughingly called "The Biden Crime Family".

America's greatest thug of the 20thC Cheney is a saint compered to the activities of Trump, and when his daughter is campaigning against Trump you know things have got way out of hand.

[Sculptor]

Where have I claimed objectivity?

When you asked for the 'objective' facts regarding your political analysis and opinionate perspective.

You are simply not bright enough to understand what anyone is trying to say.
Run along back to school