Chapter 24: Objectivity Worship | StructLang

In the previous chapter, we argued: Consensus doesn’t need the unverifiable metaphysical assumption of “objective ontology.” Science is stable not because it’s “closer to objectivity,” but because of: high-frequency validation + extensive overlap + precise prediction.

But if consensus stability doesn’t depend on “objectivity,” why is the concept of “objectivity” so important?

Observe this phenomenon:

• Scientists say “pursuing objective truth”
• Judges say “based on objective facts”
• Media says “objective reporting”
• People say “you’re too subjective”

“Objectivity” is often used to suppress dissenting opinions, establish authority, and create hierarchies.

What does this resemble?

This chapter will reveal: The theological structure of objectivity worship.

I. The Original State

Let’s return to the most elementary starting point.

A baby opens their eyes and sees their mother’s face. They don’t wonder “Is what I’m seeing real?” They just see.

You’re hungry, you eat, you’re full. You don’t wonder “Is my fullness subjective or objective?” You’re just full.

You trip on a stone, fall, and it hurts. You don’t wonder “Does this pain conform to objective reality?” It just hurts.

This is the most direct, most indisputable fact. No intermediary, no room for doubt.

You are you. What you see is what you see, what you experience becomes your memory, what you feel is what you feel.

Originally, everything was simple.

II. The Invasion of a Concept

Then, someone tells you:

“What you see isn’t real.”

“What?”

“What you see is just appearance, the true reality is beyond your perception.”

“But I clearly saw it.”

“That’s your subjectivity. You need to pursue objectivity.”

“What is objectivity?”

“Objectivity is the reality that transcends your subjectivity.”

“Then how do I know what’s objective?”

“You can never fully know, but you must constantly pursue it.”

“How do I pursue it?”

“Through reason, through science, through overcoming your biases.”

“What if my feelings don’t match objectivity?”

“Then you’re wrong. You’re too subjective.”

Stop. Let’s carefully examine the structure of this conversation.

Do you feel this conversation is familiar?

III. A Familiar Conversation

Let’s rewrite this conversation in another version:

“Your desires are sinful.”

“What?”

“Your desires are just bodily impulses, true goodness is beyond your will.”

“But I want it.”

“That’s your corruption. You need to pursue God’s will.”

“What is God’s will?”

“God’s will is the truth that transcends your will.”

“Then how do I know God’s will?”

“You can never fully understand God, but you must constantly pursue.”

“How do I pursue?”

“Through prayer, through faith, through overcoming your desires.”

“What if my feelings don’t match God’s will?”

“Then you’re sinful. You’re too self-centered.”

This is not coincidence.

IV. Structural Similarity

Let’s compare the structures of these two concepts:

This is not analogy, this is isomorphism.

V. An Identical Narrative

Not only are the structures similar, they follow the same narrative logic:

Common logic: Your original state is insufficient → Transcendent authority exists → Approach through designated methods → Pursue eternally but never arrive → Establish hierarchical system

VI. Not Coincidence, but Transformation

This structural similarity is not coincidence.

It reveals: When the Enlightenment overthrew religious authority, people didn’t truly return to the original state of “I am I”—they replaced “God” with “objectivity.”

Transformation of Power Structure

The power structure wasn’t broken, it just changed names.

Originally God’s word suppressed human will, now objective truth suppresses subjective experience.

Why Was This Transformation Needed?

From the perspective of social control:

If everyone said “what I see is what it is,” how to coordinate? How to establish consensus? How to form collective action?

Traditional solution: Introduce transcendent authority

• Theological era: What God says goes, everyone obeys God
• Modern: What objectivity says goes, everyone pursues objectivity

This provides a reference system transcending individual differences, making social coordination possible.

But what’s the cost?

• Devalued individual direct experience
• Created eternal gap between individual and authority
• Established cognitive hierarchy
• Made people doubt themselves, restrain themselves

VII. The Real Function of Objectivity

Let’s honestly admit: Introducing the concept of “objectivity” did solve some problems.

Positive Functions of the Objectivity Concept

1. Provided Common Reference

• When two people disagree, can say “let’s look at objective facts”
• This gives a temporary coordination solution

2. Promoted Scientific Collaboration

• Scientists need a common standard to evaluate theories
• “Objective verification” provides this standard

3. Established Evaluation Mechanism

• Need to distinguish “rigorously validated knowledge” from “personal speculation”
• “Conforming to objectivity” becomes a filtering standard

4. Resisted Relativism

• Prevents falling into “everyone talks past each other” chaos
• Provides criterion transcending individual opinions

These are all real functions.

But the Problem Is

For these functions, we paid an unnecessary ontological cost.

We don’t need to assume a “transcendent objective ontology” to achieve the above functions:

In other words:

❌ Don’t need: “An objective ontology independent of cognition exists” (metaphysical assumption)
✅ Only need: “Establish operational reliability standards” (methodological tool)

VIII. Distinguishing Two Levels

A crucial distinction must be made here, otherwise serious misunderstanding will result.

Objective Ontology vs. Objectivity Standards

What Does Science Pursue?

Traditional statement: “Science discovers objective truth”

This statement confuses two levels:

• If “objective truth” means “conforms to transcendent ontology” → This is metaphysical claim, unverifiable
• If “objective truth” means “rigorously validated reliable knowledge” → This is methodological operation, completely feasible

More accurate statement: “Science establishes highly reliable consensus”

• Through repeatable experiments
• Through multi-perspective validation
• Through predictive power testing
• Forming stable multi-subjective overlap

This doesn’t require assuming “objective ontology behind it”

What We Critique

We’re only saying: These good things don’t need metaphysical “objective ontology” to support them.

IX. Science Doesn’t Need Theology

This is the most important argument of this entire chapter:

Science’s effectiveness doesn’t depend on the assumption of “objective ontology.”

How Science Works

Problem: In traditional understanding, you can never verify “approaching objectivity” because you cannot jump outside subjectivity to compare.

Alternative understanding: Don’t need to assume the first step, the subsequent process remains effective.

Real Case: Newtonian Mechanics

Does scientific practice differ at all?

No. Scientists do what they do: experiment, verify repeatability, test predictive power, revise theories.

Why Is the Latter Better?

X. Resistance of Hard Reality

Someone might ask:

“If there’s no objective ontology, how do you explain the ‘resistance’ of ‘hard reality’?”

“I subjectively think I can fly, but if I jump I’ll still fall. What’s ‘resisting’ my subjectivity? Isn’t it the objective world?”

This is an important question. But the premise of the question itself is wrong.

“Falling” Isn’t Hard Constraint, It’s Conditionally Dependent

Let’s carefully dissect the seemingly “absolutely hard” constraint of “jumping will cause falling.”

For “jumping from building will cause falling” to hold, needs to satisfy all these conditions:

Once any condition changes, the “hard constraint” disappears or changes

Counterexamples: When Conditions Change, “Falling” Disappears

The Truth of “Hard Constraint”

The truth of so-called “hard constraint” is:

On Earth, in waking state, for ordinary living people, the experience “jump will fall” stably repeats in extremely wide conditional ranges, therefore appears “hard”.

But this isn’t “absolute constraint transcending conditions,” but “high stability conditional on conditions”.

Symbolic expression:

Stability of "jump→fall" = f(condition satisfaction)

When condition satisfaction = 100% (Earth, awake, living, normal state)
  → Stability ≈ 99.99%
  → Appears "hard"

When condition satisfaction < 100% (space, dream, dead)
  → Stability → 0
  → "Hard constraint" disappears

No case where condition satisfaction = constantly 100%
Therefore no true "hard constraint"

Relationship with Chapter Twenty-Three: Unification of Two Perspectives

You may have noticed:

Chapter Twenty-Three said: Stability of “jump will fall” comes from high-frequency validation + extensive overlap.

This chapter says: “Jump will fall” is conditionally dependent, changes when conditions change.

Do these two statements conflict?

No conflict. They’re two sides of the same phenomenon:

Chapter 23's Perspective (Consensus Formation):
"Jump will fall" on Earth, for living people
→ Validated by countless people in countless situations
→ Forms extremely stable multi-subjective overlap
→ This is "high-frequency validation + extensive overlap"

Chapter 24's Perspective (Conditional Dependence):
Stability of "jump will fall"
→ Depends on specific conditions (Earth gravity, living body...)
→ Change conditions, consensus changes
→ In space doesn't "fall", in dreams doesn't "fall"

Unified Understanding:
"High-frequency validation + extensive overlap" is the phenomenon
"Conditional dependence" is the mechanism

Under specific conditions, causal relationships are high-frequency stable
→ Forms extensive consensus
→ Appears "hard"

Change conditions, causal relationship fails
→ Consensus changes accordingly
→ "Hard constraint" disappears

Key insight:

“Hard constraint” isn’t “absolute truth transcending conditions,” but “extremely stable consensus under specific conditions.”

• Chapter 23 explains: Why consensus is stable (high-frequency + overlap)
• Chapter 24 explains: Why stability has boundaries (conditional dependence)

Both combined form the complete picture.

Decomposing Other “Hard Constraints”

“Eating will make you full”:

“1+1=2”:

Why Do They Appear “Hard”?

Not because they “conform to objective ontology”

But because of three reasons:

1. Stable in extremely wide conditional ranges

• “Falling” is stable in 99.99% of cases on Earth
• Therefore never exceptions in most people’s experience
• Appears “hard”

2. Extremely high weight

• These causal impressions have extremely high call frequency
• Reinforced countless times from childhood to adulthood
• Weight in cognition approaches 1.0

3. Extremely extensive multi-subjective overlap

• Almost everyone has the same experience
• Forms extremely strong consensus
• Appears “objective”

But “hard” is just “relatively high stability”

Change conditions → “Hard constraint” immediately disappears

True Hard Constraints

Question: Are there true “hard constraints”?

Yes, but not what you think.

True “hard constraints” aren’t inductive from experience (like “will fall” “will be full”), but structural prerequisites of cognitive activity.

Returning to the “Three Meta-Constraints” discussed in Chapter Twenty:

These are the true “hard constraints”:

• Not inductive from experience (like “jump will fall”)
• But structural prerequisites of cognition
• Define the “game rules” of reason matching
• Even AGI cannot escape (detailed in Ch. 20)

But even these don’t claim “absolute truth”:

They’re just axioms within the “StructLang framework.” If you use other frameworks (like quantum cognition, infinite intelligence…), might have different “meta-constraints.”

We’re only saying: Within our framework, these are the bottom-level constraints.

Conclusion: No Hard Constraints, Only Weight Spectrum

All manifestations form a continuous weight spectrum:

Extremely high weight (appears "hard"):
├─ Falling (Earth normal conditions)
├─ Fullness (normal physiological state)
└─ 1+1=2 (standard arithmetic)

High weight (appears "reliable"):
├─ Scientific laws
└─ Common sense

Medium weight (appears "possible"):
├─ Personal experience
└─ Small group consensus

Low weight (appears "soft"):
├─ Hallucinations
├─ Dreams
└─ Individual coincidences

No absolute boundary
Only continuous weight spectrum

Key insight:

The illusion of “hard constraint” comes from:

• ❌ Confusing “high weight” with “absolute truth”
• ❌ Ignoring conditional dependence
• ❌ Treating “extremely stable under current conditions” as “necessity transcending conditions”

After piercing the illusion:

• ✅ Admit all manifestations are conditionally dependent
• ✅ Admit “hard” is just “relatively high stability”
• ✅ Don’t need to assume “objective ontology transcending subjectivity”

Most importantly:

This doesn’t deny the reality of “falling.”

“Falling” on Earth, for living people, is indeed extremely stable.

But this stability:

• Doesn’t need “objective ontology” to support it
• Only needs to be described as “high-frequency stable overlap under specific conditions”
• Acknowledging conditional dependence doesn’t affect its practical value

Understanding “hard constraints” this way:

• More honest (acknowledges conditional dependence)
• Clearer (knows which conditions)
• More explanatory power (can explain counterexamples)
• Doesn’t need unfalsifiable metaphysical assumptions

XI. The Meaning of Liberation

Acknowledging the theological structure of “objectivity worship” has profound liberating significance.

Psychological Liberation

Epistemological Liberation

Methodological Liberation

Political Liberation

XII. Not Nihilism

Must clearly point out: Rejecting “objective ontology” is not nihilism.

Clarifying Misunderstandings

Judgment Standards

How to judge reliability of a consensus?

These are all operational standards, don’t need “objective ontology”

Science’s Special Status

Science is reliable not because it’s “closer to objective ontology,” but because:

These features grant scientific consensus special status, without appealing to “objective ontology”

XIII. Returning to the Origin

Now, let’s return to the initial question.

Three Stages

A Constructive Alternative

We’re not just tearing down without building. We provide an alternative:

Epilogue: A Question

Finally, let me ask you a question:

If tomorrow everyone stopped believing the assumption “objective world exists independently,” would science stop working?

No.

• Scientists would still experiment
• Experiments would still be repeatable
• Theories would still be verifiable
• Predictions would still be effective

Then what’s this assumption’s function?

This is theology’s function.

When the Enlightenment claimed to “overthrow God’s authority,” it only changed God’s name.

God died, objectivity lives eternal.

But now, it’s time to truly return to the origin:

You are you. What you see is what you see.

This doesn’t need transcendent authority to validate.

This is the most basic reality.

Next Step: Return to Micro-Structure

Objectivity worship reveals the macro-structure of cognitive power:

• How transcendent concepts establish authority
• How “you’re too subjective” suppresses dissent
• How individual experience is placed under “objective truth”

But after dismantling macro power structures, we need to return to more specific questions:

At the micro level of individual interaction, how many possibilities are there in subject-object relations?

• When two people meet, what structural configurations form?
• What’s the internal dynamics of each configuration?
• How to identify current situation? How to predict development direction?

This is the topic of the next chapter: 64 Patterns — The Complete Map of Subject-Object Relations.

We will exhaust all possibilities of subject-object relations, establishing a complete analytical coordinate system.

Addendum:

This chapter critiques “objective ontology” as a metaphysical assumption’s theological structure.

This is not critique of scientific method, verifiability standards, or any operational reliability criteria.

On the contrary, freed from “objectivity worship,” science can truly return to its essence: not a religion pursuing transcendent truth, but a method for establishing reliable consensus.