The ideal of maintaining objectivity is only the ideal of maintaining some degree of cognitive privacy. That is, the ontological position is merely a cover for a social, human position about states of knowing. For, if there is objectivity, then men need not consult each other per se, but only incidental to some discursive purpose. If there is no objectivity, then social consultation is per se, since private knowing is excluded by the inability of any one man to render a thought commensurate with an object. Indeed, without objectivity, there is no object – all that remains is the practice of its social construction.
Such relativism and groundlessness about knowing ought rightly scare many thinkers. For, if there is only the hive of mind, then there is nothing that supports each individual moment thereof, or at least a linear mereologist would have us believe.
The obvious solution is to save the object. Hereby, one saves the knower. But suppose one wishes to save the knower without the object – how could he do so?
This problem must be fleshed out with greater judiciousness at a later time.
misteramazing 