Objective reality is a medium which exists between persons. It is supposed to be the common ground which allows constructive relationships.

There is a vague notion in society that objectivity is something of value; but it is defied to such an extent that communication often breaks down for a lack of it.

Subjectivity has is own place, and it is not in handling reality.

Objectivity is needed to add rationality to a subject. These standards are important because all life is derived from objective reality and can only be sustained through it.

This means that whenever there is a problem or concern, it can only be resolved by relating to the objective realities involved. Objective realities tell what the problems are and what the answers are.

The trouble is, it is not what one gets when taking up concerns. One gets subjectivity where there should be objectivity. Rationality cannot be used under those conditions.

The subjectivity often takes the form of value statements and prejudices. A value statement indicates whether someone likes or dislikes something rather than what its characteristics are. The values are implicit in smears which have no relationship to anything objective.

Here is what objectivity and rationality are supposed to look like. A statement is suppose to represent something that exists outside of one's own mind, which is what objectivity is; and it should be clear enough to create atleast a starting point for relating additional realities to it. Then rationality is pointing out the relationships between the realities with evidence available to indicate the truth.

This path creates a procedure; it does not say who is right and who is wrong; but it leads to greater truth. Applying the procedure is everything. Without it, no relationship to life can be developed.

One of the detractions from this process is an over-concern with who is right and who is wrong. With rationality, you don't draw such absolute conclusions; you continuously look for more evidence. The rightness or wrongness evolves automatically as greater truth, when realities interact.

These abstract statements are sure to be rejected by anyone who oversimplifies and absolutizes. There is an infinite amount of complexity that builds upon these principles.

For example, people do have valid subjective concerns, and they can promote realities and draw conclusions in valid ways. But these factors are apart from the applications of the reasoning process and must be secondary to objective reality. Subjective existence can only be constructive after objective reality creates the basis for it.

To develop the abstractions more concretely, one of the main problems in evaluating or supposedly criticizing is that specifics are not given. Without specifics, any statement represents nothing more than values.

Another problem is self-origins or authority-origins for reality. No matter how much of an expert self or authority is supposed to be, realities cannot be exposed to reason from a subjective basis. There has to be a description of evidence in objective terms before anything enters the objective and rational domain of life.

Even if the authorities are right, the realities cannot be used for anything apart the rationality. But when authorities are sheltered from rationality, they never are right, because it is impossible to be right apart from scrupulous rationality.

A prejudicial person would say that I need to practice what I preach rather than making myself out to be an authority, as some persons say. Any contact with the realities at hand would show that I do not make the slightest representation of any authority but develop the evidence for statements by explaining the surrounding realities and relationships. The evidence is in the relationships combined with the lessons of life and previously developed knowledge.

Then in complete contradiction to the above assumption, the same prejudicial persons, being addicted to contradictions, assume that I should not be making such statements, because I am not enough of an authority to do so. They sometimes ask what my credentials are. If I had credentials, I would have to be promoting the world's corruptions rather than producing an alternative to them.

Rationality is a human responsibility incumbent upon every person. Limiting it to authorities is a perversion of the purpose of life.

Which gets to another element of this subject. God created molecules for a major purpose—to establish a set of objective realities as a basis for life, so sin could be overcome through objective reality.

Even without molecules, objective reality is a medium in which life exists. Therefore, the most fundamental way people are supposed to relate to each other is through the medium of objective realities, particularly when there are problems and difficult questions involved.

It is totally inappropriate to replace objective reality with subjective comments as a method of dispensing with social concerns. In other words, there is a domain of social concerns which require objectivity.

In isolation, supposed objectivity becomes relative and disputable, but the procedure of rationality is the method of producing it.

Objectivity is not exactly a quality of realities but a method of developing them. Realities are as objective as they are related to all surrounding realities. An analogy is the adequacy of car parts. They fit and are suitable when put in place and functioning with surrounding parts.

In other words, name-calling is ok, when you do it the way I do it. I use name-calling instead of letting name-calling use me. There is also a major difference between truth and lies. Sometimes, to not use highly negative labels would be a misrepresentation of something. But to use negative labels validly requires a clear development of surrounding realities, so rationality can be applied to the subject.

The purpose of material life is to overcome sin.