Report Auvisome's Profile

'Objective-Neutrality' is the idea that everything that exists within our reality, only exists as itself—neither good or bad in isolation. It is only through the inference of a criteria which ultimately determines whether an object is good or bad. However, contention arises when the task is to select a criteria.
First we have to go over my definition of bias; it is the inclination to do something, based from one's beliefs.

I’ve categorised the selection of criteria between two camps, through the inference of bias:

A) Introspective Bias: is the inclination to select a criteria on account of one's preferences (Introspective Criteria; history/upbringing, chemical makeup, neurology, synapses, and subsequent preferences/beliefs/opinions)—and upon doing so, ensures that the subject will emotionally resonate with anything to adheres to said, Introspective Criteria.

B) Collective Bias: is the inclination to select a criteria under the belief that its discussion will be important and applicable to the greater whole of the group (Criteria of Consensus; a singular belief or mutual agreement/understanding between participants of a discussion, that 'something' is important and applicable to the greater discussion of collective)—and upon doing so, ensures that whatever conclusion is gleaned, is understood and attested by all participants of the discussion. A side note: Collective Criteria is usually extrapolated from a common facet of each participant's Introspective Criteria, just consolidated and condensed into a singular, concise criteria—easily understood by all members of the discussion.

Concerning the nature of criteria in and of itself. It’s merely a hollow, valueless set of rules and concepts, scaffolded to aid the analysis and evaluation of an Objectively-Neutral construct.

Adversity only exists to those with agency; good and bad, criteria, and quality—are concepts that concern subjectivity and decision making; only an active agent could distinguish whether they like or dislike something, which is determined by criteria. To the universe, everything is what it is—which is to say that there isn’t a definitive/universal adversity. Existence as a whole is Objective Neutrality (the mere fact of existence). For there to be universal adversity would beg the question for why it's there in the first place—it's an oxymoron. Existence is maintained by itself—constantly changing and transitioning to different states and properties through interactions, in an nigh-endless cycle. Things happen for a reason, and there is otherwise no reason for why it shouldn’t happen, beyond the ignorance and biases of an agent.

There isn’t such a thing known as a perfect criteria—or as I call it, the 'True Middle-ground'. Such a thing would require every infinity, stipulation, and permutation—regarding criteria—consolidated into a singular, absolute criteria—that which evaluates the true worth or purpose of an object. Which is qualitatively and quantitatively impossible; you would need no less than Omnipotence to achieve such a criteria. Suffice to say, you can always stipulate a criteria to make anything look 'good'.

TL;DR
Quality is relative; your opinions are both subjective and objective as long as you have evidence and a criteria supporting them—however, they are not universal, definitive and absolute fact regarding the object. You may be wondering what it is that I value as a criteria. I personally value the Criteria of Engagement. My definition of engagement is: the logical synthesis between events, allowing the audience member to understand the concepts and developments in plot—allowing them to predict, anticipate, and surprise their curiosity, and be satisfied with the result.