The Brunch Dialogues III

BRUNCH THREE – Subjectivity, Objectivity, and the Unseen

(Same café, but a sunnier day. OLIVIA is in oversized sunglasses and has a tote bag promoting a Genevieve Novak novel slumped beside her. She’s picked a veggie burger and an orange juice. XANTHIPPE has her regular. They settle in — both a little sweatier than usual after a harder pilates session.)

OLIVIA So, today’s the one with ghosts?

XANTHIPPE Sort of. Ghosts of a sort. The stuff we don’t normally include. The unseen.

OLIVIA Oooh spooky. Okay, I’m in. But can you back up and explain that thing from last week again — about positive and negative numbers?

XANTHIPPE Sure. So — there’s this really useful distinction in philosophy. John Searle talks about it, but it shows up in a lot of places. It’s the difference between ontological and epistemic. Ontological means what actually exists. Epistemic means what we can know or say about it.

OLIVIA Okay... but like, in human terms?

XANTHIPPE Alright — take your sore legs from pilates. That’s ontologically subjective. The pain is real, but only you can feel it. Now, take your opinion that Charli XCX is better than Taylor Swift — that’s epistemically subjective. It’s a value judgement. Someone else — like me — might say Taylor’s more interesting. Not wrong, just different frameworks.

OLIVIA Mmm, I mean they’d be kind of wrong. But okay.

XANTHIPPE (Laughs) Now what about this café table? That’s ontologically objective — it exists whether we notice it or not.

OLIVIA Right. Even if I leave, it’s still there.

XANTHIPPE And a newspaper report can also be objective, but in a different way. That’s epistemically objective. It’s real, and we can agree on it, even if we don’t perceive it identically.

OLIVIA That’s actually really clear.

XANTHIPPE Now, think about arithmetic. When you only use positive numbers — like subtracting or dividing — you’re working with what’s visible. What’s already happened. That’s the subjective side. It’s shaped by your experience.

OLIVIA Like only counting the stuff I noticed.

XANTHIPPE Exactly. But when you include negatives — absences, gaps, unseen influences — you get a different picture. A fuller one. That’s objectivity. You’re accounting for the invisible.

OLIVIA So subtraction and division are subjective. Addition and multiplication — if you include negatives — are objective?

XANTHIPPE Yes. Subtraction is epistemic subjectivity — you know what you’ve lost. That ache of dukkha. Division is ontological subjectivity — carving reality into concepts. Samudaya. Craving born of category.

OLIVIA Like craving isn’t wanting a thing — it’s wanting the pattern to repeat.

XANTHIPPE Exactly. Then you get addition. Ontological objectivity. You include everything — seen and unseen — and the spread evens out. No hierarchy. That’s nirodha.

OLIVIA Flatness. Like it could be peace. Like... non-duality?

XANTHIPPE Yes. Where the observer and observed aren’t split. Everything counts equally. There’s no peak experience anymore, because it’s all there.

OLIVIA That actually sounds... soothing.

XANTHIPPE And then multiplication. Epistemic objectivity. The shape of what’s likely. Marga. The bell curve. Karma as compounding.

OLIVIA Karma like... not mystical, but just the probability of your habits?

XANTHIPPE Exactly. Do something enough, it creates a shape. Not judgment, just outcome.

OLIVIA I really want a poster of this now. With colours.

XANTHIPPE We’ll make one. But first, next week: Aristotle.

OLIVIA (Laughs) Okay, now that sounds spooky.