Elsewhere on the spectrum, some proponents believe that this quest for objectivity is ultimately doomed to failure: subjectivity will always shift into educational research, perhaps by defining the research agenda or research questions; through the selection of research methods and methods; subtly by what is not requested or noted, as well as by what is in the data collection; observation; in the analysis; and in reports. We deceive ourselves, it is claimed, when we imagine that we can escape such subjectivity. It is “a garment that cannot be removed” (Peshkin, 1988:7). Normative and legal ontology. Normative intersubjectivity has the generally accepted character of norms and rules of conduct or evaluation, according to which a normative and legal ontology can be constructed, containing an interconnected set of laws, orders, norms, agreements and other normative regulatory documents that ensure the regulation of the relations of actors at a certain level of indeterminacy of the situation. However, as the degree of vagueness of the situation increases and crosses an acceptable threshold, new rules of interaction of actors are developed that transform the normative and legal ontology, which means that a permanent monitoring of the normative and legal framework must be organized. These types of ontologies, implemented in the form of a computerized framework of normative and legal knowledge, have been used in particular in the development of a regional system for the provision of state and municipal services in electronic form to the population of the Samara region of Russia (Vittikh et al. 2009b). Logical intersubjectivity considers that such statements, which are the result of a logical deduction, are rationally justified. It also requires comprehensibility, explanation and general acceptance. Thus, if we start from the principles of a free society, the formation of an intersubjective system to regulate a problematic situation must lead to the creation (on the basis of self-organization) of a community of communities (a composite holon) representing an association of actors (with resources in their possession) who have a common understanding of what matters, Within the framework of this association, it is regulated jointly and what types of issues are regulated independently by each actor. In order to legalize these agreements, the actors conclude agreements that share the areas of responsibility for the decisions taken.
For the resolution of possible conflicts, one or more actors are endowed with low-level authorities and resources (Ackoff 2009), i.e. the “higher” elements of the intersubjective system receive the authority and resources of the “lower” elements. But the processes of definition in the intersubjective system are the processes of non-violent communication by actors based (according to Habermas) on “solidarity, orientation towards the common will” (New Philosophical Encyclopedia 2010). Strictly speaking, there is no upper or lower level in such a system; There is no division at all for the levels, “there are only interactive key points of responsibility” (Cloke and Goldsmith 2004). In the most general sense of what happens between conscious human actors or exists among them, intersubjectivity is little more than a synonym for “social”. However, as used by social scientists, intersubjectivity generally refers to a set of relationships, meanings, structures, practices, experiences, or phenomena that are evident in human life and cannot be reduced to subjectivity (in relation to the psychological states of individual actors) or objectivity (in relation to brutal empirical facts about the objective world) or fully understood. In this sense, the concept is generally intended to overcome an unproductive oscillation between methodological subjectivism and objectivism. The concept is particularly prevalent in social theories and self-theories. The situation described by Levinas is one of radical asymmetry: although he speaks of a face-to-face situation, the relationship cannot be reversed, so there would be a complementarity of perspectives, and there is also no common category in which the other and I can be subsumed. The asymmetry in Husserl`s version of intersubjectivity went the other way, the subject being the norm of the other and the place, if not the agent of its constitution as different. Nevertheless, there is a process of “altering” the self, as Michael Theunissen called it, which leads to a situation in which I am one among others (Theunissen, 1965: sections 11-14). For Levinas, there is no such operation to level me and the other, and his otherness is irrevocable.
My responsibility, which results from his request, cannot be satisfied by my rights towards him. It is unconditional and has no natural limits. It should be noted that the need to make decisions is not understood by actors in all situations. To this end, it is necessary that they be dissatisfied with the situation or, in general, that it is necessary that the degree of indeterminacy of the situation exceeds a certain permissible threshold. In this context, one can speak of a problematic situation when an unsatisfied state of affairs is already understood, but it is not yet known what needs to be done to change it (Novikov and Novikov 2007). Since that time, however, the world has become increasingly open and dynamic; Consumer demands have changed, demand for motor vehicles has been very sensitive to predictions due to their stochastic nature; The market has started to receive foreign-made motor vehicles that compete with VAZ models, etc. Vaz production lines needed during modernization, technical conversion, serious personnel problems, etc. But the centralized bureaucratic system, which was already placed at the base of business management at the design stage, proved unable to master this ever-growing “snowball” of problems. This skepticism about the possibility of objectivity is closely linked to a second opinion that it is better to allow a scientific reader to take into account this subjectivity by providing sufficient information about the researcher – his background, his interests, his ideological links, etc. (his biographical positioning, as it is sometimes called) – and thus allow the reader to: this in assessing the importance of research (see e.B. Atkinson, 2000).
This, in a sense, always represents a search for a kind of objectivity, a version of what things really are, which hides behind what is recognized as a human representation of this reality. Semantic intersubjectivity presupposes the explanation and common agreement with regard to the terms and judgments formed from them, i.e. they are understood equally by all and can therefore be applied in the same way. These two concepts of the self probably remain within the framework of a debate in which man`s under-socialized and over-socialized views take the extremes. The introduction of interaction and intersubjectivity into self-formation created theoretical intermediate positions and, perhaps more importantly, they allowed for different self-accentuations without making the positions mutually incompatible. Nevertheless, the modernist-oriented vision always emphasizes a self that affects the world, while the sense-oriented vision emphasizes the fact that the self is supported the meaning of its actions throughout the world of which it is a part. Since the mid-1970s, however, theoretical and empirical developments have tended to break the existing two-dimensional way of conceptualization. Second, Levinas also reminds us that being ethical means being open to the radical difference of the other, being prepared and passionate about it.
Our society has taught us what is moral and immoral, good and bad, good and evil. They serve as a standard of living so that we can live together harmoniously. However, Levinas is also right when he says they could also be tools for “unified” behavior, thinking, and living. It is an undeniable fact that humans are not the same and even science confirms that each individual has their own unique DNA. .