One can neither experience the world entirely subjectively or objectively. One can never escape themselves or the world around them.

The only way to counteract the quaila controversy is to get everyone to view the world through the same lens, which at this point in time is not possible. — Anonymys

That is why the only place you will ever read about 'qualia' is in reference to a particular clique of mainly American academics. In reality, it's meaningless jargon and not worth the time and attention wasted on it.

In respect of objectivity - it is a matter of degree. And one can expect the highest degree of objectivity in respect of things which can be precisely measured - hence the enormous emphasis on scientific method in modern cultural discourse. Of course, the question of what kinds of things to measure, is itself a qualitative one. 'Not everything that counts can be counted', said Einstein, 'and not everything that can be counted, counts.'

No you cant. And yet yes.

The only way to counteract the quaila controversy is to get everyone to view the world through the same lens, which at this point in time is not possible. — Anonymys

But whose lens, and from where? It doesn't seem to be that qualia is the problem for obtaining objectivity. It is the perspective itself from a certain place and at a certain time that creates subjectivity. This means that, in order to be more objective, we wouldn't want to all view the world through the same lens, as that lens would have to occupy a certain place at a certain time and could only provide limited information about the world as a result of it being in a certain place at a certain time. In order to obtain a higher degree of objectivity, we'd need to view the world through ALL lenses, including those of other animals, and including those that are long dead and those that will exist in the future.

In order to know the world, your knowledge of it must take some form. This is where the qualia come in. Even if you were omniscient (ultimately objective), your knowledge of the world must take some form, or else how would you know that you know anything?

If your qualia wasn't about the world, then you'd be experiencing the world as it truly is, but then I'd have to question that there is an experience at all, as the experience and the world would be one and the same.

Yes. First we all view from a particular perspective, based upon position and experience. Then we are viewing through different kinds. What we are experiencing, sensing or feeling internally may be nothing like what others may be experiencing, sensing or feeling internally, but we compare notes (the purpose of education and conversation) and reach some consensus on what to name it. But symbolic naming is always necessarily approximate, incomplete, and subject to change.

Where does qualia emanate from? It seems to be fundamental. Objectivity is impossible. What we have is consensus.

My favorite answer so far

My favorite answer so far — Anonymys

Interesting.

One can argue that perhaps one must reach the point where the whole distinction between subjective and objective is erased...

One can argue that perhaps one must reach the point where the whole distinction between subjective and objective is erased... — Beebert

This is the basis of this article and accompanying video. Ultimately no distinction or boundary can be found. It is implied by quantum physics. The article suggests (and I agree) that the mind parses out for utility value but at the end there is not and cannot be distinctions.

http://www.philosopher.eu/texts/interpreting-altered-states-of-mind-through-bergson-schopenhauer/

https://youtu.be/LYcIrwBoVP4

and experiencing it through an exclusively objective framework — Anonymys

I would have thought that experience is by definition subjective. One can consider something in more objective terms, but that wouldn't be an experience.
The fact that this wasn't obvious means I probably don't know what is being asked in the OP.

We experience the world through our conscious mental representations of it and these representations reflect the world in some way, which means there is some similarity or correspondence between the world and the representations. This similarity is not surprising, since the representations are created through our interaction with the world and thus by the mapping of parts or properties of the world via causal relations onto the structure of our minds. We can then continue to build these representations further by reason, that is, by the rules of logic and mathematics which govern the world as well as our minds/brains. Finally, evolution (natural selection) helps to arrange that these representations correspond to reality in a way that is beneficial to survival and reproduction, which often means that there is a high degree of similarity/correspondence between the world and the representations.

To the extent our minds are similar, the qualia of our minds are similar too, since the qualia are the stuff our minds are made of.

My favorite answer so far
— Anonymys
Interesting. — Rich

its because it made me laugh

Each sense and each emotional feeling has had to go through your personal cognitive and physiological process. Therefore stating that your experience of the world is unique to you. The only way to counteract the quaila controversy is to get everyone to view the world through the same lens, which at this point in time is not possible. — Anonymys

Unique experience doesn't imply that the world can't be understood objectively, it only implies that the objects of one's experience may be different. I think its worth defining our terms to see what the real controversy is.

According to the Oxford dictionary, "Subjective":

[1] Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
[2] Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.

"Objective":

[1] (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
[2] Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.

The first meaning for each term is essentially pragmatic. When Alice said it was raining, did she actually look or is she just giving her opinion based on how she feels? In this sense, I think it's clear that we can be objective. But there is no implication that an objective judgement can be reached independent of experience. Alice is required to look.

The second meaning for each term is closer to the philosophical sense. Is there rain independent of Alice's perception of it? Yes there is. But there is still a fundamental role for the subject here which is to define the terms which allow such judgments to be made (in this case, the term "rain"). And such definitions depend on experience.

I would summarize this as "the view from somewhere". The world exists independently of us, but the representation of it depends on human experience (which, by definition, is qualitative).

This, I think, avoids the dualism that is often implicit in these discussions where one is supposed to either reify subjectivity on the one hand (whether cast as "qualia" or "mind") or else eliminate human experience from objectivity on the other hand. It's a false choice.