RE: Is the World Quantifiable?
From the overall content of vieiras article I understood the following: That the attempt to quantify the world in order to understand each other and to come to consensus through objectivity shows an imbalance where "quality" is the loser.
The reason why this seems to be the case, I bring in the thought that people often refer to the objectivity of measuring but still are trapped in their subjective view on objects.
Objectivity and facts are abused to form a subjective opinion or argument. Between people I often observe that one accuses the other one of being subjective while he or she himself is subjective, too. But actually, this hinders communication and makes understanding worse than better. To withdraw oneself to the position of objectivity is often not more than the "I know it better than you" attitude. To find a true understanding in an empathetic way I made the experience that it is helpful to accept that the other has his view for reasons only he knows himself. Even, if his point sounds illogical to me it's not from his point of view. There is a wide scale of this subjectivity. From the point I must preserve it - because otherwise I would lose myself - to the point where it gets narcissistic. With this I mean the broad spectrum between helpful and harmful.
Misunderstandings I find mostly in the realm discussing ideas (abstracts). I talk about "freedom" but could also say that I decided on speaking my mind or quit my job. Justice, equality and moral are all nouns (abstract mental concepts). To make them concrete I could say that I decided against cheating on my friend or not beating a person because I got angry at him/her. I let another one have the freedom to come to his senses instead of pushing my aroused argument through. So I would ad that it is in an objective and subjective reality that the world exists. To which extent one overrules the other is a matter of the current relation I step into.
Your feeling of having been insulted can coexist with my missing intention of insulting. From accepting that we are both right from our standpoint, we can unite instead of separate.
Otherwise, we would harden our positions. Because I very well could ask you, if you are not making me an object in insisting that my worldview is pride, conceit and arrogant.
(No where do I read in @vieira's blog post anything of 'quality' being undervalued or neglected when the world is viewed in terms of one's and zero's. That topic is not broached, though, admittedly, @vieira seemed to be heading there at the end.)
The philosophy of agreeing to disagree sounds nice and Christian. It is. But you should accept only political disagreement in public life, unless you're fine with everyone living in his own private reality, autonomous from everybody else, b/c he has his own distinct vocabulary and conception of reality's fundamentals. That is the boundary, as I see it, of sustainable and proper acceptance of separate subjectivities.
In the private sphere let subjectivity thrive, I say, as unhampered by practicality as possible. But no two subjective experiences of reality can ever unite, even while we accept both as equally legitimate; b/c they would nevertheless have their own distinct vocabularies and conceptions of reality's fundamentals, preventing the unity of mutual understanding.
If two people cannot point to the same thing and agree they are pointing at the same thing, there can be no discourse between them, no potential for a common language, which means no sharing of their subjective experience; and need it be said that the entire significance of subjectivity rests in the possibility of communing with others in order to share subjective interpretations of the common, objective world?
Fallacious appeals to objectivity or accusations of subjectivity are off the ball, you are certainly right, and misunderstand the proper value of and relationship between subjectivity and objectivity, not to mention what objectivity and subjectivity mean.
Objectivity and subjectivity both belong to the world. There is subjectivity in the world. That is undeniably true. The reverse is not true: that the world resides (in part) in subjective reality, b/c the world is made by and of men - not by and of their imaginary lives, but the hands and words which fashion objective reality. It is in this world man has created, that subjectivity has a place. And for men this world resides in the objective reality.