If only I could talk in terms consensual reality would understand...

Once again I find myself at the edge of a great insight, though I suspect this is my mind playing games with me. I am tempted to forfeit this endevor before I begin because even the contemplation of the topic exposes my own preoccupation with this particular weakness. There is a method for moving forward despite this deliema and it is rooted in two basic aspects of this writers nature: An affinity for temptation and a peculiar brand of fearless, self-depricating introspection. I can only speak for myself but I feel that anyone who sits down to consider the broader motivations of humanity must poses these two things in droves. Without the former the commentator would lack the ability to experience, and without the later he or she would fail notice the changes made to reality by their act of observation.

In what way then do I modify reality to fit my suppositions? First, I distincly remember attempting to disconnect my senses. Having failed or at least finding the task as useless as vainity I began trusting my more subjective impulses. This was an unsatisfying movement since in my mind a great insight must come from a more or less objective position. Here I have have trapped myself on the outside of the mobius strip. Moving in either direction could lead to a fall of epic proportions, my mind reals when I consider the notion that even a movement towards objectivetivity will only be the result of several movements of subjective thinking. In this way I have made the ultimate modification to my reality and it fits perfectly into what has become an instinctual to deny the concept altogether.

This does not rest well with my sensibilities. I search for my entry point only to discover it only works one way. The only way out now is to move forward. How to comfort my restless desire for pure observation?

Judgement: The Wounding of Objectivity
A particular subject that I have railed against for some time is the notion of hyper-sexuality on a macro level and the assumption of a problem therein. I have picked this concept as an example for two reasons: the effects are pervasive and have already been widely observed and it is a perfect instance where judgement is rarely withheld yet we all enthusiastically take part in ensuring its continuence. The obsession with sex exists in every facet of society, so much so that if a man were to fail to live up to the expectation of having a lurid fatasy every thirty seconds on his own he need only flip through a few television channels which will more than make up for it. For that matter, in the most dire situation there is a good chance that making it to church on a given Sunday will be 'helpful' (See: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=6264959&page=1).

It is here that I make my first specific and perhaps easiest judgement. I begin to see it as a 'dichotomy of contradiction'. This is also a rash judgement because the moment an honest second thought is given I see my error. The mistake is in viewing it all as if it existed inside a bubble. Certainly this makes the observation a little easier, but it has become distorted. As my perception forces everything to bleed together, I realize that I am missing something. Besides, the consideration of hyper-sexuality was based upon the assumption of a problem and this 'dichotomy of contradiction' does not precisely identify the problem I suspect exists.

Now I really am in trouble. In my unfettered zeal for conviction I find I am contradiciting myself. veiwing hyper-sexuality as and effect within a bubble offered me the comfort of externalizing it. Realizing the bubble only exists within my thoughts has put me in a position from which further understanding is only possible by decending into the particular aspects of the subject in question. From here if I desire to find objectivity I must understand that bursting the subjective bubble has only served to create a plethora of micro bubbles. In order to fully understand and identify the core of the issue I must first dissect each of these paying careful attention to my assumptions. In this way judgement was a convinence right up until I decided to go to war with it. Now it fights back with a vengance. Each micro bubble will first be interpreted through the medium of judgement, a battle will be waged, and I will come to the conclusion that the problem existed within my own thoughts the entire time. I have turned the axe of judgement on myself.

Now I must ask myself one question: Have I lost all hope for objectivity?

Making Peace with the Subjective:
The idea that purely objective thought cannot exist does not sit well with me, however I still have to admit that the observable evidence does not agree with my desires. Continuing with the example of hyper-sexuality I will consider what I believe are two of my most reasoned conflicts. These two things actually tie back to the same ethical failing in my mind: fostering a sense of inadaquecy. It is certainly not an uncommon view point that much of modern media, in particular advertising behaves in this way. Specifically what comes to mind for me are two products that seem to accomplish this: The 'Girls Gone Wild' video serise and the 'male enhancement' pills Extenz. If one happens to be awake during the early morning hours both of these products run infomercials almost nightly on multiple channels.

Let's take the later as our first experiment. My initial judgement has already been expressed above, however if I am to attempt to find something resembling objectivity I must to the best of my ability shun that notion, admit that it was perhaps a snap judgement based upon no discernable facts. What winds up making this exercise so difficult is the fact that no matter how many times I attempt to approach the topic, regardless of how much I try to deny my instict to judgement, I began immediatly searching for the fault. This is the relm of the cynic, not of objectivity. I try another approach, I look for what is right. In this observation I find that I have repulsed myself. My subjective will not then allow me to be objective.

Does it then follow that my subjective self is tied steadfast to a sense of instinct? My rejection of this product and it advertisement comes because I feel adaquate and the adverts demand that I suspend this perception of myself. If instinct is the root of my subjective thought than perhaps the video serise will provide better clues to the limits of my sensibilites.

I reject these video this time not so much in defense of myself, but rather from what I percive as a learned tendency to defend what I see as female dignity. Not being a female myself it should theoretically be possible for me to at least temporarly suspend this. Still I find myself approching the topic with a sense of finding the moral failing. Even if I can subtract the initial and obviouse value judgement, all I want to do is find some deeper, perhaps more nefarious fault within it.

Despite this I cannot deny the lure of nubile bodies, no matter how frustruating they may be to a single young adult male. Here then I actually find an instance of pure instinct guiding my percerption. It seems to me that where ever I turn, however I try to substract subjective thought from my process of duduction, I am bound by it.

In this case, pure objectivity is impossible, general objectivity is difficult.

"To be objective is to treat others as you treat an object, a corpse—to behave with them like an undertaker."
EM Ciroan - 'The Trouble with Being Born'

My final perscription for curing the desire for objectivity is this: since objectivity seems to fall ever so gracelessly into the impossible, it should not be sought after. Instead what one should seek to do is not just observe the things he or she wishes to be objective about, indeed, we should all spend a little less time engaging in that activity. We should focus the brunt of our judgements and observations in on ourselves, find the core of out subjective thoughts. Only then can we have a fighting chance at making an observation that is pure in relation to who we are.

A friend pointed out that perhaps the best we can hope for is to remain open minded in regard to all things. While I agree with this notion, I would also like to add to it.

Consider the above quote. To me it speaks of the fallacy of seeking objectivity. We must view all things as living. My propensity for judgement actually proves this. In this sense, it is judgement, not subjectivity that is our greatest challenge when dealing with the stange concept that is humanity. But if we can begin to view all things as growing and developing then perhaps without judgment we can find areas of weakness and coach them into a better state of being.

This would beg the question, how do we know what the weaknesses are? Who gets to decide?

I firmly believe that if we turn our eyes inward, use the external not as something for target practice, but rather as an initial impetus for self-observation, the molding of the self will result in a subsequent molding of reality.

After all, wasn't that really the goal?