Greetings distant friend,
True to my word (and late as well), you are now the lucky recipient and reader of this electronic message, which has successfully navigated through the FBI Carnivore surveillance tracking system, to assure quality control.

What do you think about the mind's attempt to understand as much as possible, as efficiently as possible, for the purpose of controlling all possibilities?
Let's say that I perceive I've contracted a case of intellectual nihilism, spurned by emotional dissipation, in itself a result of unknown (but certainly real) cumulative life decisions.

Like science, the more I split things up to try to discover their nature, the more things are multiplied, and negate the possibility of understanding. Save for some unified theory of how all the dissected parts form the whole. I'm left to question the point of it all to begin with. Why do I want - nay, need - to discover the nature of things? Other people appear blissfully unconcerned. Are they, really? Musn't they too think and feel and see the same things? Perhaps their ability to articulate it in any meaningful way is similarly shot. So I say to myself, how can I start this conversation? How can I draw attention back to the source of everything? And I see thoughts instantly appear, warnings more, that profess past disinterestedness by others, and failed attempts to derive any good from good intents. And a thought says, haven't you learned it's useless!?

Simultaneously, a giant social billboard, plastered with news tickers, stock quotes, political posturing, and preened pleasures all portend to unquestioned sense. It's just the way things are.

My question is:

Why does it feel unnatural to try to change the way things are, when the way things are feels so unnatural? Do you know you're on the right track when things flow? Or does fighting against the flow of unfulfilling social constructs amount to a noble, Martin Luther King Jr.
esque cause?

If everything is, just 'relative', then the declaration of everything being just 'relative' is itself relative, and therefore inherently false by definition. Correct?

With certain (context related) exceptions, it seems like it should be easy enough to form a unified value system of what works and what doesn't, as pertains to a utilitarian ideal of what makes the most people happy most of the time. But should we even accept 'most' as an ideal. When Fox news says they're 'fair and balanced', doesn't balanced refer to their alleging coverage to both sides of the spin? Truth, it seems, isn't balanced. It just is what it is. But what is truth? What is the hard and fast definition of truth?

1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions

3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
- in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY

According to Actuality 3b, truth can be a judgment or proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true. So by virtue of someone proclaiming liberals as the
cause of all social ills, there is truth in that the proclamation was made. It doesn't mean the proclamation is truth, but just that there is a truth to the expression of it. "Was that sentiment expressed? Yes (true), it was. Was that sentiment truth? Debatable." And by debatable it is meant that the sentiment can be deconstructed into examples cited by the proclaimer. The proclaimer could cite examples of liberal defeatist thinking, and extol the ways such thinking inhibits their (the proclaimers) ideas of progress or good. So there doesn't appear to be a hard and fast all encompassing truth that applies to all existent things, other than the fact that they exist and that the things they say or do, while debatable in meaning or intent, are not debatable as to occurrence. Truth then as we would see it as mattering (
i.e., in the context of things we seemingly enjoy - meaning) is nearly entirely subjective. So subjectivity, which by definition is probably the complete opposite of truth (not the least of which in the field of science) is actually the most full of truth. For example a statement that a certain musical piece constitutes the best musical performance ever, is subjectively true. A contradicting statement, proclaiming a different musical piece as the best musical performance ever produced, would also be subjectively true. It seems that proclamations of this sort are useless, other than as statements of preference perhaps. But unless the preference is being stated with the intent and hope that the perceiving party agree with the stated sentiment, or produce a similar form of musical composition, what is the point of stating the preference? And the question,
what is the point? is really a request to disclose the meaning. And this loops right back to meaning as a subjective vs. objective (and what - if anything - constitutes objective) meaning.

What are your thoughts on the relation between objectivity and subjectivity, and loops? And can you frame them in ideas and illustrations that are not as utterly boring, theoretical, and empty of specificity, as the terms are generally perceived to be. I think it can be successfully argued that the only distinction between objectivity and subjectivity is that objectivity is subjectively declared to be objective, albeit in most cases (such as in the law of gravity) it can be objectively demonstrated for everyone. But for instance, the theory of relativity, on which so much science (and material realities) are based, is a theory. And if a better theory were proposed or stumbled upon, it might oppose, alter, or surpass this theory in practical application.

So what is practically applicable? Isn't that the truth that everyone wants? To know what is possible and to control what is possible. And if what is possible is completely subjective (and all possibility is, as much as theory is) then isn't this the objective truth that people are seeking in subjective forms (movies, music, meanings, art)? The actualization of what is perceived as possible? Is not that where technology is leading us? Instantaneousnessism. Complete constant control. In between where we are now, and where we are headed (complete constant control) there is a quarry filled with executed possibilities. We take the formulas that succeeded and we perpetuate them as much as possible. Is that objective truth? Is that the path we should pursue? Why? If it's all relative.

Good day

jASON: 5/31/2007

After weeks of deliberating and thought, I have come up with a concise and simple answer to all these questions posed within. I choose to give it in interprative dance. Please turn on your webcam now...

Well, since my webcam doesn't seem to be working, I'll have to write it here, but a lot will be lost in the translation.

Objectivity. I believe what people consider objectivity is actually just an attempt at objectivity. Which, compared to the complete lack ov objectivity that is mostly displayed, looks objective. I guess people can be objective about things they don't care about at all. But that is also usually stuff people know the least about- something they don't care about. Ironic, isn't it? But if the attempt at objectivity is the best we can hope for, then I guess that's what we're going to have to get used to.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I can speak on changing things seeming unnatural, while "the way things are" also seem unnatural. "The way things are" obviously must feel natural to some people; and to others I think fear ov change and the unknown make them not want to challenge it. But to some people, they do want to change things, and make things better and different. But as to why this is so hard, it is a complete mystery. An example: it seems that every person on the planet would believe that free food for everyone would be a good thing. Some people might disagree on a 'shallow' level, but I believe once you explained the benefits vs. whatever hang-up they have, I believe that it's something that everyone would agree on. Free food for everyone on the planet. Where this food would come from, and how the workers who harvest/ prepare it would be compensated would have to be worked out, but I think that would be pretty small details. So why hasn't it ever been attempted or even brought up? Is it fear? Fear ov change, of disrupting the status quo? There would be food that wasn't free- desserts and some foods I'm sure, so people in the food industry would still make money (perhaps even enough to help fund the free food). Using this example ov "the way things are" that don't feel right- this is ov course just one thing, but with so many starving in the world, it's a big one I think.

I have to go get to Fed Ex for R before they close, and get some food, so I'm going to be a little late for our meeting, but I'll be here. In the meantime, leave me some notes on what I've written above, and if it's going the way you want it to (the direction ov this conversation)...

jason

 

istoba: 6/23/2007

Wrong!
:D

Well, my Tuesday and Thursday (6-9pm) Ethics class has started so it looks like our format of choice will be chosen without our choice, by the universe at large. And I do mean at large!
Thanks for your poorly, I mean well thought out reply. And I apologize insincerely for my late re-reply. I wonder what life would be like with radical honesty. The kind that guy who wrote that book about it talked about. You know.
He said people should masturbate in front of each other, I think because it would represent a very sophisticated and sincere level of honesty. Who knows.
I particularly like that response: Who knows? It's a strange form of lazy resignation.

My ethics class is pretty good. My teacher wrote the book that we're using and he's teaching from. It only cost $120 in the bookstore (a steal) and all I could hear is cha-ching! sounds again and again in my head from the moment I was informed he wrote the book, until the moment $120 was debited from my checking account. It has trees in it though, concept trees. And you can't get those for no measly two dollar leftover library bargain bookstore discount grab bag bin special display, can you? No, you can't. So stop even trying.

Oh wait, the real reply!
Alright, so here it is. You and I, we book a flight to Greenland. From there we synchronize and coordinate our Microsoft software powered GPS devices to route us to a remote wing of the earth, from where we will study our asses off, and stumble upon all sorts of indisputable truths, which we will then either burn on a future date of our deciding, or bury and enshrine in mysterious symbolic rituals, inducting a chosen few with the secret knowledge and practices, until which date (the end of the world) compels us to battle the illuminati for the fate of the entire galaxy. Mark Hammil is involved. You in? Bitch.

Oh wait, the real reply!
Well, basically, you're right. You know. You're just right. I struggled with it for a few days, and then I just had to give up, because I couldn't keep living the lie that was denying how right you were/are.
What if everyone is right. What if that is the only requirement for solving all dilemmas? That of finding the bridges between your rightness, my rightness, and Jeff Bridges rightness. Holy sheeit. I'm effin' right!

It could be that objectivity is boring. But I can't say with any certainty I know what either objectivity or boring really is. So that statement may be patently false. May. May. May. Not the month. The word. May. Probably. Perhaps. Potentially. Possibly. Your opinion. It's all relative. We have a nice set of words with which to neutralize concepts, and ironically, realities, with possibilities. I strongly believe (nay need) we should be able to turn our TVs on (5 each) with our brain waves. There is not a single celled space in my spiritually fantastic soul that in any way concedes that a brain wave remote control is not possible. It is possible, and by-damnit, I want 1. And it needs to do other stuff too. Like it should roll out, to any length and width I want (but remain thin, but expand in thickness as well, at my bidding) and contain the highest resolution display ever. Even surpassing that of the physical universe, which by my calculations, operates at a native resolution of 3.14159265 pixels x 4.712388975 pixels, which is admittedly low, but has something to do with the golden mean and lotus flowers. The resolution of my remote however, must exceed 10 trillion times 1080P. I want to see every damn dimple in Tom Cruise's dimply damn cheek, damnit! Damn.

Alright, now I'm just getting carried away, but it's all merely to emphasizes the ridiculousness of it all, by which I namely mean, the political system, which is the public (intergalactic) representative of earth to the universe. Is it all just humorous. Some kid's leg just blown off by mortar rockets and TIVO didn't record the last 5 minutes of my American Idol. WTF

Do you think the time is now more for direct confrontation of issues, or indirect (as through art) confrontation of same said issues? What are some of these issues that you find yourself interested in? I for one, despite rather enjoying school, wish there was something more practical I could be doing. Like joining a large team of carpenters who travel the world quickly erecting modest houses and giving them to people in need in exchange for a comfy bed to sleep on and some awesome home cookin'. I call it, the LTCWTWQEMHGTPINIEFCBSOASAHC association, for short.
Because acronyms rule.

Alright, well I'm not getting along with seriousity wright now, so I'll have to think about objectivity, and unnaturalness later, as all of this is just coming rather (aimlessly) naturally. So expect that, because I promise it.

Now I go do homework.
I'm at the NSA monitored library.

God day.
P.