It is difficult to explain how I can be against objectivity and be right. It requires that the listening subject suspend belief of a world outside of him or her self, it requires that the person not believe in the “I” as much as it insinuates that there is indeed an “I” though this “I” can not be external or outside of itself and everything else. My audience does not know that I am a part of them, they see one another as complete disparate parts, secularization has told them that there is a world disconnected from them, so disconnected in fact that not only does it act and react without concern for them, and that it lives beyond them and before them and before “I”; while I can not for some unphantomable reason conceive of a world or universe without me in it for a single adventure of its existence.
It is rather selfish of me to believe that the universe has such adamant sense of energy conservation that it would always have me in it under some whatever guise, and I accept the selfishness of that, even as it is possible to conceive that an expanding universe will eventually get cold if only because it is not cuddling up to all of its parts; and in an energy bound universe cold is death. Still I assume that making myself apart of everything is not so selfish after all if everything is apart of me I am more inclined to have its best interest in mind. If everything is a part of me then I feel everything and everything must feel me; I am inextricably linked to every point in the universe and every point on the universe pivots around me as well as it does pivot around every other subject noun in the universe.
Why is it so important that I mesmerized you with the idea that you are a part of me, perhaps a part of me that I don’t know, or perhaps a part of me that I don’t wish to invest too much consciousness upon, but a part of me regardless? Because once you realize this you begin to comprehend that secular views were originated to distant ourselves from each other so that we could study ourselves and our surroundings without getting hurt. We detached, we separated, we osculated the results of knowledge so that we could cut deep into our hearts without feeling everything. Categorization by disassociation is the job of logic; to logic is to deconstruct the emotional value of something and to say that one is not, not a part of it, but that the subject or object that is not a part, can suffer and feel what we do not feel or comprehend. Logic is diagnosis, heart rendering diagnosis ostracized from sensitivity. Which correctly implies that logic is the product of our intolerance to pain in a suffering world. We became logicians so we would not hurt.
As much as that is that is a glorious truth, glorious in its imposition, a greater truth is that we suffer because we are logicians! It is the separation that causes suffering, separation caused and primed by secularization, rationalization and logic. The alphabetizing process with its numerical counterpart separates us from the universe and then careens us against it! First we are plunked out of the universe by the conceptualization of disparate knowledge; and then we are fatally drawn to it by emotionally dependent gravitys which slams us back into it like the silly putty that we are. We aim to separate ourselves from the universe but the universe refuses to release us simply because the universe can not separate from any of its parts, it is impossible for the universe to be part of a part, a whole universe is a mandatory condition; when we attempt to separate from it, the universe feels a flea and it scratches itself, the flea does not die, it merely bleeds on through its existence; bloodsucker that it is its autonomy is limited to its mental agility to create a metaphorical world of objective layers. Even as this is being attempted the internal desire endemic to all creatures is to be what they are and all that they are, that is not to deny it, so what rises from the denial of supra-integrity is the desire to belong to everything that one has disintegrated into disparate parts. The gorgeous result is that we are then endeavoring to find a universal theory for everything, through religion, through government, through the sciences, trying to intellectually put everything back together into a single whole. Of course the task is impossible not because it inst already so, a Grand Unified Theory of Everything is after all the real endemic truth, but rather because the instrument by which we are trying to unite all the forces and all of humanity is knowledge; the very instrument that we created to bring asunder what god hath brought together. In short, you cant put it together with theory because it isn’t a theory.
Please don’t get religious on me when I use the term god, I use it in the context of an unavoidable fact, everything in the universe touches everything in the universe, how you may decide to feel or not all of this ferocity of turbulent emotional embracing consciousness is not necessarily acceptable to me or to others, we may all arrive at the same truth, and the same truth is not that fantastic, the real truth is that “we cant escape.”
I therefore, with all the intensity of my being object to the concept of objectivity! I object to it not because it is impossible to obtain it, (it is not possible to obtain it without suffering depersonalization which causes suffering,) but because I can not escape being one with everything!
