why is objecitivity, deemed to be akin to
some holy grail?!
                                this puritan physics of
the non-observing nature,
i.e. object versus object,
without an observer?
       is it because subjectivity is
deemed a mere perversity of
a voyeuristic ontology?
              harsh...
                 but why is objectivity treated
as a zenith, the "thing" to be
achieved, even cultivated in replica
concentrated in furthering, via
procreation?!
          only at VII, XLIII did it dawn
upon me...
      this secular minding of
objective criteria...
              objectivity as the supposed
"highest" good... but i thought
that objecitvity is to erase all notions
of adjective attributes surrounding
a "thing"? i thought we were in
the process if applying hydrogen peroxide
on the matter?
         bleaching, gender neutralising,
if better still, plurality denying
the structure of the english language...
if there be such a thing
as objectivity, it cannot
curb subjectivity, on the foremost
ground of objectivity,
via the noumenon argument of:
   subjectum per se...
         i.e.
     subjectum per se = objectum!
a subject in itself is an object!
    sure, you can rattle the foundations
of the subject, but sure as ****,
the per se architecture remains...
             however many objects
of investigative parallels you
attach to it for observation...
        the subject, remains both
a subject (unto itself), as well as an
object unto others, within
the architecture of the per se
membrane schematic...
                     or as i followed my eye
following a leech crawling up my own
***, attaching itself to the tapeworm
suckling off my intestines...
        the headless cockroach added:
in a joe pesci voice: add the cockroach
crunch! add the cockroach crunch!
          so i did...
what rationality is there,
   when there's archeology,
a passing of subject to subject via an
object...
       the past 2 centuries ago into
2 cenutries to come...
     what is objectivity,
an un-meditated buddhist meditation trick?!
or call for a ticking clock?!
      objectivity exist, purely
on an atomic bias...
  and even then: electrons require
a subjective observation,
   since they behave differently
when observed (subject)
          and when not observed
    (object)!
                       the secular "sensibility"
of objectivity is a fallacy...
                                     since even electrons
require both...
           the object of: such and such
and the subjecgt of:           ditto.
sure, fat floats above water,
                            as does frogbit...
but to merely champion
objectivity, with the box, per se,
is to stress a need for:
a "god", but a non-existent human
observer...
                 i don't understand
this need to stamp subjectivity into
non-existence,
  given that subjectivity-per-se,
would imply the non-existence of
the foremost object,
         i.e. that of the observer
making account of all the other objects
beside his own...
                       i guess in terms of
monetary funding:
                a subject is more expensive
to grasp in order to diffuse
among the populace,
than an object is cheap to sell in order
to diffuse among the populace...
               which can only
imply that what descartes began with
as a mind-body dualism,
  and currently is on offer
      is, rather, a mind-body dichotomy.
               if philosophy has its
metaphysics,
             poetry has its metaphor -
           the vector's direction isn't important,
i already have a metaphor
and an orthography ready to
attack metaphysics...
                      because no question
by my standard, is worth asking,
or answering post mortem (
should that even be allowed)...
                         the mind is a physics,
that gravitates toward moral dynamics,
rather than moral relativism,
            of the quantum spectacle,
i.e. a potential of what if?
     if only, there was an if to be
masked, on absolute terms of newton's
causality:
              the third law -
                                 oculus pro oculus;
otherwise the ****** morally relativistic
model... and the endless talk of man,
so horrible, when compared
to a throng of sparrow in a high bush,
nearing spring!