having observed the english language
it's hard, not to observe the χ conundrum
(chī) -

it goes way back to the introduction
of the Cartesian mind-body duality...
so you can say: it's very old -
old enough to reach a revisionist
aura -

notably, and only notable in the english
language;
i never read any English philosophers -
and never will,
don't know or even if there is a why...
i was always drawn the the "stale" Germans...
those ******* boorish
perfectionists... oh well...
plus i don't have any curiosity of
the French philosophers' ambiguity
of the self...
    like a Pontius Pilate scenario
in Sartre: "i"...

who?!               "i"...
           o.k. i appreciate the existential
curator aspect dealing with:
ambiguity, nuance, metaphor...
but "      " over a pronoun?
           even I find that as if stretching
something not akin to chewing gum:
hard to grasp.

yet this is how a chī conundrum looks
like in the english language:

         mind                object

                            χ
        
           subject              body

oh it's there, i'm pretty sure of it...
esp. when i hear alt. media "objective" truths...
objective reporting, whatever...
so... subjectivity is, inherently, a bias?
there can be no subjective truths?
not a single drop of truth from
a subjective trickle?

           so why bother listening to music
if you can only attain
an objective truth akin to
a music critic?
           what could possibly be fun
about giving a critical opinion,
an objective opinion,
about something that inherently
possesses you, overcomes you,
that you like?

             point being:
objectivity as a safety cushion -
   you don't shy away from
the uncomfortableness of
a counter opinion about a piece of
music you're inclined to,
inherently... without any mediation
of the other's opinion...

    dunno... ****** music...
the sort of music that feeds the expectation
of binge eating, fast-foods,
comfort digest...

   but this conundrum will never be
solved - because it is not supposed
to be solve: rather? mediated.

the mind = subject + object
the body = subject + object -

in the latter sense:
it's subject to infectious diseases
(a canvas, also one of those
things that are both subject, and object,
subject to a paintbrush) -
but it's also the object of desire -
take me out having watched
a video with a **** au pair from
the continent...

but i don't trust people who constantly
champion objectivity -
like it's all, all of it, life,
about Newton's third law of motion:
for every action,
there is an equal and opposite reaction -
that's objectivity,
spewed by alt. media outlets...

and no... i'm not for the subjectivity
of the main media sources -
but...
            you think that subjectivity,
bias, a hindering aspect doesn't trickle
into the objectivity basin?
of course it does!
   the mind can't, somehow, magically,
solve the duo-and-dicho complex -

schizoid?
   bi...             lingual...
    and since the term schizophrenia no
longer belongs to the psychiatric
establishment -
     and rather... to the media and political
carers of cut-throat Brutus career
seekers...
             dichophrenia...
nice term...

                        so...
what do you get
when you
                -tomy into a duality?
you get...
                               quarters -
and once cut into: never to be put back
together in some coherence of
equal truths, shared by either of
the extremes...
   always... always three quarter muddles...
of which there are two,
three quarter muddles -
    each... always exercising an exclusion
of either the mind,
or the body - since the subject-object
titanium bond, is...
unbreakable -
   not because it's has the property
of a dualistic fluidity -
          
                but the concreteness of
a rigid dichotomy.