Subjectivity

The line is drawn. Who decided to? What was it for? Why was it drawn there?

The questionable nature of a line subjects itself to much invalidation. Perhaps if lines were universally straight, then credibility would follow in parallel. However, in reality, this is not the case. It is true that lines are drawn by convenience, by reasons known to some and not to others, by random people at random times, and...ultimately...by simple subjective measures.

For example, a deliberation constantly following examinations among both students and teachers is the method of grading. The questions range from whether there should be a curve to justify the difficulty of the exam relative to the students' overall performance or lack a curve because the test should serve as an adequate assessment of lessons learned; whether a formal answer key should be established to provide a concrete reference with solutions or lack an answer key so as to judge each student's individual answers and see whether he/she understood at least the overall points; whether the exam should test on impossible material and become a virtual symbol of life or if it should instead be manageable and actually "test" whether a student understood the material or not...Exactly where is the line drawn when it comes to how much should be completely subjected to the teacher? How is the bar set? Do you compare one student to the class or do you set high standards despite the class failing? 


In matters of politics, when the aim of upholding the common public good for all peoples, how is the common good determined, and by whom, and who's standards? The example of Turkey as a secular state is a large paradox considering its majority (99%) population is Muslim, yet it disregards any laws pertaining to religion in order to advance as a modern state. The common public good, therefore, was pre-determined to equal "modernization." In the pursuit of this common public good, how much of the entire public was subjected to a single person's vision of the common good? 


In language--limited as it is--the simple utterance of an apology by saying "sorry" can, too, be subjected to so many different interpretations, yet be applied to any situation. Is saying sorry about not taking out the trash the same as saying sorry for killing a child's mother during war? The next time you say sorry, please question yourself on, from a level of 1 through 10, how sorry you really are, with 10 being the extreme extent to your sincerity. 


Language is, again, so limiting that even a simple phrase such as "I am" (the shortest possible sentence in the English language) can be translated using just as many, fewer, or more words in other languages. Some languages may not even directly translate "I am" and may, instead, say things along the lines of "I be" or "Exist do I." 

Then there's speed limits. Of course, they were invented with a purpose--to save lives. But when it comes to getting a ticket, what's the difference between driving 1 mile over the speed limit and 1 mile under? On the sheet that describes reasons for destructive driving, one of the boxes that can be "checked" as a factor includes a section on weather and time: was it a clear day, a foggy day, was it during night when it was hard to see? There is so much subjectivity that no two circumstances of getting a ticket could be identical.


My favorite point on subjectivity is exception. Where, who, and what are the exceptions? In law, arguably a black-and-white field, a king is distinguished from a peasant. But how is the king defined? By a crown? And a peasant-by his bare feet? In matters of objectivity, a king should not escape the law just as a peasant; if he committed murder, he should be subjected to the same punishment. But why does he get special treatment? Why is power the most easily subjected tool in the world? 


The way I see it, and as my philosophy has always been: If a fly cannot discriminate between you and I, between a king and his slave, then who is to say?

"The human understanding is like a false mirror, which, receiving rays irregularly, distorts and discolors the nature of things by mingling its own nature with it."  

- Francis Bacon

Reality

With a simple pair of lens, the entire world can seem entirely different. What could once be seen as a foggy mist above mountains can instead be seen as a crispy clear sky in a distant landscape. Holding the pair of lens in my hands, I can actively choose whether or not I want a blurry world or a focused world--but why should this be a dichotomy? Why cannot I see the world as I see it, or perhaps as I wish to see it? Am I supposed to be aware that I have lens to see clearly with? What if I don't-- shall I just roam the world, blindly, or rather, blurriedly?

These lens pave a path for us to elude somewhere else, but at the same time we are handicapped to walk along this pavement since we are completely disoriented on what is real and what is not. Constantly, it is a struggle to decipher truth among deception. But, is this not assuming that deception is the reality? That we must question all that is unreal in order to distinguish what truly is real? What is reality?


In a generation when technology and the media have bombarded the imagination with a plethora of unreal images, fantastical lands, and mythological creatures, it has become possible to merge the unreal with the real. It seems, however, that the fatal mistake being made is the life lived in an illusion of what is unreal. We assign value to unreal things, we analyze actions that have not been made, we conclude judgments on the what-ifs. We create alternate universes among our own. But who is to say that we do, in fact, live in a single universe? Perhaps we occupy two or three simultaneously. Ever heard of deja vu?

In addition to the lengths of greatness occupied by a universe, there is the internal universe, our own reality that suggests itself to be uniquely formed. It is a reality best understood exponentially. First, there is the reality of a fly on a wall. Once the fly occupies space, it is connecting to the universe of whatever space, or mass, it is surrounding. Therefore, its occupied space multiplies by itself. Imagine the fly, on a leaf. Then, adding another power, some rain drops fall onto the leaf. Now, it is the rain, on a leaf, near the fly. Third power. With each increment of increasing power, it can be observed that the fly has encountered a greater reality-space than that with which it originated. Therefore, it can be said, that the fly is in its own world. And when it interferes with other worlds, its world becomes larger and larger.

The same can be said of humans. We have our own realities, we are in our own worlds--both as a mass, and then as individuals. Beyond the disciplines of an individual, there are his mental worlds. With every new interaction, the mental realm of a person enters a new imagination of possibilities. New fantasies, new realities. All are formed. And, with each merging of realities, a set of reality absorptions occur, so that one person is no longer wholly himself, but rather, a collection of others' remains, others' realities. For example, if I lived in my own bubble and never knew who President Obama was, I would never be able to imagine the realities and fantasies of America. I would be limited to just my own world's perceptions.

We create cultures as if they were worlds. Aside from the obvious--travelling--as being the only act to induce the clashing of cultures, it can be noted that cultures can be born in any setting. Within a room, a culture is created between roommates. In a class, between classmates. In a prison, among inmates. In the wilderness, among nature. With each consequent environment is a culture, and with each culture demands a reality.

Our realities are numerous, and we form realities with our environment as well as with our people. We create a culture within friendships, yet a different culture with relationships, and yet another culture with formal interactions. We pass the boundaries of one world, of one culture to the next, with a simple handshake. Or with a simple change of clothes.

But how do we determine a shared culture, a shared world, a shared reality? A single reality. A universal truth, something that can be accepted regardless of who we have interacted with, what we have been exposed to, or where we have been? Indeed, globalization has risen out of these questions and has ultimately molded the world into a single thread, where the spool acts as an axis as the thread spins around with singular ideas, uniform environments, and universal cultures repetitively.

Our realities have become so interconnected. To pull a chunk out of mine and consider it a collective sample of the whole would be a fallacy. And to consider it as a single, original piece of my own reality would be impossible, since I have developed many interactions and have interfered with too many a reality. But there still remain realities to be discovered. My exponential connection with different environments needs to increase. And with this, I end with a quote from a wise man:

When you are on land, you turn and only see what is around you.
Climb on the mountain to seek the truth, for at the top, you see what is unseen.

Relativity & Definity: Like Oil to Water?

Doesn't it seem like the world is against you when you rush to the train terminal and the doors JUST closed? The time board shows a slow countdown of seconds, one by one, to the deadline of the train's departure...but couldn't the train just wait for just one more second? And the world seems to have the timing just right when you are in the mood to eat popcorn at your next movie screening, but for some odd reason the machine is "broken" today...How about all of those times when you were on the brink of an A- with an 89.5 but the teacher wouldn't round up? When you arrived late to work by just ONE minute...but it was the third time this week?

Relativity or not? When I eat out with  a friend but I don't have enough change and she covers for me, even though I will pay her back later..and when I do, I'm a couple of cents short. My personal philosophy on this matter is simply that it all smooths out at the end.

For all of those moments in which definity is called upon, relativity scoops-in a place for itself. I wonder how it is possible to measure time, money, and all other definite things--when, on so many occassions, it is hard to formulaically carve out the right portions. Are there really 100 calories in every 100-calorie pack oreo snack? And, every time there is breaking news, doesn't the network have to re-assign the stories it had planned to air? How much of uncertainty can we predict? And how does it feel to expect uncertainty, to measure it, and realize that it occurred without you knowing? Albert Einstein once said, "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity."

Relativity in art occurs just as equally as relativity in science, despite the fact that scientific endeavors require precision. Are there not intervals in which polls decide PLUS or MINUS the standard deviation? Are there not endless solutions to calculus equations involving ∞?  Therefore, could it not be argued that a certain "pinch" of relativity is required in the formula of definity?

It is my impression that we are in a constant struggle to acheive every grain of measurement SO precisely so that the hourglass of definity is the same, after every twist up-side down and down-side up, each passing of sand reflects the same hour as the last. But what happens when our attachment to definity becomes dependency? If we are relying on the definite hourglass to say as it should, are we not permitting the allowance of relativity? Why has it become so unacceptable to have an extra grain of sand? Will we not need that extra grain..in case one of the others gets stuck within the crease of the wood?