(Such an interesting character, Rasputin was.)
Alright, everything that can “see” is a subject, and when we ascribe to objects inherently having no point-of-view a point-of-view, the object still has no point-of-view; the point-of-view is still ours, in our imagination. And thus the idea of objectivity is just an excuse to relieve oneself of the implications of being a subject that can see. (Ascribe, btw, was the tip-of-the-tongue word from yesterday.)
So while it could be argued that in the layer of the inter-subject objectivity exists, it is only there that it exists, not elsewhere, as is often thought to be. Of course, for those insisting on the utility of objectivity it is available for the taking, as is wont of subjects that often do, unknowingly invoking the power of the bigger inter-subject when deferring to so-called objectivity.
Now is the part of the entry where I refute these statements, but my timer is up, so maybe tomorrow, unless something else comes up.
Enough for today.
Some things I noticed 01/20/2020:
- But if it’s not in memory, it’s not a memory palace anymore, is it?
- The most beautiful of questions are almost always those without answers.
- Rice cookers are clever
- Information is literally the metadata of matter it’s awesome
- Say anything anywhere on the internet, something extremely relevant somehow finds its way back. Like it’s alive. (Ofc needs to control for pareidolia to confirm if true. OTOH, clear cookies.)
- Oh no I’ve been using pretty good incorrectly this whole time. It’s pretty bad.
- Starships Canon in D – Nicki Minaj x Pachelbel (Creating remixes like this seem to be something that could be automated, or at least the selection of which songs fit.)
- Kina – Cannonball