One can of course recurse the argument from yesterday and say that subjectivity does not exist either, as one’s conception of what oneself even is also requires the gaze of some other, perhaps what we said was the collective subjectivity we imagine as objectivity, because truly seeing oneself without one’s reflection on another is impossible. It seems one needs a language to describe oneself (does one?), and how is a language to be if just of one? (Possible?)
Where am I going with this? (Again disclaimer, this is all bs and I have no idea, this writing exercise is just a Markov chain of daily entries, but let’s take a stab at it anyway.) If objectivity exists only in the collective subjective, but subjectivity can also only exist with the help of the gaze of others, how can this circle be squared?
Well I guess I succeeded in confusing myself as I wrote yesterday. Maybe the takeaway here is that there are many oughts for every is, and surprisingly there seems to also be many ises. (Are there now?)
Enough for today.