Belly Button Lint

Feeling Lint-y?

Tag: reason

  • Theme:

    Freedom paradox: subjective/objective

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    Unsurprisingly, our freedom does not arise from the physical world: the objective realm limits us and is arguably antagonistic to our freedom. However, we phenomenally experience the world with subjective perception (limited, personal interpretation).

    Oddly, freedom resides inside the subjective realm as a fantasy construct, yet it transcends the individual as an abstract notion. It is both in you and beyond you.

    This inside/outside dynamic allows an abstract notion to be mapped onto the objective world through a subjective lens. As such, we can perceive our freedom and agency in action, even if our reading is delusional. To counterbalance our bias, we can share the expansion or constriction of our liberty with others.

    Consider that your level of freedom is based on shifting alignment, reframing your subjective stance: deciding contentment punctures the idealistic conceit of victimization or frustrated agency. Yet, it simultaneously allows others dominance if your actions do not deny authority over you.

    The contradiction of having and fighting for freedom is not only self-imposed but externally mediated, reverting the “subjective framework” back into a substantial, shared reality. And yet, it remains nonobjective, non-noumenal, completely accessible, and ultimately denied.

  • Theme:

    Art: presentation over representation

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    Art has shifted from representation to an emphasis on presentation, where an immediate felt connection with the artist’s genius/pain is expected.

    This unmediated, instantaneous transmission thwarts the opportunity for thoughtful contemplation, insinuating emotive transference as the principal (and perhaps the only morally right) way to engage in art.

    Demanding cautious consideration is labeled elitist; instead, the premise is that art should be blatant, obvious, abundant, heartwarming, brilliant, and presumptively democratic. It should require no thought or pause, only submission to the prescribed experience.

    In response, art criticism should now only transcribe the emotive range or comment on the lack of openness. All limitations, though, are forgivable given the biographical specificity confronted with the impossibility of knowing another’s experience.

  • Theme:

    What would you do if…

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    A popular hypothetical: what would you do if no one was looking? What would you do if money was no object?
    These hypotheticals break us from wisely implemented restraints: to shun the panopticon of socialization and squander capital resources is currently fool-hardy and not worth consideration. Both questions dismiss survival imperatives (to find your tribe and defend against uncertainty) for passionate fantasy.

    Yet, they can also reveal something, such as what you want people to see and why you make money, which are probably entangled.

  • Theme:

    symbolic to particular

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    Watch the arguments move between symbolic and particular traits: we love the art but abhor the person, OR we love what he/she stands for, so we will excuse their character flaws.

    For instance, when America’s hopes are pinned symbolically on Trump or Biden, we wish for the symbol to overcome personal flaws. (In essence, every universal symbol/signifier is empty and needs to be filled, fleshed out, but the alignment cannot be perfect.)

    To disparage a symbol, we debase the concrete, particular individual’s specific traits, showing the hypocrisy between the symbol and the flesh. Yet, when we must argue for our side, we ignore the specific human and resort to the aligned characteristics.

  • Theme:

    my truth vs the truth

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes


    The truth and my truth should be the same, or at least passingly similar.

    Only in a world where subjectivity is the height of power can objectivity be flipped into insignificance.

    Oddly, objective truth (despite its denigration and claimed obsolescence) is still a primary source for building an irrational causal chain to uphold subjective hubris.

  • Theme:

    the right to equal stupidity

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    We tend to consider intelligence as the primary solution: the government and politicians have more information and, therefore, should make wiser decisions. Yet, we find our elected leaders obscuring evidence, colluding and manipulating messaging, repeatedly (obviously) fucking up, and blaming others.

    For the survival of our democracy, we are supposed to be intelligent enough, wise enough, and parental enough to see through it: we are required to vote better, be better, to alter the bureaucratic state.

    The fault is placed back onto the citizens to do better.

    But we have every right to be as stupid and misguided as those in charge. They are surrounded by an edifice of checks, balances, advisors, and responsibility oaths, while we work two jobs and consume politics over beers.

    We are praised as smart when we are manipulable, and told we are dumb (wrong-headed) when we don’t accept the lies.

  • Theme:

    ad-hoc causation

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    What we assume to be causal (a need to see things as linear relations) sets up an outcome, which is never the case.

    Considering "cause and effect," we string together attributions that establish a causal chain, then read it backward to point out what went wrong. We are not truly tracking the variables, simply doing some ad-hoc addition and subtraction from convenient choices.

    Unfortunately, we never have all the facts, so we overdetermine our role in the outcome, often egotistically or narcissistically, but just as often in science without full comprehension, thus deforming our determinations.

    in part from David Hume
    –
    –
    –

  • Theme:

    Representative Democracy: contradiction

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    One argument against democracy is governance by representatives, which means distant strangers who, despite theoretical accountability by voting, have split interests: first, they must promise that they care and will be effective (community solidarity for change), and second, they must make sure to be re-elected (self-interest as stability).

    Both involve compromises that must be hidden: to be effective, you must work with the “enemy,” which runs against the cares of your constituents. The representative must necessarily be two-faced: hide compromise or stall effectiveness.

    It seems there is a way in which social mores (ethics, values, social status) and an educated populace (reasonable consideration of multiple variables) could remove this antagonism, and yet harnassing a counterintuitive paradox (self-interest as community support) is the brilliance of democracy.

  • Theme:

    Naivety or the Calculus of Kindness

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    Naivety is not kindness (in fact, it is often cruel), yet kindness is linked to a lack of understanding as if moral action precludes effectual action. Meanwhile, rationality is portrayed as sharp and hard, cutting away the soft for the "greater good."

    However, if rationality leads to kindness, the seemingly foolish move becomes the smart one.

    Still, if we wish kindness to be smart, we will find ways to justify it despite the harsh realities we face daily.

  • Theme:

    Intellectual Integrity: The outcome is predictable

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    Being educated can lead to illogic because wanting something—such as to be virtuous, moral, and right—allows your education to become a rationalizing faculty. Ideally, academics or scholars would draw from a breadth of resources, allowing knowledge to shape their worldview. As an authority, they would be capable of framing or debating multiple arguments from multiple positions. (authority instead of zealotry)

    However, the counterintuitive dynamic persists where, for the sake of inclusive status, research and authority often mold information to fit personal ideologies. The outcome is predictable before the research begins, resulting in increasingly abstruse and moralistic arguments that fail to create the necessary paradigm shifts.

    In this case, academics are not science, though they wish to hold the authority science once held. Even facts are politically reinterpreted, which begs the question of the possibility of apolitical human discovery as an anomaly, if not an impossibility.

    –
    –
    –