Understanding Objectivity, Neutral Ground, Hyperreality, & the Third Position [rough]

The objective is really just an attempt to impose order on chaos. That is not to say that there is nothing useful about the idea of being objective, but only to emphasize that objectivity never actually fulfills its purpose completely. It can succeed in rooting out obvious errors and biases, just like the laws of logic can be useful in demonstrating consistency. But every step which is taken to create something like the objectivity does not ever successfully get us closer to the essence of truth. It only succeeds in helping us get further from error, since no human is capable of actually understanding truth in its entirety, minus that which is true which can be given to us directly by divine revelation. 

Objectivity is just a tool that we have to try to get at what we inappropriately refer to as the truth in a neutral way. There are some occasions where we nearly can all agree that someone was acting biased,  but often times the concept of the objective turns into an argument itself over what constitutes the objective. These arguments really are just two groups attempting to advance their own subjective positions by underhandedly arguing that they have the corner on what is objectively true. Sadly, this is a position that we all end up finding ourselves -- both because there are people who very transparently abuse the objective, and because being objective itself is such a fool's errand. 

When we are arguing over what is objective and trying to deny others grounds of objectivity, being objective is actually most dangerous: it is a false front for truth. It is advancing a specific ideology against others, and it often is able to have a great impact precisely because it reinforces the biases of people by encouraging them to the fallacious conclusion that reality is a perfect reflection of how they think it is. 

Brenna Murphy's Lattice Design Visual

Reality, though, is chaotic, and far too large for there to be a theory for everything that is truly universal. 

Objectivity is then usually just part of this strange hyperreality in which we live. Because so many of our public ethics are founded on false claims about what is objectively true and because we treat those who disagree with these truths as hostile players in a game, all political & social discourse that is part of this (and always able to be tied back to some poisonous concept of the objective) is part of a hyperreality. 

The greatest example of this is the Western Christian who has been convinced that he has to actually bury the things that he believes and participate in the politics & ethics of hyperreality in order to fairly be part of the public discussion. They are convinced that there is a realm of objective truth that is independent of their Christian theology and accessible to everyone. And they have to actively deny their own, deeper Christian motives and submit to the false god of objectivity. 

I believe it is actually the case that, once upon a time, we were able to have dialogue between people of radically different metaphysics come around the concept of an objective, neutral ground and reach very limited decisions based on it because they understood that these tentative agreements were meant to do something small. But when the scope of government became larger, the epistemically neutral ground of discussion became a new standard for what people believe to be objective, and now people started crafting whole ideologies and stances from this barren soil. 

These new ideologies based on the neutral ground of discussion, which was never intended to be anything but a place of transaction for discussion to come up with agreeable solutions, constitute the hyperreality that we now live in. 

When we understand that objectivity can be a part of the neutral ground is a place merely for the discussion of ideas that we now that we will never agree on, we recognize that the truth has a private or unknowable element to it. We are ready to walk away and to disagree. This necessitates believing in a smaller domain of government. 

When we falsely believe that objectivity can provide us with moral imperatives, the neutral ground becomes toxic soil that spawns soft totalitarian ideologies. This is because the poor conclusions brought about by "objectivity" and "neutrality" now determine right/wrong for everybody, and the government now has the scope to act in a much broader way which interferes with how people think and live their lives. 

When we understand that objectivity is really only a tool, and we deny the importance of the neutral ground for determining policy at all, we can come to the conclusion that government should be a reflection of Truth. Naturally, different peoples do have different truths, and I will continue insisting that my own truth is proper and the only one, but I also recognize that other peoples governing by what they understand to be as true is not problematic. 

This sort of system can have larger, more totalizing government, and be animated by a greater sense of truth. This is the sort of model that creates civilization because it is founded on something that is unifying and that people are willing to die for. 

These societies can be thought of as the third position to the 

Liberty-oriented modern state (which objectivity was created to serve)

Egalitarian modern state (which is based on the perversion of objectivity)

This mini-essay on objectivity got out of hand and went into political philosophy but I liked where it went and do not think I have the energy or power to expand upon it or resolve it, so I have just posted it in its current form. 

Yang Sanghoon: The Men & Women Who Live Off Of Women's Issues

The following is a translation of this article in the Chosun Ilbo.

The Men & Women Who Live Off Of Women's Issues 

 

 

Self-described feminist Pres. Moon, who was supported by the women who lit the fire of the #MeToo movement, is silent on the sexual harassment allegations against the late May. Park Wonsun, using the votes and [motives for] personal gain as a weapon 

 

 Women in their 20s & 30s began their wave of anti-conservatism during the Mad Cow disease affair. Pres. Lee Myeongbag had received much more support from women in their 20s & 30s than his opponent in the Presidential election. However, after the Mad Cow scare began, a massive shift was seen. There are many examples of women being reacting to health-related issues too sensitively. For instance, after the Fukushima meltdown [2011] many people were reluctant to visit other regions of Japan in spite of the fact that the radioactivity numbers were completely fine -- a trend that was more pronounced among young women. Now, most people look at the Mad Cow affair as a disturbance fueled by baseless myths, but it was a serious issue at the time. The gossip of girls in Jr. High & High School have been pivotal in spreading protests over fear that sanitary pads and makeup are actually dangerous. These protests have even included young housewives. After these affairs the polls among women in their 20s & 30s showed that support of Pres. Lee had dropped by 6%. 

 This phenomenon could not change even for the woman President Park Geun-hye. If anything, the trend grew stronger. In the 2012 Presidential election, the support for Pres. Park was less than half of that of Pres. Moon among women in their 20s. In the final polls [leading up to the election], Pres. Park had only 26% of the support [of women in their 20s], versus Moon's 63%. Although former Pres. park is a woman, many diagnosed the problem as younger women viewing Park as simply being 'an old man in the form of a woman' or an 'upper crust princess.' 

 It is difficult to find any record of Pres. moon being interested in women's issues. All that we can see are some instances of him giving the expected speeches at women's events as a party member. However, in spite of losing, the overwhelming support of young women in the 2012 Presidential election seemed to have given Moon the opportunity to see them as a great asset, and since then his attitude has changed. 

 The symbolic 2016 Gangnam station "Don't Ask Questions" murder (a reference to police dismissing the assault as the act of a schizophrenic) was a flashpoint in this. Women were shocked when a mental health patient murdered a young woman without any reason. There was a widespread perception that this event was caused by the man's hatred of women and the poor and vulnerable position that women have. The only people who understood the political potential of this situation were the people in Presiden't Moon's camp. Moon, who was a former representative at that time, went to gangnam Station by himself to commemorate the events with young women. He also shared the quote on Facebook, "In the next life, I pray that we can both be born as men." 

 At this point, a young women formed a fandom around Moon Jae-in. They created the phrase '[He'll] do everything we want done' and took out a congratulatory ad in a subway station for his birthday [a common practice of fandoms in Asia]. Their support was set in concerete and has not been shaken at all. In short, they are his loyal guard. Pres. Moon has declared himself a feminist (women's rights movement advocate) and has, without exception, stuck his head out every time any issue related to gender has come up. Even during the Burning Sun scandal, the Predient told the prosecutors and investigating police that "your fate hangs in the balance -- investigate well!"

 

Fake feminist Park Wonsun's [the mayor who recently committed suicide] demise has brought up the fundamental question of whether or not Pres. Moon's 'feminism' is truly his guiding philosophy reached after reflection and determination, or whether it was a pretense to gain the favor of young women and win votes. All of the folks in Pres. Moon's camp have insisted that the #MeToo movement and all of those affairs connected with it are legitimate women's rights issues and have indicated their desire to eliminate the evil roots of sexual violence.However, the bulk of the perpetrators in these cases have been fellow Democratic Party members who ran in elections for the aprty, public prosecutors, or artists. Nonetheless, Pres. Moon has still appeared to stay on the right side of women. 

 However, this was not really being on the side of women, just like like Tak Hyeonmin [man who wrote a book that was sexually explicit and critical of women]. He did not hesitate to criticize [Tak Hyeonmin's] vulgar commentary on women. He was even called up to be a Blue House advisor. And it was after the death of Mayor Park that Pres. Moon showed his true colors. He expressed his condolences for Mayor Park, but did not even give a single word of comfort to his victims. Rather than promising to root out all of the vicious causes of evil, he was silent. He remained silent in spite of the fact that numerous requests were made to reveal his position as President about an event that rocked the whole country. Even when the Democratic party paraded out the ridiculous placard of "I will remember Park Won'sun's spirit," he was silent. Pres. Moon's silence virtually acts to support people who sexually harass and abuse others. 

 Pres. Moon must have been cognizant of his enthusiastic supporters that basically embrace the perpetrators while criticizing the victims. This is the same as the women who championed the #MeToo movement but who are silent on Mayor Park. It was not just the Mayor of Busan, but also the Mayor of Seoul, that has even resulted in elections to fill their vacancies, and still it is become difficult for them to acknowledge the moral collapse of their own political camp. Pres. Moon's inaugural address was a cool affair but ultimately merely a pretense. National integration, the relocation of offices [reference to relocating important government offices out of Seoul], the authority of institutions, independence, fair selection of personnel, transparency, direct and open press briefings, equality - fairness - justice, etc., have all been reversed. And now we see the reversal of a Feminist President. 

 

 Someone referred to these women's organizations and the women parliamentarians who haven't made a single statement that they are "women who betray women." The same goes for all of the men who are using women in politics. They are those who use the political goals and votes of women as weapons. 

 

Very powerfully written - I will keep an eye on this columnist and try to bring you more of his stuff.