# Objectivity

## Issue

The issue is not simply whether objectivity is attainable, or whether the other participant enters into an objectivity supposing contract in good faith. To enter into any contract without objectivity is to commit oneself to tyranny and manipulation, likely out of intimidation, and this incurs violence or sets one on a course to violence.

If objectivity is the only path with a model which needn't by violent, then all who negate the option of objectivity are, in effect, choosing violence.

## How Negation of Objectivity = Choice of Violence
Objectivity presupposes that it is possible to understand. That there are meaningful observations that can be made and that, from the data captured, an improved outcome can be realized.

What if there is no hope of affecting a better outcome through improved understanding? What remains in such a state? No cooperation:
- If I don't believe in common understanding from multiple perspectives, then I will never expect a beneficial outcome except from that which I champion.

To control th eperception of other men is something that has likely gone on since the dawn of our species, because we have certainly seen trickery existing among and between other species of animals. Do we somehow think that our motivating factors are fundamentally different? Do we expect that since there are multiple factors relevant to our inclination to deceive, and that we are so incredibly unique that a common configuration or permutation of distributed elements of impact uniquely do not apply, or have a characteristically different pattern to the point where two primary expressions are no longer the same.

## Fallbility
It should be repeated ad infinitum that we are fallible to the point of creating special circumstances for ourselves, condemning others to their own different ruleset and allowing for their suffering to go unkacknowledged. This is the most particularly damning part of it, as we would surely not deem it justice to absorb the same set of expectations that we bestow on others and, in the process, make more normal the conditions which we commit others to. This, of course, increases the likelihood of our succumbing to the same conditions ourselves. Yet on we go, repeating what must be, at some (or many) level 5, an error.

So, then, why make the error again? Would it not be simpler to maintain th eprinciple which reduces the occurence of a known injustice? How do we maintain the apparatus of ignoring such key perspectives, thus giving ourselves the rationale of plausible deniability?

```
Partly the immediacy of inclinations borne of one's animal instinct, shall we say, where more immediate survival challenges are always prioritized. Okay, but where are the challenges?

Because this certainly is something which can be noticed, for it has been referred to many times, yet it is always the problem. The knowledge from the tree in the garden of eden. You know of your death, but you alos come to believe that outcomes are not just set in stone, and that's why you might to improve your chances by doing some key things. "This might be how bad it is felt transitioning through gender ideology.

They learn a great deal, and are exposed to what seems to be
```