Subjective Engagement and the Vulnerability of Trust

                    Last night I had the not too unique visitation from one of my pet demons feeding on my sexual guilt as I'm slipping into the detoxification of a lucid NREM slumber. At sixty I'm not without hormones. And the dis-objectification process comes with a need for my subjective engagement. For me to say, "We are not objects of identification, but rather subjects of inquiry and engagement," is another trite tautology. But as a practical necessity, de-labeling alone achieves nothing without a will to engage ourselves and each other subjectively. No one is just a Democrat or a Republican, rich or poor, young or old or just male of female. Some are neither or both or all of the above. Were we serious about wanting to understand mutual differences, we would want to be able see beyond separating boundary labels.

                    Because of my work writing about our shared histories of creative Spiritual Fictions, I have had the privilege of much opprobrium from many intellectually constipated belligerent scientists. (Not to mention the religious fanatics and new agers who want me to get back in line.) My methods of reporting on the mutual domains of peoples exclusive self identifying boundary definitions fails to appeal to these most normal of elite social idiots. Most people are very caught up in very fragile weak ego. And resultantly, the delicate sensibilities of antagonistic true believers on all sides of whatever is their persuasion, are all too easily polarized by each other, both pro and con. It doesn't seem to occur to anyone, that I the consummate complementarian will never take sides when everyone is so equally ignorant about the "subject" at hand and out of touch, almost universally. The subject of human contact, just like people in general, are still open to debate.

                     This is why I chase all of my unwanted unwholesome business away. I am not an object. As a subject worthy of meaningful inquiry, I am internally continuous. I must qualify myself only as a discreet entity. In this is one way I don't have to reduce myself to being an object identifiable thing. But personal accountability does not require me to be partisan or even objective. I would want the same for each of you. For the sake of documenting this personal subjectivisation of awareness, I'm required to be truthful about the practices and disciplines that make my work sensible, regardless of the absurd pretenses that people use to objectify my work on both sides of the ridiculous arguments. This process of subjective engagement for me, is much harder to write about than is the constant dronings of these self objectifying "Authorities" droning on about their qualifications. On this page alone, I have used two words that supposedly don't exist, "Complementarian" and "Subjectivisation." For the sake of repetition, here's my third favorite. "Authoritation by Proxy" is the self objectifying expectation of authority by a third party. My party says"I'm supposed to say this", or my gender says, "I'm supposed to think like this." Or my self importance says, I shouldn't want to talk to you respectfully at all." Aren't we all a little tired of having others try to speak for us? I'm so sorry, but I think we've had enough for today. This all will make much better sense in the future when it get's into a hard copy. Thank you again, I can only hope that we will be able to see this as mutual process as we continue to unfold.