Everything is what it is, unless its something else...

What is difference? What is commonality? Do there exist objects that are totally and completely different? An object that shares no common ground or qualities with any other object, and is fundamentally separate from the set of all objects that are not it? Would such an object be fated to exist in a dialectic struggle of epic proportions against the rest of existence? And what can one say of the abstract object, those termed ideologies, which contain whole and complete structures of thought and decision? Can an ideology stand-alone, or must it always, either tacitly, implicitly or ostensibly, name an other? Can synthesis mean the triumph of one ideology over its complement? That is to say: does the dialectical process ensure the survival of both ideologies, either in whole or in part, or does it mean the destruction of one ideology in favor of the survival the other? Or do ideologies, by their very nature require a synthesis that results in a new and unnamed object which possesses the entirety of assumptions and reasonings of each competing ideology? Must this 'Synthesis' encompass and utilize the properties of each proposition equally? Does objectivity exist? Or is the existence of this 'Synthesis' the ultimate measure and creator of objectivity? At what point does objectivity emerge as a thing unto itself, which does not exist in relation to the struggle that created it but as something independent of the dialectic that birthed it? Or does this 'Synthesis' merely provide the illusion of conclusion? Does not the struggle continue with the 'Synthesis' and drive it forward in to more complex and layered forms of conflict?

And what if objectivity exists? Is there any among us who would dare to claim objectivity as an absolute? Or, to state it more bluntly, that objectivity has a firm existence such that it defines itself without qualification. (Can one thing be more unique? Can a fact or opinion or statement be more objective than another?) Does the mere determination of objectivity render all points moot that are not deemed to be objective? And if one were to create such a belief system, what would ensue? How would we as beings blessed with creativity and thought come to understand, know and apply such a thing? Would this ultimate objectivity give us the map that we need to find our way out of the woods and to banish the darkness with the light of reason? And if, for but a moment, we grant that such a thing may exist, how would we know this objectivity? Would it speak to us as a voice of math and organization? As a thing that we know aesthetically? As a thing that we know we know; in other words, as a thing that is apparent and clear to all human beings due to reasons that may be biological, psychological, spiritual? Then, if it is one of these things, which would should we pursue? Should science guide us; or god lead us; or the state decide for us?

One can speak objectively for and from oneself. One can objectively identify the world as it is presented to her/him at a given point in time and space, but this world, this universe, this world view belongs only to the individual who experiences it at that finite point. And yet the world can only be experienced through the individual. So do we attempt to synthesize all world views and standpoints? To bring together all to one? Or do we see that this is impossible and that we would only end up with a disjointed and contradictory universe that builds itself through self-destruction and conflagration?
And so I have found myself in yet another quandary. Life is...life is mine...life is mine for the taking...life is destined to be taken...life will go on...life will end...

So I wonder...sipping my hemlock and blathering at the guard; and I still wonder: if everything is what it is and not anything else, then what happens when things change?