pursuit of perishable things | brooke bryan

Have you ever wondered why our language has so many words that have multiple meanings? Think about the word objective:

1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering or representing facts
2. (noun) thing aimed at or sought; a goal

One moment I could say, “Let’s be objective here,” and the next moment
I could say, “My objective is to ….” Isn’t this… odd?

The first use implies impartiality, defining the idea that one can be more truthful if one can see something from a neutral point of view. To be objective is to be fair, even-handed, just, equitable, and non-biased in your view or treatment of something.

The second usage of the word objectivity means something altogether different. In this way, an objective is a goal. An intention, a purpose, a target; something to strive for. The meaning has changed: we are no longer defining a position of neutrality, we now define a desire, an aspiration.

The meaning is clear in each context, sure. But does the use of this word not leave little electrochemical paths across our neural circuits? Could this mix of meaning lead to a subtle confusion of thinking? Not the kind of confusion that leaves one blank and grasping, but a different kind of confusion. A mixture of dis-similiar notions mingled together in the mind: a hodgepodge. A very subtle modern mental mess.

Does this mix of meaning provide an opportunity? Could the use of one word with contradictory meanings provide a back door of sorts, an “out,” for the sub-conscious mind when our deeper motivations are shaded from our rational selves? Does the use of a word with multiple meanings allow a very subtle manipulation of thinking?

Think of a coworker calling for objectivity in the project because… because they actually have an objective at stake? The question is really whether we understand our own use of a term that has contradictory meanings; whether or not we hear it for what it is when spoken to us. In an election year, the ability to discern the use of language can not be underestimated.

I imagine little hobbits, passionately arguing their positions regarding which path to take over the mountain.

The first hobbit says, “I am looking at this objectively! I am neutral, I am not working from a preconceived notion. This path has revealed itself.”

And the second little hobbit says, “But this path is a reasonable objective! We can reach the other side before nightfall! Let this be our goal!”

Then the third little hobbit walks over, bonks them both over the head, and says, “This path is a matter of objective fact! It simply is the way, the shortest distance is verifiable! Forward on!”

For as different as we tend to think the word’s meanings are in context, it is used in exactly the same way: to press an advantage, to prove one’s truth. Objectivity- the idea- is a tool. Perhaps language itself is a tool.

Is it any wonder that science- the scientific method- would come to it’s own use of this term, carrying a third meaning with even deeper claims than the first two? An objective fact ought to trump all other thoughts, that is… as long as there was an objective process and the goal was an objective objective.

How can we be honest people- whose selves are aligned with the things we speak- when the language we use is full of loopholes, mish-mashed meanings and power plays? Is speaking itself- the very act of communicating- really about this urge to persuade and power-over, no matter how gentle or socially acceptable our approach? We humans (and fellow hobbits) sometimes worry me.