To take the self as an object and to take the other as a subject are both objectificatory processes. Vice versa: to take the self as a subject and the other as an object are also both objectificatory processes. Prior to linguistically-structured thought, the self is not an object nor is the other a subject. Prior to linguistically-structured thought, there is only selfless and otherless awareness, life unqualified. Many in the field of mainstream psychology/psychiatry argue that when adult human beings begin to operate in the aforementioned state (in which the self/other dichotomy collapses) it is a regression to infant solipsism, and the person in question is psychotic. Solipsism implies that I, or self, alone exists. However: the selfless and otherless awareness of an infant cannot be solipsistic, because both the solipsism of subjectivity (I) and the anti-solipsism of objectivity (You) are mere conceptual inferences that originate only from linguistically-structured thought. If the aforementioned state is one of psychosis, then we must reduce most great artists and great mystics to lunatics. My first axiom, in other words, is: Both the subjectification of self and the objectification of other are objectificatory processes. By "objectificatory" I mean framed, contextualized, spatially and temporally located. Linguistically-structured thought is a constant framing, contextualization, and locating of basic and ineffable awareness, of life unqualified. A controversial point: Many assume that the most psychotic rapist necessarily objectifies the raped. I argue that this is a misunderstanding of objectification. The most psychotic rapist does not subjectify the self nor objectify the other. The most psychotic rapist is an empty vessel through which primordial compulsions take place. This is NOT an argument for raping people. It is an argument for understanding more competently and holistically one type of consciousness that compels persons to commit the most horrific crimes. Without the framing, contextualizing, and locating of awareness (life unqualified), demonic forces tend to manifest themselves: so-called psychosis, schizophrenia, mania, etc. These forces are not intrinsically evil. Kahlil Gibran says: "What is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst?" He goes on to say: "Verily when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves, and when it thirsts it drinks even of dead waters." I offered psychotic rape as the most extreme example of demonic possession. There are innumerable others. I am not talking about literal demons, for any who are confused by my use of religious terminology. Prior to subjectivity and objectivity, neither good nor evil exists. Nonetheless, we live in a society whose very foundation rests on the assumption that linguistically-structured thought can realistically apprehend the world. We cannot become anti-social automata who eat grass and ingest the sunlight. Anarcho-primitivism is untenable. I have only read a single book by Jacques Derrida: "The Gift of Death." Derrida's main argument in the above text is endlessly significant but endlessly unintelligible. Many of you may think my words are also unintelligible. If so, I challenge you to take a look at "The Gift of Death." There is only one thesis I took from the text in question: that religion's highest aim is not simply the rapture of the unificatory state of mystical consciousness, (in which linguistically-structured thought collapses), but the process of fully engaging in the infinite ethical conundrums that come with the advent of subjectivity and objectivity, self and other. Mystical consciousness without (necessarily objectificatory) ethical frameworks leads persons like the infamous guru Adi Da to rape all of his consorts and to financially exploit all of his followers. It is what led Manson, who declared "All is One" and "I am Nobody" to kill innumerable beings. The holistic or integral approach to religion/mysticism includes both the collapse and embrace of all dichotomization. The worst mystics are those who "attain heaven in one leap and leave a demon their place." (Meister Eckhart.) The worst political activists are those who seek to exorcise demons only in others, and to create heaven on earth without finding the kingdom of heaven within themselves. When Gandhi was asked if his work was truly altruistic, he responded by dialectically inverting the notion that all true moral action is exclusively for the sake of others: Gandhi replied: "What I do is for my self and my self alone." Gandhi was both a genius political activist and a serious spiritual seeker, though he too had his flaws and idealizations. As a side note, I recently read a quote that says, "Our actions are mostly flaws stitched together with good intentions." I like that. Although I always intend to do good, I fail again and again, ad perpetuem. Nonetheless, I will not cease from cultivating my greatest intentions. I wrote earlier that even the advent and exponential proliferation of objectification itself has only ever happened within the vast fields of subjectivity we call persons. In actuality I believe neither in subjectivity nor objectivity, but both are unavoidable modes in which we must learn to function. Another way of framing this paradox is that even duality is nondual; or, in clearer terms, that even when we experience ourselves as subjects and others as objects, and vice versa, that too is happening within (and as) the basic, ineffable awareness of unqualified life, which never came from anywhere and has nowhere to go. Many may point out that my own philosophical verbiage is extremely objectificatory. It is. Whitman knew that contradiction was not necessarily a bad thing. Whitman was large and contained multitudes. I aspire to be more like him. With that said, please go out for a beer with your friends, read a good poem, take a hot bath, go to bed, whatever. I am going to take my own advice now and go to bed, with the hope that tomorrow I become a little bit less of a demon than I was yesterday, and the day before.