a simple statement

pai, thailand

an objective statement, really, but even the most benign and general is subject to so many caveats. there are any number of prejudices and biases, whether they be known or unknown. even if i self-assess as clear and absolved of any of the aforementioned, maybe the doubt will remain in the minds of others. in an effort to inoculate against any such skepticism, a few qualifications and clarifications must precede.

there are sociocultural biases. it is necessary to acknowledge the lens of the "other" through which one regards another culture or any tangible/intangible byproducts of said perceived alien. even if the decolonization of the mind is not, ipso facto, possible in deed, it can at least be acknowledged as an inhibitor of pure objective reason. so too with every one of a wide range of lenses. the framework of paternalism most definitely applies, as do any number of historical antecedents ranging from "the white man's burden" to orientalism to the westphalian construct of the nation-state and the impressions these created/exploited. it need not be explained, though certainly bears mentioning, that though the self perceives, its inclusion as a part in a larger whole (i.e. regional/national/cultural biases and frameworks) inherently suggests at least a minimum of conscious/sub-conscious inculcation.

the cultural-historical framework dovetails in concert with biological and genetic preferences vis-a-vis ethnocentrism and xenophobia, depending on definition and manifestation. intrinsic physical preferences for similarity to the self (ex. face structure, skin tone, height/weight, etc) are deductive, individual preferences rendered from the larger, anthropological preference of the people to which said individual belongs. of course, those points heretofore stated do not take into account the fetishization of the foreign, but then that is a long, windy path with freudian and jungian tangents that, again, do not need description so much as acknowledgment.

then there is the subjectivity of experience, i.e. the formulation of opinions based on experience and the cumulative effect of the self-protagonizing window through which we regard external stimuli internally. all of which, really, is simply the inherent and prejudicial trust assigned to our own inductive and deductive reasoning for no other reason than that they are our own (i.e. self-fulfilling prophecy.) at which point, if we're truly going to acknowledge these disparities, it bears mentioning that perception and awareness are dictated by those of self-consciousness alone, those only seen by the other, that which is seen by both, and that which shall forever remain outside the doors of perception of both parties (e.g. johari window.) remember, these are just the influences, with scant mention of the opinions thereby derived, something that shall, again, be mentioned without superfluous explanation.

of course, there remain the larger existential factors which must, inter alia, be presented if not fully dissected. whereby tangible, baryotic objects are not, in and of themselves, necessarily existent (i.e. a grain of sand is only a grain of sand until it is perceived as a grain of sand, whereby it becomes subject to the biases heretofore described, etc), further questions remain for the existential nature of intangible concepts (i.e. culture, customs, etc.) it, at least, bears mentioning that such intangibility becomes subject to existential dilemmas primarily and teleological factors (intrinsic and extrinsic finality) even if such digression were to fall beyond the purview of this examination.

so, if we take all of that into consideration, then i'd simply like to say:

asia's pretty fuckin' weird, man