hypocrisy as a theme; objectivity as an impossibility

i'm a bit embarrassed because just a few days ago, in the real world, i ate a chicken sandwich from hardees. you have no idea how much it pains me to say that. it was free and i was starving - a friend bought it, and then offered it to me. it wasn't horrible. it was pretty good - the flavor was more striking than flavor i'm used too; i mostly eat rather plain home cooked food. i felt a little bit sick later in the evening... probably psychosomatic. two nights later, i dream that i'm being interviewed. possibly for a job, not completely certain of this. anyhow, i've been talking to this guy for several minutes when he asks whether or not i consider myself healthy. i say yes. he asks if i eat healthily. i say yes, but feel strange as i slightly remember eating fast food recently. it was once in a few months, it's not a lifestyle, i think. he asks if i exercise, i say yes. he says 'you don't run do you?' i say yes. he asks if i'm an alcoholic, i say yes. i feel suddenly as if i've made a mistake. end dream. it's strange that i've had two dreams recently (previous post) that appeared to be blatant critiques of my lifestyle. i wonder how conflicted i am, and whether this is a big problem. aligning my lifestyle with my beliefs is high on some subconcious to-do list, apparently.

thought: something i was thinking yesterday evening. for awhile, i fancied myself as an objective thinker in relation not so much to my peers, but to the general population. i have said often that objectivity is to science as christ is to christianity. unachievable accept through a loose and likely misunderstood relationship. recently i realized something further. objective reasoning, or evaluation concerning a specific event or phenomena is somewhat possible. unbiased research is possible. i oft find myself changing my beliefs or opinions slightly in accordance with new information -- a bit of proof that correct information sometimes takes priority over passionate beliefs. wal-mart. pretty bad. not quite as bad as i thought. pretty bad though.

distraction: i was going to use the definition of 'prejudice' as another example of me changing my opinion - only in this case, of me being wrong. in a psychology class during a heated discussion about prejudice (in the racist sense), i said that prejudice means to form an opinion with incorrect information or no information, so if someone admits to being prejudiced against someone they are inherently incorrect. someone argued that it may be socially unreasonable but not incorrect by definition. i looked the word up at home, and found this "3.unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group." (Random House Unabridged 2006) I later admitted to being wrong. I just found the following: "1. To cause to have prejudice; to prepossess with opinions formed without due knowledge or examination; to bias the mind of, by hasty and incorrect notions; to give an unreasonable bent to, as to one side or the other of a cause; as, to prejudice a critic or a juryman." (Webster 1913) so at least i hadn't made it up, it was just outdated.

back to thought: objectivity as a lifestyle. impossible. to objectively evaluate every aspect of every one of your personal opinions would be akin to rebuilding yourself from scratch. to objectively research every piece of information that is involved with forming your opinions is completely impossible. ridiculous even. so here's the new belief: objective about things that it has been brought to my attention are worth being objective about. otherwise, form my opinion based on personal research. basically, as long as i'm preventing other people, peoples, agencies, organizations and corporations from forming my opinions for me, i'll be alright.