Hey,

I want to talk to you for a little bit. I have been writing this every day and every time I draft a new one, there is always something new. I’m not here to talk about [redacted] but to share my thoughts on your and my principles, and on principles themselves. Because our actions always have implications on other people, especially given the capabilities you and I have.

In another email, long and arduous perhaps, I will address how I feel and my response, as I cannot deny myself or anyone to say something, especially in a conflict. But as Kevin in How I Met Your Mother said, “just because something must be said doesn’t mean they must be heard.” I will share at a later time as I feel emotions may be high and we should cool down a bit. I don't hate you and I won't. For what I’m about to articulate, I ask that you bear with me and my radical honesty. I want to spark a genuine discussion on what it is you and/or I are pursuing, and should we do it at all. I wish I can cleanly only talk about principles but it is grounded through our actions in the project, as do all rationalities always nurtured in emotions.

The truth is I have been wondering about what you said about me. I admire your intelligence and value your opinions and trust you so I truly wonder if it is true. That I fundamentally see people as modifiable objects and that I engineer connections. That I’m a techno-solutionist.  After all, authentic connections are all that matters to me and all that I chose to advocate for as a career and life objective. I have a responsibility to the world and I truly don’t want to change it for the worse. If this is what I truly am then I don’t want to do anything in this space. I really want to figure it out.

The truth is I have been wondering about the same thing about you too. That if you are a techno-solutionist fundamentally and that if I too have been blinded. And the reason I wonder is, throughout the collaboration, I observed that I took actions to take emotions and complexities into account while I observed that you seem to choose to see things only from the work side. In one instance when I said you should think of me by “within-subject comparison” and you said you only think of me with the expectation of an average person. To me, that is fundamentally techno-solutionism and the root issue of capitalism and all I chose to fight against: to not recognize people as themselves but as workers or abstracted person, to see different relationships / connections as something that can predate or exist out of emotional vacuum, to believe this abstraction / simplification is right at principal. Can we truly shape the world to feel people as complex people themselves and advocate for complexities and intention, if we ourselves don’t live by it at every moment and strive to take all complexities and intention into account, even when it is difficult to do so?

The truth is I think neither of us are techno-solutionists. I’m only human. You are only human too. I think we are just two very intelligent and at times anxious people that use our rationality to seek safety, as do all humans. But with great intelligence rationalization can appear fatally close to dehumanization and the only difference is one is guarded by principles of respecting people. And principles are not chunks of chocolate, tangible, weightful, and in everyday life, but elusive, all-encompassing, and only truly show themselves in difficult situations.

Allow me to share a bit more of my view.

It is true I seek to understand people deeply and I’m intentional with interactions. I believe as a human everyone is intentional to the best they can and it is only that I’m more emotionally aware of my behaviors and I’m capable of and willing to articulate them in radical honesty. I feel profoundly lonely being blamed for this honesty. But more importantly, the reason I dig deep into people, is because I believe fundamentally our uniqueness and humanness lies in our sameness and I believe we cannot truly respectfully appreciate our uniqueness and humanness if we don’t feel them, the commonness we shared, the laws that govern each of us as it govern all species and non-life forms. To feel may not be to appreciate, but to appreciate is to feel.

We are nothing more special than a mineraloid peacefully resting on the ground of Mount Taranaki, or a chimpanzee cozily bathing in soft morning daylight on a fragile twist of an old tree. We as individuals and a species are just like beautiful glassy rocks…. that are created out of utter chaos but happen to show some pattern.

But it is precisely this inescapable sameness that makes us special in its own end. It is despite this commonness we are who we are, it is despite similar upbringings and natures that shaped you and I to have a connection and that can shape any to have a connection, we were connected, and it is despite millions of years of chaotic evolution and millions of species, we human alone built splendid civilizations that no other species has done yet. It is this fundamental ordinariness that makes our own existence, the existence of this connection you and I shared, the existence of human intelligence more particular, not in the sense of any intrinsic superiority but special in its own commonality, in its own end. And I believe to appreciate the great beauty of it deeply, we must feel it deeply.

I feel I don't see people as objects but existences that are special, as special as any, and special in its own end. And I truly welcome any thoughts.

It is true I am more task-oriented and you are more feeling-oriented, but I feel my core philosophy is the same as yours: that we care about people and respect people as their own agent. We fight those who treat people and relationships as dehumanizing machines and we want to bring the loss of intention back to the people in themselves. I’m by no means claiming that you are a techno-solutionist or that I’m definitively not. I just want us to take some moments to think, however long it may take, however difficult it must be. I hope that you can provide me with some details about my actions so I can reflect more. And I challenge you to reflect about it as well. With great capabilities comes great responsibilities. We owe this clarity to the world, if not to each other.

Intellectual debates have always been the tenet of this partnership. And it meant more than just two people having fun. Much like the bands who write great music but with band members who may actually hate each other, differences, animosities even, nurture creativity.

Partnership may cease. Creativity may not have to.

Warmly,

Marx