Subjective Objects

A foundational dichotomy of my philosophy is the subject/object distinction. The subject attends to patterns that objectify. Objects emerge when several subjects can recognize the existence of particulars within a universally shared pattern. The universal pattern could be an event, location, context, and so forth. The existence of objects are always relative to subjects that can identify them, and the existence of subjects are always relative to the objects they can identify.

One paradox arises when some subjects consider some other subjects as objects. This is common place in our society where humans are frequently reduced to low-dimensional representations for the purpose of employment. This is a necessary condition for any organization to grow and survive the competition. Corporatization minimizes the human component of the equation in favor of a more powerful and expansive order. In such cases, another paradox can come into play when humans treat the emergent order as a subject. In the opposing direction, individual cells in the human body are sometimes considered independently of the host organism (the human).

In light of such paradoxes, I find it best to equate the set of all subjects to the set of all individual humans. This rule is not always easy to follow given that groups often appear to make decisions collectively. Nevertheless, this rule helps keep insanity at bay. Decisions can only be made by individuals, and groups of individuals can only agree and/or act on decisions constructed and/or discovered by individuals (the construction versus discovery distinction is a topic for another time).

Attention is a limited resource for all subjects. Personality theory attempts to categorize different types of attention. Information theory can provide a mathematical frame for the communication of information generated with each type. Such formalization is not absolutely necessary for understanding, though links of one kind or another are required to anchor down abstractions. Otherwise, they tend to float away like dissipating clouds.

Patterns are non-linear in the sense that no universal instructions exist telling subjects how to read them. This does not stop subjects from attempting to serialize such patterns into comprehensive stories or narratives. Just as I am doing right now. This is partially why I like to provide diagrams that serve as a crude non-linear metaphor in addition to several supporting narrations. Another idea to keep in mind is that patterns are one derivative removed from whatever reality is, so patterns are dimension-less ratios of how one quantity changes with respect to another quantity of the same dimension. Not sure if all that makes sense, but it does seem to fit with modern psychology.

This post may be updated as time unfolds.