Notes on the usage of  the concepts of

Subject and Object & "Unity of Oneself"

The only thing that every living being is a subject of is - Nature.

"There is no subject in general, in effect, one entirely autonomous and
seperate from its perceived objects."........Merleau-Ponty

Just as one created illusion can demolish all imposed illusions,

a created object's impact upon a structure of fake objects can

bring down the entire structure.

 

These words "subject" and "object" and their corresponding "subjective" and

"objective"  have become  key words in any discourse, but have led to endless

problems with their usage, leading to confusing and meaningless contradictions.

The word "object"  has now become inseparably associated with 'a material entity'

that science deals with and "objective" with scientific method. The word "subject"

now means a person, again to be studied scientifically ( like an object ) or else a

subject is non-scientific which puts it as a subject of religion or if the subject is

acting "subjective", then the subject is either an artist or insane. These categories

have become fairly well defined and definitive to the point where any person's

behavior is immediately classified and treated according to the established rules

of that domain, formulated by consensus of the people belonging to that domain.

"Your Englishman, confronted by something abnormal will always pretend
that it isn't there. If, however, you force him to look into it, he'll at once
pretend that he sees the object not for what it is but for something that
he would like it to be".
.........James Agate

The word "subject " usually means an individual "acted upon" or subservient to

something, like 'loyal subjects of the King', or 'the subject behaved strangely when

asked a simple question' and an object usually means "something material", a thing

that behaves according to the laws of science, for the laws have been found by

scientists according to which objects behave.

The word " objective " means impartial, unemotional, unbiased, factual, impersonal

....very much like "unconcerned", or "couldn't care less", i.e., a behavior that should be

indistinguishable from that of an object. Everyone is supposed to behave objectively

because if they don't, that means that they must be violating some law or even worse,

many laws of science.

And when the word  "subjective " is used, the meaning seems to change completely

to mean exclusive individual experience that no one else seems to agree with....like

imagination or even unreal and illusory. It has come to the stage that when someone

now uses the word "subjective" it virtually implies "insane". To be "subjective " now

means "unscientific weirdo" who is probably dabbling in psychedelic drugs or is into

some occult or supernatural mumbo jumbo that science has proven does not exist.

Even subjects are now supposed to behave like objects so that they can be proven

by science to exist. Now if the whole world only consisted of objects it would have

been easier, and thanks to science, most subjects do behave like objects, but not

all. These freak subjects behave like subjects because they violate laws of science,

whereas only objects follow truly all the laws of science, that is, only objects are

true subjects of the laws of science. The only logical conclusions are :

Therefore all scientists are themselves objects according to their own definition and

method, and are subject only to the laws of science.

Therefore, the work of science is to turn all subjects into objects so that no laws of

science can be violated or seem to be violated. This is the goal of science.

When all subjects have been confirmed as objects the goal of science will have

been accomplished.

"I do not consider myself subject to much at all"
......Hawkeye in the motion picture 'Last of the Mohicans'

A normal subject is supposed to belong to one of the   following categories :

Science, Religion, Art or Insane asylum. But a "subjective" subject can only belong

to one category : Insane asylum, because a "subjective" subject cannot find anyone

to agree with him, because he having  "subjective" experiences that he finds no one

else seems to have had. So the only way a "subjective' subject can survive is to

pretend and act in as "objective" a manner as possible, that is, give the external

appearance of behaving like an object. This way a person can be both subject

and object. 

"The fastest way to succeed is to look as if you're playing by other people's
rules, while quietly playing by your own"....Michael Korda

And now for some serious introspection :

Perception starts from the premise in which it makes a basic distinction  between

a set of perceptual elements that associate with the individual's identity ( the self)

and another set that is identified with the "world out there".  Therefore "objects"

mostly are elements of perception that have been sourced from the sensory inputs,

and automatically classified as " out there", that is, not part of the self. This basic

classification in its various degrees is very much part of the mind till death.  Even a

hard core Buddhist monk will jump aside when a bus is about to overrun him rather

than insist that there is no distinction between the bus and himself.  ( If his mind

fails to make the distinction, the bus will certainly kill him. )

 

Since all concepts are elements of perception, so are the concepts of subject and

object, subjective and objective. To distinguish them for their proper usage, it can

be stated that "subject" is that element of perception that is associated with the

individual perceiver and usually acted upon by other elements of perception called

"objects".  And  "subjective" are those elements of perception that are unique to

that being, whereas "objective" are those elements that are common or generally

agreed upon.  With this as a basis for distinction, lets look at the possibilities.

It seems obvious that if there are too many objects in the perceptual field, and

very small area of the subject, then the subject will for ever remain subject to or

dominated by the objects.  For the subject to dominate or capture the perception,

it will have to either throw out the objects or to convert the objects to the side of

the subject.  But for the subject to throw out the objects or even to convert them

requires control to be on the side of the subject.   But that's the problem to begin

with : the control already rests with the objects.   And too many converted objects

can anyway  make for a bloated subject, so the best course is to completely empty

the perceptual field of all subject and objects and exist in a state of nothingness.

But in that condition, a bus will certainly kill you just as it would a monk, but the

monk has nothing to do with the bus because he wants to go nowhere, so you

are back to square one, and you can't sit at square one or even a monastry.

Because the 'weight' of the objects is killing you, and you don't want to die crushed

under their weight, you must then find a way to get rid of the objects. So that you

are 'enlightened' and have no need for objects - or even the subject, because as the

mystic monk says : in a truly 'enlightened' state there is no object and also no

subject. Now all that you need  to do is get rid of both, but then comes the problem :

what do we do with our redundant bodies ? Where do we park them ? The monasteries

are already full of monks who were clever enough to make it there first. Sorry,

parking full !  No space there too.  Down to square zero.

Now wait a minute, how about converting your own home into a parking lot : call it

Exotic Temple, Holy Church or Selfless Monastery, so that you could not only park your

own body there, all dressed up in robes, but also take money from others to park

theirs for a hefty fee, after you have ripped them off all their objects as well as

washed out their subject. Perfect solution, and a holy business to boot !

But you find that that has already been thought of by the crafty Hindus who have

a virtual monopoly over this business, since they have a well developed art of

meditation, which means : brainwashing subjects into depositing their objects

( especially dollars) as investments in the booming business.

This problem is really getting out of hand so here's the solution:

THE SOLUTION

Intelligence is the faculty of making artificial objects, especially tools
to make tools.....
Henri Bergson

As long as a living Being is alive, there is no getting rid of objects and subject.

The best way for the subject to rule over the objects ( the perceptual field is

under control of the "realised true subject" ) is to create counterobjects that

balance out the objects, so that the effect or weight of the objects upon the

perceptual field is minimised, i.e., the objects do not burden the perceptual

field and yet the objects are useful whenever required by the subject, as

well as to realise the usefulness of the created counterobjects.

( The last part, that is, the solution is serious, the rest may not be )

"We create that which we need to defend against something". ....Buddha

" In contrast to the objective reflection that ignores individual existence,
Kierkegaard speaks of subjective reflection and its corresponding truth as
subjectivity. When subjectivity is truth, subjectivity's definition must include
an expression or an opposition to objectivity - a reminder of a fork in the
road, and this expression must also convey the tension of inwardness -
the self's relation to itself."......Thomas Flynn

Clarification on "The Unity of Oneself "

 The unity of oneself does not mean infinite choices. The distinction  between a 'Being',
( commonly referred to as 'Subject') and its interactive environment consisting of 
'Objects' is there even in the unity of oneself. Unity of oneself means that in the
perceptual field of the Being, there is no overdue value for any one element, and the
faculties from which perception is driven are well integrated into a central controller
- the Will.

For most of the time our perception or " observer" is "locked" onto the demands of the
"objects" or "observed", These "objects" also include other people and their thoughts.
So the perception of most people for most time is "subject" to the pressures of the
interacting "objects". For an "object" or "observed"  to be "subject" to the perception
of the observer would mean that the "object" is being created or recreated by the
perception of a being. A created "object" is usually not "subject" to agreement, unless
the created "object" is in the scientific domain, "subject" to scientific scrutiny by
"objective" scientific method. Which means that a non-scientific created "object"
is either purely only "subjective" or in the domain of  a limited target audience,
which makes it either an "object of art" or an "object of sorcery".

BACK TO DUALITY IN NATURE OR NATURE OF DUALITY :  06duality.htm

See also the main article 07percepti.htm and supplementary article artexcept.htm

                                                         GO TO :  HOME PAGE