Objects, projects, rejects and subjects

Psychosocial Implication of Without Within (Part #5)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

The argument suggests that there is both a degree of flexibility and mystery to the manner in which "objects" are defined as tangible externalities -- segmenting "outer" reality to that end reminiscent of the construction of any "built environment".

The cognitive process is evident in the manner in which projects are envisaged and undertaken. Another aspect of the process is evident in the manner in which rejects are variously defined and excluded, again whether tangible or intangible, as separately discussed (Omnipresence of the Remaindered in Global Society, 2011; Social Remainders from Psychosocial Remaindering, 2011). This raises the question as to how rejects are to be reintegrated (Reintegration of a Remaindered World: Cognitive recycling of objects of systemic neglect, 2011).

Such considerations raise the further question of the role of the "subject" in the process. This is especially evident when that process is recognized more explicitly in active verbal form, as indicated by the gerunds -- objecting, projecting, rejecting and subjecting -- with their important psychosocial implications. There is clearly a strange, if not paradoxical, dynamic at the interface between what can be framed as objective or subjective (¡¿ Defining the objective 8 Refining the subjective ?! Explaining reality 8 Embodying realization, 2011). Especially intriguing is the possible freedom to define as "tangible", or to imagine as "intangible" -- according to circumstance. The proactive possibilities have been explored to some degree as enactivism.

The cognitive interplay with "objects" -- which may initially take the form of "projects" and may ultimately become "rejects" -- can clearly be understood as both defining and refining the "subject". As yet to be explored are the cognitive implications of the associated processes with respect to the vast array of objects engendered as tangibles or as intangibles -- if only as projects.

It could be argued that technology, as a mirror, is a means whereby civilization "talks to itself". Aspects of this argument are evident in the work of Erik Davis (TechGnosis: myth, magic, and mysticism in the Age of Information, 1998) and Robert Romanyshyn (Technology as Symptom and Dream, 1989). It may well have strategic implications (Stepping into, or through, the Mirror: embodying alternative scenario patterns, 2008).

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]