Subjects, Objects and Transjects

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
icarusphaethon
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:48 pm

Subjects, Objects and Transjects

Post by icarusphaethon »

I wrote a short blog on what I refer to as the 'Transject', here: http://transject.blogspot.com.au/ . Far from being an exhaustive analysis, it purports that we are missing a term - the transject. In summary:

1. Subject. This is the mind. All the subject is in this definition, is thinking and thoughts {and not thinking}.
2. Object. Anything external to what has been defined above as the subject and external to the subject-body {also referred to as an individual with a mind}.
3. Transject. What has up until now been known as a subject, in other words an individual with a mind. Using the revised definitions above, the transject is neither the subject described above nor the object, but it is the subject-mind and material body of which it has an inner sense. It is the subject and the subject’s body together. You are the only being that can describe yourself as a transject. You can only describe yourself as being transjective. You cannot assign this to any other sentient being, as for all intents and purposes according to these definitions, they are objects.

It draws parallels with our conceptual framework of time, in that the present is the only thing we actually experience and the past and future are phantasms. In much the same way, the transject is the only thing we experience, with subjects and objects also being phantasms.
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Subjects, Objects and Transjects

Post by The Voice of Time »

Quite interesting. But I would reckon that the dictionary is actually wrong in its definition and your term is utterly not necessary. A subject is anything that can be referred to uniquely, a unique object. A subject's mind is a subject''s mind and not the subject in total unless for some weird reason the subject should be nothing else than a mind, which unfortunately only happens in fantasy-novels and ghost-stories (excluding the means by which they appear though. If you account those means you might say it never happens at all).

Also a subject does not require a mind to be a subject. Or else it would make no sense all the other places besides humans that we use the term "subject". For more inclusive, or plural, definitions see: http://onelook.com/?w=subject&ls=a
ntadepalli
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:46 pm

Re: Subjects, Objects and Transjects

Post by ntadepalli »

Conscious activity of brain processes
1.contributions from external object as stimuli and
2.contributions from the nature of the individual as reaction to stimuli.
The integrated activity is the function of any brain to produce finally the object in consciousness.
We refer to that simply as object.
Subject is the one who is aware of the object.
We are seeing here a division of the nature of the individual,the part of the nature that is reacting to external stimuli and the part of nature that is not reacting, at that instance.Each external stimulus creates
its own division.This non-reacting part ,I guess is the real subject. Its identity is different from perception to perception.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Subjects, Objects and Transjects

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Double posting for some strange reason!
Last edited by SpheresOfBalance on Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Subjects, Objects and Transjects

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Lets look at both:

Subject
sub·ject  /n., adj. ˈsʌbdʒɪkt; v. səbˈdʒɛkt/ [n., adj. suhb-jikt; v. suhb-jekt] noun
15. Philosophy .
a. that which thinks, feels, perceives, intends, etc., as contrasted with the objects of thought, feeling, etc.
b. the self or ego.
--Random House Inc. ©2012--

Subject noun Pronunciation: /ˈsʌbdʒɛkt, ˈsʌbdʒɪkt/
5 Philosophy a thinking or feeling entity; the conscious mind; the ego, especially as opposed to anything external to the mind.
>>the central substance or core of a thing as opposed to its attributes.
--Oxford University Press ©2012--

Object
ob·ject /n. ˈɒbdʒɪkt, -dʒɛkt; v. əbˈdʒɛkt/ [n. ob-jikt, -jekt; v. uhb-jekt] noun
9. Metaphysics . something toward which a cognitive act is directed.
--Random House Inc. ©2012--

Object noun Pronunciation: /ˈɒbdʒɪkt, -dʒɛkt/
1 a material thing that can be seen and touched: he was dragging a large object small objects such as shells
>> Philosophy a thing external to the thinking mind or subject.
--Oxford University Press ©2012--

Quite frankly, icarusphaethon, I can see no delineation of distinction in your terms as outlined in your first message. So I don't necessarily see a need to have a Transject. Do you care to further delineate?
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Subjects, Objects and Transjects

Post by The Voice of Time »

ntadepalli wrote: We are seeing here a division of the nature of the individual,the part of the nature that is reacting to external stimuli and the part of nature that is not reacting, at that instance.
what do you mean "not reacting?"

And the subject still does not seem to be differing from either the mind or consciousness. It makes no sense to talk about a "subject" when its practical use is just as a synonym for mind or consciousness. The subject does not exist besides being a synonym for these two, at the least you could call it a collective term.

My consciousness and mind changes all the time, doesn't yours?

When I think about it though the "transject" could be a perspective of the "subject", or mind and consciousness, as being connected with the body and changing with the body instead of changing as a reason of the body, which would make much sense, since usually what goes on in your mind, even though you don't think with your hand, you can still say that without a body you would not have those feelings, pains, softness, cold, warmth, etc. which we have, and so the mind, while adaptable to all kinds of "surroundings", exterior to the human, the body becomes kind of inseparable from the consciousness and mind, while the mind is quite separable from the situations of the world. This transject would make sense of speaking of, in a kind of way as the "body of feeling".

But make no mistake, even the transject changes, even it reacts, and also the consciousness and mind.
JHuber
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:14 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: Subjects, Objects and Transjects

Post by JHuber »

icarusphaethon wrote: 1. Subject. This is the mind. All the subject is in this definition, is thinking and thoughts {and not thinking}.
2. Object. Anything external to what has been defined above as the subject and external to the subject-body {also referred to as an individual with a mind}.
There are only four abstract concepts. They are: unit, object, subject and relation. (There is also another, entity, but entity means either subject or object so it doesn't count.)

Units and relations is mathematics. Units have no attributes, properties or emotional ramifications. This is why anything can be combined with units. This is also why mathematics is an absolute truth.

Objects and relations is engineering. Objects do have attributes and/or properties but they do not have emotional ramifications. For example, a whole is composed of parts.

Subjects and relations is philosophy. Subjects do have attributes and/or properties and they can have emotional ramifications. For example, everyone has family members and family members are called relatives. Also, all of the information in the subject of a conversation are related (also known as relevant).

There is no reason for the use of the word transject.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Subjects, Objects and Transjects

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

The dichotomy of 'subject' and 'object' is very necessary within the common sense and conventional perspective.

Philosophers of the past had recognized the limitation of the above perspective and had attempted to shift perspective to transcend the above dualism with non-dualistic and monistic concepts.

Off hand, while there are a lot of theories and practices that reconcile the subject with the object, I had not came across any specific term that represent the effect/resultant of such a reconciliation.

An alternative to 'transject' could be 'intraject' to represent the inner processes that reconcile the subject interdependently with the object.
The 'transject' or 'intraject' should not be taken as a soul that survives physical death.
JHuber
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:14 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: Subjects, Objects and Transjects

Post by JHuber »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:The dichotomy of 'subject' and 'object' is very necessary within the common sense and conventional perspective.

Philosophers of the past had recognized the limitation of the above perspective and had attempted to shift perspective to transcend the above dualism with non-dualistic and monistic concepts.
Subject and object are interchangeable except when it comes to emotional ramifications. Don't call your girlfriend an object or she'll slap you.

What is especially interesting is if one puts subjects and relations into the same subject. What results is the solution to emotion theory which is one of mankind's oldest problems. It is also a worldview.

http://subjectsandrelations.com
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Subjects, Objects and Transjects

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

JHuber wrote:
Veritas Aequitas wrote:The dichotomy of 'subject' and 'object' is very necessary within the common sense and conventional perspective.

Philosophers of the past had recognized the limitation of the above perspective and had attempted to shift perspective to transcend the above dualism with non-dualistic and monistic concepts.
Subject and object are interchangeable except when it comes to emotional ramifications. Don't call your girlfriend an object or she'll slap you.

What is especially interesting is if one puts subjects and relations into the same subject. What results is the solution to emotion theory which is one of mankind's oldest problems. It is also a worldview.

http://subjectsandrelations.com
I cannot figure out anything clearly from your diagram and explanation.

I think the subject of Cosmology, Evolution, Evolutionary Psychology and philosophy will connect all the dots nicely for most of the terms that are in your diagram.
JHuber
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:14 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: Subjects, Objects and Transjects

Post by JHuber »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:]I cannot figure out anything clearly from your diagram and explanation.

I think the subject of Cosmology, Evolution, Evolutionary Psychology and philosophy will connect all the dots nicely for most of the terms that are in your diagram.
Image
This is a bit offtrack from the OP but I believe it is important. The title of this thread caught my eye (obviously).

This diagram has much to do with evolution, psychology and philosophy. Putting subjects and relations in the same subject is philosophy. This enables emotion theory. Emotion theory is psychology. Family members are called relatives and that is evolution. Thinking of this as cosmology would require relating it to physics.

It shouldn't be difficult to understand. You know that unhappiness is the separation of a relation as in a funeral. You know that happiness is the opposite of unhappiness. Therefore, I have drawn that in this diagram. You also know that more is the opposite of less. These are relative terms so they stem from relation. I have drawn that in the diagram as well. If the emotion of happiness forms relations then there is a relative value in relation that is contentment. Above contentment is pride. One can't be jealous of oneself and we know that jealousy is above contentment (not below) therefore jealousy is antipathetic pride. The rest of it falls into place similarly.
zok
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:05 am

Re: Subjects, Objects and Transjects

Post by zok »

-Ject is from Jette is from tirer is from iacere bc historically people have pronounced vowels differently as mouth muscles/dexterity developed/traded.

So you have this ye- sound that is sometimes expressed as "ie(h)", je- "iere", "ia" .. the comparison has to do with the part of the mouth that makes the sound. There's a lot of overlap between the E, Yee, Je, ie sounds.. and linguists debate over whether its mostly one part or mostly another part.. coordinating the sound. Over history you can track regional norms for how these sounds formed, people got better at it, vowel lengths changed, sound like changed.. English is struck with sounds from all over the map and years. Sometimes the map doesn't change.

I think subject and object were groomed into representations of the self by virtue of how these sounds have a theme of presentation. Subject is to be presented with the beneath, the object presented with the in-front, transject is to be presented with the across, the inside out?

As far alternatives to Trans-

Maybe

Per-
Peri-
Dia-

Others? why no adjective? Is the POV 3d or dimensional? If its a dimension shift than to be next to the subject but next to against like ob-?
Post Reply