Hi Cory, well perhaps we can give both you and John co-credit for the term and the concept. Indeed, time, space, and energy are all concepts that pervade us and cannot be fully grasped objectively, so we have to partially appeal to our inner world. It is like that saying that we don’t know who discovered water, but it wasn’t fish. If fish had advanced consciousness similar to ours then they might be able to grasp this aspect of their ethereal existence, but their mutual understanding and consensus of it would be partially dependent on indirect communicative tactics, since this water would be so close to their base of being. Particular quantities of water could be measured and there would be reliable processes for coming to an objective consensus about that, but their concept of water itself would not be so simple and would rely on analogies to the core of their conscious existence in order for these fish to be able to discuss the concept and to build consensus around this.
Now, what interests me more are the microcosms in our social life that are deeply transjective. For example, in order to fully understand what happened at the US capitol Jan 6, we not only need to understand who went where and who said what to whom, but we also need to know intent, which is an aspect of the inner world of the participants. Court trials are naturally transjective because they consider what happened objectively and also the subjective thoughts and feelings of the people involved. There is often a complex interplay between the inner and outer world for which the jury must do their best to sensemake. The storming of the US capitol and many other major events are going to hinge not so much on any formal court, but upon the court of public opinion. This is where sensemaking for the public at large will end up determining the levels of peace and stability and sustainability of our collective future. This is why many of us are trying to figure out how we can have more reliable processes for developing transjective consensus for current events and also for historical events.
Brandon Norgaard
Founder, The Enlightened Worldview Project
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Cory David Barker
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 4:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK The Tree, the Coin and the Garden as the It, the I and the We
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Brandon,
At first I thought maybe Vervaeke borrowed my term, but it would appear that we both came up with the term simultaneously. Multiple discovery is not an entirely unheard of when multiple people are tackling the same problems with overlapping background knowledge. I’m intending to talk to him at some point, but haven’t gotten to it yet.
Everything you said sounds pretty good to me. In my lexicon, transjectivity is a class of human experience pertaining to ethereal architectures and intangible processes. Time, space, energy are all ethereal architectures. You can’t really point to a specific place and say “it is there” because it is everywhere and in your finger. When I say panoptic processes as subclass of transjectivity, I mean to convey the universal class of human experience regarding total congruency across any and all domains. So yes, when people are trying to build mutuality and shared consensus of thought, feeling, action, etc.. whether it is on an interpersonal level, or a community level, or even state, national, international or anthropospheric, transjectivity unfolds in a fractal-like structure in the same way with different forms, the underpinning attribute in which is evoked in the act of building symmetry of reflection in subjectivity and enacting shared being in objectivity. Transjectivity in its subclass form as panoptic processes, closes the degrees of separation that exist between us. However, I do not suspect that people get complete voluntary control of their panoptic cognitive processes until they have learned to synthesize across a multiplicity of paradigms. Until that happens, the way that people are panoptic is contextualized by whatever thought-forms pervade their sense making for how congruency is possible. But after getting to that point, people can integrate a large array of ways of generating congruency and synthesize them.
The asymmetry of subjectivity is because people are, of course, born in different times and places with different experiences, families, friends, cultures, and societies and so on, and although we all share the same biological morphology, these experiences impress onto our innate capacities for experience in different ways, creating different internal simulations of reality. But how could it be any other way? If it was the reverse, we would all be identical, and that would be super boring. I am convinced that movement towards shared consensus is into our nature, and it is stagnated by lack of education and self-awareness. It's a developmental process, both in interpersonal relationships up to the global scale.
Indirect tactics are okay in my mind, but there is a grey area between nudging and manipulating. It's probably better to compensate people’s lack of understanding by filling in missing pieces that are relevant to their specific circumstance and demonstrate to them what we want to see in them, in contrast to autistically trying to operate on people like objects that can be perturbed to illicit responses.
This is why large-scale models are important. They help us all get on the same page with large-scale meaning making without invading on our individual identities, differences, and unique journeys. It makes it easy for us to constellate our differences on a map, and relate. We are a global society now, and living under the umbrella of single paradigms of religion, philosophy, and science just don’t cut it if we are all to get along in this shared space.
Cory