The reason that I wanted to bring this up is because the word “object” seems to be used in many different ways in different contexts and I wanted to find a way of framing this that avoids the use of that word.  Drawing from Tomasello, objectivity is constructed through mutual understanding of patterns of experience, often though not always quantifiable.  Direct communicative tactics such as pointing, grasping, within one’s environment in ways that work within the work within the visual and auditory communicative media allows for social corroboration, which in turn allows for the construction of high degrees of mutual understanding.  If there are developmental phenomena going on within one’s own inner world, then that doesn’t seem to me like the word “object” should be used.  At least, I’m suggesting that Vervaeke’s 4Ps of knowing could offer a set of terminology that seems to roughly jangle here.  In my opinion, there is way to much jingle around the word “object” and I want to focus on where the word is most useful.  This is why I point to science and journalism as standards for objectivity, since these professions and their related institutions and practitioners are using well-established processes for honing our mutual understanding of objects.  If I’m looking back on my earlier stages of development in my childhood, the word “object” doesn’t seem a good fit.  Even if we’re talking about this happening subconsciously through a developmental process wherein prior stages are transcended, I don’t like the word “object”.  I’m offering this as an example of meta-linguistic processes we can go through to help us sort out jingle/jangle issues.

 

Brandon

 

From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Aydan Connor
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 12:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Kegan's use of subject vs. object in comparison to Vervaeke's 4P knowledge

 

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.

Another framing might be employed through the language of transparency/opacity shift: so that instead of transparently being experienced as self participating, you do an opacity shift to look at your socialization as an object of self through participation.

 

Love this listserv,

Aydan 

 

On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 11:12 Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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.

Totally agree with Lene,

 

Not that your articulation is at all wrong Brandon, rather it is a more forwardly developmental line of thought regarding the teleological function of the subject-object relationship at any given stage or point, whereas the subject-object orientation is a principle of this as a process philosophy/ontology. See A.N. Whitehead's "congresence" of "actual entities" according to prehensions for a model that articulates both what you and Lene are saying.


Regards,

 

Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.

 

 

On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 5:58 AM Lene Rachel Andersen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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,

What Kegan means by object is that one's socialization becomes an object to the self the way that other objects such as cats, dogs, and automobiles are. My subject (my self) can look at a cat and create a subjective understanding of it; as self-authoring, my self can also look at my socialization and create a subjective understanding of that.

Best,

Lene

On 26-05-2022 09:17, Brandon Norgaard wrote:

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.

Robert Kegan talks about how each successive developmental stage to which one is subject has the previous stage as its object.  For example, at stage 3 you are socialized and you can only recognize how your socialization was determining your life when you’re at stage 4 and you can then look back on your previous lifeworld when you were wrapped up with socialization and you lacked the reflective insight that would have been necessary to keep you from simply going along with the crowd and constantly worrying about what your peers thought of you.  You can transcend this at the self-authoring stage 4.  Thus, Kegan says that stage 3 is the object of stage 4.

 

This usage of subject and object is a little confusing for me.  It seems that both phenomena that Kegan describes are subjective.  I figure the best benchmarks for what “objective” means come from science and journalism.  If we are talking about different sorts of subjective experiences then the word “object” seems inappropriate.

 

As an alternative way of talking about similar phenomena, I want to draw from Vervaeke’s distinction between participatory knowing and perspectival knowing. These are 2 of the 4 P’s of knowing.  (The other two are procedural and propositional, but they are less relevant to this matter at hand)  Participatory knowing is the ground of being, but we need to periodically step outside and reflect on it and develop a perspective on it.  This moves from participatory knowing to perspectival knowing.  To relate this back to Kegan, if you are in the socialized self stage 3 then you are participating in socialization.  At stage 4, you have a perspective on that prior stage because you are now at the self authoring stage. 

 

What do you guys think?  Several of you are more experienced at these matters than I am, but I’m just trying to work out clearer language here.  Your comments are welcome.

 

Thanks,

Brandon

 

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

--
Lene Rachel Andersen
Futurist, economist, author & keynote speaker
President of Nordic Bildung and co-founder of the European Bildung Network
Full member of the Club of Rome
Nordic Bildung
Vermlandsgade 51, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
www.nordicbildung.org
+45 28 96 42 40

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1