>>, Perspectives, Philosophy>>Subject and Object Part I: The How and the Why

Subject and Object Part I: The How and the Why

Modern science seeks to transform everything into interchangeable parts.  In fact the goal of much of advanced physics is to find the building blocks of the universe.  As if understanding limestone will teach you about concrete.  If you want to know concrete fall of your bicycle and slide across a concrete hill. 


The result of this objectification of everything, is that people lose the meanings to their lives.  For example, the underlying assumption of modern economic theory is that more is better faster.  When pollution occurs, we call this a market externality.  Or, an “outlying variable.” 


Tell this to the person who feels no meaning from life.  When told that the purpose of life is to acquire more, faster, and more easily, this does not bring peace.  Add the fact that orthodox objective science refuses to accept anything that cannot be quantified or measured, and the person feels even worse. 


Because now, there is no mysticism, no mystery, and no reason to be, other than to consume.  He or she is told that they come from nowhere and will go nowhere with a path of meaningless consumption in between.  Even if this were the case, is it no wonder that this does not inspire?  Is it any wonder that depression in
America is at an all time high.


People are medicated in this country more than anywhere else in the world.  Someone once said, “Pity the unhappy rich man, for at least the unhappy poor man can blame his unhappiness on his poverty.”  What we see, is that success kills as likely as failure.  Yet the death of success is generally more brutal.  One reaches the so called pinnacle of success and then self-destructs. 


Our materialist objective science will kill us as an organism.  Humanity will consume itself, for that is the reason of being according to its most common philosophy.  Contrast this with the several billion people who believe that their metaphysical belief is the only one.  They will kill each other for the right to live eternally.  This has got to stop. 


Material science teaches “how,” while nonmaterial science, that of the consciousness, teaches “why.”  Yet the individual “why” is different for every human being. though they share similarities.  Each time a new religious leader finds inspiration he or she starts another sect.  People flock to this branch of “why” to justify and validate themselves. 


When the two sects are in contradiction there is no need for there to be only one.  Imagine the human body once again.  The upper end of the digestive tract seeks to take matter into itself, while the lower end seeks to eliminate it.  These two parts of the whole occupy polar opposites.  Yet they are two sides to the same thing.  Each requires the other to exist and survive. 


In this same way, we require both subjective and objective reasons for our existence.  The subjective studies the subject, “you,” or you consciousness, while the objective examines the object, or what your consciousness cognizes.  Together we have our view of “reality.”  The vast majority of humans are incapable of deep cognition of the subjective reality. 


Yet those who are able, such as those reading this type of dialogue, require a deeper meaning of life than acquisition or consumption.  These latter two ideas may serve the individual seeking higher meaning, but only as integrated into some philosophy.  Consuming more faster will never make us happy.  Only an integrated view of both subject and object provide fulfillment. 

By | 2007-05-22T07:30:33+00:00 May 22nd, 2007|Esoteric Wisdom, Perspectives, Philosophy|2 Comments


  1. Jason Foreman May 22, 2007 at 10:09 am - Reply

    I don’t wish to be offensive; however, you lose your readers in the first couple of sentences. I can sense the direction you are going, but you make a very deep and intricate idea even more complex than what it seems. I feel you have used vernacular and poetic analogies beyond your own writing capability. Good topic though!

  2. perfectparadox May 22, 2007 at 10:28 am - Reply

    Although I am not sure what I have made more complicated in this post that is beyond my readers’ understanding or my writing ability, I thank you nonetheless. I also assure you that in this genre, I have used no analogies or comparisons more difficult than what is commonly available. Regardless, I will be more careful to try to keep it simpler.
    Thank you.

    PS-Good to hear from you.

Leave A Comment