How Object Perceives Subject?

HOW OBJECT PERCEIVES SUBJECT?

I. Multi-interpretative

Entering a park between the dense city buildings, I walk towards the center of the park, there lies a fountain with circular pond around it. Just before the main circle of the park I spot a bench on the edge of grasses, I decide to approach it and sit on it. Looking at the grasses, several kids are running around and some adults are standing chit-chatting in a little distance from where the kids are playing.

           

A wooden bench in a city park, while the sun is almost covered by the silhouette of buildings,

for me is a comfortable spot to sit and to observe what is happening around,

for a kid is a king’s throne where he could arrange his ministers and warriors,

for an adult is an adequate spot both to wait and to keep an eye on her daughter while playing with the other kids,

for a novelist is a very good source of inspiration for human relations,

for a homeless drifter is his sleeping platform which is still now occupied by lots of people

for someone in the neighboring city is something which he does not know about,

for the park management is a property which they have to maintain and keep in good shape,

for a police is a pleasant place for him to rest his eyes from a day of watching vehicles in metropolitan traffic.

A wooden bench in a city park, while the sun is hidden and switched by the glow of park lights,

for me is a spot to be alone from crowded city life for daydreaming,

for a kid is a scary place in the middle of the dark,

for an adult is not anymore a good attraction for her to hang around with her daughter,

for a novelist is a place for writing down what he has observed today while the memory is still fresh,

for a homeless drifter is his most comfortable sleeping and resting platform,

for someone in the neighboring city is something which he does not know about,

for the park management is a property which they have to maintain and keep in a good shape,

for a police is a troubling spot which felt as a burden for his duty related to eviction of homeless drifter and a group of drunk people.

A bench is a bench. It is not difficult for me and also for a lot other person which have seen and used a bench before, to identify a set of wooden planks held by iron on both sides, connecting them with another set of wooden planks which is situated vertically and with the earth below, as a bench. A thing could be easily recognized by various person without meeting and knowing one to another as an identity or as one particular type. In the same time that does not mean a bench would give a same experience (apart from the labeling process) towards various person which it is being experienced by. A similar bench could be experienced extremely different by distinct parties and in a dissimilar context of space and time. A bench is not just a bench.

II. Things Gather Themselves as Being

Let me approach this through the process of how it exists as an entity, how it presents itself in its characteristic. The discussed ‘bench’ in this matter is tightly bounded with the word ‘bench’ as a word in a language. Is a bench would be a bench when the material has the form, composition, proportion, quality, or the relation of its parts which signify itself as a unity which collectively agreed to be identified as a bench. Or it is considered to be a bench when it opens up the capability for us to do the possibility which are collectively agreed to be identified as a bench.

The perception of a thing-as-type is dependent both on my “knowledge at hand” and on the thing itself.[i]

The process of congealing meaning and definition of a thing which collectively be understood as a ‘type’ is in one way very helpful, by simplifying its utilization and its interpretation in the practice of everyday life. On the other hand this process creates a membrane distancing human from the being of the thing itself.

In this perspective to such a degree it reveals that a bench does not have a limitation or a clear boundary on the way it exists as a bench. However if we come back to the previous bench in the park, this bench presents itself with its own specific characters, triggers various particular possibilities in its existence among its context, and surely be distinctive among the other entities who participate on its process of existing. Hence this bench is particular and specific in reality, apart from its definitive understandings.

There is another park bench with similar material, dimension, form, detail, and moreover was made on the same day and same factory, and is located right next to the previous bench. These similarities do not indicate that these two entities have the same being, since the two do not trigger similar possibilities towards the other beings. The particularity of a being is fundamentally determined by its context of space and time, and also by the being in its context (by whom it is experienced). Practically the benches which appear to us with the same physical qualities, surely are made out of different wood planks, were constructed in different space and time, are interpreted in different space and time, and are taking different space and time. Therefore simultaneously each bench would trigger different possibilities to the other beings in a different space and time. Thus every being is particular, exists in its particularity and with its own particular space and time.

The bridge gathers to itself in its own way earth and sky, divinities and mortals[ii]

Every being exists in and by its particular manners, this particularity is a personal quality, its way of existing is there in itself. These particularities are gathered by itself, living and characterizing itself as itself by itself. The park bench was designed by a designer, analyzed, drawn, tested, constructed, painted, and prepared by a lot of persons and mechanical utilities, in a certain way so that it could exist and sustain in its condition and situation. These many stakes which took part in its constructing processes do not imply that they are participating in the bench’s practice of everyday life in its current particularity of space and time. Certainly lots of its conditions, possibilities, and further determinations are closely tied to its initial planning processes, but the highlighted matter here is accordingly in its way of existing as a being with its particular space and time, this bench stands from and by itself, and the fact that it was situated by certain ‘means and stakes’ are parts of its way of presenting itself. Likewise when a being in its way of existing signifies or describes other being beyond itself, it is also a part of its way to present itself, it doesn’t indicate the existence of other being in its existence.

The definitive scale assignation of the matter as a bench and stays static as a bench in this case is required in order to be able to yield a relevant reciprocal relationship of cause and effect (the scale stays as a bench rather than breaking it down into smaller scale of its material). Even in an altered scale of being, every being is still particular in every position. In details, a piece of wooden plank for armrest has its own being which is different than a piece of wooden plank for sitting part, each part of wood in itself is particular. In this case the scale of being is important and it is dependent on how other being would experience or elaborate its scale, in which it will all still be particular and stands by itself. The scale of a bench is assigned in this case is in consideration of to be able to generate more relevant reflective argument to the scale of human practice in everyday life as the being who are experiencing the bench.

III. Meeting Dimension

In the process of perceiving something apart from the particularity of the way it exists, occasion or ‘meeting moment’ between the perceiver and the perceived thing is a crucial process of time. This meeting process determines how the existence of a being will exist in the understanding and interpretation of the other one. The particular condition of a thing in its certain time and space, towards a different particular condition of the other one in its different time and space, establishes a dimension of how would an individual experiences and a dimension of how would an individual is experienced.

The process of experience is not in a way only a process of an individual absorbing the external world including various being which are in its scope of sensing, but also a process of which an individual is in a particular space and situation which allows the individual to have the possibility to experience and receive the various stimulant from the outside world or the being outside itself.

Entering a park between the dense city buildings, I walk towards the center of the park and I spot a bench on the edge of grasses, then I approach it and sit on it.

‘I am spotting a bench’ could be described as a process of me capturing the existence of the bench. The bench is in the scope of my sight, that the object is within my range of seeing capability, “the bench is real to me because I can see the bench”. But on the other hand the existence of the bench in my sight is only made possible when the bench is there and when I am in the position which allows the bench to be seen. I would not be able to sense the bench if the bench doesn’t exist, hence sensing processes are also essentially determined by the existence of the object.

Let me try to describe further determination of this perspective, “then I approach it and sit on it”. The process of me sitting on the bench could be accounted as an activity which I do on or against the being of the bench. As an activity done by a subject on the object, in this case the activity ‘to sit’ is considered as a relation between the ‘I’ as a subject and the ‘bench’ as an object. This point of view depicts the domination of subject towards object, as if the subject is the one who has the capability to do the activity or to determine the relation between itself and the object. The dominating manner in this case is not in the impression of ‘being sat on’ which is experienced by the bench, it is not about the type of relation or activity happens within, but it is in the consciousness process, of how one posits itself towards the other one, how is the existence of one towards the consciousness of the other one, which surely to certain extent will determine the relation and activity which happen between the two.

The activity of me sitting on the bench is only made possible if the bench is possible to be sitted, is only made possible if the bench signifies me the possibility to sit, and is only made possible if the bench exists. Relation between subject and object is profoundly determined by how the object presents itself in subject’s sensing processes. How does it exist or present itself of which will be experienced through the subject’s sensing processes will determine the possibilities that will emerge in the subject. By this means the physical condition related to sensing processes becomes very crucial, it determines its living condition, for it plays a big role on establishing the relation. In the details of the bench that it has a flat wooden plank from a certain type of wood, with iron legs on both ends, with carved tendrils on the handlebar, with detail on the joint of wood and iron by a few bolts, with armrests from wooden plank with smooth-en edges, with its seating height, with the angle between the butt-rest and the backrest, with the length of the seating plank, and with every construction of it physical existence determine certain possibilities in the scope of its time, and every alteration made in any of its particularities will also alter the later possibilities. Therefore its every way of existing is particular, essentially important for itself, and towards ‘any existences which might be in its scope of existing’ in the progress of its time.

The bank emerge as banks only as the bridge crosses the stream, the bridge expressly causes them to lie across from each other.[iii]

IV. Reconstructed Reality

In the world of objects in which every stakes presents itself by itself, human attends as a conscious creature which continuously active experiencing and interpreting objects among itself including itself, as its way of living. This activity of experiencing works as a dimension or platform for human to dwell the world, practically sensory experiences are the ports for receiving the outside world in human life, which perceived as reality.

In order to really see, we must act.[iv]

Galileo stated “I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on, reside in consciousness hence if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be annihilated”. This understanding delivers that reality is a built notion by one’s consciousness, in which the experienced qualities are located and produced in one’s conscious mind as a conscious creature. Tastes, colors, odors, and so on do not exist out there, they are not empirical conditions in the environment, but rather an inner qualities. Reality is a process of inner construction of consciousness, thus in a way this world is only real or felt real to the conscious creature.

Human’s reality can be conceived as a process of construction from sensory experiences, each signal received by human’s sensory receptor is delivered to the brain in the form of electric impulse, and later on is translated and is constructed as empirical experiences which we perceived as reality. According to Donald D. Hoffman a British neuroscientist claims that human brain does not only construct its reality, but in his research and experiment shows that brain goes a step further, it reconstructs the reality. There is a crucial difference between between the two which determines how human perceives its reality. In the logic of ‘constructing’, the received signal by sensory nerves is delivered to the brain, then is constructed by the brain as reality as how the signal was received by sensory receptor, in result it is the ‘reality as it is’. While in the logic of ‘reconstructing’, the delivered signal to the brain is influenced by the subject’s fitness towards type, condition, and activity of the experiencing subject in the process of generating the reality, so that the sensory data received by the brain which is constructed into reality is not always resembling ‘reality as it is’, for it is reconstructed with certain intentionality which in favors of consideration and by influences of physical and mental condition of the subject.

A bottle of cold water would trigger a different experience when it is served to the same person, before and after going for 5 km run. A song would be perceived differently when it is heard in a different mood condition. The same movie would suggest different feelings and imaginations while being watched now and 3 years ago.

In the practice of everyday life human does not reconstruct the whole world reality at once in every single moment, but rather human reconstructs the reality which it requires in every occasion. The reality reconstruction process does not always exhibit ‘reality as it is’, since ‘reality as it is’ does not always favor the nature of a being to survive.

Sensing process is a personal process, every individual has its own uniqueness on absorbing the empirical world. The particularity of one’s sensing character is molded and will always be molded throughout its living journey. Every single sensory experiences one encounters would influence and shape one’s sensing character. Every alteration and carried away of one’s sensing character does not suggest one’s in-authenticity, or one has been biased with its intentionalities and experiences. But quite the opposite ‘an individual keeps on experiencing and keeps on altering’ is evident thus how far the alteration is done to one’s sensing process, its reconstruction process of reality will always be authentic in its own existence in one’s consciousness.

V. Independently Dependent

The understanding of ‘reconstructed reality’ is in some sense the contrary of what I have recounted in the previous sections, that the existence of external world or the world of objects is a determining stake on establishing the means to exist for conscious creature. But instead it is exactly the point of encounter which I try to expose. The process of sensation, perception, and conception which generate human consciousness have ‘the capability to simulate, to consider, to construct, to attract, to prompt, to calculate, and to realize reality’ is an ability for a human with huge impact to both on itself and to its world. It is an ability which lies inside oneself, but at the same time it is only possible to exist by the presence of the outside world, as a context and dimension for it to exist. Without the presence of external world hence reality would not be able to exist. When there is nothing to be conscious of, hence there will be no consciousness, when there is no dimension to be conscious in, hence there will be no consciousness.

Despite human experiences and lives personally, still it depends on empirical world (reality as it is), as the core material of its consciousness and reality. In each processes of experiencing human keeps on displacing and centralizing itself towards its reflective consciousness, as the only possible authentic perspective for human-self. Various further human determination and interpretation within itself are always bounded with its consciousness as a human being, of which it is not true nor false, not good nor bad, it is just its nature as human.

The experience of empirical world is made possible through senses, as the port to receive information from the outside world. Senses open up human to the world, but in the same time it is also a limitation for human to the external world, as the only means of receiving information. Every type of human sense, sight, auditory, palpability, olfactory, and taste has its limitation or range of information which is graspable by the senses, which is also vary between one to another. Stimulant both insufficient and exceeds human’s sense limitation is not possible to be tangibly experienced by human being, thus there is a huge world of information unattainable. Reality presents and is felt as ‘reality as it is’ in each individual consciousness, but this matter is not a general truth, it is not the the reality of any other individual and any other being, and it is also not the truth and the valid. It is only the particularity and the manner of human to exist, as similar as a bird can fly, a fish can breathe in the water, a dog can bark, and a human can be conscious of reality.

We design the world and the world design us.[v]

Human’s ability as a conscious creature to reconstruct reality in its consciousness is the nature of its consciousness. This ability does not indicate its supremacy or superiority towards other existence which do not possess consciousness in its nature. Sensation, reality, understanding, consciousness, value are human intellectual notions and are parts of how human dwells, they are not the nature’s reality or the nature of nature. As Galileo stated in the occasion of in-existence of conscious creature sensation and reality will concurrently not exist in this world. Those qualities are not the nature of nature, consciousness is not an ability required by nature to survive, and reality is also not a necessity in nature’s way to exist and to dwell in its being.

When a table becomes so elegant, is it happy?

When a table is broken, is it sad?

When its components are displaced and torn apart, is it dead?

Has a table ever been a table?

When a rose is blooming beautifully, is it happy?

When a rose is withered, is it sad?

When its plant is shriveled and will not grow anymore, is it dead?

Has a rose ever been a rose?

VI. How Object Perceives Subject?

How object perceives subject, essentially this question denotes the awareness that subject has perceived the object at the first place, therefore the subject-object position is vividly evident. This question posits itself in the ‘meeting moment’ between the two beings, which later on determines the position of subject, object, the relation between, and the further determination which is highly influenced by the initial ‘meeting moment’. This question tries to portray the position of 'object’s being' within the process, relative to its juxtaposition in the subject’s consciousness. Essentially how subject posits object determines the space (freedom) of object in which it is the void of the subject’s existence. In the process it appears as a membrane or self presence of the subject which is occurred upon the object while perceiving. Accordingly this nonphysical  membrane is the existence of the subject perceived by the object.

The context of this exploration and elaboration is situated in human’s consciousness as subject, this perspective is appointed by the expectation to be able to deliver a relevant discourse for a human and with the consciousness of a human. To be able to see subject from the eye of an object is not merely possible by’ positioning oneself in’ or ‘situating oneself as’ the object (for instance, building up a story as a chair, to feel and think as a chair, and to give arguments to the process of which it bares), with the reason of one’s consciousness as a subject in the previous engagement is not dispersible, and centralization attitude in ‘sensing process’ as human is not dis-solvable, moreover to convert it to ‘sensing process’ which is assumed to be possessed by a being.

Consciousness is one of the means of how a human dwells in space, which might not always be embodied by other being. Consciousness does not indicate the value and the importance of a being. The capability to be conscious and seizes a being in its consciousness, gives an opportunity for human to dominate or to feel it dominates as a subject. In fact it is only possible to dominate when there is something to be dominated, therefore in the processes it requires mutual dependence in order to make the relation happens. The type of relation does not indicate any level of being, eventually every being exists, interacts, and influences one to another, within its own position and its own particularity.

A rose is never been a rose.

A rose has become a rose only in human consciousness.

And a rose does not need to be conscious to be a rose and to live as a rose.

A rose does not need a reason to be a rose.

A rose does not need to know what to be done to be able to act as a rose.

A rose does not long for a purpose to live.

A rose does not require logic, system, value, truth, to be able to be part of life.

When nature is altered due to human’s progress, it is not sad, it is not angry. Nature alters because it is able to alter and it does alter in its own way of altering. Nature keeps existing in its way and with its particularity as itself, as its being, as part of the whole universe, living, existing, and being in the whole motion of life. To live in diversity in its wholeness, with repressions and relaxations, with collisions and embraces, with troubles and eases. A life in its complexity in time, to live in reality and dream with its pleasures and agonies, along with others sharing the opportunity in time to live.

A well studied person should have been equitable since in the mind let alone in deeds.[vi]

Literature References

Heidegger, M. (1993) Building Dwelling Thinking. Washington University [online]. Available at: http://designtheory.fiu.edu/readings/heidegger_bdt.pdf.

Hoffman, D.D. “Do We See Reality as it is?” Public Lecture, TED Talks, Vancouver, March, 2015, Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY.

Sartre, J.P. (1960) The Transcendence of Ego. New York: Hill and Wang.

Lerup, L. (1977) Building the Unfinished: Architecture and Human Action. Beverly Hills, California: SAGE Publications.

---

[i] Alfred Schutz, “Common Sense”, p. 306.

[ii] Martin Heidegger, “Building Dwelling Thinking,” (Washington University), 1993, p. 355.

[iii] Ibid., p. 354.

[iv] Heinz Von Foerster, “On constructing a reality,” (ed. W. Preiser), Environmental Design Research, Vol. 2. (1973), p. 45.

[v] Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception (International Library of Philosophy and Scientific Method), (trans. C. Smith: ed. A.J. Ayer). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962, p. 454.

[vi] “Seorang terpelajar harus sudah berbuat adil sejak dalam pikiran apalagi dalam perbuatan.“ Pramoedya Ananta Toer, “Bumi Manusia,” (Lentera Dipantara), 2005, p. 52.