Between, below, and above and beyond the objective and subjective perceptions of the world lies a potentially harmonious union or synthesis of the two perspectives. This superjective perspective is one we could very well have had before we became aware of ourselves and our seemingly and isolated beings. Yet to know ourselves as a complete form would be to know that we are every point of action and behavior that leads up to our any one present occasion we may find ourselves situated in.
The superjective self would be a whole and complete synthesis of ourselves, the people in our lives, and the environmental world we find ourselves in. To superject on something would be to take the objective, immutable world and our own subjective perspectives into a larger, overarching picture of who we are, what to do in the world in any moment, and why we decide the actions and behaviours that we choose to will into our beings. Any one perspective is limited in its scope and with changes occurring from each and every single moment to moment, there is never one static, solid or concrete way to view either ourselves, our world, or our place in regards to the world.
To the perceiving mind, there are constant fluctuations between the inner and the outer. The transmission, absorption, and emission of things as they are, has always and may very well will always be in question and up for debate, which is more than welcome and expected. Yet if we could take the world as we know it to be and adapt to it, to be able to flow with the nature, our nature, we may see that the divide between self and other can also be adapted an changed to fit into a larger scope beyond one singular perspective.
To be inclusive of objects, places, times, and events that lead up to a moment we find ourselves both from within and from without, we may see the contents of our conscious awareness are tied into our conscious states and experiences as well. To journey into and from anywhere in the world and in ourselves, is to journey through the other as well, in the sense that there are minds in the world and worlds within minds. These simultaneously occurring processes is also what allows us ourselves to adapt to any occasion of experience and to see how they fit into one another based upon the histories of both.
We should very well be aware of the potential of a superjective self, as it is nature that makes us, is us, and will continue to further employ creative ways to make connections between the two. A synthesis of objective and subjective is entirely familiar in the sense that we have an inter-subjective self, a self between selves, of which can create a harmonious union of the whole of who we are. We can and do have the capacities and abilities to perceive nature again and again until we get to see what it is the superjective is trying to bring forth, and in doing so, we may see that all that we see, think, do, and say, have been partially determined by this superjective, holomorphic self.
In still trying to come to grips with this idea, there may be discordance at first, in assuming we know who, and what, it is we consider ourselves to be, but the seemingly external world may reveal many surprises about ourselves that we may find intriguing, interesting, or perhaps down right detestable. To unify and to synthesize, is to explore any and all ideas and concepts, and we may see our minds are not as isolated as we may assume.
To be determined by many overlapping occasions that lead to any moment we are situated in may be seen as though we are fated to live the lives we have out of sheer necessity of how things are and as they are, would be to neglect all of the choices we consciously decided to make in moments of clarity and in feeling where the will rises up. To be determined to free the will from either the one subjective or objective perspective is to see things as superjective.
In the superjective perspective, it could be seen that all singular perceptions add up to a larger, unfragmented view of how things are, why they are that way, and what should perhaps be done in life. Yet this too may be limited to the one seeming world we find ourselves within in any occasion. To take multiple subjective views of the world and multiple objective worlds to view, we may all have our own take of any world, but it is the world that made up that view in the first place. This interplay and projection of our worlds and worldviews all have their place, for they all have the ability or actuality of being. This being in the world, being a world in and of itself, again is a holographic representation of itself. Our perspectives begin as a virtuality of becoming something actual and more whole and complete in the form and shape of our perception of it.
The superjective, exhibiting it self as holomorphic, exists in a state of undifferentiated object or subject while still supervening and operating both with and without the distinction of the two. What occurs in one domain may occur in the other, and also as a part of them taken as a a whole. The superjective is all things at once; objective, subjective, superjective, as well as interjective even between the superjective and its opposing perspective of total lack of view at all. There is an apparent gradation between no perspective to start with at all, to an objective world that then allows for subjectivity to a superjective synthesis of the world to view the self opposing the lack of any perspective at all to reflect upon.
The superjective position than may be to ask not where the distinction lies between object, subject, or in the superjected union of the two, but holding this synthesized union up to the difficult to fathom total lack of perspective at all. What could be accomplished not if we were do divide things up between selves and worlds, but between nothing and everything and in how there is a seemingly insurmountable and impossible perspective of having no perspective or things to perceive at all. A distinct lack of perspective to have at all may be the only thing not even the superjective may reconcile.