| ||
|
Definition of the Object in Object Reality
Since separate objects appear on the mental map only in the process of its mental construction - the formal distinction and abstraction on the basis of standard ("innate") principles - there is no reason to consider reality actually "torn" in to objects.
We interpret stable combinations of characteristics on the mental map, distinguished in the process of satisfying needs, as objects of the outside world. From the formal standpoint, the conditions defining the object, as a means of need-satisfaction are the factor that links these characteristics in some respect, that is required by the need. Its cause is disclosed in correlation with the pressing need. The object itself "vanishes" (changes) with the change of determining conditions.
By virtue of the fact that different reference frames (types of subjective reality) have different images of subject reality, it seems impossible to unambiguously define the object in the context of the subjectness requirement alone. Conditions realizing one and the same need differ in various subjective realities, and so far as they are all involved in the object-definition, the object of one subjective reality becomes potentially focused on several needs' satisfaction.
Then the object can be determined as a combination of states that satisfy a certain class of demands with a different degree of efficiency. The probability of reaching actualization for a certain state in a given mentality would evidently be determined by the probability of tracking the correspondingly close reference systems within it. Consequently, the object stand out as a "superposition" of states, in which submodalities (properties) of the exteroceptive sensational component are rigidly linked in a certain respect. The object thus described would be correlated with outside means of "governing" the need.
Since different correlations of properties, which characterize states, (and consequently, rigidity or stability), are required for different needs, it leads to the fact that not all the object properties can be uniquely defined. Herewith, the object's definitions can vary not only in different mentalities, but even within one and the same mentality. The object's meanings for some requirements (their states) can be incompatible as well. All that effects in a number of semantic and logical controversies of defining the object and object reality. Object reality can virtually be described only probabilistically, because the object is defined in a mentality as a superposition of states actualized under different conditions of satisfying a requirement within a different probability.
The link of interoceptive determination of the object (requirement) with its exteroceptive expression is carried out with the help of a certain algorithm (attitude). The attitude appears as a certain unambiguous succession of acts of volition marked by proprioceptive sensations. It predetermines the algorithm of reaching the conditions, under which a requirement could be satisfied (or the object of requirement). Hence the clear operationality of any object definition.
The attitude, on the one hand, establishes action strategy, an algorithm for reaching the necessary conditions, so to say, it precipitates the "meeting" of the subject and object. Signifying the method for requirement satisfaction, on the other hand, it is the operationalization of requirement, or, in other words, the "meeting" of the requirement with methods of its realization.
| ||
