{"id":317070,"date":"2026-06-08T12:01:52","date_gmt":"2026-06-08T11:01:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=317070"},"modified":"2026-06-08T10:06:50","modified_gmt":"2026-06-08T09:06:50","slug":"global-eversion-from-the-view-from-nowhere-to-the-remembered-gate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2026\/06\/global-eversion-from-the-view-from-nowhere-to-the-remembered-gate\/","title":{"rendered":"Global Eversion, from the View from Nowhere to the Remembered Gate"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reification, Engagement, and the Spherical Path Between<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is a striking contrast between the increasingly tragic challenges of the objective world featuring prominently in public discourse — whether at the local level or in the preoccupations of global strategies and institutions — and the horrendous subjective reality of the daily life of many. Much less is said of that subjective reality in public discourse, except to the extent that it can be neatly translated into the tangibles of objective reality: resources, accommodation, health, security, and the like. The subjective tends only to justify the preoccupation of governance when it can be framed in terms of narrative manipulation of attitude and public opinion — most notably through propaganda in support of objective policies.<\/p>\n

Any discussion of the matter faces a challenge which may ironically be less than obvious. Is it feasible, if credible, to discuss the objective from the perspective of the subjective — or the subjective in the terms characteristic of the objective? Does any coherent linear explanation from one perspective constitute a “road not traveled” for another? If the language used is effectively a trap, is the aphorism of the policy scientist Geoffrey Vickers<\/a> particularly relevant: A trap is a function of the nature of the trapped<\/em>. How then might the trap be appropriately experienced or described?<\/p>\n

The experiential challenge could be indicated by reference to how one navigates from engagement with “my world” to engagement with “the world” — or from preoccupation with “the world” to appreciation of “my world”. Aspects of that challenge have been partially and popularly articulated in terms of Stop the World \u2013 I Want to Get Off<\/a><\/em> — or simply Stop the World<\/em><\/a>. The challenge may be suggested by various other notions of escape, as discussed separately with respect to enabling mass migration of humanity to a cognitive frontier (Future Global Exodus to the Metasphere<\/em><\/a>, 2022).<\/p>\n

Frustration with objectively reality (and its substantive qualities) has long been an encouragement to “substance abuse<\/a>” and intoxication — even, curiously, at the highest levels of society whose material needs might be assumed to be extensively satisfied. Ironically this abuse is now a focus of vigorous legislation in many countries — complicated by the extensive criminal activity which enables the abuse and which is exacerbated by the legislation.<\/p>\n

Subjective reality, however deprecated by the sciences, remains a major concern for many — if not for most under particular experiential conditions. The contrast between the realities is partially echoed by that between the “sciences” and the “humanities”, although the latter may well reify the subjective in their own manner, as with the Inner Development Goals<\/a> initiative. The contrast is partially exemplified by that between the Club of Rome’s Earth4All<\/a> initiative and that of the Galileo Commission<\/a> initiative of the Scientific and Medical Network<\/a>, as discussed separately (Reconciliation of the Headless Hearts and the Heartless Heads in Global Modelling<\/em><\/a>, 2026).<\/p>\n

Given their incommensurable nature, the relation between the objective and the subjective is a continuing matter of concern on which many authorities have offered conflicting commentaries. Whilst there are many unofficial international surveys of “happiness”, it is only the Government of Bhutan that claims to articulate policy in terms of Gross National Happiness<\/a>. International studies have however long focused objectively on identifying and measuring satisfaction of “needs” as an interpretation of the subjective (Needs Communication: viable need patterns and their identification<\/em><\/a>, 1980).<\/p>\n

Especially curious is the strange nature of the “transition” between objective and subjective reality and the relative inability to provide any meaningful guidance to it — other than in necessarily questionable terms precluding widespread consensus — cultivated from either an objective or subjective perspective. Curiously the engagement, if not the transition, invites indication in terms of “intercourse” and its consummation (Intercourse with Nature and Intercourse with the Other<\/em><\/a>, 2007; Being the Universe :\u00a0a Metaphoric Frontie<\/em><\/a>r, 1999). There is little guidance to the process of changing cognitive modality, irrespective of the extent to which this may be experienced through humour.<\/p>\n

If the difficulty is that no shared language offers a vehicle between objective and subjective reality, then what is missing is not more of either polar extreme but a cogntively meaningful indication of the passage<\/em>. The focus in what follows is on how a continuous pathway between objective and subjective reality might be meaningfully imagined. It is to such a passage, integrative and global — rather than local to either perspective — that the metaphor of eversion offers an indication.<\/p>\n

Such a pathway is suggested by the metaphor of sphere eversion<\/a>. Appropriate to the cognitive challenge, this is the theoretical process of turning a sphere inside out in a three-dimensional space. Surprisingly this process, seemingly ridiculous to most, has proved possible to do smoothly and continuously without cutting or tearing the sphere or creating any crease. The process has been variously demonstrated in accessible video presentations. Similarly improbable and evocative is the inversion of the cube<\/a> as a means of configuring discourse otherwise (Time for Provocative Mnemonic Aids to Systemic Connectivity?<\/em><\/a> 2018). The exploration here is facilitated by resources assembled from an array of authorities by AI.<\/p>\n

Understood in this way, eversion is then, technically a global<\/em> property — namely in objective terms — invisible from any local perspective. It is real only for the whole at once, however comprehended. “Global” is then genuinely tri-valent: the topologist’s global<\/em> (whole versus local), the psychologist’s Gestalt global<\/em> (the integrative apprehension of a whole that is more than its parts), and the vernacular global<\/em> (the planet, the condition of the globe). Through its systemic correspondences, “global eversion” is then variously meaningful to cognition as a singular dynamic context, a worldview, and a “world” — “my world” or otherwise — .in topological, Gestalt and planetary terms. The correspondence across scales is a hypothesis consistent with the initiatives of general systems research (Theories of Correspondences — and potential equivalences between them in correlative thinking<\/em><\/a>, 2007).<\/p>\n

With the planetary globe readily understood as a sphere — as with the sphere of human knowledge and any degree of integrative global organization — it is then appropriate to consider the possibility and relevance of “global eversion” and what this might imply cognitively, as speculatively explored previously (Alternation of worldview between “inside-outside” and “outside-inside”<\/em><\/a>, 2013; Living “outside-inside”: embodying the dream<\/em><\/a>, 2019). This would be consistent both with the classic Daoist tale (Butterfly dream: “inside-outside”?<\/em><\/a> 2022) and with many commentaries to the effect that the world is indeed currently in the process of being “turned inside-out” or “upside-down”. Such terms are also employed in reference to experience following personal catastrophe.<\/p>\n

As a metaphorical vehicle, sphere eversion is noted as one instance of vehicles whose relative “cognitive carrying capacity” merits exploration — much as with the Jackson Report<\/a> (A Study of the capacity of the United Nations Development System<\/em><\/a>, Inter-Agency Consultative Board, 1969).<\/p>\n

The argument offers a way of imagining the aspiration to freedom in a digital era — readily perceived as characterized by “cognitive incarceration”. The exploration concludes by framing a fundamental problem for the future. In objective terms this is currently framed in terms of resources, energy and the possibilities of advancing knowledge — all of which are assumed to be unlimited as a consequence of creative engagement with the rest of the universe. However realistic, rather than potentially unreasonable, this avoids consideration of future meaningful satisfaction — in subjective terms. Current human activity is both exhausting the resources accessible to most and progressively and systematically depriving the future of the requisite ignorance enabling meaningful engagement with reality. Ironically — and in the absence of historical amnesia — ignorance could then be understood as a fundamental “re-source” meriting careful conservation as a focus for future activity, and for “renaissance” and “realization” deemed meaningful rather than trivial.<\/p>\n

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reification, Engagement, and the Spherical Path Between – There is a striking contrast between the increasingly tragic challenges of the objective world featuring prominently in public discourse and the horrendous subjective reality of the daily life of many.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":132665,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-317070","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-transcend-members"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/317070","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=317070"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/317070\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":317071,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/317070\/revisions\/317071"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/132665"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=317070"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=317070"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=317070"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}