I wonder about what happens to our cognition when we rely on objectification for practical reasons.
I think so often this practical benefit comes at a costly price for how we engage with our surrounding. The objectification projects an idea onto something. When people relies on the objectification for practical reasons they decentisise the intuitive engagement in benefit for higher practical prestanda.
But the problem with this is that objectification is only engaged with the ideas projected onto something. Kind of their priming. They are all in a meta world by objectification. I think this meta world of projected ideas onto things and claiming that this idea is all they is, we get slaves, kings, cattles, etc. They are given access to our meta world in an objectified manner. And by doing so, our engagement with that which we objectified get limited to the idea we project onto it. I definately see it being a very good practical ability to do, but it should know it has limitations to what it truly can grasp in this way or rather what we demands things to be. It should be known that objectification derives from the objectifiers mental projection. It isnt even necessarily meant to be an objectifying tool, but for practical reasons it is. It is using our imaginative capacity wrong I think. Objectification works inhibiting on the way things and beings can be perspectively seen, the theory of mind suffers. Think of yourself frustratingly calling someone an “idiot” this is objectified projection.
Instrumentality: The objectifier treats the object as a tool for his or her purposes.
Denial of autonomy: The objectifier treats the object as lacking in autonomy and self-determination.
Inertness: The objectifier treats the object as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity.
Fungibility: The objectifier treats the object as interchangeable (a) with other objects of the same type, and/or (b) with objects of other types.
Violability: The objectifier treats the object as lacking in boundary- integrity, as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into.
Ownership: The objectifier treats the object as something that is owned by another, can be bought or sold, etc.
Denial of subjectivity: The objectifier treats the object as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account (ibid. 257). (Via the paper by E Papadaki Understanding Objectification)
One of the main things of using a language is that we project objectification onto everything that has names. These names is used for our practical purpose to orientation and control of ourselves and objects in our surrounding, very basic types of autonomy. In any engagements we are closely connected with this practical view, but we used to be aware of this difference of how closer engagements give life to perception and perspectives beyound the objectified border.
The objectified is kept alive by our belief in the projection. Every word we use on anything is only beneficial for conceptual understanding which have an intellectual order of categorisation, logic, language, etc. So all this is great! But these are theoretical origins, when used as a concrete projection we tend to mix up the fact that its a theoretical origin. If an idea becomes used by many in a vocabulary, then we consider the abstract idea to be sufficient for practical purposes, and it is right here the issue of engagement occurr. When something becomes objectified, it has no other essence in the objectifiers view than that. It is the objectified projection we become acustomed to.
I would like to say that objectification is normally occurring in childhood to project objects into a play world. Here objectification however is not considered with the practical attitude of instrumental purposes. We project our imagination onto things and they gain a certain idea. It is part of a play in any form. The projection is however theoretical in origin and should not for practical reasons be used for objectification unless one are aware of eachother diversely. If not, the objectification may act as a practical substitute for real experience without ever getting there. And this is because without furthering ones ideas about the world and relying on objectified information to tell the necessary facts, we live in a world of meta, in which we are situated as objectified ourselves. We are all defined in different way, and because of this we act accordingly, we act like we are part of a 5 year olds dollhouse scenario. This world of meta is actually extremely vast and very interesting to explore intellectually , but as a projection onto concrete form it has its limits and this is why everything seems shallow in that mode, we must further out minds to be aware of depth about the world, the objectified ideas are fixating it to an unnecessary static imagination which deprives the mind of many intellectual abilities just to keep these ideas in check. I want to say Im not against it, Im just saying that it has limits to just rely on objectification for comprehensive abilities.
I will post further some of my illustrations regarding contemplations I have had about objectified relience from practical perspective but a starvation of the engagement we can develop with the world.