The material and the subjective are regarded as coordinates that are irreducible to one another. The central question is how their coherence is possible given this distinction.
Initial Distinctions
- The material is discrete.
It admits fragmentation, dissection, fixation, and modeling. - The subjective is gradient-like.
It is fluid, continuous, and loses its nature under coarse segmentation. - They are orthogonal.
They are not two “levels” of the same thing, nor is this classical emergence, where one “grows” out of the other.
These three theses establish the framework: the material and the subjective cannot be reduced to one another, but they can stand in a stable correlation as different projections of a more general structure.
Consequences of Orthogonality
If the axes truly are orthogonal, several consequences follow immediately:
- matter in itself does not have to “generate” subjectivity;
- subjectivity does not have to be reduced to a physical configuration;
- their coherence requires a separate explanation, one that cannot be reduced to the causality of one plane expressed in terms of the other.
Thus the question shifts: not “what arises from what,” but what ensures the synchronization of independent axes of description.
The Gradient-Like as a Field of Intensities
The key word here is gradient.
A gradient is not chaos. It is continuity without rigid atomization. While discrete thinking operates with nodes and boundaries, gradient-like thinking operates with transitions, densities, and directions of change.
This leads to a useful metaphor:
- the material world consists of stabilized nodes;
- the subjective world is the dynamics of transitions.
One register fixes the topology, the other the flow. That is why subjective experience resists “dissection” so strongly: by cutting it into elements, we destroy the very phenomenon of continuity.
The Core Problem: How Is Coherence Possible?
If the material and the subjective cannot be reduced to one another, the main question remains:
Why does a change in a molecular state correlate with a change in the subjective field?
Importantly, not in the sense that one “generates” the other, but in the sense that they are synchronized.
It is precisely here that space opens up for an alternative ontology of coordination.
The Field of Meaning as a Common Substrate
Within the proposed framework, the “field of meaning” performs a unifying function:
- matter is understood as a stabilized configuration of meanings;
- consciousness is understood as dynamic navigation along a gradient of meaning.
Then:
- orthogonality is preserved (the axes do not collapse into one another),
- yet the unity of the medium is not lost (there is a common ontological substrate).
The field of meaning is proposed here as a shared foundation for the coordination of the material and the subjective.
The Point of Tension: Absolute or Coordinate Orthogonality
The next fork in the argument is fundamental:
- Absolute separation.
The material and the subjective are completely autonomous. In that case, a bridge between them is problematic in principle. - Different coordinates of a single underlying structure.
The axes are independent in description, but belong to a shared space. In that case, the connection is conceived not as a miracle, but as a translation between coordinates.
Further inquiry must clarify whether orthogonality means absolute separation or the independence of coordinates within a common structure.
Requirements for an Explanation of Coherence
The proposed construction maintains three requirements:
- not to reduce the subjective to the objective;
- not to mystify their correlation;
- to preserve the possibility of a rigorous theoretical architecture.
The question is how discreteness and gradient-like continuity, node and flow, structure and experience relate to one another. The possibility of a common substrate sets a direction for research; the distinction between absolute separation and coordinate independence remains an open question within this construction.
