Metaject?
My semi-obnoxious attempt at emulating a couple of academics I follow.
Recently, I discovered the word “transject” coined at relatively the same time by John Vervaeke (Awakening from the Meaning Crisis) and Cory David Barker (The Architectonic of Simulation). Transjectivity is something that is neither subjective nor objective but rather is a relationship between the two. It is the dynamic balancing between both objective and subjective points of view, and how they impact and inform each other. As a matter of speaking, it is a way to transcend the limitations of purely subjective or objective forms of understanding.
The prefix meta has the following definitions and uses according to the Mariam Webster dictionary.
1a: occurring later than or in succession to: after
b: situated behind or beyond
c: later or more highly organized or specialized form of
2: change: transformation
3 [metaphysics]: more comprehensive: transcending
— usually used with the name of a discipline to designate a new but related discipline designed to deal critically with the original one
Therefore, I’m using “metaject” or “metajectivity” to describe recursive-self-referential relationships and processes that achieve new and transformative understandings about the “original” that is both critical and transcending.
