The Subject-Object Problem: What Shamanic Journey Reveals About Observer and Observed

In ordinary consciousness, the world is divided clearly: I am the subject. Everything else is the object. I observe the world from inside my skull. The world exists 'out there', separate from my observing it.

This subject-object split is so fundamental to how we experience reality that we rarely question it. It structures our language, our science, our entire way of being.

But here's what I've discovered through years of shamanic practice: this split isn't as fundamental as it appears. In shamanic journey, in deep altered states, the boundary between subject and object becomes fluid, porous, sometimes dissolving entirely.

This isn't just an interesting subjective experience. It has profound implications for philosophy, for how we understand consciousness, and for the limits of the scientific method itself.

Let me explain what I mean.

Does the subject-object interpenetrate?

The Subject-Object Split in Western Thought

The division between subject and object is deeply embedded in Western philosophy and science.

Descartes crystallised it: "I think, therefore I am." There's the thinking subject (me) and everything else (objects I think about). The subject is certain; the objective world must be proved.

Science depends on it: The scientific method assumes an observer (subject) studying phenomena (objects) from a neutral, detached standpoint. Objectivity requires the observer not to interfere with or influence what's observed.

It structures our language: Subject-verb-object. I (subject) see (verb) the tree (object). The grammar enforces the division.

It feels obvious: Right now, you experience yourself as a subject reading this text (object). The distinction seems undeniable.

It creates problems:

The problem of other minds: If I'm a subject experiencing my consciousness, and everyone else appears as objects to me, how do I know they're conscious? They could be philosophical zombies.

The measurement problem in quantum mechanics: The observer affects the observed at quantum levels. But if observer and observed are strictly separate, how does observation change what's observed?

The hard problem of consciousness: How does subjective experience arise from objective physical processes? The gap between subject and object seems unbridgeable.

Solipsism: If I'm certain only of my own subjective experience, how can I be certain the objective world exists independently?

These problems all stem from treating the subject-object split as absolute.

What Happens in Shamanic Journey

Now let me describe what actually happens in shamanic practice.

The Boundary Becomes Permeable

In ordinary consciousness, I experience a clear boundary: I'm in here, the world is out there.

My thoughts are mine, external events are external.

In journey, this boundary softens.

I encounter spirits, entities, helping animals. Are they aspects of my psyche? Are they autonomous consciousnesses? The question starts to feel wrongly framed.

They're not clearly 'in here' or 'out there'. They're in a space that doesn't respect the subject-object division.

Example: I journey to receive guidance about a client. I encounter a helping spirit who shows me symbols and gives information.

Is this helping spirit:

• An aspect of my unconscious that I'm personifying?

• An autonomous entity I'm connecting with?

• An archetype in the collective unconscious?

• Something that doesn't fit these categories?

  
  

The experience itself doesn't tell me. And trying to force it into subject-object categories distorts what's actually happening.

Observer and Observed Interpenetrate

In scientific observation, the observer is supposed to remain separate from the observed. In shamanic journey, they interpenetrate.

When I journey to understand a client's situation, I'm not observing it from outside. I'm participating in it. The boundaries between my consciousness, the client's consciousness, and the situation itself become fluid.

Example: Journeying for a client I've never met. I experience their grief as if it's my own. I feel their ancestral wounds in my body. I see their potential futures as if they're my memories.

Where's the boundary? What's subject and what's object?

This isn't dissociation or confusion. It's a different mode of knowing and one that requires participation rather than detached observation.

The Self Isn't as Unified as It Seems

In ordinary consciousness, I experience myself as a unified subject: one 'I' having various experiences.

In journey, this unity reveals itself as constructed. I encounter parts of myself as if they're other beings. Soul parts that split off. Shadow aspects personified as entities. The self as multiplicity pretending to be unity.

Example: In a healing journey, I encounter a part of myself that split off at age seven during trauma. This part appears as a separate entity, young Kathy, frozen in time, unaware of the life that's continued.

Is this part subject or object? It's me, but it's also not-me. It's conscious, but separate from my current consciousness. It's internal, but experienced as external.

The subject-object split can't handle this.

Consciousness Extends Beyond the Body

The most radical shift: In ordinary consciousness, I experience my awareness as located in my body, specifically my head. I look out at the world from behind my eyes.

In journey, consciousness doesn't feel localised this way.

I'm simultaneously aware of multiple locations. I perceive from perspectives that aren't 'mine'. I receive information about distant events. I communicate with entities that don't seem to be in physical space at all.

Example: Journey for a client in another country. I accurately perceive details of their physical environment - the blue wallpaper, the crack in the window, the plant in the corner - that I had no conventional way of knowing.

Where is my consciousness? In my body? In their room? In some non-physical space that includes both?

The localisation of consciousness in the body, which is so obvious in ordinary states, reveals itself as a feature of how normal consciousness is organised, not a fundamental truth about consciousness.

What This Suggests Philosophically

These experiences point to something philosophically significant:

The subject-object split might be a mode of consciousness, not a feature of reality itself.

Just as my visual system creates the experience of colour (which isn't a property of light itself), my consciousness creates the experience of subject-object duality (which might not be a property of reality itself).

Alternative framework:

What if consciousness doesn't start with a subject observing objects? What if consciousness is more fundamental, and the subject-object split is something consciousness does, a way consciousness organises itself?

Implications:

The hard problem looks different: If subject and object aren't fundamentally distinct, the question "How does objective process produce subjective experience?" is wrongly framed. There's no absolute gap to bridge.

Other minds problem dissolves: If the boundary between self and other isn't absolute, other minds aren't inaccessible mysteries. There might be modes of awareness that include both my experience and yours.

Objectivity needs rethinking: Scientific objectivity assumes observer-independence. But if observer and observed interpenetrate at some levels, we need more sophisticated understanding of what objectivity means.

Consciousness might be relational: Maybe consciousness isn't a property of subjects or objects, but of relationships between them. No subject without object, no object without subject: they co-arise.

Eastern Philosophy Has Known This

I should acknowledge: this isn't a new insight.

Buddhism: The doctrine of no-self (anatta) explicitly denies that there's a permanent, independent subject. The self is constructed, not fundamental.

Advaita Vedanta: Non-dual awareness where subject and object are recognised as distinctions within consciousness, not absolute divisions.

Taoism: The interplay of yin and yang, the recognition that opposites define each other, the dissolution of boundaries in mystical states.

Zen: Direct pointing to awareness that precedes subject-object splitting.

These traditions have sophisticated phenomenologies of consciousness developed through centuries of contemplative practice. They've long recognised what shamanic practice also reveals: the subject-object split is constructed, not fundamental.

Western philosophy and science are slowly catching up.

The Quantum Connection (Handled Carefully)

I need to mention quantum mechanics, but carefully, as this is where people often go off the rails with quantum mysticism.

What quantum mechanics actually shows:

In quantum mechanics, the observer cannot be cleanly separated from the observed. The act of measurement affects the system measured. Observer and observed are entangled in ways that violate classical assumptions.

What this doesn't mean:

It doesn't mean consciousness creates reality. It doesn't mean you can manifest things by thinking about them. It doesn't mean 'everything is connected' in some vague mystical sense.

What's interesting philosophically:

Quantum mechanics, like shamanic experience, challenges the absolute subject-object split. It suggests that at fundamental levels, the observer isn't separate from what's observed.

This doesn't prove shamanic experiences are valid. But it shows that even physics recognises limits to the subject-object framework.

Neuroscience of the Self

Neuroscience also challenges the unified subject.

Split-brain patients: When the corpus callosum connecting brain hemispheres is severed, patients can exhibit two separate centres of consciousness. Which one is the 'real' subject?

Multiple personality/DID: Distinct personalities with separate memories and experiences in one body. Is there one subject or many?

The default mode network: Brain network associated with the sense of self. When it quiets (in meditation, psychedelics, flow states), the sense of a unified subject diminishes.

Distributed processing: The brain doesn't have a central observer. Consciousness arises from distributed processes without a single point of unity.

All this suggests the unified subject isn't as real as it feels. It's constructed by the brain, not a fundamental feature of consciousness.

My Experience Across States

Having spent thousands of hours in both ordinary consciousness and shamanic states, here's what I've observed:

In ordinary consciousness:

• Clear subject-object boundary

• I'm located in my body

• The self feels unified and continuous

• Objects exist independently of my observing them

• Other minds are inaccessible except through inference

  
  

In shamanic journey:

• Fluid, porous boundaries

• Consciousness not clearly localised

• The self as multiple and constructed

• Participatory knowing rather than detached observation

• Other consciousnesses directly encountered

  
  

After returning:

• Ordinary consciousness re-establishes itself

• But it feels less absolute

• I recognise the subject-object split as a mode, not reality

• I can still function in normal life

• But with awareness of its constructed nature

  
  

The key insight: Both states are real modes of consciousness. Neither is more 'true' than the other. They're different ways consciousness can organise itself.

Practical Implications

If the subject-object split is constructed rather than fundamental:

For Science

We need first-person methodologies. If observer and observed aren't absolutely separate, first-person investigation of consciousness becomes legitimate science, not just subjective report.

Objectivity needs reframing. Not as observer-independence (which might be impossible for consciousness studying itself), but as intersubjective agreement and systematic investigation.

Consciousness research must include participation. You can't fully understand consciousness from the outside. You have to explore it from within through altered states, meditation, contemplative practice.

For Philosophy

Phenomenology matters more than we thought. Careful description of experience, including non-ordinary states, provides philosophical data.

The mind-body problem needs reframing. If subject and object aren't absolute, the gap between mind and body looks different.

We need post-dualistic frameworks. Neither pure materialism (objects only) nor pure idealism (subjects only), but something that doesn't start with the subject-object split.

For Healing

Healing can be participatory. If consciousness isn't absolutely separated between healer and client, healing might work through consciousness-to-consciousness contact, not just physical intervention.

Parts work makes sense. If the self is multiple rather than unified, working with different aspects as if they're separate entities isn't just metaphor; it might reflect something real about consciousness.

Non-local healing becomes possible. If consciousness extends beyond the body, distance healing isn't absurd; it's engaging consciousness where it actually is.

For Daily Life

Empathy deepens. If the boundary between self and other is permeable, feeling others' emotions isn't just imagination; it's accessing consciousness where it actually interpenetrates.

Solipsism dissolves. If subject and object co-arise rather than one being primary, the worry that only my mind exists loses its grip.

Relationality becomes fundamental. We're not isolated subjects. We're nodes in a network of consciousness, participants in a relational reality.

The Methodological Challenge

How do you investigate the subject-object problem scientifically when the scientific method assumes subject-object separation?

Approaches:

Contemplative science: Combine third-person neuroscience with rigorous first-person investigation. Train practitioners to carefully observe consciousness in various states.

Phenomenological rigour: Develop methods for describing experience that don't presuppose subject-object framework.

Comparative studies: Look at descriptions across contemplative traditions, shamanic cultures, mystical experiences for consistent patterns.

Experimental alterations: Use meditation, sensory deprivation, etc., to vary the subject-object boundary and study what changes.

Neural correlates: Study brain activity during states where subject-object boundary dissolves. Look for patterns.

None of these are perfect. But they're better than ignoring the phenomenon because it doesn't fit current methodology.

What I Actually Believe

Based on years of moving between ordinary consciousness and shamanic states:

The subject-object split is real but not absolute. It's a genuine feature of how consciousness can organise itself, but not the only way.

Ordinary consciousness emphasises separation. This is useful for survival, for practical action, for science. But it's a mode, not the truth.

Shamanic states reveal continuity. The boundaries become visible as constructions. Consciousness reveals itself as more fluid, more relational, more mysterious.

Both perspectives are valid. I need subject-object distinction to function in daily life. I need to transcend it to understand consciousness deeply.

The implications are profound. If subject and object aren't absolute, most of Western philosophy and science needs rethinking. Not abandoning, but expanding.

I hold this tentatively. My experiences are real, but my interpretation might be wrong. I stay open.

Living Between Worlds

I move between states daily:

In the lab: I'm a subject observing objects. The scientific method works. I maintain appropriate distance.

In journey: Subject and object interpenetrate. I participate rather than observe. I access knowing that detached observation can't reach.

In reflection: I recognise both as valid modes. Neither is complete. Together they provide richer understanding than either alone.

In daily life: I function with normal subject-object consciousness but remember it's not absolute. This changes how I relate to others, to nature, to myself.

The question isn't which mode is true. The question is: What can we learn by experiencing consciousness in multiple modes?

An Invitation

If you've only experienced ordinary consciousness, the subject-object split feels absolute. You're the subject, everything else is object, and that's just how reality is.

But access other states, through meditation, contemplative practice, shamanic journey, or other methods, and something shifts. The boundary reveals itself as constructed.

This doesn't mean losing the ability to function normally. It means recognising ordinary consciousness as one mode among several.

To philosophers: Don't assume the subject-object split is fundamental just because ordinary consciousness presents it that way. Phenomenology of altered states provides relevant data.

To scientists: The observer-observed distinction that enables objectivity might be a useful fiction rather than absolute truth. Consider methodologies that work with participation rather than just detachment.

To practitioners: Your experiences of boundary dissolution, of participatory knowing, of consciousness extending beyond the body; these aren't just interesting subjective states.

They're phenomenological evidence about the nature of consciousness.

The subject-object problem looks different when you've experienced consciousness organising itself differently. The philosophical puzzle isn't as intractable when you've lived through its dissolution and reconstruction.

Reality is stranger, more fluid, and more mysterious than the subject-object split suggests.

And that's what shamanic practice keeps showing me.

I'm Kathy Postelle Rixon, a researcher at Cambridge studying plasma physics, Chair of The Philosophical Society: Oxford, and shamanic practitioner who regularly experiences consciousness beyond the subject-object split. I don't have final answers, but I've gathered phenomenological data that challenges fundamental assumptions about observer and observed. If this resonates, reach out at kathy@magicinharmony.com or visit www.magicinharmony.com.

Have you experienced states where the subject-object boundary becomes fluid? How did it change your understanding of consciousness? I'd genuinely love to hear your perspective.