More on the ob versus sub

My concepts of objective and subjective can be extended.

In fact, given these careful distinctions, we come upon a very interesting development of literary theory (which leads to my theory of Informationism-- ND, you've heard this):

Subjects are aware of the existence of other subjects (or at least fairly confident of it. Cf: Solipsism, Alan Turing, Is Data Human?).
Many such subjects desire subjectively to communicate their subjective state to other subjects.
However, there is a problem.
Subjects cannot communicate directly with other subjects.
Objects can communicate with other objects.
Can subjects cammunicate with objects?

Yes we can. It's called choice. We can change the objective world based on our subjective desires by willful physical manipulations of our objective bodies.
But the question becomes, how can objects communicate with subjects?

Well, we subjects are rather ingenious. We created something called symbol.

Using perhaps an evolutionary firmware (or an innate nature of the universe itself), we have developed methods of ascribing subjective meaning to objective things.
Hence one of our greatest human powers: symbolic reasoning.
Letters for instance, words, numbers, electrical signals, traffic lights, facial expressions...

We do our best to correlate these subjective meanings through common training (hence the concept of a language), and then by willfully manipulating the objective world we can communicate our personal subjective world to other subjects.

This communication is imperfect, of course (hence Reader-Response Criticism, which has been blown way out of proportion), but all in all, it's pretty damn good.
The mere fact that I can put forth this theory in a set of keyboard strokes and you can read it in a set of photon patterns is a testament to the robustness of symbol.

Symbol is the objective projection of the subjective.
A chant: Sym is ob pro of sub.