Subject-Predicate

I've read two books recently, explaining how human perception is distorted by the subject-predicate structure of Indo-European languages - like English, German, French, Dutch, Italian,... Now what is subject-predicate and how does it influence our percepetion? And how can you avoid errors induced by the underlying assumptions of that language structure?

If you talk about subjects and objects you tend to talk about actors and the object acted upon. So you assume, often too quickly, a one-way transaction. The actor acts upon the object and voila, that's it. But in many situations, this transaction is two-way! Very often the effects of the object acting on the actor are not negligible. Examples are in quantum physics, where it is impossible to know both the position and the velocity vector of an electron. Examples are in consumer research and questionnaires: often the people filling in a questionnaire think different about their answers after having answered the questions. Your survey is outdated right away!
- For reasons explained above, when thinking in well separated objects and subjects, you get the false impression that objectivity is always achievable. You can be relatively objective when evaluating other people's math problems. But problems arise when for instance you've written a long essay on a scientific problem. Because you've been working on it for so long, you've become attached to your work, you defend it. You're not really objective anymore, your world view is already skewed by the work you've done. Your own personal problem solving toolbox, accumulated trough the years dictates how you perceive puzzling situations. It's like Maslow's hammer: "When you have a hammer, all problems seem like nails." In the same way it is also difficult to tackle problems involving people. How can you be objective about a group of people that you interact with? How can fish in a tank be objective about the tank they're in?
- If you talk in objects and subjects you tend to single out individual cause and effect relations, or maybe you build chains of cause and effect relations. In contrast to this, the most fascinating phenomena are better described as open dynamic systems: systems with a multitude of interdependent variables of which the borders are ill defined. Chaos theory is a way of describing these open dynamic systems. Examples are: atmosphere, the solar system, plate tectonics, turbulent fluids, economies, and population growth.

[Side note: I've come to think that the nonexistence of pure subject-object relations is what Buddhists mean with the term 'karma': every action, even just watching, or thinking, has a multitude of effects that rebound sooner or later, much like in a dynamic system. I once read a Buddhist saying: "Karma means: there is no escape."]