Whether we explicitly acknowledge it or not, all our beliefs about the world are based on metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality (an ontology) and the constraints on our ability to know reality (an epistemology). Most of us inherit these assumptions from our culture.
Those of us who have grown up in Western cultures inherited a dualist ontology from our culture - that is the assumption that there are two distinct realities. One of these realities is the domain of the physical sciences (objective matter, body) and the other is the domain of the social sciences (including theology) (subjective beliefs, mind, spirit or soul). It is assumed that these are two fundamentally different types of stuff, operating as a function of different principles/laws. It is generally assumed that one of these realities cannot be reduced to the other. This is represented in the diagram as the disconnected puzzle pieces on the right and left.
Given a dualist ontology the epistemological question is how these two distinct realities are coupled. In essence, the question is how can a mind perceive, control, or know matter? In other words, how is it possible for a reality of mind to interact skillfully in a reality of matter.
The dominant view is that the mind has to construct a theory of matter through hints provided through the impoverished feedback resulting from our interactions with the material world. Thus, the assumption is that our ability to know matter is mediated by representations (internal models, theories) that we construct in our minds as a result of perceiving and acting in the world. With respect to the image above, the fit of the puzzle pieces in the center depends on intervening representations in our mind.
However, there is an alternative view, that argues that our interactions with the world provides more than hints about the world. This position, associated with an Ecological Psychology (James Gibson) posits that the world of matter (the ecology) is directly specified by the rich feedback generated through our perception/action coupling with the world. In essence, the ecological framework suggests that the coupling reflected in the joined pieces at the center of the image does not require mediation through internal representations. Rather, the fit emerges directly as a result of attuning to the rich feedback that results from acting in a material world.
Most people approach Cognitive Systems Engineering (CSE) from one of these two epistemological camps. In either case, the fundamental role of technology is to enhance the coupling between agents and their ecologies. That is, to improve the coupling between the cognitive reality (the mind) and the physical reality (the system). In the dominant view, the goal is to add information to enhance internal representations in ways that improve our ability to act on the system. In the ecological view, the goal is to shape our attention so that we can fully utilize (attune to) the rich feedback that the system provides.
However, I contend that Cognitive Systems Engineering is based on a far more radical challenge to conventional Metaphysics. I contend that CSE is based on a monist ontology in which the Cognitive System (both mind and matter) are considered to be joined within a single reality. Thus, in relation to the image above the center portion of the diagram represents a reality that is a conjoint function of mind and matter, and the separated pieces on either side represent two different epistemological perspectives on that reality.
This radical position was first advocated by William James with his Radical Empiricist ontology that posits that experience is jointly determined by mind and matter and that it is ontologically prior to the reduction into subjective and objective perspectives. More recently, this monist ontology has been independently articulated by Robert Pirsig in his Metaphysics of Quality. He uses the term quality to refer to the unified reality that is prior to and more basic than the subjective and objective epistemic derivatives.
I know this perspective will be uncomfortable to people who have grown up in Western cultures. However, I suggest that the first step toward fully appreciating the CSE perspective is to mindfully consider your ontological and epistemic assumptions. Whether or not you agree with my position, I suggest that you will be wiser if you actively question the metaphysical assumptions that you inherited from your culture.