Notes on Orientation

– ”our actuality” beyond theory, description or depiction, for “how to be in relation with one’s whole”

Theory

We are a part of our whole. That’s you or me as self or identity, a part of a whole individual being. And the individual whole being we’re a part of is, in turn, a part of Reality (capital R to distinguish Reality that our whole being is of, from “our reality”).

Our reality is in essence conscious, experience and self. Furthermore there is a witness – by which we may be aware of what is witnessed, of our self, consciousness as well as what is experienced (circularity is an aspect within of our lineal reality, as are foundationalism and infinitism – Munchhausen’s trilemma). While it extends towards our deeper being, subconscious, and to realms and dimensions beyond our cognitive or knowing consciousness, fundamentally, our reality is a “projected” part, all of it.

Projection is “our actuality”, the existence of our reality and its components, projected or placed in space, in particular shapes and places, by our whole, through the Central Nervous System (CNS – brain and spinal cord). In approaching our actuality and referring to our whole, we may be in relation with our whole.

A process of Reality” ensues, of our becoming a part. We become more of a part in our reality, initially extending behind in our depth, then in breadth, and in depth below, through levels and layers of consciousness, experience and being. Barriers and blocks, passages and processes may be reached, released and resolved. It is what happens, a process of integration, in relation with our whole.

We may become familiar with aspects of this process, of various stages and ways to facilitate, for both our self in it and for others, This process and indeed our actuality however, is not of our normal sense and understanding, of experience we can grasp with our mind across a separation of subject (the self) and object (what is experienced). Rather, we, as self or identity, are involved as part in our actuality, in an innate process and understanding from beyond us, which must be attributed to our transcendent whole being of Reality, transcendent beyond our part.

zzy Normally, we are separated from our whole being, within our projected reality. There are 4 layers or degrees to this separation : 1) a part is never the whole and displaces its whole to where the whole is transcendent of or beyond the part, leaving the part with the “rest of whole” (diag. right) and 2) we are displaced in place and substance from the whole self in being projected through the CNS in our actuality as projection. Within our projected part, 3) we are differentiated and displaced in our self and identity, separated from other parts of our reality (such as the conscious, deeper being, what we experience, and witness), and 4) isolated from our whole in identifying exclusively in our self (subject) with what we experience (object), through having experience (verb).

Having experience is not a problem. We can capture our projected reality in space, approach our actuality and refer to our transcendent whole, to initiate and perpetuate our relation with our whole.

Practice

3 things you can do while you connect with your transcendent whole, not all of that time but from time to time – for timing and choice, rely on instinct for what is uncertain rather than pretending to know :

1) Everything is a part of their whole – a message you can announce to your various self-s or parts
2) Everything is material for referring to the whole – in their actuality; including the positive and negative states, places and experiences of differing dimensions you may get to
3) Look to a relation with your whole – as a part; in all that you achieve, receive, become or get to; this is our goal in being part, for both our self and all that we may experience

Our tendency is to narrowly identify within our part and so be isolated from our whole. We also tend to identify as we shift to a different (new) experience and dimension in our relation with our whole. Therefore, to start and keep going :

1a) Promote your part – introduce space, extend, approach your actuality (to be “more presentable” to your whole and “maker”)
1b) Promote your whole – posture, trunk-al extent (so there is something of the whole to receive your part)
2) Refer to your transcendent whole – the core is the reference for, the other-end a clue to a whole being of Reality (beyond our reckoning and effort, because they are limited by our being a part)
3) Repeat 1) Promote (part and whole) and 2) Refer – to “winch” closer to being a part; pulling on the winch to promote your relationship with your whole, and releasing to allow and let go to your whole

For our tendency towards an isolating identification, we need effort. But then must refer to our transcendent whole to go beyond both our reckoning and efforts, because they are limited in our being a part. We may become familiar with the levels and layers of our reality and their unfolding through integrating with our whole. This knowing can be used to promote our part (step 1a in “winching”). As we become more of a part, there is less of a leap between the conscious act of promoting (step 1) and referring or presenting to the whole being (step 2). Our connecting with our whole becomes “smoother”, having initiated it with “winching”, and leads to a relation with our whole.

(Mechanics of our actuality : stages of integration in the process of Reality or what happens – to follow)

2 thoughts on “Notes on Orientation

  1. I like it. But then something bothers me about it. Also.

    I’m not entirely sure what it is that strikes me as off —

    – I think it is good as a sort of psychological sense. Like, if someone is looking for a pseudo-scientific-Philosophy to help them with “life’s meaning”. I’d say this is a good one.

    Yet also, it appears to me you move through 3 stages in this theory: 1 and 2 . A pretty good bridging of phenomenality with the rational thinking subject. 3. Purpose.

    My issue: 1 and 2: I’m am not sure that this distinction is not a conceptual device which functions from (3) instead of toward it; but together they make a nice bond, for sure.
    Phenomenality, as I understand it, is the correlation of thought and world. The Phenomenon is existence is that the whole field is understood as existence. And yet within this field there appear something that does not seem to accord with the experience of the field; i.e. that everything is the known field. This situation is a phenomenon: the explanation is itself an effort to sort out a particular contradiction into non-contradictory states. This seems like what you have done, and then the last part is to fill the last gap that comes about in the contradiction of sorting out the non-contradictory aspects of the (first or primary) contradiction: the gap is purpose or reason for effort that is the solving the last contradiction.

    I’m
    Gonna make a post of this because I think it is a good example of a kind of motion I have been postulating but not finding an example for.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Hi, landzek. Glad you like the post and thanks for your thoughts, and reposting. I’d like to respond to your comments :

    Perhaps what is bothersome stems from the very point I am trying to establish, of our being part of our whole. This takes us beyond, but also contains, our conceptual reality, experience and our having experience self. However, until we can refer to our transcendental whole as his or her part, our being part remains incongruous to us.

    I understand this to be because, within our referential reality, we are normally identified in our experiencing self and with what we experience. In this containment is a “non-contradictory” assertion of things themselves that are determined differently by various contexts, which possibly implies a “particular contradiction”. Recognising what we determine of our experience, the reference or context by which we determine and our experiencing self, all as parts within our reality introduces a “non-contradictory state”, which perhaps is the phenomenolgical state of things-in-themselves, delivered of the components for having experience, including the intentional conscious, the experiencing self, experience itself, and what is experienced, by the suspension of judgment or bracketing (process of phenomenology).

    There’s always more to our self and reality, but this is from within our reality and can never reach the whole of whom our reality is a part. Without regard for being part, and for our transcendent and part-less whole, we are left in what I believe is called a naive or direct realism because it seems there’s nothing else but experience for us to identify with, which I would consider as the “first or primary contradiction” within our representational or indirect realism. More fundamental of our normal reality still is the denial in our identifying assertion “I’m it” and “that’s the world out there” of our being part and of our whole.

    I hope this reply remains consistent with what you were “looking for”, and gives some airing to what of the article that “bothers”. If you like, please let me know what you think. Does it clarify what you were “not entirely sure” that struck you “as off” ?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s