Notes on Orientation

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 that individual whole being we, as self or identity, are 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. Further more, it is witnessed, by which we are aware of what is witnessed, of our self as well as what is experienced – circularity is an aspect of our reality. While it extends towards our deeper being, subconscious, and to realms and dimensions beyond our cognitive or knowing consciousness, fundamentally, our reality is “projection”, all of it.

Projection is “our actuality”, the fact of our existence, of our reality and its components as projected 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 of our whole. We become more of a part in our reality, initially extending behind in our depth, as well in breadth and in depth below, through levels and layers of consciousness, experience and being. Barriers and blocks, passages and processes are 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 its various stages and ways to facilitate, for our self within it and for others. However, this learning is very different to our normal learning of things that happen in the world we experience, the phenomenal world, which we grasp with our mind across the separation of subject (our self) and object (what is experienced), through “having experience” (verb). Rather, we, as self and identity, are involved as part. Beyond our usual knowing, of what’s what and happening according to our world view and causality (mind’s grasp), there’s an innate process from beyond our self that involves our self, which must be attributed to our transcendent whole.

Normally, we are isolated from our whole, within our projected reality : 1) a part can never be the whole but displaces its whole to where the whole is transcendent of or beyond any of its parts, leaving with any of its parts the rest of whole, and 2) we are displaced in place and substance from the whole self, in being projected through the CNS as projection. Further more, within our projected reality we are 3) differentiated and displaced in our self and identity, from other parts of our reality such as the conscious, deeper being, what we experience, and witness, and finally 4) isolated from our whole in being identified in our self and with what we experience.

From this default state of identification, we must capture our reality as projected in space, approach our actuality, and refer to our whole, to initiate and perpetuate our relation with our whole being of Reality.

Practice
3 things to do while you connect or relate with your whole, not all of that time but from time to time, relying on your whole or instinct for timing and choice:

1) Everything is a part of their whole – a message you can announce to your various self-s and other parts

2) Everything is material for referring to the whole – including various positive and negative states, experiences and places you may reach; their actuality “where” beyond sense of “what” they are

3) Look to a relation as a part with your whole – in all that you achieve, receive, become or get to; this is the goal for both your self and for all that you may experience being part

The tendency is to identify within your reality, before you start and when you shift to a different (new) state, experience or dimension. To start and keep going, rather than be identified in your part and so isolated from your whole :
1a) Promote your part – introduce space, 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, also touched by the rest 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” your self closer to being a part (pulling on the winch to promote your relationship with your whole, and releasing the winch to allow and let go to your whole)

We need to apply effort, but then go beyond our efforts,
by referring to our transcendent whole, because our reckoning and efforts are limited, in our being a part. One may become familiar with the levels and layers of our reality, and their unfolding in our integration with our whole. This, knowing “what happens” to our reality in relation with our whole, 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 doing something (promote, step 1) and referring or presenting to the whole being (step 2). Our connecting with our whole becomes “smoother” after having initiated it with “winching”, in our developing relation with our whole.

Mechanics of actuality (we may wear and apply) and the stages of integration (“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