Slide show of our bodies, our “actuality” as projected by our whole, through the Central Nervous System. As captured from behind and layered.
Category Archives: Art
Everything, everyone, every part, every whole
– from a mereological orientation of our part, and Reality
Everything is a part of its whole.
You are a part of your whole;
I am a part of my whole.
And everything is a part of Reality,
an entirety,
the one and only whole;
it includes all wholes,
all dichotomies, inside but also outside.
From within your whole
is the rest of your whole,
your inside and outside,
your everything, your everyone, your world;
your whole touched by the rest of Reality
is a long long way away,
in all directions.
A non
The black hole.
It must in fact be a sphere,
with an uncertain centre.
A ball, looks like a round hole.
The mind reduces, 
what it senses.
Yet, a whole includes its all
and is more than their sum.
Words 2
Word on words, and the self referencing conundrum.
Words themselves are representative, they represent something in our minds. We can talk about the being, happening and doing of things, because that’s what our nouns, adjectives and verbs refer to. Words render our world into representational walls, we wonder around and wonder at, within our reality.
It is Plato’s cave, of the Greek philosopher who’s Forms and Ideas were said to be the basis to what we observe in “our” reality. We, as self or identity, think and talk (with words) about the shadows on the walls of his cave. The shadows themselves are representations of things. Our words then, are representative of representations.
Rather than refer to the thing they represent, words that refer to themselves or “self-reference” can be a problem, in our mind. “This statement is false” is the classic example of the self-referential paradox in a sentence. It carries a contradiction, as most examples usually do, where it can never be true because the sentence says it “is false” which keeps us bound to the sentence, self referencing, rather than from the sentence, referring beyond it.
Self-referencing alone, even without a perplexing contradiction, can still give the same paradox. For example, “This refers to the word, this” or “to you, reading or to me typing, these words”. Left unresolved is, our having engaged with words in the first place. It exposes the expectation that, in communicating and expressing, a sentence should refer to things other than, what is in the sentence. This expectation may vary with cultures, languages and situation, but it may be universal of putting things to words that, sentences should refer to what their words represent.
All our stories can be seen to be circular and self referential : “Before paradox, we reflect, what is represented in our reality. Of conscious experience, as self or identity, we are held between incomplete bubbles. Gingerly balanced our inner and outer worlds, their shells we straddle, mush. In dribs and drabs we dabble and dribble, learn to babble and spit out words, and live in them words. A loose twist and loop noose our circularity as one of our many, of many more.”
Something of the very nature of our reality is indicated by the paradox of self-referential sentences. The paradox itself penetrates beyond words in our reality, towards our self, if we let it. But sometimes it just hits us. Comedy shares something of this, 3-dimensional, self approaching and exposing complexity and substance, chaos and uncertainty.
Some how, we are waiting for more or what’s next, to be woken up to our rest; to more of us, as self or identity, and more of our reality – we are reminded from our left field, behind, beyond, within or underneath it all.
Compared to the paradox from words in a sentence, to reference or refer to our self is, a deeper and more immediate concern, for us, a “self referencing conundrum” (https://realityhc.wordpress), if I may coin a phrase.
Try for your self, “Experience your self”.
Impossible? Images of a dog running around after its tail, or a snake trying to swallow its own tail, may apply.
We are a part, of an apparatus for having an experience.
Like a camera that cannot turn back on itself to take a picture of itself, and like its film, that in capturing an image, is “reflective” of what is directly in front of the focusing lens, it seems we cannot experience our self – only of “other than self” can we experience or directly reflect or be reflective with.
No problem with entertaining a notion or concept of the self, and experiencing a sense of self. But with our “actual” self however, there’s an inherent resistance to approaching and experiencing our self in the “usual” way we consider “direct”.
We cannot see our self, only others. From where we face the world we may see, and determine, we extend uncertainty all the way, beyond context, down to the emptiness of our alone or existential in depths, or being the one centre of a vague universe at our beginning or solipsistic end. What is self? What is anything? Where am I?
Word 3 – to follow …
the human condition 0023 23May17 – definition 05
realityhc
the human condition and reality
– definition
Conscious, mind, body sense from spine, projected through the solid organic matter of brain and spine
Central Nervous System or brain, spine and nerve roots
The human condition is a projected part of a whole being of reality, projected through the CNS in projected space.
We are turned inside out from the whole self, as if it were, sput out through nervous activity from the solid organic matter of the brain and spine.
Mind’s spread from above. In our self and with what we experience, we identify with the world in front.
Thus displaced projected from our whole, we disassociate within projection into different aspects.
Further we are isolated from our whole as we identify, in our self and with what we experience, between those disassociated parts.
In our actuality, occupying space as projection, can we refer to our whole as a part.
Realms levels, above and below
A text-ed tour
From the exhibition Orientation – the cognitive part.
The depictions indicate the “projected actuality” of our reality, our existence in fact as projection in space.
Aspects of our reality occupy certain places in relation with the whole self, and in certain distributions or “shapes”, as projected by our whole. They are depicted as captures from behind, together with an indication of the whole self, in some.
1 “Cornered across (with vision)” So, with the depictions, “it” is there in you. There is nothing solid about our reality, and we occupy space as projected by our whole through the CNS.
This is our line-up with and where we face in vision the world out there.
This is the self or identity coming across to identify with vision.
The witness is back behind this cornering.
This out-line in grey of the head, neck and shoulders represents the subtle sense of our whole being. He/she is a subtle sense because he/she does not exist in our reality of projection, but gives us more a sense of where we are, centred on his or her right.
The conscious, like coconut palm fronds, reigns from above as if to shed light on our reality. Because we are mainly in the spread across including the self and vision, the conscious itself is more a scooped-out absence.
These lines, around the lower part of the cornering, indicate our front and back, before the witness behind.
2 “Knobbly join” There again is the head, neck and shoulders, indicating the subtle sense of the whole self who is in and of reality and does not exist in projection, but gives us our sense of where we are,
Vision is here.
The wot and the wit stands for the world out there (up, front and to the right, there on you and me) and the world in there (down, behind and snug towards our cosy core, there on you and me), that we may experience.
The circle between the wot and the wit, is the self having an experience. The self is understood to be inseparable from experience itself – “what is experience without self, what is self without experience?”.
Experience itself is separate from what is experienced. What we experience, out there and within, is the object to our self having an experience.
The face (left half of the self circle)) is the identity, determined more by our world and society. Conscious is there again reigning from above, but not as coconut palm fronds but more as its body.
The world out there has an angle, forwards, up and across to the right vs. our inner reality that extends back, under and nuzzles towards the core (mid-line) of the body. You can distinguish your wot and wit, quite readily in your own situation I think. You are the identity in the knobbly join between them.
3 “Bass clef (of sound)” There are more recognisable shapes here. The bass clef and the top of the treble clef.
Now again, it is our actuality, a depiction of what is actually there on us. So, the world of sound, this is there on you, and I’ll just take you through it.
The world of sound “comes under and around you on your right, goes over the top and comes in on the left above, but not below”.
So there’s this shape to the projected actuality of our world of sound. It happens to be the symbol used in music notation to indicate the bass rage of notes, the rumbling deep notes that makes us look up and around and determine what it is. It might be a dinosaur, a tank or a jet plane (threatening deep noise), and contrast with the treble notes that can settle us into our cosy core. Our sensitivities there are rumbled by deep bass notes, and we rise to hold our self up in our hard heads to determine friend or foe, within our “base clef”.
We can recognise and depict or describe the shape, but there’s the “where” of it, the “actuality of it being there.
It does not explain the symbols, but I suspect that the symbols of music originate from our actuality. The wide acceptance of them may be because of our actuality being of that shape.
4 “Arch of language” The only one I have used colour in. Japanese vermilion red is used in calligraphy. It contrasts with the dark sumi-e ink, to correct, mark or stand out. It is also the red seen in Shinto shrines; their torii gate ways are painted with it.
I think I have used red because language is such a human quality that marks our cognitive “gawk and talk” reality. I consider the rest, the conscious, mind and the sense of self in the world common to animals. Like humans, they, whole living “animal” beings, function in the real world through their self functioning in “its” projected experience of the world.
Compared to the actuality of our realm of sound (bass clef), this is a narrower, tighter realm of language, which is also sound but special or particular sound. It dips under the conscious, domes over mind and lands on the right shoulder.
Our depths extend under it. So, cognitive, emotive and somatic (of body) sense are marked in their three letter abbreviations. LInghter lines under them indicate our deeper instinctive and intuitive sense of others and the world. Our cosy core is towards the mid-line of the whole self.
Our consciousness extends down towards subconscious depths, but on the “other side”, the subconscious begins right next to us.
“Carried” on the Arch of language are aspects of our linguistic cognitive reality, namely our Infinitism, Circularity and Foundationalism.
Infinitism means it goes on and on for ever, and together with Circularity and Foundationalism, they are the nature of our conscious mind, recognised in philosophy in those terms .
In order to be certain about something we think about or sense, we can try to find a proof for what it is. The proof must come from outside what you are trying to prove, so as to help support it. But then, that proof needs a another proof from outside it, to support it … and so, it goes on for ever – Infinitism, just as the conscious goes on and on (till off?).
And it is easy to go around in circles in our mind, Circularity, which is formerly described as when the thing you want to prove is in a subsequent proof. The train of logic forms a circle. Though there are separate steps we do not get outside of the initial statement.
And Foundationalism is the assumption that is not questioned or challenged, a fundamental belief.
These qualities of the cognitive mind are called in philosophy “Munchausen’s trilemma”, the unsatisfactory nature of certainty in our mind (see Note 3).
Just as music symbols take the shape of our actuality, the three aspects of our cognition have their place in their actuality on our “Arch of language”. It dips under the conscious, on and on Infinitism, circles over the mind’s reach, Circularity, and lands on the emotive level on the right shoulder, for Foundationalism.
Orientation – the cognitive part 1
First entry for a hand-out prepared for the exhibition “Orientation – the cognitive part”
Split
Our reality is split
inside outside,
conscious experience
self and witness.
Contexts within which we determine,
this and that,
good/bad right/wrong true/false,
themselves separate
superficial and deep.
More or less before nothing
positive or negative either side of naught (zero)
but for us there’s the “other side”, the subconscious to our conscious,
and the unconscious beyond.
What is more and beyond
goes on and on
without our whole.
Beyond our work and play,
our lives and generations,
sense of self and others,
there is our whole
who encompass our numbers and our all.
He or she, as the case or gender may be,
enacts embodied, does and is,
and encounters the rest of creation, in reality
while creating our reality as his or her part including
our sense of being and what we get up to,
and the world that we can think we rise to and are in.
Our whole is in and of reality,
touched by the rest of creation
as an indispensable part,
permanently present in reality’s present/presence (time/space, here/now).
Our sense of independence and freedom that is our embodiment,
sense of will and destiny, our endorsement
sense of life, our enticement
our sense of others and engagement,
are parts easily split without our whole
validated as parts only by our whole.
___________________________________________
Our realities are separate from our whole in being projected through the CNS (Central Nervous System) by our creator, our whole self. We are further isolated from our whole being in being identified in our self and with what we experience.
Within projection we are displaced and disassociated between the various aspects of our reality, split between conscious experience self and witness, and further with contexts and what is determined through them, as paraphrased in the piece above. This is why our identification between these ”split” parts are exclusive of our whole and isolating.
A part is invalid without its whole.
However, we may know that we are a projected part, approach our “actuality” as projection, and be in relation with our whole. We must understand, practice, and enact this; it is our contemplation of being a part, connection through projection and communion with our maker, a godly being of creation who, in his or her being, consciousness, and substance, is inclusive of our self and all that we may be, all that we may experience, our conscious and witness.
