Our reality and Reality

Final edit 16 Sept 2017

The concept of “projection”

All that we are, as self or identity, and all that we may experience, our reality is “projected” or placed in space, through the Central Nervous System (CNS), by our whole being. The CNS is a part of our whole, as is our reality that is projected through the CNS.

“Actuality” here refers to the existence in fact and in space, of our reality as projection, and as a projected part of our whole. And we’ll look at vision as an example of projection, through the CNS, by our whole being.

Light bouncing off real things in the real world focuses upside down inside at the back of the eyes, stimulates the receptors (cones and rods) there at the retina that converts the focused images into nerve impulses. These travel through the optic nerves and reach the brain where vision is created and placed in space for us to have the experience of vision in a 3-dimensional space.

In similar ways, information from various sense organs of the body, is put together, “through” the CNS (by our whole), to form the outside world part, of our reality. It is an accurate indication of the world, including a “functional” and effective perspective, in our sense of being in the world; we can jump, point and shoot, front up and throw. We are allowed this, our reality where, as self or identity, we seemingly do things, being there in the world, when it is our whole who is in and of Reality, and does things, including the things we think we do.

Our actual “self” and the subjective aspects of our reality.De carte

Neuroscience has established “what we experience” as taking place in the brain. It has become a part of our general understanding and world view. Yet “modern” philosophy had embraced this, as far back as the mid-1600’s, from when there’s a famous diagram of Descartes’ (father of modern philosophy – “I think, there for I am”), of how vision is generated, as outlined above, and eye hand co-ordination.

However, what about the self? How can we be a product of the brain? With our sense of independence, will, and separation from what we experience, are we made by, and secondary to, an organ? What about our consciousness, our life, others, and deeper being? Where do they fit or come from, in the scheme of things?

These are necessary questions about our self and the world that remain unanswered, because we have failed to appreciate being a part of our whole, and of Reality.

I pre-empt my point, that there is no brain without a whole being, whole self or the whole body. We are a part of our whole, “projected” through and not by the CNS.

The self is a problem.

The self is difficult to determine. Sentences that refer to themselves or “self reference” create difficulties in many cases, recognised in philosophy as the “self referencing paradox”. However, the question “What is the self?”, brings the referrential difficulty directly to us, involving our actual self in a problem which I call the “self referencing conundrum” (https://realityhc. wordpress.com/=self +referencing+ conundrum& =Search). It comes of us, as the self or identity, in theapparatus for having an experience”.

Set in this make-up “for having an experience”, it is like a camera trying to take a picture of itself, when we try to experience our self in the usual direct manner of experiencing things. It is impossible to experience our self directly. We cannot bend the “apparatus for having an experience”, to experience, our “having an experience” self !

To help examine our reality, a distinction can be made between the subjective and objective ends of “having an experience”. Objective are those parts “easy” to explain and understand, as produced by the brain (Chalmers 1986, Australian philosopher). Vision (as I out-lined previously) and other experiences according to the senses, belong to this group. Also included are functions of the mind that can be broken down to linear mechanical or computer-like (computational) processes, “easily” attributed to the computer-like brain, such as determining, filing, retrieving and analysing.

The subjective aspects on the other hand, include the self, consciousness, the experience itself (different from what is experienced that is an object of experience), deeper being, and the witness. Their existence and nature are “hard” to explain, as produced by the brain or anything else. In contrast to the “easy” and objective, they have been termed the “hard aspects of conscious experience” by Chalmers. He suggests we consider the subjective aspects as fundamental or irreducible, to help approach them (subjective aspects) differently than the linear reductive way we usually try to grasp and understand things directly in our minds. The development of AI (artificial intelligence) has intensified this boundary, between our computerlike mind (easy and objective) and the conscious self (hard and subjective) i.

i Just when through modernity, we’ve gotten used to the self, we’re loosing it into the technological media. Who’s there, in charge?
T
here is a new impetus to examine subjectivity, with the developments in AI (artificial intelligence) and its encroachment on so much of human activity. And they are actively applied in reality, in drones, un-manned buses, language generation, face recognition. Their moral consequence is “us” the subject, put on the spot. What is it, to be human? Who or what is the true self? Is there free will? Is it a predetermined destiny where we have no choice, but to enact our human programmes? In thus just reacting to our environment, what difference is there from AI?

The self as a part.

We cannot determine our self, when we are the self. And while we do need a different approach to our conscious self, I reject Chalmers categorisation of our subjective aspects as fundamental. Rather, we can understand our reality of conscious self and experience, as a part of our whole being.

Both our self and what we experience, the subjective and the objective aspects of our reality, can then be considered projection. As space, time, matter and gravity was reduced to a more fundamental space-time by Einstein, all aspects of our reality are reduced, to the fundamental of being projected parts of our whole. Not a product of the CNS, but of our whole. Projected through, and not by, the CNS.

In our “actuality”, our existence in fact as projection, we may refer to our whole and be in relation with him or her, as a part.

We cannot be direct however, in approaching our actual self, because we are set within the “apparatus for having an experience” and, in referring to our whole, because he or she is transcendent of or beyond our part.

message 01As a part within our whole, our reality displaces the whole, so that there’s just the “rest of our whole” that surrounds our reality, and our whole is transcendent of our self and experience. Yet as a part of our whole, he or she permeates or is immanent in us. Our whole also, encompasses our part.

Reality, an entirety, and All-Creation.

Furthermore, our whole is a part of Reality, an Entirety that is more than the sum of all wholes and parts. It is the one and only whole, I consider All-Creation-God. Our whole self being (a part) of Reality, means we, as self or identity, are also a part of Reality and immanent of it, in becoming a part of our whole.

images 001 labelled

Diag. 2 “Our reality of conscious experience and self (witnessed) as a part within our whole.”

As a part, we should at least consider our whole. Normally however, we have a strong tendency to be identified, in our self and with what we experience, which isolates us from our whole on the “apparatus for having an experience”.

To be in relation with our whole, we must first approach our “actuality”, the existence of our reality including our self as a projected part. For this we can “turn in” on our self and capture our self in the space we occupy as projection, and “tune in” to our actuality that is immanent of our whole being and Reality.

In our actuality, we can consider and introduce our whole by referring to our sense of his or her mid-line or core. Other ways to refer to our whole include :- the whole is touched by the rest of creation; is present in the present; is alive; must be there (for us to be); is transcendent of us; is in and of Reality; is Nothingness, absent from our projected reality.

In our actuality, we can consider and introduce our whole by referring to our sense of his or her mid-line or core. Other ways to refer to our whole include :- the whole is touched by the rest of creation; is present in the present; is alive; must be there (for us to be); is transcendent of us; is in and of Reality; is Nothingness, absent from our projected reality.

Various ways may be used, to approach our actuality and refer to our whole, to initiate our relation with our whole on different stages and occasions. It is a process of integration for both our projected part and our whole, underpinned by the immanence of Reality, in everything.

I call the approach “Orientation” – in space of our actuality, and with our whole being of Reality. It establishes the fundamental nature of our reality as a projected part, and introduces our transcendent whole being of Reality as the universal basis for our existence and process. The essence of all human endeavours and practices is delivered, and Orientation may also be applied to further them.

Lastly, Orientation may be reduced to words, in a message you can tell your self, and annowncw within your reality. It indirectly refers to your self and your whole self.

Every thing, of you and your reality, is a part of your whole.”

Our reality and Reality

The concept of “projection”

All that we are, as self or identity, and all that we may experience, our reality is “projected” or placed in space, through the Central Nervous System (CNS), by our whole being. The CNS is a part of our whole, as is our reality that is projected through the CNS.

“Actuality” here refers to the existence in fact and in space, of our reality as projection, and as a projected part of our whole. And we’ll look at vision as an example of projection, through the CNS, by our whole being.

Light bouncing off real things in the real world focuses upside down inside at the back of the eyes, stimulates the receptors (cones and rods) there at the retina that converts the focused images into nerve impulses. These travel through the optic nerves and reach the brain where vision is created and placed in space for us to have the experience of vision in a 3-dimensional space.

In similar ways, information from various sense organs of the body, is put together, “through” the CNS (by our whole), to form the outside world part, of our reality. It is an accurate indication of the world, including a “functional” and effective perspective, in our sense of being in the world; we can jump, point and shoot, front up and throw. We are allowed this, our reality where, as self or identity, we seemingly do things, being there in the world, when it is our whole who is in and of Reality, and does things, including the things we think we do.

Our actual “self” and the subjective aspects of our reality.De carte

Neuroscience has established “what we experience” as taking place in the brain. It has become a part of our general understanding and world view. Yet “modern” philosophy had embraced this, as far back as the mid-1600’s, from when there’s a famous diagram of Descartes’ (father of modern philosophy – “I think, there for I am”), of how vision is generated, as outlined above, and eye hand co-ordination.

However, what about the self? How can we be a product of the brain? With our sense of independence, will, and separation from what we experience, are we made by, and secondary to, an organ? What about our consciousness, our life, others, and deeper being? Where do they fit or come from, in the scheme of things?

These are necessary questions about our self and the world that remain unanswered, because we have failed to appreciate being a part of our whole, and of Reality.

I pre-empt my point, that there is no brain without a whole being, whole self or the whole body. We are a part of our whole, “projected” through and not by the CNS.

The self is a problem.

The self is difficult to determine. Sentences that refer to themselves or “self reference” create difficulties in many cases, recognised in philosophy as the “self referencing paradox”. However, the question “What is the self?”, brings the referrential difficulty directly to us, involving our actual self in a problem which I call the “self referencing conundrum” (https://realityhc. wordpress.com/=self +referencing+ conundrum& =Search). It comes of us, as the self or identity, in theapparatus for having an experience”.

Set in this make-up “for having an experience”, it is like a camera trying to take a picture of itself, when we try to experience our self in the usual direct manner of experiencing things. It is impossible to experience our self directly. We cannot bend the “apparatus for having an experience”, to experience, our “having an experience” self !

To help examine our reality, a distinction can be made between the subjective and objective ends of “having an experience”. Objective are those parts “easy” to explain and understand, as produced by the brain (Chalmers 1986, Australian philosopher). Vision (as I out-lined previously) and other experiences according to the senses, belong to this group. Also included are functions of the mind that can be broken down to linear mechanical or computer-like (computational) processes, “easily” attributed to the computer-like brain, such as determining, filing, retrieving and analysing.

The subjective aspects on the other hand, include the self, consciousness, the experience itself (different from what is experienced that is an object of experience), deeper being, and the witness. Their existence and nature are “hard” to explain, as produced by the brain or anything else. In contrast to the “easy” and objective, they have been termed the “hard aspects of conscious experience” by Chalmers. He suggests we consider the subjective aspects as fundamental or irreducible, to help approach them (subjective aspects) differently than the linear reductive way we usually try to grasp and understand things directly in our minds. The development of AI (artificial intelligence) has intensified this boundary, between our computerlike mind (easy and objective) and the conscious self (hard and subjective) i.

i Just when through modernity, we’ve gotten used to the self, we’re loosing it into the technological media. Who’s there, in charge?
T
here is a new impetus to examine subjectivity, with the developments in AI (artificial intelligence) and its encroachment on so much of human activity. And they are actively applied in reality, in drones, un-manned buses, language generation, face recognition. Their moral consequence is “us” the subject, put on the spot. What is it, to be human? Who or what is the true self? Is there free will? Is it a predetermined destiny where we have no choice, but to enact our human programmes? In thus just reacting to our environment, what difference is there from AI?

The self as a part.

We cannot determine our self, when we are the self. And while we do need a different approach to our conscious self, I reject Chalmers categorisation of our subjective aspects as fundamental. Rather, we can understand our reality of conscious self and experience, as a part of our whole being.

Both our self and what we experience, the subjective and the objective aspects of our reality, can then be considered projection. As space, time, matter and gravity was reduced to a more fundamental space-time by Einstein, all aspects of our reality are reduced, to the fundamental of being projected parts of our whole. Not a product of the CNS, but of our whole. Projected through, and not by, the CNS.

In our “actuality”, our existence in fact as projection, we may refer to our whole and be in relation with him or her, as a part.

We cannot be direct however, in approaching our actual self, because we are set within the “apparatus for having an experience” and, in referring to our whole, because he or she is transcendent of or beyond our part.

message 01As a part within our whole, our reality displaces the whole, so that there’s just the “rest of our whole” that surrounds our reality, and our whole is transcendent of our self and experience. Yet as a part of our whole, he or she permeates or is immanent in us. Our whole also, encompasses our part.

Reality, an entirety, and All-Creation.

Furthermore, our whole is a part of Reality, an Entirety that is more than the sum of all wholes and parts. It is the one and only whole, I consider All-Creation-God. Our whole self being (a part) of Reality, means we, as self or identity, are also a part of Reality and immanent of it, in becoming a part of our whole.

images 001 labelled

Diag. 2 “Our reality of conscious experience and self (witnessed) as a part within our whole.”

As a part, we should at least consider our whole. Normally however, we have a strong tendency to be identified, in our self and with what we experience, which isolates us from our whole on the “apparatus for having an experience”.

To be in relation with our whole, we must first approach our “actuality”, the existence of our reality including our self as a projected part. For this we can “turn in” on our self and capture our self in the space we occupy as projection, and “tune in” to our actuality that is immanent of our whole being and Reality.

In our actuality, we can consider and introduce our whole by referring to our sense of his or her mid-line or core. Other ways to refer to our whole include :- the whole is touched by the rest of creation; is present in the present; is alive; must be there (for us to be); is transcendent of us; is in and of Reality; is Nothingness, absent from our projected reality.

In our actuality, we can consider and introduce our whole by referring to our sense of his or her mid-line or core. Other ways to refer to our whole include :- the whole is touched by the rest of creation; is present in the present; is alive; must be there (for us to be); is transcendent of us; is in and of Reality; is Nothingness, absent from our projected reality.

Various ways may be used, to approach our actuality and refer to our whole, to initiate our relation with our whole on different stages and occasions. It is a process of integration for both our projected part and our whole, underpinned by the immanence of Reality, in everything.

I call the approach “Orientation” – in space of our actuality, and with our whole being of Reality. It establishes the fundamental nature of our reality as a projected part, and introduces our transcendent whole being of Reality as the universal basis for our existence and process. The essence of all human endeavours and practices is delivered, and Orientation may also be applied to further them.

Lastly, Orientation may be reduced to words, in a message you can tell your self, and annowncw within your reality. It indirectly refers to your self and your whole self.

Every thing of you and your reality, is a part of your whole.”

Words, self-referencing conundrum and projection : an overview of “Orientation”

001 W1 9 Jul1709072017 b.jpg

Oroboros : symbolises introspection, eternal return, cyclicality especially in constantly recreating itself.

 

“Words render our representational worlds into
walls
of further representation
we w
ander around and wonder at,
within our reality.”

Beyond words, try “Experience your self”.

Impossible? Images of a dog running around after its tail, or a snake trying to swallow its own tail, may come to mind. It is as if we are a part, of an apparatus for having an experience. Like a camera that cannot turn back on itself …..

……. open to read Words 9Jul17 PDF

A comprehensive overview of “Orientation”. First of a series of three.

the human condition 0023 23May17 – definition 05

realityhc

the human condition and reality
– definiti
on

CNS projection 1 consc, mind body sense from spine

Conscious, mind, body sense from spine, projected through the solid organic matter of brain and spine

CNS

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.

3d-may17-aspect-mind-from-above-wblog-007-1-a.jpg

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.

CNS projection 3, realms levels, above and below

Realms levels, above and below

“Self referencing conundrum” and “actuality”

It seems impossible to experience our own self.

This is true I think, because we are, in our usual self, a part of a mechanism for having an experience. We cannot refer to our actual self. Trying to do so is like a camera trying to take a picture of its film. As frustrating as a horse running after its tail.

A sense of or a notion about our self is different, where there is a distance to what one may think or talk about, or point the finger at in our minds.

Without this separation, between our self and what we experience, a problem or confusion arises. It occurs in language as the self referential paradox. Quite a number of examples have been collected over the ages. These sentences refer back to themselves, rather than name a thing or a person (noun), describe its state or nature (adjective) or its action (verb) as words are usually used for. It may be more of a phenomena in some languages and thinking determined by them, than other languages that may not be so exact as English and modern languages tend to be, about subject, object and causality.

“This sentence is false” is exemplary of the self referencing problem or paradox we find in language.

There is a greater difficulty in approaching our own actuality, an inherent resistance that is the “self-referencing conundrum”

We come away from our usual knowing engagement with things in “the world” that are “of” our experience . Our sense of being and doing in the world breaks down without perspective that gives a sense of measure over time, space and size, and without context that determines what things are. We are thrown back to an uncertain sense of being, and existence. Solipsism describes this uncertainty of our self and the world, and existentialism recognises a fundamental state of being devoid of purpose and reference.

What point is there to that?

Consider, rather than go back to the world of experience, that there is more, in different directions, but also that there must be a whole being who is and does things in reality, who allows for our reality of conscious experience, which includes “the world” of our experience and our sense of being and doing in it.

Some may recognise a parallel to Plato’s cave, of people thinking shadows on the walls is reality. What we experience is a part of our whole being, as is our self or identity that experiences and identifies with what it experiences.

Our reality of conscious experience is “projected” by a whole being, through the CNS (Central Nervous System or the brain, spinal cord and nerve roots). Projection is our “actuality” – the existence in space of our reality as projection.

Go beyond the normal sense and story of “who’s doing what”, but rather than approaching in a direct way, like the camera trying to take a picture of itself and hit the “self referencing conundrum”, introduce a “spatial orientation”. We can capture our reality as projection in projected space, including our self and our paradox that is our extension, and we may refer to our whole, to be in relation as a part, with our whole . In our actuality we may be reached or touched by who is of reality and who encompasses  all that we may experience, as his or her projection. Trust the whole who must be there.

Other entries on the “self-referencing conundrum” –

https://realityhc.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/self-referencing-conundrum/

 Definition : An inherent difficulty and resistance to approaching the actuality of our self or identity, as if to maintain the necessary displacement for having an experience between the identity having the experience and what is experienced.     https://realityhc.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/the-self-referencing-conundrum-2/

Our cognitive part

Our cognitive part
– Xmas and Sum1 full moon

Our cognition is buthc on shoji 3
a floating moment
of a passage that was,
as we speak
of it,
our experience.

Our reality is but
a cognitive part,
while we keep to what we experience
and what it’s about.

And while we can know
of our whole self
who
is of reality;

we are separated for being a projected part,
created by our whole being and projected through the CNS (Central Nervous System);
isolated from our whole in our identification within our reality,
in our self and with what we experience;
and referenced by our contexts,
in avoidance of our actuality as a projected part of our whole.

We are stuck in our reality, before a self-referencing conundrum.

In our identity, with what we experience,
in our knowing notion and sense,
we can learn to be a part and regard our whole,
our whole self of reality.
He or she encompasses our all;
all that we are and al that we experience
of the world and others.

He or she creates and projects our all;
and is more than the sum of all hes/her parts.
Nothing is denied of our reality,
in fact we refer to by whom our reality is allowed,
our creator, our whole self
of whom we’re a projected part.

It is a new relation,
as a part and with our whole,
so take it slow.

Know that our whole being will always be there but also know
that he or she is there now and has been for all of our time.

Shoji screens and tatami mats 180cm x 90cmhc on shoji 3

What is real ? – introducing the “phenomenal aspects of reality”.

Reality is more than the sum of the fundamentals, qualities, theories and models we can derive, determine and deduce of reality from the phenomenal world we experience.

The phenomenal world is created and projected by the whole self through the brain-spine or CNS (Central Nervous System) from the “phenomenal aspects of reality” that presents to the sensory organs of the whole body, who is in reality. The phenomenal world is regarded as what presents to our senses, but we as an identity do not have eyes or other sense organs. The world we may experience and try to understand also defines our phenomenal world in which case it may include our inner and not just our outer world.

It is the whole self who has the sense organs in reality and the brain-spine (CNS) that receives information from them, of the “phenomenal aspects of reality” that present to those sense organs or that they are sensitive to and register, and processes that information to create what we may experience. We may think we see and perceive, and indeed act. However, it is the whole body who does all that we think we do, and allows us to be and think that we exist and do things. The only thing that we can say we definitely do, is “have an experience”.