“Us, you and me as self and identity – the human condition and Reality”

The exponential wall of our time
that reflects our population, pollution and potential,
must of itself collapse, filling the moat from which it rises;
the receptive Earth principle must level
all that is of our humanity’s doing.

Man has power but strength lies with the meek
women and children, but beyond what we grasp human,
with Earth and our whole;
the future is uncertain in our minds
within and beyond, and in being a part, is the light.

Let us trust our individual whole,
the transcendent one of whom we,
you and me as self and identity, are a part;
he or she will find level ground, but must teach us
and we must learn, to be his or her projected part.

These word are not to incite
fuel our repeated rush nor reassured rest,
negotiate for peace or goals of engagement (lest we lust entanglement);
go and return, focus and mesmerise,
grasp and let go, but as a part, of our transcendent whole.

Beyond more or less, on and off,
what we determine what is what,
a part must, and can ultimately but
refer to and reference its whole.

Yet, we are displaced from our whole
in our reality being a part, and for our reality being projected
through the brain-spine, by our whole.

And further isolated from our whole
you and me as self and identity
for being displaced separate in our reality, and for being identified in it:
Identified in our self with what we experience.
Displaced and differentiated as self or identity,
separate from other parts of our reality, that include
what we experience, the experience itself, the conscious, witness and deepe being.

So, be and become
a part of whole being
you belong to, as a part;
of Reality, the one and only whole (of every whole, beyond and part),
your transcendent whole, in Reality happening
being, doing, and alive.

The whole is transcendent of its part.
The whole cannot be the part. A part we are, of our whole.

In our projected reality, we think we exist,
live and do things with others in the world,
and have a sense, given by our whole,
that allows us to think those things of us,
you and me as self and identity
in our projected reality
the very existence and substance of which
is projection, a projected part of our whole.

While the Earth exists and our whole lives
learn to be in relation as part
with our whole as in truth,
a part is what we are:
Everything, of our self and reality,
is a part of our whole,
projected through the brain and spinal cord.

The CNS (Central Nervous System) through which
our whole projects our reality,
falls-short of lumbar extent;
extend vertical our projected float
from veered right up front
come on top vertical of the underside,
get the other-end below that,
and go for the haunch you must be on.

The core is the reference for our whole
and CNS floating vertically spined
level brained, eyed in socket under forbrain,
cerebellum chocks under level brain’s back.

Within our reality we are self or identity
in time happening conscious experience
set in cartoons of broken frames (that draw-in incomplete dimensions);
must, while our whole lives and Earth sustain our existence,
we, me and you as self and identity, be and become a part of our whole.

He or she our gendered whole
carry our reality as projected part,
our sustainability plan and escape plan;
he or she stands on Earth
in harmony and balance with environment
each moment to moment, doing and being it,
the living thing being stands on Earth
before and after all our time.

Quantum and projection

All be it indirectly (through our whole being‘s sense organs and brain), we are given an experience that is an indication of the “phenomenal aspects of reality”, the aspects of reality that our whole self is sensitive to according to his or her sense organs (link to blog the “phenomenal aspects of reality” https://realityhc.wordpress.com/2016/10/08/the-phenomenal-aspects-of-reality/).

Our whole “sees” the light (and projects our experience of vision for us to think that we see) that bounces off the surface of things in the real world that are not too small. Sub-atomic particles are too small for this. En mass and intensity they can split atoms, damage genes and cells and burn things. Depending on how they are “observed”, their existence is indicated by their radiation (wave like quality) or by the mark left after their passage (as particles), say through a sensitive film that leaves a hole or a mark of where they were.

The precise existence of sub-atomic particles is uncertain in our space and time references; sub-atomic particles seem to “jump” and “associate” right through our references. I think things that “exist” at the speed of causality (= C, also “happens to be” the speed of light, other electro-magnetic waves, sub-atomic particles/radiation and gravitational waves), “move” in space-time, in what may be considered the very fabric of the cosmos. It may also include black holes, dark energy and dark matter beyond our visible realm. This idea of sub-particles, photons and other electro-magnetic radiation, and gravity waves existing in space-time, to me helps explain how entanglement works as described in quantum mechanics – where associated particles are related across significant distances the moment one of them is observed or determined in our space and time references.

Let me consider here how our existence as projection, our “projected actuality”, projected by our whole being through the Central Nervous System, is like the quantum state.

I think something like entanglement also occurs in our reality that is projection, in very familiar instances. When we communicate, it is with an another who invariably sees not him or her self but an image of the other’s whole being, and vice versa, where we meet “entangled” as opposites in association over particular perspectives and contexts that, for our time together, determines one another in our projected realities. Empathy is a real thing, but it occures in projection, of another’s sense projected by our whole. It is again, an association that determines one another. Intuitive sense seems to transcend the normally dominant cognitive boundaries in a less constrained flow or connection where, in the analogy of the quantum world, our distances, time and identity seem to join or mesh as if in space-time.

Smooth synchronised movements in dance, sports, martial arts, music but also any activity or work, requires an integration across different parts within an individual whole, and in separate whole others when we play, hunt, dance, perform, work etc., with others.

The synchronised integrity of parts within our whole is stifled and blocked by the rigidity of cognitive knowing. We are familiar with risking the seeming security of know-how‘s certainty and control, to allow and let go to or “go with” a greater flow we become a part of, whether in one’s whole being or in association with others.

In projection, we may exist in our sense of space and time. We may also exist in our actuality as projection, as a part within our whole, and be “connected”, with different realms, identities and states of being, as if in space-time. Perhaps we may understand in this way premonitions, telepathy etc. where the normal boundaries of time, place and identity, seem transcended, beyond the references that normally determine us and what we experience or happens in our reality.

References and contexts that determine what we experience, are parts of our projected reality.We may as self or identity in our reality, observe the laws of Newtonian physics (of billiard balls and planets) in the world we experience. It is a part of our projected reality consistent with space and time, a functional indication of such aspects of the real world, with our sense of being in it and its time, that is our tangible world of our here and now.

We are normally dominated by this indication of the world. We are conscious of its space, and change that occures apparently through our sense of time with the observer, us, as the experience-er, before the witness.

As remarkable as the quantum and relativistic world may be, reality must be more than the sum of both and of any other aspects of reality, which include the Newtonian in space and time, life, chemistry, wholes, consciousness and the humanities that we as humans may be conscious and aware of. The probability of our whole being’s existence is also more remarkable than the non-living matter of atoms, entropically, functionally and structurally speaking. The enormity of the integrity, of cells in themselves, their specialising into organs and their functioning, but also of an integrated and “stable” living whole, is reflected in the richness of qualities that determine our self and our necessary “countenances” – necessary for our particular reality, our self and what we experience, to be. The countenances are our “entangled other” and are projected parts of our whole. Much of it is in our subconscious and unconscious, and include our memories, dreaming, deeper feelings, instinctive and intuitive parts. Compared to us, the qualities that determine sub-atomic particles and their entangled association with an other, is elemental, such as their spin.

As a sub-atomic particle may be lost in space-time from its potential of being a part of a whole atom, we our selves as an identity, are lost in projection away from our whole, identified in our self and with what we experience. Our other, our countenances, are many for us, because we have identified and “associated” with many things on many occasions. They build up in our subconscious as we continue to identify away from our whole.

Our whole should determine our existence and our other parts for their being parts of the same whole. Be displaced from your experience, and the life that you are having, be distinct from people you meet, but as a part, of your whole who encompass your all. It’s not just all in the mind but your feelings and deepest being and sense of self, others and the world, are also there, as projected parts of the same whole.

Just as reality must be more than the sum of its aspects (the Newtonian, quantum, relativistic and of any other aspects of reality including life, and wholes) our whole is both of solid organs and projection, and is more than their sum. He or she is also of reality, and in reality.

Within the projected part of our whole being, we may be the billiard balls (Newtonian), before the reference of perspective, and manifest, in the experience, manifest like matter and gravity within the warping of space-time, but in projection. We can also be the observer in our self having the experience, with shifting points of view and references (relativity) but with a witness, which may witness the observer or experiencer (that is us) as well as what we experience.

u-001.jpg

Actuality”, is our existence in fact as a part of our whole, projected by our whole through the brain and spinal cord (CNS or Central Nervous System). In our actuality as a part of our whole, we connect through projection beyond being the observer having an experience, and the witness is included/invited. Our parts integrate and join with our whole, through projection, in our/their actuality as projection. Being projected actuality is like being a quantum entity in and of space-time; we become a part in the very fabric of our whole being who’s (projection’s) warping throws our here and now and tangible reality that correspond to space and time, and matter.

Physics has gone beyond “the observer makes a difference” of sub-atomic particles,which are displaced or altered with the act of observing or determining them. Instead of attempting direct observations, physicists use “passive ways”, as I understand it, to monitor the quantum, and they have described the existence of sub-atomic particles in terms of probability.

An example of such “passive ways” is to filter rather than measure photons of a certain polarity, by which a relation between associated photons are demonstrated. This relatedness seems to occur instantly across space and time, faster than the speed of causality, without being predetermined and at the instant of determination (noticed by passive means).

Understanding this and its mechanism is the frontier of science, in the quantum aspect of physics. Consciousness or noticing, and causality, may have a speed that is measured in our references of space and time, but creation, or reality if in our minds we need no creator for creation, is there, in the instant, everywhere, is of space-time; reality is present in the present; our “here and now” unfolding (projected space and time) is a “warped” projected part, of our whole being of reality; reality is more than the sum of its aspects we may recognise in our projected reality (with quantum, relativistic, Newtonian aspects) and try to understand.

message 02This perspective, over reality itself and our own projected reality of “conscious experience and self witnessed”, is afforded by “Orientation” of our reality, including our self, in space and with our whole being. We do not exist in reality, our whole self does. We are a projected part of who is both body and projection, and more than their sum. We do not exist without our whole, but we may be lost in projection isolated from our whole. We may become an integrating part, rather than isolated; our whole may be more integrated and complete with integrating parts.

Poem Straight up JUn17 (5)Our whole is like the universe for us – our world extends and opens indefinitely in different ways in different directions, within a projected part of our whole being. Our whole is beyond our projected part (transcendent) and yet he or she infuses it (immanent). Like an electron of an electron cloud within an atom, we are an identity within a projected “cloud” of our whole. Our whole being “must be” for our self and our reality, as projected parts, to be. He or she must be a “godly being” for being of reality, and for being more than the sum of his or her parts.

We can be absolute with “Orientation” about our basis, origin and source. We have our whole as our creator and projector, and the conscious and witness are projected parts. The conscious is conscious of, and by the witness we are aware of our self and what we experience, including our deeper being and our mind’s certainty, of infinit-ism, circularity, and foundational-ism (which depend on their sequence and world view see Munchausen’s trilemma).

Finally, alogies were drawn here between the fields of physics that seem to correspond with the various aspects of our projected reality. Understanding that the whole self provides what we experience of the world (phenomenal world), from aspects of reality that he or she is sensitive to through his or her sense organs (“phenomenal aspects of reality”), lends insight into the very activity of scientists and the nature of their theories.

I propose the Newtonian, relativistic and quantum worlds exist in our actuality, as projected virtual versions of those aspects of reality. Physicists experience and try to understand them, those projected versions, and challenge their theories, of them, out on each other and in reality.

Our philosophy and science can never be reality. We must understand that aspects of reality are what we try to determine in our endeavours. Our understanding of reality may grow beyond quantum and relativistic theories, but it must include our self, as the observer and the witness, as well as the conscious, as parts and of our whole, who is of reality. We can “orientate” with and distinguish our self and the whole self, our reality and reality, and come to be a part of our whole and so, reality.

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/