Our reality and Reality was blogged 12Sept17. It has been edited and new section added, to emphasise the message of the immanence in us of Reality, that is an Entirety.
The art you find throughout my blog is diagrammatic of our “actuality”. Our reality is conscious experience and includes our sense of self. I want to point out how “it” is a part of our whole being.
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.
Neuroscience has established “what we experience” as taking place in the brain. It has become a part of our general understanding and world view, but “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.
But 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, but in asking such questions, we should first understand 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?”, takes us directly to try refer to the actual self, a problem which I call the “self referencing conundrum” (https://realityhc. wordpress.com/=self +referencing+ conundrum& =Search). It comes of the make-up or apparatus for having an experience.
As self or identity, “we” are a part of it, the “apparatus for having an experience”. Set in this make-up, we are like a camera trying to take a picture of its self, when we try to experience our self in the usual direct manner of experiencing things. It is impossible to experience our self. We cannot bend the “apparatus for having an experience”, to experience, our “having an experience” self !, even while we are our self.
To help examine our reality, a distinction can be make within our conscious reality, between the subjective and the objective ends to “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 the functioning-s 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 any thing else. In contrast to the “easy” and objective, they are the “hard aspects of conscious experience” by Chalmers. He suggests we consider the subjective as fundamental or irreducible, to help approach them (subjective aspects) differently than the linear reductive way we usually try to grasp and understand things in our mind. The development of AI (artificial intelligence) has intensified this boundary, between our computer like mind (easy and objective) and the conscious self (hard and subjective) i.
i There is a new impetus to examine subjectivity, with the developments AI (artificial intelligence) and its encroachment on so much of human activity. And they are active 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. While we do need a different approach to study or say something about our self, rather than as fundamental per se, 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 Eienstein, 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 in approaching our actual self, again we cannot be direct, in referring to our whole, because he or she is transcendent of or beyond our part. We must “turn and tune” into our actuality, to be a part, of our whole.
As 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. In our whole self being (a part) of Reality, it means we, as self or identity, are a part of Reality.
However, our tendency to be identified, in our self and with what we experience, isolates us in “the having an experience part of” our reality. There is also the conscious that is conscious of, and a witness by which we are aware of, our self and our experience.
We must be our actual self, in the spirit of “Every thing of you and your experience, is a part of your whole” and open, turn and tune, to the immanence of our whole and Reality, in our self.
The transcendence and immanence of the creator is a mystic and theological consideration about the nature of, and our relation with, the divine. But we, as self or identity, must “wear” this mystery; Reality and our whole is inherent in us, in being one of their parts.
It is not an egotistical, or self emulating, because in our actuality is also a relation with a whole being and reality that are, as wholes, more than the sum of their parts – and we are considering our part in them.