We tend to stay in the accountable and the transparent especially in this post-modern world, and keep our selves occupied and diverted there (therapies to help with patient’s stay in hospital).
Behaviourism and the cognitive therapies of psychology have done away with the grey areas of the subconscious. Our deeper senses of gut instinct, intuition and the mystic and spiritual, are the foundations of our reality.
Right or wrong, good or bad, true or false, we are isolated from our whole, in our identification with our self and what we experience. We hold to what can seem consistent, certain, authentic or familiar, of knowing in our mind. It is reinforced by our assertions and actions, and again reinforced by the development of our interactive technologies and their use.
We have always kept each other in our linguistic linearity. However, language used to be the reverberance of a deep understanding, belonging, recognition and communion that welled from our deep subconscious we lived and acted by. Now, instead, our fellowship trails our language, our common points in our “texed” and digitalised bits of our lives.
I think it useful to distinguish the self from the whole self. A whole being has the body, brain and mind, the conscious and subconscious. Only in our minds can we consider a functioning brain separate from the whole body, when there is no living brain without a whole body and no whole body without a brain. The whole body has the eyes and allows us to think we see, has the brain and allows us to think we think.
Yes, we can ascribe the subconscious to take care of our concerns while we are otherwise occupied or asleep, paint beyond our thinking we know how and are doing it, indeed performances and feats are recognised as enacted beyond our cognitive notion and sense. However, in considering the human condition and all its states, conditions and functioning, what we may do, experience and notice in our reality, let’s consider a whole body in and of reality and our reality being a projected part.
A mechanism is implied and a guide and reference established that we can “contemplate” and test, for they are about our actuality being in relation with the whole body. An empirical pragmatism and process to our reality may be, and may also be a universal reference for us all.
The dynamism and vibrancy of our whole being is of creation, ie creation, distruction, creation in true existential and shiva-istic (Hindu god of creation destruction creation in polarity with Vishnu the preserver) fashion – incontestable for us as a part and in projection. Our transience and what we may hold consistent, are his/her projected parts. The whole body is present in the present, and encompasses our past, here and now, and all realms, entities and experiences we may encounter. What or who we experience, if they are true indications, exist in reality next to our whole being.
The mystic and intuitive extend deep into our subconscious, but physical in reality is the whole body. He/she is godly, more than the sum of his/her parts that include our sense of the physical, of “our body”, nature, others, humanity, life, the divine, the profound and the profane.
Physical is spiritual, the spirit being the essence of the whole self and All creation, God-presence if All creation be God, for the whole self being of creation. And our whole does not deny our part nor our reality, of experiences and our presumptions about them; projection is a part of the whole body, as are his/her solid, vaporous and fluid, vascular and musculo-skeletal spaces.
Our surrender and actualisation as a projected part (it is what we are) and in relation with our whole (our maker and source, and contact with reality); forever becoming a part for being in relation with the whole body because he/she is of the forever changing present.
Orientation to our projected part and whole, allows for this approach, to our self and to our whole. Without a notion of a whole being and our projected part, we can only point at reality from within the black box or the brown paper bag of our reality, of conscious experience and identification witnessed.
We keep our selves and one another, occupied and diverted in the linearity of story and vision, in what we “see” and understand. We must confront this incessancy, hold to our actuality, of our self, our reality and our depths, and introduce the whole self.
As projected actuality, in what we and our reality are, we may present our selves and be in relation with our whole. Our conscious is released and connected with our subconscious, through an integration of our parts with our whole. Beyond alluding to reality, we may be in relation with reality, the whole body alive in creation.
And our whole is more complete with more integrated parts.
How do you feel about this proposition, that the source of our conscious and subconscious, the mystic as well as the cognitive, being a whole being in and of reality, and with who we may be in relation. Would you consider presenting you self in your actuality to your whole?