A part in our mind

message 35.jpg

Reach deep
and it is in your mind,
where you speak;
in your mind
and out, with words.

Fishing line cast
to self,
before witness;
aware of what
the witness witnesses.

message 01I am reflective before you,
Whole being of Reality,
everything of me and my reality be you.
Displaced transcendent from me, in me being a part, of you
immanent, in me, in me being, your part.

The conscious and feeling,
deeper being and self,
aspects of us and the world are projected;
constructed (make-up) is our reality,
“ours” as self or identity.

images 001 labelledBe a part.
It is what we,
as self or identity, are;
a part of our whole.

Through our whole, we
are immanent of,
pervaded by the presence and truth of,
Reality, for our whole being of Reality,
Entirety, one and only whole,
All-Creation-god.

omega 140omega 100omega 120aomega-120d.jpg

 

 

Our reality and Reality

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.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, 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.

 

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.images 001 labelled


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.

Our reality and Reality

The concept of “projection”

All that we are, as self or identity, and all that we may experience, 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.

Consider vision as an example of projection 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 other sense organs of the body, is put together in the CNS to form the parts of our reality to do with the outside world. Our reality includes an accurate indication of the world, with a “functional” and effective sense of our being in the world, which allows us, as an identity or self, to seemingly do things and be there.

What about the “self” ? – the subjective aspects of our realityDe carte

Science has established “what we experience” as being made by the brain. Modern philosophy has embraced this; it is a part of our general understanding and world view, that the brain is the site for what we experience. In fact, there’s a famous diagram of Descartes’ (father of modern philosophy – “I think, there for I am”), from as far back as the mid-1600’s, of how vision is generated, as I outlined above.

But what about the self? With our sense of independence, will and separation from what we experience, including others, how can we be a product of the brain, secondary to an organ? What about our consciousness, life and deeper being? Where do they fit or come from?

These are important questions in understanding “projection”, and our part.

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. While sentences that refer to themselves or “self reference” creates  in some cases difficulties, described in philosophy as a paradox, the question “What is the self?” takes us directly to the problem of trying to refer to the actual self, that I call the “self referencing conundrum” (https://realityhc. wordpress.com/=self+referencing+ conundrum& =Search). The difficulty comes of “us”, as self or identity, being a part of the make-up or apparatus for having an experience. So that, trying to approach our self in the usual manner of determining things is impossible, like a camera trying to take a picture of its own film or digital sensor, even while we are our self !

To help proceed in examining our reality, we can make a distinction between the subjective and objective aspects of our conscious reality. Objective are those parts “easy” to explain and understand as produced by the brain (Chalmers 1986, Australian philosopher). Vision that I have mentioned and other experiences according to the senses belong to this group. Also included are the linear mechanical or computer-like functioning of the mind, such as filing, retrieving and analysing.

The subjective aspects on the other hand, include the self, consciousness, the experience itself (rather than what is experienced), deeper being, and the witness. In contrast to the “easy” and objective, Chalmers refers to the subjective aspects of our reality as the “hard aspects of conscious experience”, because it is hard to explain their existence and nature, as produced by the brain or some other thing. He suggests we consider those “hard” and subjective parts as fundamental or irreducible, so as to approach the subjective aspect differently than our linear reductive way that we usually try to grasp and understand things with our mind.i

The self as a part.

We cannot determine our self. This is because we are the self, and while we need a different setting to study or say something about our self (not how we feel or what we think but our actual self), rather than as fundamental, we can understand our conscious self 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 as projection. Not as a product of the CNS, but of our whole. Projected through, and not by, the CNS.

In our “actuality”, our existence in fact, we occupy space as projection. And as such we may refer to our whole, and be in relation with him or her. It is a relation that, again, is not direct because our whole is beyond our reality.

images 001 labelled

Our part displaces its whole.

While to be our actual self is unfamiliar, as is to refer to our transcendent whole, as a part from within our whole, it is not impossible as referring to our self, in the direct determining way that we usually relate to the things we experience. Our reality of conscious experience and self displaces our whole, so that there is the rest of our whole that surrounds our reality. 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.

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, the one and only whole. I consider it All-Creation-God. In our whole being a part means we, as self or identity, are a part of Reality. However, our tendency to be identified with our self and with what we experience, isolates us in this part of our reality that also consists of a 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 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, as 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.
___________________

i There is a new impetus to examine subjectivity, with the advent of AI (artificial intelligence) and its encroachment on so much of human activity with drones, un-manned vehicles, and language generation. 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?

Being a part

Reality cannot be directly experienced. It does not exist in “our” reality.

What we do experience of the world is an indication (phenomenal world). It can never be reality because it is our experience. It comes from beyond us, from our whole, who is in Reality.

Information about the real world and our whole self, from sense organs such as the eyes, ears, and sensors for tension and length, in tendons and muscles, is carried by nerves to the brain from which, we are given a sense of the world and of being in it. Our reality is constructed” in the brain, and placed or “projected” in space through the CNS (Central Nervous System), by our whole.

With this “Orientation”, we can regard the part we are, in relation with our whole.

All that we experience, all that we are and feel, and our deepest being, everything that is of our self, is a part of our whole. It is not for us to become the whole; we are a part, as self or identity, within “our” reality of conscious experience and self witnessed i. We can get to places, gain things, such as realisations, feelings, understandings and knowledge, and we can change in our self, but look beyond these experiences and states of being, to a relation with our whole.

In this relation is the immanence of Reality in us, as a projected part.

Poem Straight up JUn17 (5).jpg

_______________

i “Our” reality, of conscious experience and self witnessed.
Our reality refers to the one we are in, as self or identity. “Our” is to distinguish Reality from “our”
reality, of conscious experience and self witnessed. The witness is a part of our reality, though we recognise it as transcendent. It is transcendent of experience and self, and impossible to experience in our usual direct way. Rather, we are aware of what the witness witnesses. Thus we are aware of what we experience, but we can also be aware of our self ie., self aware. By inference of being self aware, we can know that there must be a witness; “how can we be self aware, if not for a witness”.
Here we may
go on to capture its “actuality”, as projected in space (behind from where we line-up and face the world we experience, and extending below). We can not just know it is there, or shift to its transcendence and be the witness, but connect through the various parts of our reality (in the experience, having an experience, witness) in our “actuality” as projection, and refer to our whole as a part, to be in relation with him or her.
T
raditionally the witness is a place we go to, to disengage and allow our various parts (including the self and experience) to fall into place passively or with some particular focus (which may be a chant, work, sleep, hobbie, relationship, or what ever we get into). All conscious experience is before the witness.
It is not ambition or cleverness that makes us involve the witness. Rather in is a necessary consequence of
referring our reality to our whole, which includes both the conscious (by which we are conscious of, what we are conscious of, ie, our self and what we experience), and our witness.

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.

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.

imgp33171 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.


knobly-join2
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.

bass-clefr3 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.

arch-of-language4 “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.

“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/