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.

Words 2

Word on words, and the self referencing conundrum.

Words themselves are representative, they represent something in our minds. We can talk about the being, happening and doing of things, because that’s what our nouns, adjectives and verbs refer to. Words render our world into representational walls, we wonder around and wonder at, within our reality.
001-w1-4jul1704072017_0003.jpg
It is Plato’s cave,
of the Greek philosopher who’s Forms and Ideas were said to be the basis to what we observe in “our” reality. We, as self or identity, think and talk (with words) about the shadows on the walls of his cave. The shadows themselves are representations of things. Our words then, are representative of representations.

Rather than refer to the thing they represent, words that refer to themselves or “self-reference” can be a problem, in our mind. “This statement is false” is the classic example of the self-referential paradox in a sentence. It carries a contradiction, as most examples usually do, where it can never be true because the sentence says it “is false” which keeps us bound to the sentence, self referencing, rather than from the sentence, referring beyond it.

Self-referencing alone, even without a perplexing contradiction, can still give the same paradox. For example, “This refers to the word, this” or “to you, reading or to me typing, these words”. Left unresolved is, our having engaged with words in the first place. It exposes the expectation that, in communicating and expressing, a sentence should refer to things other than, what is in the sentence. This expectation may vary with cultures, languages and situation, but it may be universal of putting things to words that, sentences should refer to what their words represent.
001 W1 4Jul1704072017_0009a
All our stories can be seen to be circular and self referential : Before paradox, we reflect, what is represented in our reality. Of conscious experience, as self or identity, we are held between incomplete bubbles. Gingerly balanced our inner and outer worlds, their shells we straddle, mush. In dribs and drabs we dabble and dribble, learn to babble and spit out words, and live in them words. A loose twist and loop noose our circularity as one of our many, of many more.”
001-w1-4jul1704072017_00051.jpg
Something of the very nature of our reality is indicated by the paradox of self-referential sentences. The paradox itself penetrates beyond words in our reality, towards our self, if we let it. But sometimes it just hits us. Comedy shares something of this, 3-dimensional, self approaching and exposing complexity and substance, chaos and uncertainty.
001 W1 4Jul1704072017_0008

Some how, we are waiting for more or what’s next, to be woken up to our rest; to more of us, as self or identity, and more of our reality we are reminded from our left field, behind, beyond, within or underneath it all.


Compared to the paradox from words in a sentence, to reference or refer to our self is, a deeper and more immediate concern, for us, aself referencing conundrum” (https://realityhc.wordpress), if I may coin a phrase.

Try for your self, “Experience your self”.

Impossible? Images of a dog running around after its tail, or a snake trying to swallow its own tail, may apply.

We are a part, of an apparatus for having an experience.

Like a camera that cannot turn back on itself to take a picture of itself, and like its film, that in capturing an image, is “reflective” of what is directly in front of the focusing lens, it seems we cannot experience our self – only of “other than self” can we experience or directly reflect or be reflective with.

No problem with entertaining a notion or concept of the self, and experiencing a sense of self. But with our “actual” self however, there’s an inherent resistance to approaching and experiencing our self in the “usual” way we consider “direct”.

001 W1 4Jul1704072017_0009abWe cannot see our self, only others. From where we face the world we may see, and determine, we extend uncertainty all the way, beyond context, down to the emptiness of our alone or existential in depths, or being the one centre of a vague universe at our beginning or solipsistic end. What is self? What is anything? Where am I?

Word 3 – to follow …

Words 1

Words render our world into
representational walls,
we wander 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 …..

 

The cognitive part – a slide show

 

 

 

 

 

The witness

The witness.

Displaced behind
the void we avoid.
It is the displaced aspect to
the manifestant parts,
the phenomenal world and our self;
the witness, by which we are aware.
Front back behind.
I think it has this cyclic draw when repeated. I wonder if it comes of the “self-referencing conundrum”.

Introduction to the witness part 2: There for us to be aware

The witness is there, for us to be aware.img032

The witness is there, for us to be aware.
Behind our front and what we experience
and behind our selves having an experience.
Vacuous disassociation but there.

The where of it, to our whole who must be there.

Beyond what we can determine,
“what’s what” of our selves and experience,
the “where” of our reality and its components
that are there.

We’re subject to experience and having an experience.
The conscious is conscious of and awake to what we’re aware of.
Fundamental is the whereimg031
of our projected actuality there.

And projection allows universal
our connection with our whole.
For us to be witnessed and having an experience,
the whole self must be there.

Experience itself, before and distinct from what is experienced, is established as the subjective aspect of our reality or consciousness. The self is difficult to determine for being involved in having an experience as the experiencer of experience and what is experienced. What is experienced may be determined, “what’s what”, but trying to determine the self lands us in the “self referencing conundrum”. The witness is even more elusive. However, fundamental to the components of our reality is their occupying space as projected actuality. In our actuality as projection we may universally be in relation with our whole.

The conscious and the witness

witness bodies layered as captured from behind

witness bodies layered as captured from behind

Components of our reality, in space : as projected or placed by our whole, through the CNS (Central Nervous System).

Our reality consists of 1) our self or identity (having an experience or experiencing), 2) our deeper being, 3) what we experience of the world including other whole beings of reality, and our worlds or realms within, 4) all that is necessary for us having an experience, before the CNS and the projection of these components, including the conscious and the witness, 5) the spaces between these components.

We may know or recognise that we are conscious and that we are conscious of our self (self conscious) and what we experience. Intentionality describes the nature of the conscious being conscious of something, ie., of our self and of what we may experience in our reality.

To witness is a familiar act and experience of observance. However, the witness as a noun or entity is difficult to determine, as the actuality or existence of the self is. We can determine what we experience, but the self as the experience-er is subject to the difficulty of self-referencing; we cannot determine the determining self (“self-referencing conundrum”).

The witness is a step removed again.We cannot witness the witnessing self. We can infer a witness in being aware of our experiencing self (self aware); it allows for an awareness of what is experienced and of our self. It is a vacuous disassociation behind that , despite its state, occupies space and that position.

The conscious reigns from above our reality. The mind's spread with notion above and sense below, our line-up and facing the world we see, and the mind's identity towards the mid-line.

The conscious reigns from above our reality. The mind’s spread with notion above and sense below, our line-up and facing the world we see, and the mind’s identity towards the mid-line. Centred right and as captured from behind.

These components of our reality may be recognised in their actuality or existence in space as projected parts. The distinction of the witness and conscious is made by this positional distinction from a spatial orientation, of what are there, i.e, in terms of where they are. Otherwise the self-referencing conundrum refuses such differentiation between self-aware and self-conscious.

I label as the conscious what reigns from above our self and our experience, and as the witness the disassociation behind by which we are aware, of what is witnessed.

What is orientated in space of our reality is orientated with our whole self to be “in relation with” our whole self.