Words, self-referencing conundrum and projection : an overview of “Orientation”

Oroboros : symbolises introspection, eternal return, cyclicality especially in constantly recreating itself.

 

“Words render our representational worlds into
walls of further representation
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 …..

……. 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.

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.

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.”

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.

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, a “self 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”.

We 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.

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 where
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

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. 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.

“What to do” : 1 Projected actuality

1. “How it is” : The human condition (hc) is projection, created and placed by the whole body, who is in and of reality
2. “What to do” : To capture the hc as a projected actuality and relate with reality, the whole being alive in creation (Orientation in space and with the whole body)
3. “What happens” : We in our projected reality become less isolated from and more a part of our whole self in our relation with him or her

 “What to do” goes hand in hand with “what happens”. However, we must be grounded or well versed in “how it is”, as it seems we are involved in doing and what happens – we tend to think we decide “what to do” and choose what happens to us, don’t we?

 

“I think I am.” But who thinks? Who or what is the “I”? Who does or who is doing the thinking? Who is? We think we are and do, but isn’t it the whole body who does?

It is the whole body, whole self and whole being who is in reality, who is a who and a he or a she. We, as self or identity, and our reality outside and within that we may experience, are projection, created and placed by the whole body. It is the whole self who has eyes and by whom we have our vision to look at and think we see or that we are looking. It is the whole self who has arm and legs, and by whom, and projected from his or her CNS (Central Nervous System that consists of the brain, spine and the nerve roots), we have our sense of doing and we think and can think we do. Our thoughts and thinking seem to come from beyond us, from beyond the sense and notion of our identity or self, and together with our actuality, must come from the whole self.

The whole being of whom we are a projected part, also creates and places our reality, outside and in (including our thinking, feeling, physical sense and deeper sense), for us to experience. The whole body projects both our self as the subject to what we experience, that is the object of our experience. Our reality, including our self, our deeper being, the conscious conscious of and the witness by which we are aware of our reality and make-up, they are all projected parts of the whole self.

We must relate, as a “projected actuality”, with our whole, the whole being of whom we are a part. Every other act involves us superficial of our actuality. Identified with what we experience outside or within, we are isolated in projection away from our whole.

We cannot see our self. The images of our whole or of the whole body in the screen or the mirror (reflected image), our vision and seeing of them within projection, help form our notion and sense of our self. However, what we may experience of our self remain with what we experience of our worlds inside and out – they, what we experience, are cast within our contexts, our world views and causal order, our sense and notion of “how it is” and “what happens”. What we may experience of our worlds and our self,fall short of actuality, occupying space as projected parts of a solid whole being in reality.

Try approaching your actual self. It cannot happen in the usual way that we may be direct with our sense and notion of our self, others and things. Remember, in anything we think we do, we think we do what the whole body may be doing in reality. Trying to approach the self is an inner effort within our projected reality. The difficulty stems from our hold on what we experience. The conundrum or paradox in statements that refer to the statement itself or self referencing statements, has been recognised and established in classic Greek philosophy. (Self reference google search; Epimenides paradox  wikipedia) However, in regarding the self as an actuality is what I have termed the “self referencing conundrum” and I define it as “the difficulty and repulsion 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”.

It means that in anything we think we experience and think we do, we are reinforced in our reality, within projection, unless we can include our actuality and refer beyond our reality of having an experience. And, because the whole body projects our reality and includes our actuality but also the witness and the conscious, I propose we refer, contemplate and relate with our whole. But how?

To follow :
“What to do” :  2 The three things we can do

It is already on my wix web site in a PDF, on page 8 of Orientation ii

The 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.
tt4r

See also
“self referencing conundrum” google search
Epimenides paradox  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox
self referencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference

What is the witness

The witness is not a “what”
a concept or notion
but part of the construct for
having an experience of the “what”

Asking “what is the witness?”
is like a camera
trying to turn its aperture
to capture its film

And the self as an actuality
cannot be a concept
because actuality is not a concept;
our reality is experience, notion and sense
“what” we think and sense is not an actuality

And in self referencing or
the self referencing the self
is a conundrum, the self referencing conundrum;
it is the confusion and avoidance
when approaching the necessary disassociation
for having an experience (my def’n),
it’s the agreement and conspiracy
let’s keep things to notion and sense
of “what’s what” and avoid the conundrum
that we won’t face and cannot
in “what” (concept),
“what we experience”,
and “the experience itself of what”

Right in the depths
of that conundrum
is the witness
like a void

The backdrop and reference for the experience,
what is experienced
and the self having an experience

A vacuum, disassociation itself
the displacement for the manifestation of
the self and experience,
for our reality to be and witnessed

What is experienced
is referenced and determined
by the self
in terms of the self and its
perception –
states of conscious, mind and being as well as
condition of body and its sensors
context –
background including culture, gender, race and age,
history, own past and education, experience
and expression –
mainly language, gesture, costume, prompts and props

The witness is a greater self
it references the self having and experience
as well as the experience itself

My point is to capture all
as projection is a category
beyond what and having an experience of
and its construct including the witness

CNS creates and places the world we may experience
what we experience, the experience, the self having an experience
the conscious and deeper being
the disassociation between displaced parts
and the witness to recognise these

Actuality, the self as experience,
being experiential of self,
skirts the conundrum of baby talk and babble
stop with your words and slow down for your actuality
and before long, before your Babel’s tower turns to rubble, refer to whole body

From projected actuality to reality
category but also reference for
our reality and self does belong
before rest of creation
to a whole being

Witness is a part projected
from the whole body in reality
orientation allow for this perspective and speak

The wot (world out there) and the wit (world in there)
the object of our experience “what”, the self and witness
there-ness of what’s there beyond what they are
“where” as projection in relation to whole body
to relate with the whole body there, is and as,
and in and of, reality