“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/