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.

Be a part

Mereology, the study of parts and wholes, when applied to us, infers the immanence in us of All-Creation-God.

images 001 labelled.jpg

A part displaces the whole.

Be a part.

Everything of you
is a part of your whole,
including the words
you see and read,
everything you experience,
your feelings and being.

There’s a Whole body, in Reality;
Whole self, more than the sum of parts;
Whole being alive, of Creation, on Earth;
one whole of whom you are a part,
one amongst and next to,
many wholes.
_______

images 001b

There are many self-s within our whole.

Our part displace
our whole, in being a part.

Our whole, transcendent of,
displaced from, our reality.
We, as a part,
apart from our whole.
Yet we, in being a part,
infused by our whole.

In being a part
of our whole,
who intern is a part of Reality,
we are a part of, and
permeated by, it
– an Entirety.

Reality is an Entirety.
The One and only includes everything,

images 003 looped twisted twine C

Twisted twine, like tangled fishing line, form loops that open different fields of self and experience.

including what we, in our minds,
contemplate, outside of its inclusion;
all wholes and dichotomies are
in and of Entirety.

Immanent in
transcendent of
us
is
All-Creation-God who is
Reality that is an Entirety.

Partake and inherit
this inherent ache,
God is immanent in all
parts and wholes;
seek what is transcendent
but is immanent in the meek.

images 002 labelled

Within our reality are inner and outer worlds.

Become a part.
Open to your whole,
who encompass your all,
inside and outside, others and the world.
Through your whole is
your part in Reality.

Be a part, of your whole.

________

 

Everything, everyone, every part, every whole

– from a mereological orientation of our part, and RealityJack in a box from a box 4 with arch of language,

Everything is a part of its whole.

You are a part of your whole;
I am a part of my whole.

And everything is a part of Reality,
an entirety,
the one and only whole;
it includes all wholes,
all dichotomies, inside but also outside.

From within your whole
is the rest of your whole,
your inside and outside,
your everything, your everyone, your world;
your whole touched by the rest of Reality
is a long long way away,
in all directions.

Jack in a box from a box 4 with arch of language, labelled

 

 

Being a part

Being a typical part-ical, yet particular, particle :
we bounce reflexivital off each other, of a common whole.

Quantom phenomenom is being a particle :
When you notice it, “Woops!?”
Reality is another matter :
You in it, are, of it. A part
of a whole, including the noticing, you, in, are, of, and, and it.

The whole is gone, down the hole,
up the hole, side ways through or into the hole …. out? (also back, black, and singularity holes)
Where !!!! am I? A part to all this?
Must be, but separate! (with other parts and the rest)
Being the part, within a whole.

Holes connect dichotomies – me and you, inside out, conscious matter
and open their ends,
to infinity as witnessed (by which aware)
and to infinitely conscious of;
more than dichotomies then with, by witness aware of, and the conscious conscious of.

What is it? What was that?
Aware of, by witness, What it is.
Conscious of, a part.
Time, distance, parts, more, the rest, a whole, an entirety.
Reality is everything, including beyond inclusion (out) and nothing.

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 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, the phenomenal world
back, our self having an experience
behind, the witness.
.
.
I think it has this cyclic draw when repeated. I wonder if it comes of the “self-referencing conundrum”.