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

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

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, 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 …

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”.

Straight up

Presentation 004 Poem Straight up 1
There’s a whole being of reality
who projects our reality,
through his or her CNS (Central Nervous System)
or the brain, spinal cord and nerve roots.
Presentation 004 Poem Straight up 2b
There’s no whole self, for us being a part
not within our part, for he or she is our whole;
not for us directly, to experience or relate,
yet he or she pervades our part
for he or she is our whole.

Poem Straight up JUn17 (3c)There’s no whole self, for us being a part
reflective as we front, what leaves us hollow behind;
represented reality reels forth, our inner rear,
sheared split, our outside and in
both within our whole’s projection.

There’s a whole being of reality
who projects what represents
him or her, in us as self, and
the rest of reality, in what we experience.Presentation 004 Poem Straight up 3c

 

Our whole being, beyond our reality
must, our transcendent maker, in reality be, for us to be
and to be, to be, touched by our whole; not direct
but in relation with, within projection, as a part.

Our whole being, present in the present
as separate parts, projects, our here and now
and past, our self and others, our spaces and
our worlds, extensions and our beyonds, inside and out.

Whole being, whole self, whole body are one
touched by the rest of creation and spirited at core,
the one essence of, his or her whole being and
reality in its entirety, creation, or All-Creation-God.
Presentation 004 Poem Straight up 4c1