Transition to Awareness

What if the Aha Zone is a transition point from one level of awareness to another? For example, one of my ancestors questioned their instinctive behavior and realized an aha moment that started a new trend – the use of fire. By questioning their instinctive fear of fire, they learned to control their fear. This realization that fear could be controlled led to a leap in awareness.

Instinctual Me

Instinctive me defends itself against environmental threats and asks, “What threatens me now?” It’s also concerned with needs. “Are my needs being met?” results in two simple questions:

  1. What need is not being satisfied? (What’s wrong?)
  2. How do I get what I need now? (What must I do?)

Cognizant Me

Cognizance adds relational awareness and asks, “What happened?” This results in an awareness of what, where, when, why my environment appears to relate to me as it does. Recognition of cause and effect.

I have one such relationship with time, for example. In instinct, I serve the demands time imposes upon me – like circadian rhythms. Once I recognized that there was a way to measure time, I could change my behaviors within it. At some point, someone came to an “Aha” moment in which they realized that one could measure time. There is a significant difference between the acknowledgment of time and the cognitive use of it.

This relational awareness offers me much more insight into my world. Because of the power of instinct, I tend to put relationships into service of defense, like blame and war. Cognitive questions tend to connect me with others in a meaningful way. Such questions as, “How do I get what I want?” tend to result in behaviors that take my community into account. Cognizance adds opportunity for more questioning:

  1. Why do I feel as I do? (What does this experience mean?)
  2. Who am I in relation to my environment?

Visionary Me

Visionary me asks questions like:

  1. What’s next?
    1. What am I not perceiving yet?
    2. What could this experience mean beyond what I think it does?
  2. How might we evolve?
    1. How might what I do now affect the future?
    2. What might a future appear like than how I imagine it now?
  3. Why do I matter?
    1. What is my purpose in the grand scheme?
    2. Why does my contribution matter to the whole?
  4. Who am I?
    1. Who am I beyond the context of my world?
    2. What is beyond my perception of my personhood?
    3. Who is the who that I am?
    4. Who else might I/you be than who I think I am/you are?

Beyond Me?

What may lie beyond these limited-awareness aspects of me?

The Doubt-Certitude Paradox

In my bubble of limited awareness, life’s ambiguities raise doubts about the certainty of my choices. Those doubts tend to increase as my awareness of ambiguity grows. Doubt can be a benefit and a threat – depending on the context.

Choosing based on fear validates fear as a certainty. In order to feel safe I must believe I’ve made the right choice. This, in turn, solidifies my devotion to my certainty.

Fear resolves a paradox by feeling certitude in doubt, rather than doubt in my certitude. The paradox arises when I must be certain and yet I must have doubt. For example, in life, certitude convinces me the experience is real. Meanwhile, doubt makes life appear to change in unexpected ways. I doubt and I’m certain.

Doubt and Certitude

Doubt offers me the kind of options that challenge my comfort zone choices intended to result in safe outcomes. My instinctive choices would probably have caused me to seek escape from threat, which could’ve been disastrous! Instinct isn’t always reliable for safety.

Where life most threatens my comfort zone, paradox is there to confront my safety defense. However, the slower and straighter the ride, the more boring it feels in contrast. I need enough contrast between doubt and certitude to perceive change.

The greater the contrast, the greater the opportunity for awareness of the paradox. In my perceptual world, I’m more likely to choose from well-established options, those I rely on. That certitude creates a comfort zone of trusted options I don’t doubt.

Thus, I deliberately limit options to those that validate my comfort zone. And resist those that might throw doubt on my comfort zone.

The paradox remains until a choice appears to resolve it. Once I settle on the results of a choice, I resolve the paradox by defending it. Thus, by making a choice, I confirm the paradox by defending it.

That is a paradox!

A Paradox of Oppositional Agreement

In my bubble of limited awareness, where there are two or more, there is opposition. Thus, I exist because you exist in opposition to me – you’re real because I’m real – validating my reality.

I defend this perception because it allows me to make comparisons. This requires me to divide reality into comparable parts, enabling me to define and refine it in terms of relationships. Things exist in relation to their environment. I exist in relation to my environment.

In this reality, I extend my self-referenced perspective to serve the environment by considering the perspective of that environment. Any thing is a part of my environment while I am part of its environment. How can we be separate and together? You can in a relational reality – where I validate my intention by validating your intention. I assume both. When I acknowledge your existence, I acknowledge my own.

Comparative Validation

I assume you have needs that require fulfillment because I do. My attention is drawn to your similarities to me to assess what needs you have and fulfill. When I see you do something I do, I assume you do it for the same reason. This validates why we do something – and that we exist – therefore, I exist.

At the same time, I’m noticing differences. I assess those differences for the purpose of understanding this other aspect of me. Are they a benefit or threat – and how much of each are they?

With each perception, I notice and judge differences and samenesses to discover my needs and their fulfillment. It’s an oppositional agreement relationship I have with me. It’s a paradox of complementary agreement where I acknowledge that you exist because I need to exist.

Intention Fulfillment

Intention fulfillment is an expression of oppositional cooperation. For example, the pencil and paper express their purpose in cooperative opposition to each other. Each acknowledges the need for the other in their expression.

Within each conflict are aspects seeking acknowledgement of their contribution to existence. This while seeking to express their existence through opposition. And overcome whatever threatens that expression and acknowledgement.

Thus, reality by conflict is a paradoxical consensus in which opposing sides of a conflict agree to conflict. That opposition gives relativity to common agreement – an agreement to make what is opposed real. Each aspect of a concept relates to others in the language of opposition – defense.

Once I learn the language of defense, I can apply consciousness to adaptation. In this way, I can interpret in new ways. Before conscious awareness, I must react in order to live. After conscious awareness, I can choose to respond differently. I move out of reaction and into choice.

Conscious awareness turns opposition from a threat into an opportunity.

The Anatomy of My Perception

As a fundamental principle of thought, perception functions to provide an awareness of experience. Awareness acts as a bridge between two aspects of one mind: conscious and subconscious. That’s a paradox that serves to keep the dream alive by dividing up what is from what isn’t within each aspect. That which gives feedback is also what is receiving it, for example.

I apply this paradoxical system to separate my perception into parts I can integrate into a whole. This results in an effort to resolve the conflict. Awareness of many perceptual experiences compile into one way of understanding my world. I then take that system for granted – a shortcut that saves me some brain power.

My Perception System

My system of biased perceptions has two aspects of defense. These are intentions based on giving needs-to-satisfy input and receiving needs-satisfied output. I need to experience what the physical requirements provide. Thus, I satisfy that need by having the experience:

Sensual –

Feedback from physical senses provides opportunity for experience in specific ways at the physical level, like eyesight. The form, shape, and accompanying characteristics of an intelligent expression of life. For example, teeth, claws, fur, colors, patterns, and etc., form a lion. Form represents the means for sensory input/output feedback – diet, environment, need fulfillment. A form is interpreted by the intention for and by that design. The lion intends to justify its body form through its adherence to the demands required of that form and function. Thus, the lion senses itself.

Mental –

This aspect interprets sensual feedback by comparing patterns and probable patterns to identify benefit or threat from the environment to the whole system. This provides meaning to the experience. The sensually perceived explanation of form implies a need to behave in a specific way to fulfill the intention it supports. Thus, it must satisfy its existence as capable of becoming and being whole. This is the aspect of design understanding and justification. Judgments come as a result of the interactions between the mental and emotional aspects.

Emotion –

Adds relationship info to the interpretation by preferring what feels beneficial to what feels threatening. Emotions engage to promote and validate the other aspects of the system. This aspect gives a sense of collective reality the others use to validate the overall intention to have an experience. This gives the system a sense of being separate and connected. The emotions validate the mental interpretations through feelings. It’s true because I feel it’s true.

Self-validation –

Explains interpretations into a cohesive narrative, a convincing life story that validates my self-concept. Identity gives me a perspective from which to make observations. Perspective is a bias that prejudices every perception. Perspectives gather perceptions to validate and defend an intention. Multiple perceptions help perspective to create a sense of patterned symmetry and purposeful expression that validates an overall self-concept.

How Non-physical Expresses in the Physical

These aspects combine to give the non-physical me a physical experience that validates my perceptual system. These interactive elements of perception weave separation into a tapestry I experience as one cohesive reality. That seems to fulfill the intention to be whole by constant reiteration of the process from a need to its satisfaction. Thus, the tapestry validates the system that created it.

That reality, no matter how convincing it appears, is figurative rather than literal. Figurative because of my perception system’s ability to present, justify, feel, and identify with a conceptualization. Whereas, literality seems to conflict with perception of that ability. This because the literal mind needs sensory validation.

How Want Resolves a Fundamental Paradox

Resolving an Intention Ends It – Paradox!

My fundamental intention is to be whole. That wholeness represents rightness, completeness, fulfillment, and etc. Within that intention is the implication that I am unwhole. Although a paradox, the intention to achieve wholeness motivates me to continue towards its fulfillment.

What happens when I fulfill my fundamental intention to be whole? That would mean I’d achieved wholeness. Achieving wholeness would satisfy my intention, which would end my intention.

Satisfaction would also end my motivation to continue towards wholeness. In other words, achievement of my fundamental intention to be whole would end my life.

It’s a paradoxical conundrum of intention in which satisfaction of need = death.

So, I defend against satisfaction of that intention. I do whatever I can to NOT achieve wholeness. Thus, my ever-present sense of dissatisfaction. This gives me a sense of purpose, which drives me towards and defends me against wholeness in a game of separation.

Although I need the goal of wholeness, I also need to avoid it – to have an experience. Want satisfies this need to be whole while giving me a sense of purpose to be whole. In this way, I avoid satisfaction of the fundamental intention while feeling like I’m achieving it. It’s a paradox!

Satisfying a Fundamental Paradox

No matter what I want, I’ll tend to get more of it. That “it” is want. The more I want, the more want I’ll perceive. I can get all I want without ever depleting want. I can achieve a wholeness of want and so satisfy my need to be whole.

In the separation game that’s brilliant!

What’s next????