Investigating My Fearful Manifestations

In my limited awareness bubble, what is true is also what is right. I interpret every manifestation according to what I intend to be right of me. The first thing I intend to be right about is my survival. I then work to prove that interpretation right, which I present as invulnerability to death. My fear of death makes me defend against vulnerability!

I hide my vulnerability to control my presentations of what I intend others to believe is right about me – that I’m invulnerable! I look for feedback to confirm whether my presentation is convincing or not.

Manifestation provides feedback I can use to validate my beliefs. Yet, when need requires belief to outweigh facts, interpretation of manifestation can be a powerful convincer.

“A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.” (The Boxer, Simon and Garfunkel)

Because I can imagine a scenario in which even the most benign thing might hurt me, I live in a world of fear. That fear affects my interpretations, which affects my experiences!

Intention + Perception = Interpretation of Manifestation

Fearful intentions affect perceptions that affect interpretations of manifestations to prove rightness of fearful intentions. Because I live in a world of fear, here’s how I do this:

  1. I set a fearful intention to prove right my first intention, to survive.
  2. My perceptions make me aware of my symbolic representations of fear.
  3. I compare those symbols with my fearful intention.
  4. I interpret manifestations according to those symbols to fit my fearful intention.
  5. This interpretation proves that my fearful intention is right.
  6. I defend my rightness against the appearance of threat.
  7. Thus, I’m successful in fulfilling my first intention – to survive.

Since I tend to judge based on my sense of sight, my perceptual interpretation of visual appearance can affect the accuracy of my experience. For example, I might distrust a person dressed as a clown based on a scary experience I had of a clown. It doesn’t have to be a threat to present a threat. It’s in my interpretation of the presentation.

When I see someone else’s vulnerability exposed, I may feel relief that it wasn’t me exposed! On the other hand, their exposure confirms the possibility of my exposure. Thus, strengthening my fear of exposure and my need to defend against it.

Eventually, it becomes less about defending myself against real threats and more about defending myself against the appearance of threat. And what is the greatest threat? That which challenges my first intention – rightness!

What About Self-Inquiry?

How can I inquire about the true nature of Self when such inquiry may challenge my rightness and/or expose my inquiry to attack? How do I make a challenge without provoking a defense against it? What happens when I see myself as a threat?

As long as a question appears as a threat that invokes the very mechanism we described above to defend against it, how do I even begin to ask?

Please follow and like us:

Could Belief Be Its Own Defense?

In my First and Second Degree limited awareness world of competition and defense, I’ve divided up oneness with beliefs. A belief is basically a set of connected concepts I’ve separated out from all concepts to form or add to my story. My acceptance of that belief as truth becomes my defense of those concepts and my story as the story.

Belief as Authority

My belief, then, acts as an authority that proves I am a sovereign individual, free to think and act as I please. Not obvious to me is that I’m the servant of that authority, which is my belief.

Perhaps that’s why I rankle so much when someone, even me, challenges my belief. That challenge is to the sovereignty of my identity – who I am. I am my belief.

In a context of true vs false, my perception of separation defends my story from yours based on my truth. This pits my story against yours in a battle for “the right belief,” which connotes there is a wrong belief, yours. When applied to a group of like-minded individuals, a simple belief can grow to fanatical, perhaps dangerous, proportions.

Thus, my beliefs confirm my paradoxical concept of separation as the one and only truth. One might consider belief as the initial and fundamental defense that separates one into a competition between this versus that.

Belief as Defense

Because I perceive my right belief as separate from your wrong belief, I defend mine from yours, me from you. This belief in separation in sovereignty provides me with a sense of differentiation that I can use to compare – and defend. Thus, I confirm my rightness.

Comparisons can lead to competition in which every concept appears to defend itself against all others. This means that every belief is a defense protecting and protected by other beliefs.

When I say, “I believe…,” am I actually saying, “I defend…?”

To answer a question one must question the answer. When there is only one answer to a question, I’m probably dealing with a belief upon which I’ve placed a high degree of certitude. To dissolve the defense that is the belief, I must question my sense of certainty. Concerning my belief:

  • What is this belief protecting?
  • How is it protecting it?
  • Why is it protecting it?
  • Who am I protecting?
Please follow and like us:

Self Inquiry and Doubt

In my bubble of limited awareness – my first intention is to survive. One lives by being right and dies by being wrong. So, my first intention is to be right and survive.

Right = life
Wrong = death

This is not just for the survival of my body, it’s also for the survival of my thoughts and emotions. I use “I’m right” thinking all the time as preemptive defense against any possible threat to body, mind, or emotions. Because mind doesn’t do feelings, it must attempt to “translate” them in order to effect a complete self-convincing defense.

Where right = life and wrong = death, thought + emotion = convincing reality

Without questioning feelings with an intention to learn who I truly am, mind assumes it’s on target with its defense to keep me believing who I think I am. Thus, adding to a spiral of “wrong” feelings that mind tries to respond to with defense.

What happens when heart and mind lose trust in each other because of this continuing conflict over survival?

Questioning and Doubt

I can’t doubt myself because that feels like being wrong. The only kind of inquiry of a personal nature I practice is to divert questions about me to perceived issues with/in others. “Why is that guy such a jerk?!” “What’s her problem?!” and etc.

In nature, creatures protect themselves from being vulnerable to predation. Humans apply this principle to their psychology. This appears as defensive mental and emotional states, behaviors, and perceptions. To protect myself from psychological threats, I present an unquestionable and persistent “self-image.” This persona defends all intentions from even the possibility of threatening questions.

I especially avoid provocative questions like:

“Who do I think I am?”
“Why do I keep messing up?”
“What’s wrong with me?”

These questions are driven by an intentionally combative persona bent on provoking defense. Inquiry based on defending my negative self-image can provoke further defense to validate my ever-growing need for a feeling of safety.

I must feel safe enough before I respond to an introspective question without defense. Especially when that question comes from the outside – like when you ask me about me. To allow you to question me is to introduce an element of doubt, which implies vulnerability. I have defenses at the ready for even the slightest perception of vulnerability!

With my ever-growing need for safety, and belief that questioning exposes me to threat , what are the chances I’ll allow a truly introspective question?

Please follow and like us:

Relationship Between Manifestation and Intention

Intention affects probability that affects manifestation.

When I perceive certainty as a necessity, possibilities become the enemy. In this limited state of awareness, my narrow view of what is possible defines the borders of what is probable in my creation. As I become aware that my intentions turn infinite possibilities into finite probabilities, my need for and defense of certainty can give way to the light of inquiry.

How might intentions affect probabilities?

Perhaps we can imagine probabilities as a subset of all possibilities. ALL possibilities exist in any given instant – in potential. Intention turns potential possibilities into probabilities that then manifest as outcomes perceived by an observer.

An observer (me) turns ALL possibilities into a few probabilities – with intention. My intention – whether conscious of it or not – dwindle a few probabilities down to a tiny few. Then those tiny few coalesce into one observation – that confirms the belief of the observer – me. Thus, I’ve successfully defended my certainty.

Is Intention a Game of Confirmation?

I like to think of myself as an individual among many other individuals – me vs you. I confirm this perception by perceiving my body separate from yours. In this way, I confirm MY belief as THE belief and then seek to enforce that belief unilaterally. I’ve even created a bias to automate this process – the confirmation bias. In a very real sense, EVERYTHING I perceive confirms my limited awareness of everything that can be believed.

Thus, the confirmation game is THE ONLY game in town.

Am I a Belief?

Maybe I can state that question, “Can I be anything else than a belief?” Maybe EVERYTHING is a belief – including ME, which is my perception that confirms a belief. And what is a belief? Maybe NO-THING… 😉

Could probabilities represent specifics of belief? And intentions represent the play of consciousness in that creation sandbox?

Turning an Intention into a Specific Manifestation

The more generalized my intention, the higher the probability I’ll be surprised at its manifestation. Intentions outside my awareness will affect the manifestation of my intention. Thus the surprise when intentions born of my unawareness result in “unintended” outcomes.

Because of my limited awareness, I’m unaware of who I am as a belief. Meanwhile, that belief continually manifests itself! As I become aware of this situation, I can question my manifestations to become aware of my intentions – and maybe the beliefs that drive the intention-manifestation bus.

Rather than experiencing surprise at “unintended” outcomes, I can instead notice what those outcomes say about what I believe. “I don’t want this [outcome]” turns into “I was unaware of my intention for this [outcome]. Now that I am aware, I can inquire into what I believe that brought about this [outcome].” This inquiry decreases confirmation certainty and increases the probability for an AHA moment.

“Inquiry is fatal to certainty.” (Will Durant)

Questioning My Certainty

For example, I might ask myself –

  • What does this [outcome] symbolize about me?
  • How  do I feel about this symbol?
  • Why am I defending this feeling?
  • Who am I as a result of defending this feeling?

Remember: the inquiry is all about exploration into realms of possibility – rather than to resolve an issue you have with an outcome you don’t like. It’s about awareness.

Please follow and like us:

Intention and the Priority Game

I have so many intentions competing with one another! I could say the same for defenses, thoughts and actions. In my limited awareness world of duality, I always produce two intentions and attend to one. That is, for every intention I’m aware of, its counter balances duality.

Because I an aware of only one thought at a time, I’m usually aware of no more than one of my intentions. Although focused on one thought, there are myriad others contending for my attention. Just like intentions, my thoughts scream out for my attention, “Look at me! Look at me!” “No! Look at me! Look at me!”

Attention is the food of thought and intention. Thoughts or intentions to which I pay attention tend to grow and prosper. That doesn’t mean those I don’t pay attention to die. They just don’t grow as fast – and in some cases die away.

At least that’s how it appears to me. “Focus on your goals!” to achieve them, I’ve been told many times. And yet, sometimes, I find myself in the position of saying something like, “I didn’t intend to hurt your feelings.” In other words, an unconscious hidden intention surfaced and surprised me. Maybe forcing me to acknowledge it with my attention.

The Priority Game

There seems to be two main parts of my being:

  • Physical – the projection
  • Psyche – the projector

The projection is useful because the projector perceives it. I project every thought. Not all of them do I attend to. This because of my limited awareness – that comprehends the tiniest fraction of the myriad of thoughts I project.

To conserve energy and keep my story linear, attention focuses awareness from the myriad of intentions down to one at a time. Prioritizing intentions in this serialization helps me avoid overloading my circuits! It also keeps my story straight, which in turn, gives me a sense of rightness. I at least feel I’m okay when my story is linear. Thus, the value of a “good [serial] memory” that recalls events in their “proper” order. That proper order is the order that matches the singular direction of my linear story.

To that end, I must apply my attention first and foremost to defending my safety and benefit. My initial defense of that attention is my intention to feel safe. This intention to defend becomes the default behind my behaviors. This includes “on guard,” fight, and flight behaviors.

All this to prove to myself that I’m vulnerable to being less than whole – while intending to remain whole. This bias for wholeness in an environment of vulnerability can appear in some strange ways. For example, a person might survive an impossible situation and then feels they are somehow invulnerable to destruction. Maybe they feel they are a divine appointee – like a prophet. Maybe they feel a cause to which they must apply themselves.

Their attention to a life-threatening experience with defensive logic based in a premise of vulnerability tends to connect their biased intention for wholeness with its opposite.

Intention as Initial Defense

What if my intention is my initial defense of one concept over another? A part of the mechanism that turns all-at-once lateral thinking into one-at-a-time linear thinking. Why a defense against what I want – wholeness?

In linear-thinking, I can only define all-at-once wholeness in terms of one-at-a-time un-wholeness. In that way of thinking, there is always this sense that I must seek wholeness – rather than accept that I am wholeness.

To serialize my story, I assign intentions based on how much they confirm my concept of wholeness. This would require that I see myself as whole only in relation to someone or something else – a serialized comparison. In my relationships, therefore, I perceive others that support my limited thinking as whole (good/right). And those that don’t as unwhole (bad/wrong).

I define these intention assignments as accountability. Thus, equating my conscious intentions with subconscious accountability. I expect to get what I intend to get. And because the equation is false in limited awareness, I sometimes don’t get what I consciously intend. “Oops! Sorry! I didn’t intend that you should get hurt…” and etc.

Stewardship Over My Intentions

This takes me to the concept of stewardship – governance. Accountability provides that I have governance over my own physical and psychological being. Important, as these are the two main parts of my being. As the steward with power to govern my thoughts, I have the capacity to learn and change. As I learn how my equations affect my conscious intentions, I can practice governance over them. I can turn intention from initial defense to something else. That “something else” may just be the key to transforming limited to unlimited awareness.

Please follow and like us: