I Have a Policy for That!

The first line of defense for choosing separation is to make that choice a belief. Policy manages how beliefs manifest, sustaining a bias-based defense system – my First-Second Degree of awareness bubble.

My Manifestation Process

  1. Perception of Separation
  2. Intention
  3. Philosophy
  4. Choice
    1. Policy
    2. Procedure/Action
  5. Outcome/Feedback

Beliefs are substantiated by philosophies, stories that obscure hidden defenses. A fertile imagination fashions my most cherished and well-used philosophies into stories that defend them. I experience these stories as comparative hierarchies of defense, thus satisfying my need for rightness.

Policies manage my perceived threats and benefits from least to greatest importance to survival. By default, I arrange this hierarchy in order of defense value. Those philosophies that conceptualize the greatest defense value rule over the others.

Every philosophy carries defense values expressed through choices, policies and procedures. When my policies and procedures project a me vs not me choice onto a comparative reality, I must defend it.

It’s Conditional!

My personal policies define my adopted or proposed courses or principles of action. Each operates as a contract with myself. Policies defend my beliefs with procedures, the actions that turn my beliefs into experience.

The result of this process is a life of competition – me working against myself. My experiences are fractals within fractals of defense. Each fractal represents a paradox of perception that defends choices, beliefs, philosophies, policies, and procedures in an outcome.

A policy is a conceptualization of a belief in the form of a conditional statement, “if/when a condition is true, then do the following action…”

  1. If/When I think X condition is true, then I will probably do Y
  2. If/When I’m convinced X condition is true, then I will absolutely do Y

This morphs into a BE-DO logic level reasoning paradox policy:

  1. X condition must BE true because I/you DID Y
  2. I/you DID Y because X condition was true

For example, “You must BE in love with me because I DO nice things for you.” And, “I must BE dumb because I DID poorly on the test!”

I experience a conflict in a relationship when I APPLY a morphed conditional policy to resolve it. That is, BECAUSE I perceive this conflict, I feel I must DO something about it. For example, because I am afraid, I must freeze up!

What can I do to correct my paradox of perception? Well, now that I’ve NOTICED the condition, I might question it and consider making a change – to policies first, then maybe to philosophies – and, perhaps ultimately, to my beliefs!

Please follow and like us:

Questioning Perception to Clarify Choice

How Choice Confirms the Paradox I Intend to Resolve

I rarely think about my intentions when people are agreeable and things are going well. I may still be unaware of my intentions when I act on perceived threats, reverting automatically to defense. This because my focus is on choice as the application of defense of the intention rather than on the intention. Regardless of my intentions, any choice I consider or make within the bubble is in defense of the separation paradox.

Thus, choice defends intention that defends perception.

That seems like a pretty poor strategy for resolving a paradox! How do I intend to resolve a paradox by choosing to confirm it? That sounds a bit confusing to me!

Might confusion be the strategy of choice?

Consider how convinced you feel when reason aligns with perception. When “how” and “why” align with sensory “what” – “I know this is true, because [a logical reason].” As I consider how stubbornly unmovable I get when I feel convinced of my “truth”, a little confusion may indeed be in order.

How does that work?

I use automation, of course! I engage a policy-management, self-regulating process to carry out my choices without question. Think mechanical process – “When this, do that.” Over time and experience, I learn to trust my choices – no questions necessary!

When I choose for, I also choose against. The process defends both sides of the argument. From an energy conservation perspective, it’s brilliant! The same reason I use in defense of one option I favor also defends why I’m right in not choosing another option. In choosing the road to the left, I’ve also chosen not to take the road to the right – for the same reasons.

Although this process manipulates conflicting concepts to maintain a sense of rightness, it adds paradox to paradox.

Let’s Recap!

  1. By perceiving, I set up a fundamental paradox of deficit within wholeness.
  2. I intend to resolve this paradox by setting up a system in which need-fulfillment feels like paradox resolution.
  3. To defend the intention, I create a life story that sets the parameters within which, as the hero, I must satisfy the ultimate need – survival of the paradox!
  4. I sustain the fundamental paradox by masking it behind paradoxical choices.

I can challenge my choices. Why? Because they’re not set in stone! They’re just concepts I’ve accepted as “right” and so, true. By questioning a choice, I open a space for understanding the philosophy and intent behind it. I might even let go of my defense of the current choice. It’s at least an opening.

Questioning

Questioning my choices may be cutting myself short of a realistic answer. My process isn’t designed to question itself because it is the answers. It has the right reasons for my survival and simply applies an appropriate defense. Therefore, questions intended to check the reasons for a system of defense must come from outside the system. Questions from within a system of defense tend to confirm the system.

Perhaps questioning my intention,rather than my perception would open a space for something new. Change the input change the output.

This means I want to design questions that awaken the process and its system of defense to itself. The answers to those questions will bring enlightenment to the process and promote clarity to a paradoxical reality.

Please follow and like us:

In Defense of the Choice Paradox

My manifestation process presents my conscious awareness with what, how, and why I choose and defend as I do – based on who I believe I am. From the form to the actions I take, choices and reasons defend and so present me with a convincing model that validates who I think I am – separate, dependent, and defensive. Thus, I present myself with a perceptual paradox of being – dividing to create unity and unifying to create division. A fantasy of self.

I hide these paradoxical intentions in order to safeguard the self-image fantasy. To conceal my real intention, I work to control the appearance of its outcome. I start this process by managing the appearance of my choices.

In my self-referential fantasy, I can mask an intention by making it appear as though a choice determines its outcome. Thus, I can deduce that an outcome is the result of the choice from which it derived. Simple, yet paradoxical logic.

Unmasked, I see that intention determines the direction and scope of the choices that act in defense of my intention. Although a choice appears as the causal element of an outcome, it may instead be one aspect in the process of manifesting and so defending an intention.

Thus, I manipulate my perception of an outcome to give the appearance of rightness to my choice in defense of my intention. The political process of self! And, yeah, what do you know – it’s a paradox!

My process utilizes choice as a means for creating paradox in the form of defense. Because my choices are all about comparing, I can’t compare without defending those comparisons. Any reasons I have for and against this or that way of being are intended to compete. For example, “That is why I chose this and this is why I didn’t choose that.”

In Defense of the Choice Paradox

When I make a choice, it is between two or more defenses that appear as options. For example –

  • Which option makes me feel more right?!
  • Which option makes me feel less challenged?

I then use my manifestation process to manage outcomes of my choice to make it appear I’m right. Meanwhile I defend against challenges to my choice by applying paradoxical reasoning –

  • When I perceive my choices go unchallenged, I assume I’m right. This assumed validation of rightness serves to confirm that I’m right. A self-referential paradox!
  • When I perceive challenges to my choices, I feel my rightness is being challenged, which implies I’m wrong. That can’t happen! I need a process that automatically defends my choice and makes me right despite evidence to the contrary. A self-confirmational paradox!

That process manipulates the way I see the evidence of my actions. Thus masking my intention for that action. This makes my thoughts and actions seem different than my intention, justifying the outcome as reasonable. The lack of self-challenge in this process makes me feel I’m right.

That rightness IS the intention of CHOICE, the defense of intention. The choice paradox.

Please follow and like us:

My Life Philosophy as a Story

Overall, one experiences their life philosophy in a series of policies carried out over time. Like a story read one word at a time, I perceive my life as I would the story of a hero’s journey.

In visual perception, I feel I have clarity only on that to which I’m attending right now. The future and past are vague visions of what lay beyond a certain point of clarity I call NOW. I can only make clear that which I focus on now – all else is vague.

I’ve been writing and reading my story to this point. I’ve written and read some of it. I’m writing and reading it now. And, based on what I’ve read so far, I can imagine where the story will go in a vague future, though with a sense of certainty because I’m imagining it in what I read now.

I imagine past words must support the current words by supplying a vague sense of premise, motive, background, and direction. I imagine future words must support the current words by supplying perceptions of danger, anticipation, and anxiety. As the vague past meets the vague future in the clarity of now, I get a paradox in the confluence – like reading through turbulent water.

Back to my story!

There may be plot twists like those I’ve already read that give the future some interest to me and so I read on. How exciting! So interesting I can’t lay the book down! My curiosity drives me onward – to learn what happens to the protagonist (me) as he deals with all the antagonists along his way. Because I care, I want my hero to succeed in his quest. With dangers laying along the path, opportunities for interesting plot twists abound.

Every element of my story must fit within certain parameters. Every element must:

  • Obey the setting of the story. These are the basic laws and conditions under which every element of the story must work.
  • Cause and effect must be observed. I must account for every situation with a reason, logic, or feeling.
  • As the protagonist, I and those I care about must win in the end.

A good storyteller is one that during and after reading, I want to read more. Perhaps this explains depression in which the story begins to lose the interest of the reader. Maybe it’s just then that a surprise plot twist might rekindle that interest.

The reason a plot twist engages the reader is because s/he didn’t see it coming. Surprise! When I feel depressed, I let my mind wonder to, “What might happen next? I hope it’s delicious!”, and, “Something amazing is about to happen!” I can’t wait to read on!!!

Please follow and like us:

My Intention to Resolve an Impossible Paradox

Intention

Within my bubble of limited awareness, underlying every intention is a perception of deficit from wholeness. With awareness beyond the bubble, I realize there is no deficit. It’s a perceptual paradox – a side effect of limited awareness. Meanwhile, back in the bubble, every intention is a search for resolution to this paradox. Yet, in searching do I not affirm and confirm the very paradox I seek to resolve?

From intention comes the need paradox – an acknowledgment of a deficit that, though never lost, requires restoration to wholeness. I then act to defend that truth by convincing myself I was right to perceive the need. This belief in need supports a Self that is dependent as separate from wholeness. Thus, motivating me to seek evidence to defend that truth – proof, such as stories borne of experience.

My memories and logic are based on those stories and so become my philosophy of life. The power of this mythical life turns my experiences into a cohesive reality that satisfies my need for defense.

Choice represents my philosophy by comparing what I experience with what I believe. I compare to compete to serve this paradox of perception. Choice works as a competitive form of reasoning. This unshakeable belief system forms one continuous philosophical story, a hero’s journey. As the hero, I triumph over challenges from the world outside the bubble. Thus, fulfilling needs through the use of defense.

Resolution

I satisfy my perception of deficit with an appearance of things and persons I feel complete this segment of my story… again and again.

In this way, a philosophical format connects intentions together to create a cohesive string of perceptual needs. Stories develop my intentions into an organized framework, making choices seem logical and justifiable.

My Paradox Resolution Process so far:

  1. Perception – a sense of separation creates a paradox
  2. Intention – a sense of need to resolve the paradox affirms and confirms the paradox
  3. Philosophy – the story line that sets the framework for choices that validate the paradox
  4. Choicedetermines the strategy for implementing a defense of my intention according to my philosophy

This is my resolution process from perception of deficit to choice. Thus, I intend for my perception of separateness from wholeness to serve the paradox it creates – whether or not I’m aware of it.

Please follow and like us: