Lack and the Intention to Be Whole

The first cause within my bubble of limited awareness is my intention to be whole. This intention presupposes that I’m not whole – lacking. Lack dictates that my thoughts and actions have a debt to pay to achieve wholeness.

I must defend lack to support my intention to be whole. Defense of lack limits my awareness to something short of whole. Therefore, I can never achieve wholeness. Instead, I’m forever in pursuit of it.

ANY intention is an acknowledgement and so defense of lack. Perhaps I might investigate lack for the purpose of celebrating it. After all, my defense of lack supports my cause to experience limitation. Because lack supports my intention, exploring it may help me appreciate it.

Fighting against lack is a fool’s errand. Embracing and investigating my lack helps me understand the intention that drives it. This empowers me to better apply compassion, where the Aha Zone expands awareness to possibilities that promote adaptation and evolution.

Exploring Lack

What is the purpose for perception of lack? In a world of limited awareness, everything would appear limited – lacking. This would create motivation in the form of pursuit of fulfillment. For example: Thirst must be quenched, hunger must be satisfied, death must be followed by life, and etc. Psychologically, thoughts and emotions seek resolution.

I live by reactive programs based in lack that I obey without question. There is no allowance for questioning. no need for understanding, only following the program. I obey my intention to create wholeness in a world of lack.

I use these programmed defenses of lack to perceive myself whole:

  • What form I take validates lack. I perceive my form validates the limits I place on what I can be.
  • How I think, feel, and act to validate lack. How my form functions validates the limits I place on what I do.
  • Why I must validate lack. Why I perceive my form and function validates my need to defend lack.
  • Who I am in terms of lack. Who I believe I am as a limited being validates my lack of wholeness.

In the bubble, my existence depends on the attention I pay to my program.

Questioning Lack

The old belief was that one must overcome lack through the use of force and defense. This required a sufficient sense of need to generate sufficient effort to achieve a worthy goal. One must earn their way through life. This makes life a reactive experience based on values I assign.

To change, I might seek to understand the process I used to acquire the old belief. Maybe a start might include appreciation of lack as it has served me. This change may take some redirection of my natural persistence and focus. Sweet – an evolutionary rather than revolutionary change.

Questions might help me break into secrets my needs hide from me. I’ve accepted my defense of my needs as who I am without question. Probably because when I did, I was unaware I could ask questions. In effect, my only question as an infant was (maybe), “how do I feel?”

Further, as an infant, I was unskilled in communicating my ideas. Those I might ask were of that same acceptance and defense – and so unable to assist me in that way. Thus, we continued the pattern of old beliefs about lack without question.

Today, I’m capable of asking questions that challenge my acceptance and defense by acknowledging them. For example, I might consider a goal and ask:

  • What do I need to fill this sense of lack?
  • How can that need be fulfilled?
  • Why does that need fulfillment bring me a sense of wholeness?
  • Who do I believe I am when I feel fulfilled?

Targeted self-inquiry brings insights that can lead to deeper understandings and appreciations of lack. Rather than fighting and avoiding lack, we might instead look at it as the medium for change that it is.

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????

Turning Defense into Acceptance of Accountability

Recently, I heard myself say, “I didn’t intend to…” From my self-protective, bubble of limited awareness persona point of view, this statement makes sense. This deflection, however, resists acceptance of accountability. I don’t question my defense because that would expose something I’m hiding on purpose. What am I hiding? My fear of culpability!

Why do I fear my accountability?

What Can I Do to Reclaim My Accountability?

“I didn’t” and “I’m not” (negations) often offer me an easy indicator of defense. Whenever I hear a negation (n’t, not, never, no, etc.) come out of my mouth, I can assume I’m in defense. Whenever I hear you say those words, and feel your defense, I can assume I’m in defense, too. Defense is defense no matter who shows it because it is I who perceives it. Defense is just an indicator, and so…

Rather than shoot the messenger, my mirror, I can pay attention to the message. Once aware, I’m in a position to accept accountability. To soften my defense, I can use my language to remove the negation out of a defensive statement. Then I have something to work with. “I didn’t intend to…” becomes, “If I did [intend that]…” Then, inquiries into hidden intentions can arise.

The following self-inquiry questions can perhaps lead to self-awareness and acceptance of accountability. Referring to our example above, “I didn’t intend to…” Once I calm my protective persona’s defensive posturing, I realize it’s just an indicator, a message to myself about my unconscious intention to survive.

I can then question that intention by inquiring about how I feel concerning the message. Based on that feedback, I might ask myself, “If I did intend to [do that]…,

  • Who did I believe I was to intend the outcome I observed?”
  • Why did I intend that outcome?”
  • How do I feel now about what happened then?”
  • What do I intend now?”

This inquiry starts a process of acceptance of accountability for my creation. Evidence of acceptance:

  • I would hear few or no negations in my communications.
  • I would hear connecting questions like, “How can I help us reconnect]…?” and “What do you need [for the relationship to reconnect]?” and etc.
  • The other person would report feeling cared about.
  • My body and mind would calm down.
  • A sense of profound joy in connection.