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.

Reincarnation and Conscious Awareness

An interesting phenomenon of limited awareness is that of sleep. During sleep each night, I leave conscious awareness of one reality and experience “reincarnation” into an alternative reality. Although that reality often seems as real as my awake state, it provides clues to its illusory nature. While I’m dreaming a dream, it is reality to me.

It’s all about conscious awareness!

Between conscious awareness of one dream reality and conscious awareness of another, I experience conscious awareness of the nothingness from which consciousness arises. During that time, I experience nothing – an awareness of no sensory perception of any kind. This usually happens in the deep or delta level of sleep.

Perhaps that’s when “I” returns to the pool of all “I’s” from which my “I” differentiated itself as me. As my “I” realizes its self as separate from other selves, I have an experience – conscious awareness of a dream.

Apparition of Separation

When I awake in the morning, I may bring some of those dream awarenesses into my waking awareness. Real as my waking awareness may seem, it is, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from any dream I had the night before. Have I simply reincarnated from one reality into another?

What might happen when conscious awareness of “I” becomes aware of the cycle? Or stops its awareness of this cycle of reincarnation?

This raises some questions:

  • What makes me think this reality is any more real than any other reality?
  • How might I tell the difference?
  • Why do I believe this reality is THE reality?
  • Who am I in this reality, that reality, another reality?

My Roller Coaster of Choice Predictability

Sometimes my life feels like a roller coaster. A paradoxical ride through the ups, downs, twists and turns of conflicting choices. Based on the certitude of my choices and their outcomes, I create a dependency equation. I apply the same equation, choice + defense = predictability, to every outcome.

I believe that predictable defenses mean predictable choices that result in predictable outcomes. Ambiguity develops as my dependence on specific outcomes from specific choices wavers. This challenges my defense and so affects my choices and outcomes.

Certitude and Rigidity

This kind of thinking can lead to a sense of certitude that leads to rigid thinking. This makes manifesting intended outcomes much more difficult and unpredictable. What if ambiguity invites questions about the certitude of my predictability formula?

Because I’d rather be right than accurate, I have an inclination to remember past events as being predictable at the time. In other words I reconcile differences in expected and actual outcomes by justifying results with false memories. This keeps my certitude in place regardless of outcomes.

A difference between expected and actual outcomes occurs because I am not in the same frame of mind when making a choice as when perceiving the outcome of that choice. So, to deal with the paradox, I lie to myself by revising my memory to justify what I perceive and feel now.

Predictability and Fear

This makes future outcomes seem much more predictable and choices more reliable than they actually are. It’s a useful thinking error when applied to confidence building. Not so useful when applied to medical procedures where overconfidence can lead to malpractice, for example.

When I feel conflict in yet-to-be-made choices rising within me, I may feel fear over that unpredictability. To calm my fear, I look to predictability of past choices made that I defend with my support and loyalty today.

Am I tall enough to ride this ride?