In Defense of the Secret

When something is secret, it’s hidden. How do I defend for or against what I’m unaware of?

In my bubble of limited awareness, I work at keeping a secret from myself, limiting my awareness. To remain in this trance, I hide a secret – substituting real with imagined data I choose to defend. Protected within my comfort zone fortress, I experience what I want rather than what is – even when I don’t like it. I didn’t say I was good at this!

What About the Secret?

What if I’m not seeking truth? Maybe it’s far too frightening, mind-boggling, and/or pointless for me to entertain. Instead, I want to experience a reality of my own making. Might that imagined “reality” require me to keep a bit of mystery, an unknown element, a secret? After all, if the secret were revealed, my fanciful reality might not be able to handle it.

Would secreting certain information out of my conscious reach allow me to hold onto beliefs that support my uncertain reality? With beliefs like lack, for example, I can entertain fantasies of competition. Through competition, I feel I can win back and compensate for what I’ve lost. When I become aware that any lack I experience is but a chosen perspective, I resolve the paradox, and the secret begins to reveal itself.

How Do I Defend the Secret?

In order to know the secret, I must trade all that I understand for it. To do this, I must question with full intent what I hide from myself. In this way, I willingly offer up my defense of overt rightness for covert understanding.

In order to do that, my will to understand must exceed my need to defend what I presently believe. I must get around my confirmation bias. To know the truth of something requires conscious thought. Knowing my propensity for blocking awareness of truth, I would want to challenge any concept I believe is true.

Thus, a single, well-defended secret prevents my limited mind from waking out of a hypnotic trance of my own making. I am good at this!

Why Do I Defend the Secret?

I like to think I have control of this world, able to make accurate predictions. This keeps me busy working to satisfy survival needs that distract me from knowing the secret. If revealed, the secret might end my fantasy, which might appear as death to me. This because the world I’ve worked so hard to build might be in jeopardy of oblivion. I’m not down for even the thought of that, so I defend myself from the secret – to the death!

I think I fear knowing in most situations more than I fear not knowing. Perhaps I defend the secret because my intention is to be unaware.

Who Defends the Secret?

With secrets, I create and sustain a persona of unawareness in which I experience a sense of me rather than me. I am who I imagine myself to be.

Even when experiences are hard to bear, I’d rather defend a known reality than to seek an unknown alternative. Thus, my limited awareness further limits my awareness.

Perhaps when the fundamental secret is revealed, I’ll discover that it is my intention to limit my awareness by defending the secret.

Please follow and like us:

Memory as a Messenger of the Unknown

What if, within my limited awareness bubble, memory works in time and space? A conscious agent uses memory as a vehicle to perceive a relationship between time and space. If so, I must defend time and space in order to live. The “I” that lives in time must store the data necessary to balance the unknown with the known – memory.

Now seems to be the only condition of time that allows me to be served by memory. Memory’s linear design is a means of holding time accountable to space and for me to be accountable to a future I haven’t yet realized. Time supports space that supports time. Memory supports the concept of linear time and space as imagined sequences of causes and effects.

What I can perceive I can believe is real. Therefore, my memories are real because I perceive them to be. I’ve perceived fear as real and I have referred to it for present experiential support. Fear as the main criteria of my memory now seems to dominate the experiences of the present. Once I believe fear is real, it will remain so until I question and change it.

Because the unknown represents my greatest fear, I create memories to fill-in what I don’t know. With memory, I can relate the unknowable to an imagined known, a reality I call my life. This known reality brings a counter-balance and a sense of direction to mitigate the fear of the unknown.

What Is the Message of Memory, then?

Memories are my link to linear reality, which includes time and space and who I am in them. In my limited matrix of associations, I can apply a memory to justify any current situation that exists in terms of time and space.

When it comes to fearful situations, applying a known in the form of a memory can provide a sense of reality. Thus, an imagined or recalled known can substitute a sense of peace to the unknown. It’s a paradox! And while the unknown remains unknown, at least I can feel better about it!

What if memory is a messenger of the unknown telling me about me through the known? Perhaps memory is loaded with data. I can mine that information about who I perceive I am beyond what I know. What is my memory telling the known me about the unknown me?

Rather than defend against the unknown with fear-based memory, what if I instead asked some questions?

  • What is true and untrue in this memory?
  • How is it true and untrue?
  • Why is it true and untrue?
  • Who am I as a result of believing this?
  • Who would I be if I didn’t believe this?
Please follow and like us:

A Default Model of Personal Governance

Governance refers to how a system regulates itself. Through independent and collective direction I apply this to my personal governance. My personal governance is based on creating and defending what I choose to perceive.

The purpose of a personal governance system is to provide a means for managing my multi-verse experience. the division between the non-corporeal “I” and its physical, emotional, and mental expression.

Consequently, I experience personal governance as direction of separateness back into oneness. Although a paradox, the system may be a natural result of this reckoning.

A Natural Flow of Governance

In my bubble of limited awareness, I think of personal governance in terms of a top-down hierarchy. That is, the most powerful aspects of a system, sit atop an organized, pyramidal structure. It’s a power-distribution system in which higher levels exercise control over lower levels and lower levels must account to higher levels. The body and emotions obey the mind.

This because I live in a reality of governance in which I defend my perception in terms of for vs against. So to survive, I must compare what to defend against and for. Thus, the bubble of limited awareness governs my experience. This is the default model!

What is beyond default?

Until you question the default, there is no other awareness. Because I insist upon comparing and defending, perhaps I can use that facility to bring about a new awareness. What might a new paradigm of governance look like? I won’t know until I ask! So what kind of questions could I ask?

  1. What else could I be? What am I?
  2. How else could I be?  How am I?
  3. Why else could I be?  Why am I?
  4. Who else could I be?  Who am I?

What questions might you ask to change your default model of personal governance?

Please follow and like us:

My Intention to Resolve an Impossible Paradox


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.


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:

An Illusion of Permanence

Within First-Second Degree of Illumination bubble awareness, the concept of object permanence is that things exist even though I’m not perceptually aware of them. For example, I know the door to my office is open even when I’m not looking at it to confirm that condition.

According to Piaget, we acquire this sense of object permanence at about 8-9 months of age. Apparently, it is not instinctive – and perhaps learned.

Do objects exist even though I am unaware of them? Does a person live in a jungle somewhere in Brazil when I’m unaware of his/her existence?

These and other questions arise when considering what is real outside my attention to it. Metaphysical Solipsism is the concept that I am alone in the universe and that the universe itself exists because I perceive it. Concerning solipsism –

The idealist philosopher George Berkeley argued that physical objects do not exist independently of the mind that perceives them. An item truly exists only as long as it is observed; otherwise, it is not only meaningless but simply nonexistent. The observer and the observed are one. (Wikipedia)

I cannot refute or test this as a concept – no more than I can test for the presence of a god or gods. How might I test for a reality outside my awareness? Or test Berkeley’s argument when everything I’d use to do the testing is of my own imagining? Yet his argument appears to account for every aspect of my experience with object permanence.

Things tend to exist as I expect them to exist.

Even if Berkeley was/is correct and nothing exists until I perceive it into existence, there DOES APPEAR to be some kind of reality in which I exist, behave, and have experiences. I don’t have to consciously know what it all means in order to experience it. And my interactions with my illusory permanence are compelling and convincing to me.

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
(A. Einstein)

Let’s say the aspect of me that is my awareness of Berkeley as an entity is correct – what can I do about it? According to Donald Hoffman, nothing – no special behavior or action is required to experience what I experience as I experience it. Basically, all that I experience is a projection of what I believe, i.e., I’m always experiencing ME. The result of this experience of ME is that everything appears as it does exactly as I perceive it. After all, time is part of that perceptual equation.

Because the presentation of ME is as convincing and compelling as it is, I’m drawn to interact with it. I MUST deal with my projection and cannot ignore it without consequence. I so thoroughly believe in cause and effect as I experience it that I must observe it. So compelling is my belief in others as I perceive them that I must interact with them as separate from me. This compels me to deal with the world of my making, however illusory.

The D’oh of Po

To ascend from First-Second Degree of Illumination bubble awareness – through Third Degree of Illumination choice – to acceptance of accountability in Fourth Degree of Illumination and beyond, I must learn to consciously accept that MY perception as the ONLY perception I have. Solipsism in a nutshell.

My experience changes from defense against it (Hoffman) to gratitude and appreciation for it (Berkeley) as I move from the role of victim to that of creator through acceptance of accountability.

In my world of illusion of permanence, I recall the immortal words of Po,

I’m not a big, fat panda. I’m the big, fat panda!
(movie: Kung Fu Panda, 2008)

Please follow and like us: