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 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:

Choice, a Self-Referential Paradox

Could a choice be my initial defense of what I determine as right or wrong? Right may be as subtle as best or better than someone or something else. Wrong can be just as innocuous as not as good as or worse than.

A choice is a symbolic gesture of separateness, which represents defense of that symbol.

At the point of choice, I must first perceive separation between separate things. Through a values system, I then determine what’s more right and less wrong. I attach defenses that support my determination. I then choose a counter balance of defenses that represent why I didn’t choose otherwise. My choices are always based on a need to be right, which is instinctual – survival thinking. A self-referential paradox of separateness.

For example, I made a choice to wear my sneakers today. That seemed reasonable because the hiking trail is rough. Reflecting on that choice now while on the trail, I feel grateful I didn’t choose to wear my sandals. My choice to wear sneakers was based on “it’s better to wear sneakers on the trail” vs “it’s worse to traverse the trail in sandals.” My process has evolved from determination defended by choice to choice defended by choice.

The choices I make are at the foundation of survival of who I think I am. The truths that follow those philosophies are built on paradoxical reasons. The measure of value my truth possesses is based on the effectiveness of its reasons. The more effective my reasons, the more I feel the need to defend them. A self-referential paradox of choice!

My need to compete illustrates the power of choice

Out of my need to be separate came the paradox of thought, I experience competition between thoughts. Let’s look at time for example. I experienced time as normal prior to receiving anesthesia for surgery. When I awoke five hours later, I wondered where that time had disappeared. I felt confused and surreal because I could not account for my time. So, I accounted for that time with imagery that supports my life story.

My defense of a now and a not now seem different, yet, are the same. I plug a memory into my present experience as though they are the same. “Things never change!” As long as my concept of time supports my truths, I will continue to defend it.

Somehow, memories from a past that can’t exist now, do. I’ve sacrificed the present for a past irrelevant to it in content and context. Irrelevant also is a future where memory can’t exist, yet does. “It’s always been this way and it always will be!” A self-referential paradox of time.

The addition of time reckoning to my paradoxical perspective helps justify my separateness into what, how, and why I am. I can believe I am and am not my experiences.  A self-referential paradox of being.

The great defender of paradox

From one choice come many defenses – belief, truth, reason, philosophy, process, policy, and etc. Further defense serves to strengthen the choice that serves to strengthen the defense. A self-referential paradox .

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:

The Right to Serve and Be Served

I Have the Right!

I live in bubble awareness where being right confers a sense of having the right to place expectations on others.

Insistence upon exercising my right validates my belief that I’m living as a separate entity. As separate, I place a level of importance on my needs that others should meet. That level of importance takes the value of others with the intention of declaring them as my own. The more service others give me, the greater my perceived value.

I want to believe I have the right to be served without serving. Taking what I value from others – as though it were mine to take – gives me a sense of authority. As I see it, that authority gives me implicit permission to choose and judge the way others should serve me.

In my bubble, authority means “the right to have, do, and be what I want.” This and my sense of separation gives me a feeling of power  over you. That assumed power validates itself. My concept of rights stems from the fear associated with survival – where the strong survive and the powerful prey upon the weak.

When I judge that I have been adequately served, I feel whole. I feel unwhole when I judge that I have been inadequately served. In this way, I experience my internal self-judgement as an externalized projection, in which I see service in terms of competition between opposing states of mind.

I Sustain the Right

In my separateness, I perceive I must exert my will over that of others to survive. To satisfy this constant sustaining of needs and demands of the will, I expect others to serve me. This creates an emptiness I can’t fill on my own and so I assume power over those I need to serve me.

Recognizing I have needs is my reminder of my choice to defend separation. In separation I can compete and win even when I appear to be losing. By making my opponent appear weaker than me.

When I DO something, it’s right and/or justified. When you DO the same thing, it’s questionable or somehow wrong. Check it out –

When I… I’m… When you do the same thing, you’re…
pass a test… smart! lucky or you cheated.
say it… witty. offensive!
slip and fall… embarrassed. a klutz!
spend money… thrifty. excessive.
tell a falsehood… realistic. a liar!
feel hurt… justified. a drama queen!

This way of thinking maintains my superior view of life. Serving my needs is what’s most important.

I Re-serve the Right

As need dictates my reasons and my rights, I  justify the struggle others must face to fulfill those needs. I provide them a service in exchange for their fulfillment of my needs by setting up a belief in the dominance of my demands. This makes one pause and wonder who is really serving who?

Perspective makes a difference. When I view the workers in a beehive as slaves to the queen, I maximize the value the queen plays in the benefit to the colony. When I view the queen as the slave to the colony, I maximize the value of the workers. This based on how I view myself in relation to others.

In any system there are interdependent, complementary “serve” and “be served” characteristics. By changing perspective to one of equal service to one another, the slave concept disappears.

A tiny shift in perspective results in a huge shift in perception.

Please follow and like us: