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????

How Intention, Choice, and Bias Resolve Life’s Ambiguity

In order to initiate a conscious choice, I must perceive two or more options relating to the concept under consideration. My life presents me a menu of options. Bias narrows the options from which I may choose. I compare those options to determine how well they might work to confirm my bias.

In my comparative world of limited awareness, life is ambiguous. It’s not 100% clear whether I’ll live or die in any moment. It’s unclear who I am. I must clarify myself to myself. I work my whole life to disambiguate the paradox of the life I live. Bias is one way I seek to clarify this ambiguous situation.

I’m unambiguous about my intention to live. So, I favor all that confirms that intention and fear alternatives. I make choices based on this intentional and fundamental bias. Thus, I resolve life’s greatest paradox – that I am ambiguous, being one and separate, for and against.

Intention

The intention to survive underlies all intentions. A default program ensures I make a preselected biased choice – both for and against. It’s paradoxical. Biases defend the underlying intention to survive, in which I’m:

  • against what threatens the underlying intention.
  • in favor of what benefits the underlying intention.

In this environment of bias, I’m seeking to disambiguate while defending a paradox. I do this by choosing for and against what affects my intention to survive. Thus, increasing the ambiguity I’m seeking to decrease.

Fear and Bias

My fears are an effort to defend myself for being right and against being wrong. Two sides of the same coin. Fear of being wrong plays an influential role in my ability to make a clear choice.

If my choice results in survival, my commitment to its rightness abates fear. When I realize I’ve survived well, my commitment solidifies into a bias that rules over my life. The paradox is that increased defense of what’s right increases fear of its alternatives.

About Choices

Questioning my bubble of limited awareness challenges my perception of survival. Denial is the default program that defends my biases and resists change.

It seems like I’m choosing all the time. Choosing only concepts that support my biases, is not choice – it’s confirmation bias in action. Once I’ve made a choice, I cannot change it while in defense of it. Bias is how I automate the process.

Conscious living may be more about challenging my reasons for making choices than blindly following them.

Is Separation from Wholeness Intentional?

Isn’t wholeness best? Shouldn’t I strive for wholeness? Are we not better together than apart? Don’t I experience the universe as it really is?

From my bubble of limited awareness perspective, yes, I do and no, I don’t. It depends on how I consider the universe – as literal or figurative. What if my literal “universe” of sensual perception is my imagination of concepts that appear as “hard” reality?

Because my imagination figures so prominently in deriving meaning from perception, my “reality” may be at once literal and figurative. Duality!

What is duality?

Perhaps the initial separation from wholeness is a realization of duality. That happens in the digital world when one recognizes two conceptual states: 1 and 0, “is” and “is not.” In this duality, I can contrast one concept to the other. This because, in a binary system in which only two states exist, I can define one state in terms of its complement. 1 = not 0, 0 = not 1.

This fundamental difference between 1 and 0 is the essence of the concept of duality, which I define as the contrast between two concepts. The contrast between something (1) and nothing (0) represents the fundamental concept of limitation. That because, in duality, neither 1 nor 0 is everything; each defines the other.

How do I apply duality?

The essence of physical perception is differentiation, the ability to recognize a difference. I compare some perceptual “thing” against its environment. That requires sufficient contrast for my senses and brain to recognize a difference. To the degree I recognize the difference between a thing and not that thing, me and not me, I have experience.

For example, I hear your words because I can separate and contrast them from the background of other sounds. Then, I make sense of your words by translating vibration into concepts I compare with other concepts. Without duality, there can be no perception because there would be no points of comparison.

Why Duality?

In my world of duality, I’m continually comparing everything I experience between what I believe is “right” and “not right.” I compare my concepts of “me” to “not me.” Every thought is a comparison to other thoughts.

In this limited universe, I can only conceptualize infinity in terms of the finite. I comprehend something (1) and not something (0) because I can contrast them to each other.

All that “is not” complements that which “is.” For example, the rose I perceive on my desk is complemented by all that is not the rose.

This leads me to wonder –
What if separation from wholeness is intentional?

Who is this “I” then?

Because the concept, “I,” can distinguish itself from the concept of totality – oneness – it can experience the universe from a perspective. Considering how tenaciously the concept of “I” holds onto this perspective, one might venture a hypothesis that the concept “I” intends to experience life by setting itself apart from ALL. It’s intentional!

Perhaps that intention will continue until this consciousness that differentiates as “me” from “not me” stops. Perhaps then, a perspective will return to the pool of all perspectives from which it came.

Is there more than duality? What’s beyond the rose?

Could Belief Be Its Own Defense?

In my First and Second Degree limited awareness world of competition and defense, I’ve divided up oneness with beliefs. A belief is basically a set of connected concepts I’ve separated out from all concepts to form or add to my story. My acceptance of that belief as truth becomes my defense of those concepts and my story as the story.

Belief as Authority

My belief, then, acts as an authority that proves I am a sovereign individual, free to think and act as I please. Not obvious to me is that I’m the servant of that authority, which is my belief.

Perhaps that’s why I rankle so much when someone, even me, challenges my belief. That challenge is to the sovereignty of my identity – who I am. I am my belief.

In a context of true vs false, my perception of separation defends my story from yours based on my truth. This pits my story against yours in a battle for “the right belief,” which connotes there is a wrong belief, yours. When applied to a group of like-minded individuals, a simple belief can grow to fanatical, perhaps dangerous, proportions.

Thus, my beliefs confirm my paradoxical concept of separation as the one and only truth. One might consider belief as the initial and fundamental defense that separates one into a competition between this versus that.

Belief as Defense

Because I perceive my right belief as separate from your wrong belief, I defend mine from yours, me from you. This belief in separation in sovereignty provides me with a sense of differentiation that I can use to compare – and defend. Thus, I confirm my rightness.

Comparisons can lead to competition in which every concept appears to defend itself against all others. This means that every belief is a defense protecting and protected by other beliefs.

When I say, “I believe…,” am I actually saying, “I defend…?”

To answer a question one must question the answer. When there is only one answer to a question, I’m probably dealing with a belief upon which I’ve placed a high degree of certitude. To dissolve the defense that is the belief, I must question my sense of certainty. Concerning my belief:

  • What is this belief protecting?
  • How is it protecting it?
  • Why is it protecting it?
  • Who am I protecting?