Defense and the Assertion of Truth

I intend to be whole. That intention validates my belief that I am not whole now. Assertion of that intention limits my awareness to less than whole – lack in the form of needs and wants.

I live in this limited awareness bubble. My limiting intention: which is to defend the limits that separateness demands – which I may be unaware.

The relationship I have with my intention is one of rewards and punishments. That intention rewards me with a sense of wholeness when its needs are satisfied.

I define the wholeness I seek in terms of defense of my intention that limits awareness. That definition can appear as rightness, satisfaction, purpose, justifications, and other limiting defenses that validate the myriad representations of separateness. My definition limits the definable to how I define it.

Assertion of Truth Defense

My perception that I am limited proves to me that I am. It does not, however, prove the assertion that I am limited. Rather, it’s just an assertion of truth that proves its defense.

A Definition of Wholeness in Terms of Separation

What does it mean to be whole? How do I define it? Why do I feel the need to achieve it? Who will I be when whole?

Fundamental to any discussion about wholeness is the belief that wholeness can be defined. Further, I can know the definition of wholeness. How true is that?

A Definition of Wholeness in Terms of Separation

What if a sense of separation from wholeness is intentional? That separation could be a limitation of awareness that results in an awareness of this experience from my perspective. Wholeness might then be defined in terms of that limitation of awareness. Thus, I might define wholeness in terms of a percent of awareness –

% Wholeness = % Awareness

Might wholeness be who I am as I am that creates the metaphoric reality that represents that being? That is, I am complete and whole as I am in order to have the experience I’m having. Thus,

Wholeness = 100% of my limited current awareness

Individuating Wholeness

Who is the “I” or “me” to whom I refer so often? Why do I view my reality from this perspective rather than from yours, others, or all perspectives? From this perspective, I measure and compare from one perspective. I cannot fathom wholeness beyond that perspective. I can only comprehend wholeness through the lens of individuation – from my perspective. Thus,

Wholeness = A Measurable Commodity to ME

Wholeness as a Process of Elimination

If I just eliminate or replace enough wrong behaviors, thoughts, etc, I’ll BE whole and complete. This is based on the religious dogma of the “imperfect soul” who’s conceived in sin and fallen from grace. The fallen one feels the need to dig their way out of the pit into which they’ve fallen.

This is the “I’ll never be enough” principle. Thus,

Wholeness = Not Me

The Need For Borders

My limited awareness demands that definitions have borders I can perceive. My senses must have enough contrast between this and that in order for me to perceive them as comparable. Perhaps I need a border around wholeness in order to perceive it.

A border serves as a line of defense. I can’t defend a concept I can’t define. Thus, my definition of wholeness must defend itself against rivals to continue. Thus,

Wholeness = Defense

Wholeness By Comparison

What if I don’t need to achieve absolute wholeness in order to experience wholeness? What if I could perceive wholeness relative to others? I’d just have to be more whole than I perceive you are. No absolutes or standards of perfection to measure up to. This is the essence of the wholeness measurement problem. Thus,

Wholeness = Me Compared to Not Me

Comparative Measurements (More/Less Whole)

In such a reality of relative wholeness, I might consider myself whole when I compare myself to a variable standard. In this comparative measurement, “wholeness” becomes a judgment call based on intent. Have I achieved less, enough, or more of what I intend?

In this case, I might view wholeness in terms of somewhat, more, and most. Thus,

Wholeness = Enough

Wholeness By Agreement

I feel more whole when others agree with me. This is a defensive definition based on a need to be right, proper, and/or justified.

This is the essence of groups. My group is the IN or right group and all others are outsiders. I feel whole in my group and unwhole outside it. Thus, when agreement satisfies a need for rightness,

Wholeness = Rightness

Undefining Wholeness

How do I define wholeness from within limited awareness?

Perhaps we might conclude that wholeness is indefinable. As soon as I define it, it’s no longer wholeness. Maybe wholeness is NOT a concept – and all concepts. Everywhere and nowhere. All and none.

Meanwhile, I’m having a great time exploring all that I think it is and isn’t!


Permanence, Relativity, and Change

Relativity, Change, and Permanence

Permanence is relative to the perspective of the one perceiving it. For example, I perceive the sun and earth as permanent. I expect the earth to continue to rotate in its day-night cycle indefinitely. Yet, I also know that the sun and earth did not always have that relationship. At one point in time, neither existed as I know them now. Their relationship only appears permanent because I’m comparing it to my lifetime. It’s relative!

Likewise, the permanence of truth is relative to the one perceiving it. My truth appears permanent to me when I hold onto it long enough.

Change, on the other hand, is a permanent condition. Everything in the universe is in a state of change. That because everything moves in relation to everything else.

My perspective has a frame of reference I perceive as permanent truth. Certainty represents my commitment to that truth in this framework of reality. Defense of that perspective focuses attention that eliminates all other possible realities. Life OR death. That’s quite a limitation!

Questioning Myself

Nature presents me feedback about my relationships with myself. That feedback gives me an opportunity to experience myself in ever-changing ways. Without a clear understanding of how to interpret those opportunities, I may miss out on some insightful perspectives.

Limited by faulty reasoning and minimal awareness, even the best self-inquiry questions will tend to build false equations from my imagination – like assumptions. For example, “If this, then that.”

Defense represents the value I place on myself. When I challenge a defense, I’m challenging my own value. I’m also challenging the value of my certitude – and my idea of permanence. Questions may help me shake loose the stuck permanent-truth frame.

To investigate myself, I may want to start with letting go of false equations by questioning assumptions.

  • Who am I if not who I appear? (clue: listen to feedback from “others” – especially those you resist)
  • Why do I care about appearances? (clue: probably not what you think)
  • How do I feel and behave about who I am? (clue: check in with the body first. Emotion will more likely invoke mental defense rather than insight)
  • What do my senses tell me about who I am? (clue: report it out loud to yourself for a cool effect)

Change and My Need for Permanence

I like to think that if something is true it never changes – it’s permanent. I try to make my beliefs permanent by defending them against change, thereby making them true.

I intend for my truths to be so well defended that they are beyond question, even from me. Questioning my beliefs would be equivalent to attacking what’s right and good, permanent and therefore true.

Certainty of my truths defends the intention to put them beyond question. That certainty is like a dam that I build for my rightness against the flow of change. Thus, certainty makes my intention appear permanent – just like truth!

What About Resistance?

I define the non-disturbed state of no movement as permanence. And the disturbed state of movement as change. Each state serves the other through the contrast inherent in their complementary differences. I experience existence in the relationship between the two states.

Perhaps the resistance in those interactions serve as proof of permanence and change. Thus, change serves permanence and visa versa resulting in a reckoning of time. The tic-toc of permanence and change, cause and effect, disturbed and non-disturbed states evidences this relationship.

What about Psychological Permanence and Change?

Who am I in relation to my psychological environment?

That which I resist tends to exist. Change involves breaking down resistance, which my need for permanence rejects. I attend to what I resist in order to conform it to fit my beliefs. Once I do, I let go of my attention to it. That frees my attention to move on to other problems I need to solve.

Here then is choice – to embrace change and permanence through their defense. When I choose one, I also choose its complement – thus, the “and” bit. I defend one option with active attention, I defend its complement with passive attention in denial.

I give equal value to their defense as benefit or threat. Arguments for and against compete for my attention. Thus, choice validates the conceptual separation between permanence and change. Of course, what I believe is choice may instead be a defense of value. Value defends my belief in competition in the context of my own survival competence.

In limited awareness, I’m never in possession of all the facts. Every choice, therefore, includes some element of assumption not based in fact. For example I choose this because it appears to be more permanent than that. I must see competitors as competitors in order to make a choice. I compete for and against truth as I perceive it competes with me. We’re both competitors!

Perhaps truth is relative to the value I assign to my concept of self: How valuable am I?

Permanence and My Need for Security

From ancient monuments to the golden record on the Voyager probe, mankind has sought to create a permanent record of itself. In my limited awareness bubble, I feel a need for permanence for those things I like (me, my immediate family, my dear friends, etc.). I’m maybe not as hot about permanence for things I don’t like.

Perpetual motion machines, age regression creams, life extension products, immortality – all attempts at providing evidence of a magical elixir called permanence. And yet, we know permanence is impossible. Nothing can remain unchanged indefinitely.

Change vs Permanence

I feel I can’t change that which I believe is unchangeable. That sense of endless invariability can make me feel as insecure as that which changes in an inconsistent way. Maybe I need some change and some permanence.

Perhaps my sense of rightness arises from my need to feel secure. When I make a prediction, I may feel right about my understanding when a result occurs that I feel defends the prediction. This builds a sense of dependence upon my understandings. What I depend on, I defend as truth. Thus, and in many other ways, I seek to make my truth the truth – a permanent feature of the universe. As a result, I feel more secure.

For example, I depend upon the sun. I feel secure knowing the sun will rise in the morning. It’s also proof that I survived the night. That sense of rightness about the sun’s cycle may give me a sense of permanence to something I depend on. Since I feel a need to survive, my predictions about the cycles of the sun can give me a sense of security.

Thus, I derive a sense of:
Predictability <=> Rightness <=> Security <=> Permanence

Defense of my sense of rightness may be based on my need for security. In search of something I can count on, rightness seems to fill the bill. At some level of rightness, certainty satisfies my need for security. Certainty can feel like without being permanence, which may explain why I tend to prefer it over doubt. And yet, doubt may be the doorway to real understanding.