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?

Please follow and like us:

Intention and the Priority Game

I have so many intentions competing with one another! I could say the same for defenses, thoughts and actions. In my limited awareness world of duality, I always produce two intentions and attend to one. That is, for every intention I’m aware of, its counter balances duality.

Because I an aware of only one thought at a time, I’m usually aware of no more than one of my intentions. Although focused on one thought, there are myriad others contending for my attention. Just like intentions, my thoughts scream out for my attention, “Look at me! Look at me!” “No! Look at me! Look at me!”

Attention is the food of thought and intention. Thoughts or intentions to which I pay attention tend to grow and prosper. That doesn’t mean those I don’t pay attention to die. They just don’t grow as fast – and in some cases die away.

At least that’s how it appears to me. “Focus on your goals!” to achieve them, I’ve been told many times. And yet, sometimes, I find myself in the position of saying something like, “I didn’t intend to hurt your feelings.” In other words, an unconscious hidden intention surfaced and surprised me. Maybe forcing me to acknowledge it with my attention.

The Priority Game

There seems to be two main parts of my being:

  • Physical – the projection
  • Psyche – the projector

The projection is useful because the projector perceives it. I project every thought. Not all of them do I attend to. This because of my limited awareness – that comprehends the tiniest fraction of the myriad of thoughts I project.

To conserve energy and keep my story linear, attention focuses awareness from the myriad of intentions down to one at a time. Prioritizing intentions in this serialization helps me avoid overloading my circuits! It also keeps my story straight, which in turn, gives me a sense of rightness. I at least feel I’m okay when my story is linear. Thus, the value of a “good [serial] memory” that recalls events in their “proper” order. That proper order is the order that matches the singular direction of my linear story.

To that end, I must apply my attention first and foremost to defending my safety and benefit. My initial defense of that attention is my intention to feel safe. This intention to defend becomes the default behind my behaviors. This includes “on guard,” fight, and flight behaviors.

All this to prove to myself that I’m vulnerable to being less than whole – while intending to remain whole. This bias for wholeness in an environment of vulnerability can appear in some strange ways. For example, a person might survive an impossible situation and then feels they are somehow invulnerable to destruction. Maybe they feel they are a divine appointee – like a prophet. Maybe they feel a cause to which they must apply themselves.

Their attention to a life-threatening experience with defensive logic based in a premise of vulnerability tends to connect their biased intention for wholeness with its opposite.

Intention as Initial Defense

What if my intention is my initial defense of one concept over another? A part of the mechanism that turns all-at-once lateral thinking into one-at-a-time linear thinking. Why a defense against what I want – wholeness?

In linear-thinking, I can only define all-at-once wholeness in terms of one-at-a-time un-wholeness. In that way of thinking, there is always this sense that I must seek wholeness – rather than accept that I am wholeness.

To serialize my story, I assign intentions based on how much they confirm my concept of wholeness. This would require that I see myself as whole only in relation to someone or something else – a serialized comparison. In my relationships, therefore, I perceive others that support my limited thinking as whole (good/right). And those that don’t as unwhole (bad/wrong).

I define these intention assignments as accountability. Thus, equating my conscious intentions with subconscious accountability. I expect to get what I intend to get. And because the equation is false in limited awareness, I sometimes don’t get what I consciously intend. “Oops! Sorry! I didn’t intend that you should get hurt…” and etc.

Stewardship Over My Intentions

This takes me to the concept of stewardship – governance. Accountability provides that I have governance over my own physical and psychological being. Important, as these are the two main parts of my being. As the steward with power to govern my thoughts, I have the capacity to learn and change. As I learn how my equations affect my conscious intentions, I can practice governance over them. I can turn intention from initial defense to something else. That “something else” may just be the key to transforming limited to unlimited awareness.

Please follow and like us:

The Appearance of Love in Countering Wholeness

Why would countering wholeness appear as love? How would countering wholeness appear as love? What the hell am I talking about?!!

Within my bubble of limited awareness, I must limit my understanding of wholeness to, “The state of forming a complete and harmonious whole.” Sounds to me a lot like separateness in which I compare this wholeness to that wholeness. Maybe I can’t help perceiving wholeness in terms of separation.

Beyond limited awareness, wholeness may be incomprehensible. Even to define wholeness, I must limit its infinite nature to a “something” that is finite enough that I can contain it in a definition. Thus, confirming I was right to limit perception of wholeness to my limited awareness of it.

An Unbridgeable Gap?

In limited awareness, I can only perceive infinite love and infinite wholeness in terms of limited – finite! – awareness. To perceive infinity, I must extend my limited awareness into unlimited awareness – an impossibility in limited – finite – awareness. Even to consider something as infinite, I must first define that infinite “something” in finite terms so I can compare it against “something” else I consider infinite. Thus, I limit wholeness and reinforce my finite perception of infinity! This conundrum may represent an unbridgeable awareness gap.

Editor’s note: wholeness INCLUDES all separate “somethings” just as infinity INCLUDES all finite “somethings.” Although wholeness is infinite, I experience it as finite. So, I’ve created a method to bridge the unbridgeable gap. Conditional love!

Since separateness supports me as an individual, I experience wholeness in the form of relationships – me vs you. The more like me you appear, the more I believe we are whole together. Wholeness, then, becomes a matter of agreement.

Love as agreement appears as confirmation of wholeness in which individuality counters wholeness. That’s why I perceive everything in terms of relationships with me as the central point of reference.

I want experience! Therefore, I must believe that my counter to wholeness supports that. Why? Because I defend my actions and beliefs as my acknowledgment of love. I feel love when I defend a divided reality – “I (an individual) love YOU (the appearance of someone ELSE who agrees with me).” Love becomes a symbol of proof of wholeness when it actually proves need. I need agreement (that love confirms).

Because I define everything in terms of this vs that, I cannot begin to comprehend infinite. Therefore, perhaps I’m incapable of comprehending infinite love. So, I assign “love” as a symbol that represents, and so defends, my finite reality. Countering wholeness!

Love Countering Wholeness

Because I perceive love as “outside me,” those counters that support love as less-than-whole support me as less-than-whole – and appear as NOT ME. You plus me appears to add up to love and wholeness. Yet, because of my firm defense of separation, all my concepts of love instead counter any concept of such wholeness. Faulty equation!

That means I must constantly test for wholeness in my relationships – testing that always comes up short. Thus, defending my concept of wholeness as an unachievable goal.

Suppose I wanted to expand my awareness beyond the limitation that perceives love as a reward for countering wholeness. How might I get to that awareness?

I could ask myself questions that counter my intentions. Since intention can be associated with need and need fulfillment, start with some basic needs you can’t live without. For example, “If I don’t get this need satisfied, I’ll die.”

The Challenge!

Let’s explore some awareness-expanding questions that might challenge limited awareness.

What Questions: What…

  • happened?
  • is my intention in this experience?
  • other intention might I have than the one I’m aware of?
  • is the need I’m trying to fulfill in my intention(s)?
  • other need(s) might this intention suggest?
  • must one believe in order to need that?
  • else might one believe in order to need that?
  • is love in relation to this/that intention?

How Questions: How…

  • did this intention cause this result?
  • else might this intention cause this result?
  • might I think differently about this intention?
  • else might I consider a different intention?
  • does this result demonstrate an intention of which I’m unaware (an unintended consequence due to unaware intention)?
  • does this experience demonstrate my concept of love?

Why Questions: Why…

  • this intention rather than another?
  • do I need this need or this intention?
  • is this so important to me?
  • do I trust my perception of this?
  • must I be right about this?
  • did love appear like it did in this experience?
  • am I defending this perception of less-than-wholeness as love?
  • Extra points for answering the above WHY questions without using the word “because.”

Who Questions: Who am I…

  • beyond my countered wholeness?
  • who projected and responded to this concept of being in this experience?
  • now that I’m enlightened by these questions?
Please follow and like us:

Limitation by Design

Do I limit my experience – on purpose?

In my bubble of limited awareness, although I believe I live with trillions of other beings, I alone live within my thoughts. Everything and everyone I experience in this dimension of limitation are literally and figuratively phantasms of my imagination. To me “they” are simply concepts in competition with other concepts. My perception of a walrus, for example, is a concept that competes with my concepts of everything else. I’ve limited my perception of this because it is not everything else.

Everywhere and whenever I notice, I’m faced with solid evidence of limited experience in the form of paradox. That is, nothing is as it appears – ever! Everything appears as a paradox of  unreasonable reasons, illogical logic, timeless timeliness, and perceptions of lack in wholeness.

Adaptation = Limitation!

One explanation for this paradox comes from the theory of evolution. I perceive as I do as a result of millions of generations of adaptation to changing environment. Thanks to Mr. Newton, I now know that evolution follows the law of conservation of energy. Thus, it has keenly honed my senses to perceive me in relation to a limited number of needs-related aspects of my present environment. Rather than to compare me to ALL that is not me, I compare me with only that part of not me that I consider matters to me.

I don’t perceive EVERYTHING – even within the limited space of my own body. Just what I NEED to perceive in order to survive long enough to pass my genes along to the next generation. Those senses, skills, and education I don’t need or don’t use often enough fade away. That’s evolution through adaptation.

Attention = Limitation!

In this way, my mind considers every thing, person, or place as a concept.  To manage the perpetual competition among these concepts, and to avoid overwhelm, I limit the number I’ll attend to at any one time. That’s intentional limitation!

Evolution, then, is the result of a paradox in which one must limit their sensual and conceptual life experience in order to fully live.

Purpose = Limitation!

Perhaps the purpose of my life is not the achievement of wholeness – a paradox in that one cannot achieve what one already is. Rather, maybe my life’s purpose is to notice the enjoyment I get from the paradox of limitation by design.

Please follow and like us:

The Something Out of Nothing Paradox

In my bubble of limited awareness, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that you can’t create something out of nothing. Yet, it would seem that that is exactly what is happening at the non-physical level of thought. Perception can do what appears to be impossible at the physical level. How?

Perhaps one way for a conscious agent to coexist between realities – e.g., thought and physicality – is through imagination. Does fear, as an absence of rational thought, exist outside of imagination? No! Imagination is the only place fear can exist as an influence by and to a conscious agent. This influence can disrupt an agent’s attention on the familiar and lock it onto the unfamiliar. When this happens, the agent can feel out of their comfort zone. The time they spend feeling afraid is the time it takes to regain rational self-directed focus.

Imagination can translate perception into fact and vice versa by means of paradoxical thought. Imagination uses this paradox in order to create a sense of balance. Balance is achieved when the paradox feels satisfied, e. g., when perception of physical reality satisfies non-physical thought. In this way, mutual satisfaction between realities appears to resolve the paradox. Thereby making something out of nothing.

Comparing Imaginary Values

Wholeness represents completeness, no needs to fill. In order to achieve wholeness, my goal, I must compensate for my lack of it. Through imagination I can assign internal values to external things. In this way, I believe I can compensate for the value I feel I lack. Thus, something out of nothing.

This is the essence of perspective. An imaginary point of reference from which I measure my beliefs in terms of imaginary values. This is how I relate external values to internal worth. The measure of an objective thing’s value is in my investment in its ability to represent my subjective perspective. Again, something out of nothing.

Because I believe I can achieve my goal of wholeness in this way, I’m committed to defending all my investments in this reality. My level of defense is based on my subjective sense of loss and gain in terms of objective value. Since loss and gain are constructs of imagination, values translate measurements into labels – good, bad, right, wrong, and better, worse. A paradox of nothing into something.

An ability to imagine loss or gain may well have the ability to live in two realities simultaneously. Turning nothing into something and something into nothing may be why thought can seemingly compensate and survive psychologically. In this way, my mind perceives a need filled – nothing perceived as something. Thus, the paradox.

Please follow and like us: