Being cognitive part of our part-less Whole


There’s a Whole Being of Reality
of Whom our reality is a part,
projected through His or Her nervous system, CNS to be precise.*

Within our reality are separate parts
projected in particular places by our Whole.

The conscious, experience, self or identity
what we experience and the witness by which we are aware
deeper being, feelings and our thinking,
they’re some of the parts we can, to various degrees
recognise, report on, but also Orientate*.
Within the setting determining parts of our reality
emergent* themselves of our Whole’s projection,
our spatio-tempero-linguistic scopes propagate*.

From limited structure come infinite scope
Noam potentiates what may be known.*

Our sense and notion of others and the world
theories and processes both scientific and philosophic
our knowing sense of being in the world also doing,
all projected parts of our reality projected by our Whole
Who does and is amongst other Wholes of Reality.


Numbed, however, in being isolated
from wonderment and awe of being part,
of a being, doing, living Whole Being.

Independent and free in our cognitive consciousness*
our knowing self identified and with what is experience.

Our reality is through our Whole, said to be representational or indirect
we hold within it, as Russel says confident, to experience naively and direct*
Newton’s description of gravity help keep our intuitive sense of mechanical causal contact*,
kinetics of sight maintained through the controls and monitors, never mind how
in applications including of transport, nuclear, of augmentation, and for testing.whole rest part Reality

Indeed, we are not angels but self or identity
part of emergent phenomena that is our reality,
emanation projected from our Whole Being of Reality.

Being of consciousness, substance, body, life
of distanced parts our integratory Whole.

In physicality godly, transcendent of, beyond our part
our part-less Whole is both emergent of parts, in fusion of them
and emergent of Reality as part of Reality, in fission from It,
He or She lives, exists and does in what is the rest of Reality
as He or She in being of Reality, displaces Reality.


Of numbered organs and countless cells
coordinated and integrated in our Whole Being,
touched by other wholes and parts of Reality*.

Immanent Reality of infinite fractions
smear etheric points of matter and space-time grid.

From the sense organs in many places on our Whole

formed Gestalt-ant, coherent and uniform*
the world we experience steadied from beyond us,
as if in a jet-fighter of radical aerodynamics steadied by computer*
we are free in our formed reality to have agenda and exercise agency.

But not this that is experience, not us with apparent agency
not that which is story – not us, not this, not that,
our Whole our all is a part of, is beyond us and part-less.

Everything of our reality is a part of our Whole.
What does that mean for us? to be a part as projection.

We occupy space as self and identity in “our actuality” as projection

projected in particular places with other parts by our Whole
conscious above, world we see front, sound wraps around, deeper being below,
captured in space and related with our transcendent Whole
our reality as part is touched by Reality through our Whole.

We may practice being part by promoting our Whole, stepping into our actuality, and by referring to Him/Her. become familiar with what happens as part
its processes and its stages

The *’s :-

CNS : Central Nervous System or the brain spinal cord and nerve roots.
our, we : refer to “us” as self or identity, a part of our reality, which is a projected part of our Whole.
projection : through the CNS, by our Whole Self.

Whole, Who, Whom, Whole being, Whole Self : of Reality, and of Whom our reality is a part.
Reality : with capital R to distinguish It, absolute Reality that our Whole Being is of, from “our reality” of conscious experience and self that is a projected part of “our” Whole.

Orientate : in space and with our Whole; our projected part (our actuality) may thus be placed in relation and integrate with its part-less and transcendent Whole Being of Reality.

emergent : the process by which a whole manifests that is more than the sum of parts and their functions that make up the manifestation or phenomena. An example is a flock of flying birds usually Starlings (parts) that stay together but not bump into one another (function). Characteristically, the emergent phenomena is ever new and surprises or is unexpected, and suggests a creativity. One could say God’s hand or Nature’s dance, display or spectacle. A problem emerges from emergency (emergent phenomena) in our mind about its agency (God’s hand) and subjectivity (Nature). We our selves, as self or identity, are emergent of our Whole with sense of agency and independence, which we may question will or destiny, freedom and the choices we have. As for subjectivity, we try hard where it is our Whole who does and is in the real world of Reality.

our spatio-tempero-linguistic scopes propagate : like a sub-atomic particle within its field, or a particle of matter in space-time (matter has gravity which is the warping of space-time within which matter exists), our story or notion generates a sense which further incites notion and story; so a participle propagates within its story or particular field of study or specialty that determines and uses the world.

Noam : Noam Chompsky – from limited structures of the mind is its infinite scope within our reality, in perception, thinking, language, action, and expression through them in the various fields of human and social activity, including the arts, dance and music, humanities, philosophy, science and its applications in technology, commerce, finance, industry, employment, government, law, politics, war, worship, etc.

our cognitive consciousness : I introduce this term to refer to what we usually mean by “our consciousness”, which is of our knowing and so cognitive for us to be able to report on, and to separate for the benefit of further discussion and consideration the mind that in perception, action, language, memory, dreaming, thinking, art, music etc makes possible these human feats largely beyond our “cognitive consciousness”. We may think and even assume and believe, as self or identity, we do those things, speak and understand languages for example, but much of their learning or execution happens beyond our “know how”, cognition and sense of agency or of “I’m doing it”.

representational or indirect realism : philosophical position that considers our reality as an indication of the real world. This is consistent with the idea that what we experience comes to us from the senses. However, because without such consideration, we effectively function with the world that we experience and our sense of being and doing within it, we adopt in practical terms a naive or direct realism (below). Also this naive identification and isolation in its directness from any possibility of being part or of the Whole Self, is supported by the Whole’s transcendence or absence beyond our part.
The world of our experience is to be differentiated from the real world of Reality.

naive or direct realism : the idea that we directly experience the real world. Science and parents, teachers and leaders in general, should ideally be careful in presenting their theories and applications lest they promote a naive realism, to those that come in contact with the stories or theories and applications. Theories about the world are based on “aspects of Reality” which science selects to study and the theories developed work for those aspects within conditions those aspects were experienced, monitored or measured in.
While we may sense a heightened or extended (augmented) contact with the real world through appliances (telescopes, rulers, counters etc) and in testing, we are met only within our reality, which is itself representational, by aspects of the real world through particular senses. We must our selves, as self or identity, refer to our part-less Whole to be reached by Reality and its process, and who is of Reality and in the real world of Reality, which our theories and sense are about; our being part of our Whole is the truly, only and really direct way! The theories about the real world of Reality and their application (in appliances and tests) can easily incite and draw us towards our isolation within sense and story, away from being part.

Russel : Bertrand Russel – perhaps nothing is certain. However, Russel notes we tend to be “confident’’ of our immediate experience.
Further more we tend to “conclude” with inferential abstractions, then consider, discuss, argue about their “certainty”. It may be something we can test, to see if it works or holds (empiricism). Or we may try to support the conclusion with proof or proofs (justify), which tends to the Munchhausen’s trilemma ie, regression of proof on proof either infinite or circular, or end in an assumption (foundationalism), or scutinise to strengthen its position against doubt or skepticism.

Newton, intuitive, contact, light speed, kinetics : scientific theories such as of gravity (Newton’s), electromagnetism, Relativity (speed of light), the Quantum, atoms, cells and Evolution define, describe and to a varying extent explain and predict certain phenomena or observable things and what happens to them, within the real world of Reality. Our intuitive sense of the world is that of friend/foe or mate, fight/flight or mate, of contact, of strings wheels and circular revolution (rather than elliptical of gravity) or rotation, of billiard balls or sticks and stones.
Noam Chompsky famously describes in the history of philosophy and science how, the clockwork mechanical view of the world, expected by our intuitive sense, was upturned when Newton explained how the planets of Galileo were not affected by strings or other contact but without contact and by gravity. Newton was concerned throughout the rest of his life with what gravity is and how such a thing comes to be.
However, many or most of humanity has
benefits from the use of Newton’s law of gravity, which describes and predicts accurately before the speed of light how objects of matter will behave in gravity, in appliances that work to move and strain under weight ie most machines and structures. Like the number zero, which we may know how to operate with the rules to multiply, add, extend past it into the negative or approach it in ever smaller fractions, without contemplating what took millennia to formulate (India 458AD), we do not often contemplate or appreciate the fact of gravity.
In asking why? about some thing or something happening, we may determine what things are involved, describe how things are affected and change, and explain how, by what mechanism or influence, things are affected. Matter is what gravity affects. What gravity is is a property of matter, which acts on other matter as a force of attraction. Newton’s law describes how matter is affected or behaves in gravity but does not explain how gravity attracts. Nor can we ask why matter or gravity exists in an effective or meaningful way that leads to a constructive result.
Why things are or exist and why fundamental processes such as gravity, light or fire should occur, used to be attributed to God or Creation. In contrast to the modern mind that gained a sense of control over gravity in “knowing how” to use his formula or the appliances based on them, Newton marvelled at the spiritual mystery that gravity implied, in the drop of an apple and orbit of planets. The wonderment of things and agency, of how things are affected (apple drops) or what it is that affects (gravity) is forgotten with the “know how”, the rules, theories and formulas that describe what happens and how things are affected. Our “intuitive sense of mechanical causal contact” by gravity “doing” what we cannot see or understand.

wholes and parts of Reality : whole entities reduced to whole atoms, and to parts that are subatomic but also photons and electrons, electromagnetic radiation and the various fields including gravitational, magnetic and quantum, as well as the settings of space and time.

formed Gestalt-ant, coherent and uniform : from Reality and by our Whole Being of Reality that are of many points of space, time and matter unfolding, we find our selves with experience in our reality that, especially as we face vision to the front, is uniform, coherent and formed. Gestalt (form or shape in German) psychology has established in the early decades of the 20th Century some of the processes in perception (vision in particular) by which formed sense of the real world (of Reality) emerges from bits of fractured information of aspects of Reality.
Our sense of time and change and our sense of body in the world is a uniform flow that must involve synchronisation of information from different places on the body and different modes of sense including sense of moving, that must arrive at different times at some central place. Our familiar cohesive and coherent reality is formed outside of our cognitive or knowing consciousness. There are functions of the mind through which not just perception but also the acquisition, abilities and execution of coordinated movement, language, thinking, music, art operate beyond our knowing. Also we have a sense of being, living and doing while it is our Whole Being of Reality Who is, lives and does in the real world of Reality.

new-age jet-fighter of radical aerodynamics steadied by computer : from traditional designs of stability many modern planes especially military, have designs that are aerodynamically unstable. This may be for stealth purposes or to allow for radical moves. They are made stable with computers programmed for the fast, numerous and automatic adjustments that stabalise their inherent instability.

Anatman and Atman

I have been preparing a little treatise on an introduction to “our actuality” – the fact of our reality (which itself is made of parts including our self or identity, what we experience, consciousness, deeper being) as a projected part of our Whole Being, projected through the brain and spinal cord (or CNS). “Orientation”, of our projected actuality, in space and with our Whole, establishes our representational reality as part of our Whole, Who in turn is a part of Reality (absolute) or the One-and-only-Whole (see elsewhere in this blog). For this Noam Chomsky’s linguistics and history of science and philosophy, as well as various descriptions and thoughts by others on emergent phenomena has been particular considerations for the last month or so.

I was noticing a comment on Daniel Everett’s work (linguist who lived and worked with some South American natives, initially as a missionary and subsequently converted from Christianity), which questions the recent views of language as an innate and universal human property (generative grammar originated by Chomsky). In contrast Everett considers us moulded by culture (and language) and, as Aristotle described, the mind as a blank slate rather than preset. What really took my attention, however, is the Buddhist and Hindu concept of “anatman” that Everett considered most compatible with the notion of the human self.

I take a sidestep from my recent activities and comment here on this and other Sanskrit terms with Orientation and reference to our representational reality (or indirect realism) within which we, as self or identity, identify directly with what we experience of perception and thinking, our sense and notion, as if they are real (naive or direct realism).

Atman and Brahman are Sanskrit terms familiar to many in our cosmopolitan world, even if they are not Hindu. Those that practice Yoga or meditation may have come across the terms in studying some of the philosophy behind the practices. That is how I first learned of the terms in the following phrase : “Atman and Brahman are one”.

Poem Straight up JUn17 (5) 1Atman is translated Self or True Self, and Brahman God. I have come to appreciate the terms and phrase in this way : Atman is the Whole Self Who is of Reality. Brahman is Reality (absolute) or the One-and-only-Whole. Atman, as part of Reality, displaces Reality so that there is no Reality but rest of Reality; Reality is transcendent of Atman but is immanent in (or permeates) Atman, for Atman being part of Reality. And in being part, Atman carries the essence of both His or Her Self and Brahman as the one spirit at His or Her core (Atman’s); the Atman and Brahman are one in spirit.

whole rest partAnatman is translated “non-self”. I consider it the self or identity within our representational reality, which is a part projected through the Central Nervous System of our Whole. Our Whole Self is part-less and transcendent of our part as any whole is of their parts. This is because a part displaces the whole to leave the rest of whole, as indicated in the diagram.

In Hindu tradition Atman is similarly understood to be formless and part-less (ie. whole), whose true nature cannot be perceived. It is said that to comprehend the difference between Anatman and Atman, between our projected part and our Whole, is to become liberated.

There is the famous practice of the self talk “Neti, neti, netior “not this, not this, not this“. The idea of negating Anatman, itself being a negation or non-self (suffix an-), is to realise the supposedly permanent and unchanging Atman.

My recent approach repeats this negation but then refer indirectly to our transcendent Whole thus :
“Not this, not that, not us
Not that, not it, not me.
Everything is a part,
of my part-less Whole Being.”

Of Nothing we exist

Of Nothing we exist –
that Nothing is our Whole
absence in our part,
our part-less Whole.

Of Life we exist –
emergent of time
cosmos and Earth,
transcendent of our part.

Trust, be grateful –
He or She immanent in our part
our business, monies, questions and purposes,
in our being part.

Not this, not that, not us, as self or identity –
our everything is a part
of our part-less Whole Being,
next to other Wholes of Reality.