Awareness as the function of reality

Recently (actually yesterday), I was encouraged by a fellow member of ILP to make another post on the similar theme I have been making. :slight_smile:
Even Faust said that he will feel obliged to act upon the “fine thread” I created. :smiley:
Reality is made of multi-layered narrow mindedness
So, I’m making a new one with slightly different take, but an important step for me.

When I think about many things, I prefer to use the awareness as the basis of perspectives, as I wouldn’t even know what I’m thinking/doing (or not thinking/doing) without it.
So, i think it became a blind spot for me, even though I never really took it for granted and kept an eye and question about the nature and construction of awareness.

As far as I can remember, the first moment I became distinctively aware (in the “physical reality”) was when I was three years old.
Before that, I have a vague recollection of hazy events that might have happened. But not very sure.
On the contrary to the vague recollection of before, the event of the first awareness was very clear and vivid (and a bit shocking or strange).

And I thought about this event as I was thinking about the relation between our sense of reality and the focus of awareness.
While I was thinking from different angles, I noticed that the event of the first awareness was the first time I felt the “physical reality” and thus the presence of “awareness” can be closely related to the sense of reality, the sense of certainty.

When we are “aware of” something, it means we are taking it as “real” and acknowledging the presence of it as with certitude.
Without underlying (and subconscious) certainty about the matter, I don’t think we are aware (or we feel aware) if it.

Now, combine this perspective with that of “reality indicates sticky focus that makes us narrow minded”, and we can consider any awareness to be a form of narrow mindedness, so to say (although it may present the impression of circular or self-referencing logic because I used the awareness in explaining the narrow mindedness).

In other words, I’m thinking that, without any sense of reality, underlying and subconscious sense of certainty, we may not be very aware, or possibly not aware at all.

Even though we tend to take the awareness as something positive, it might be something that is the very base of our sense of reality and our narrow mindedness and our stupidity.

As I remember the feeling I had that day when I became aware for the first time, there was the sensation similar to that of when I detected a lie of adult (saying something they don’t really intend/feel/think).
It’s like when I sense crisscrossing perspectives.
There was something phony about the sensation (and the reality).
And maybe it was so because the reality and the awareness is something phony to begin with.
Most probably, the reality and the awareness are phony because they are made of temporary focus and yet we are somehow made to take it as if it were persistent (if not permanent).

Also, basic concept like “existence” is pretty similar to the sense of reality and the awareness in the sense that it is probably supported 9subconsciously) by the phony certitude of persistence.
This is probably why most people never think about the scope of it when they think and talk about existence. As they presume the persistence or even permanence (and omnipresence) because of subconscious certainty, they don’t imagine nor take into consideration the limit or scope of existence in time nor in space.
And this can happen to any concept idea that someone is aware of, someone feels reality of.

I guess we would continue to presume the reality of things unless we examine the limits/scope of each thing we are aware and we feel reality.

In the retrospect, the event of the first awareness and the experience of loosing the sense of certainty about “oneness” and counting, these event gave me lots of hints, along with the observation of different focuses.

Now, i think I’m going to rip apart the awareness, as much as I can.
It’s tricky because I’ll be using the awareness to do that.
However, by using logical mind space, actually I’m doing it in virtualized logical play ground instead of the awareness trying to catch it’s own tail (although I will do that, too :slight_smile:).
Also,as there are different layer/level/dimension of awareness, the lower of simpler level awareness would be used for monitoring more complex level of awareness.
And the structure and relations of different layer may suggest the general mechanism of the lowest layer.

Other than that, I’m planning to visit and revisit and go back and forth around the outer limit of the awareness by going into the different state of awareness, and especially where the awareness cease and give away to the core void/emptiness.
It is easy to say but highly delicate and I can’t manage to do it well, yet.
It’s somewhat familiar territory to me, but very slowly moving around the zone is difficult.
Usually, we drop off when we get too close to void, or we get stuck in the higher layers.
It requires extremely fine movement that I’ll have to practice whole a lot, most probably.


Yep, that’s one of my favorite words … unlike causation. The rest are particulars.

Is it okay to substitute “consciousness” in for awareness?

Also, you seemed to be talking about limits to awareness that make us narrow-minded - could this be “attention” you’re talking about?

What did you mean by this:

And I’m trying to rip it apart (as much as possible) and turn it into one of particulars. :slight_smile:

Yes, as long as your “consciousness” doesn’t have any moral connotation and if it denote just the function or phenomenon of noticing something.

Yes. It’s the focus of attention or any sticky focus of awareness/consciousness.

Any “reality” for us is something that gives us the sense of certainty, although the sense of certainty might be subconscious and not obvious to us.

Now, whenever we take something for granted (without rational and conditional reasoning for it), when we don’t even consider the scope/duration or the conditions/limitation of the matter we think/talk about, it is the sign that we are presuming the permanent/unconditional/unlimited nature of the matter.
And this kind of presumption produces the subconscious certitude that gives us the sense of reality, in turn.

I think the presumption of “unquestionable” nature is produced by the effect of sticky focus that make us believe the focused “part” is the whole because we don’t get to see the rest while the focus is stuck.

If the focus isn’t stuck, we would know that it’s not the almighty “whole” and we can notice the conditions/limitations inherent for the given focus.
And when we know something is clearly conditional/limited, we wouldn’t have the sense of certainty and thus it wouldn’t become the “reality” for us.

So, I think any “reality” for us is indicating the sticky focus and it’s nothing other than narrow mindedness.

I was talking about these in this thread:

And now, I’m thinking that “awareness” is the premier “reality” for us and thus it is also produced by the sticky focus, in this thread.
I’m just questioning our sense of certainty and impression of awareness, reality, fact, and any things that is taken for granted, taken too seriously, or overrated/worshiped/glorified.

I’m not so sure it is. It’s my experience that one can be conscious of something without being aware of it. So I see a distinction there.

That’s an interesting question. However, if I may comment here (I hope you don’t mind), I don’t think that mindedness, narrow or open, is necessarily predicated on either awareness or attention. I think it has more to do with a rubric for consciousness that one carries in her/his mind and informs the process of thinking as it unfolds. This rubric operates invisibly beneath the surface, so to speak.

One example of such a rubric might be the idea that the Bible is the only viable and true word of God, the only source of truth and right thinking. If one operates with this rubric, then one’s thinking and thought process will of necessity be limited or narrow.

Another example of an informing rubric might be the idea that America is the greatest country in the world, always right, and deserves to be the moral arbiter of that world. This rubric will then influence thinking and again, of necessity, make it rather limited and narrow.

An example on the other end of the scale, towards openness and flexibility, is that all humans are created equal, and that all societies, races, religions, and cultures are equally worthy, resulting in thought processes that would, of necessity, be open to new and different ideas and influences.

Possibly a better example is the idea that humans are physical manifestations of the consciousness of God, that God thinks through us; and since God is omniscient and all-creative, thought would then have no limits.

Take care,