Within the figure/ground, experiences are more contextual. I recall looking into one of John Lilly’s investigative methodologies: he had it divided up into inner reality, outer reality, body, Self; a framework one could use to analyze experiences. Experiences within the figure/ground though always bring in more, an enlarged meaning with interrelated parts. For instance, I was wondering if viewed experiences were really external, or just in my head. There was a change of context, and suddenly I had a new experience of body: I touched the external “wall” with my outstretched hand, in a testing way. It felt solid to me. Likewise, I did this in another way; my foot touched the ground in a strong way, with that feeling of certitude. There’s a variety of diverse elements tied together here: I guess one could call that a Gestalt. This context has a discernible meaning; and at the moment, I view that as a “theme.” If one is divided up here, not a participant, the meaning is not so apparent.

Like a man in society, a player within the game, a life form within an ecology, a world within worlds.

We’re like a poem . . . the word isn’t like an object with one meaning only, but is part of a multifaceted context with many meanings, in the larger picture of rhythms, and rhyme, unfolding beauty and meaning.

Themes? . . . wrote this recently too.

The figure/ground . . . an abstraction . . . its even a “system of interactive knowledge.” The figure within the ground, “the distinction,” reminded me of the idea of the “bit,” a unit of information so to speak: though it operates differently than that; its like a feeler within the ground, touching upon various aspects of the universe, the arising manifest and un-manifest within the bigger picture in a connected and interconnected system.

There was a dream, in which I saw the blue prints of an “engine” of some sort, presented to me in a full 3D. If I could really use that? Eat your heart out Tesla!

Personally, I also seen how this could be “where one is at,” and how there could be “other parts,” even “bigger parts,” and within an intelligent larger consciousness as well. This is a real system, and improves upon the unconsciousness idea. The idea of dreaming, with the presentation of symbols and other contexts, made more sense too. Meanings and bigger meanings. Its like we are within a jigsaw puzzle, and are getting glimpses of the truer picture. With intent, we can arise up to a higher level; not stuck within a single piece, but can play with a few. There’s optimums here, leading to growth, maturity . . . evolutionary. Being a part of the whole, and the possibility of moving towards greater wholeness made more sense. I took steps beyond those old ideas, and within a practical way as well. My evolution as a psychology student . . .

In that inner realm of incertitude, as many may feel about that, there was a sudden change: I became a slightly different self: it was distinctly new, with body and feeling. I was wondering though, with my hands held together, by my chest, if I should do this or not. A bit meek at the time, or generally here?

Multiple perspectives are possible: one can move out of the first person perspective as proposed by Lilly, to even more complex situations, of first person, second person, third person, in intimate interaction.

I also thought about the higher levels of oneself, and there was this experience as if viewing the world from a great height. There was a bridge up there too, but it was broken. If I was tending to forget about these levels, thinking of the nitty-grittys from a lower level only, repair work may needed to be done.