This idea, Piaget for instance, that we create “models of the world” within ourselves . . . related to that right from the beginning, for I also knew there was a truer reality out there, viewed with intent . . . “existence.” I was doing it.

Over time, more odds and ends began to fill in the details here. For instance: “The essential idea is that before birth you have a pristine, untarnished state of enlightened consciousness without a false idea of self or other. After birth, you learn to perceive in terms of the language and norms imposed by your culture. This socialization process obscures the original, innate purity of perception.” One could get a triadic form of development here, as postulated by Washburn.

These “internalizations,” “representations of reality” . . . one could start one’s psychoanalysis from this point. Differentiation, ego. Most of us would compare them to the external world, social world, first. Then I finally realized there’s the issue of “externalization” here as well. I finally pinpointed that, and was able to add it in. What people are really doing is applying realities, not necessarily worrying what the other person is about. Amazing. One might have worries of people per se, and their systems; but those who really know how to apply a reality . . . lol . . . they are the real governors behind the scenes. The Gods, creations, etc.

Then, other stuff could enter the picture here, depending on how one thinks we function within these internalizations. If one is rational only, there is only the internal and external worlds. If one started with intent and figure/ground, for instance, there are expanded contexts for sources, and enhanced ways. “A being entwined within an interactive field of knowledge and meaning.” As far as our status and physics goes, there is much more to us.

There are greater realities, enhanced consciousness, The Gestalt, and we are in interaction with that.

So, one can consider these representations of reality and also know there’s a truer reality.

One can work from there, becoming more flexible, knowing there’s even greater realities and approaches.

The image . . . may need some self-corrections, additions, for it is a limited perspective . . . many say that is what the unconscious does.

A typical conscious/unconscious relationship may be like this:

“In a figure that strikingly anticipates the insights of Freudian psychology, Schopenhauer compares the human mind to a body of water. Conscious ideas are on the surface, but the depths consist of “the indistinct, the feelings, the after-sensation of perceptions and intuitions and what is experienced in general, mingled with the disposition of our own will that is the kernel of our inner nature.”

~ Roger Kimball. “Lives of the mind: The use and abuse of intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse (Schopenhauer’s Worlds).” 2002, p. 147. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee.

The problem I had with that, is if it is unconscious, why is it so intelligent? Didn’t make sense. Ultimately, I got something like the figure/ground in . . . we are interrelated within a larger mind, consciousness.

So, the apparent, conscious, manifest . . . the figure. This is like a jewel, with many other interrelated facets, or like a poem, with many associated meanings to the words. The dreams coming in are from that larger aspect, and attempt to enlarge the smaller perspectives.

And with intent, we can become conscious here, take on other aspects, take flight: we’re not just passive and floating on the surface. We are active, interrelated with that larger mind and its meanings. Its a way.

So, don’t judge a book by its cover . . . “the apparent.” It can be further opened, studied . . . a multitude of possibilities, like a jig saw puzzle. Jung’s circumambulation around self becomes understandable. Dreams does this naturally: intent with figure/ground is a conscious approach. Where I’m at these days.