With this idea of the life world, within the greater world, I feel I’m orientated Ok. I can work on all the tidbits from here: I can deal with the basics of you, with your descriptions and interpretations, and the social world; but move on to the more abstract levels, since that’s what you are really doing anyways. You are abstracting, applying understandings, meanings here. Symbolic, if anything. I tried a lot of things, and moved on and through a lot of systems out there. I’ve been zeroing in on the more enhanced approaches now . . . still learning. This is what I really wanted.

We “internalize” the outside world . . . you may “externalize” it. You could say I’ve worked my way beyond this basic level, that tends to be generic, colloquial in nature, pulling it back to mundane levels, and hence enlarging my perspective. The point is, we have further functioning here, not just the physical, social stuff . . . this “life world” is embedded within a greater reality, and one can see for oneself what else could be.

The “meanings of life,” within these intrinsic levels . . . revealing . . .

I got the idea of the “internalized” model of the world from Piaget; but being rational only, he had his limits too. This idea of “magical thinking,” never heard of that before . . . “The prejudice distinctly qualifying his observations was his attitude toward the characteristic he calls magical thinking. In this he shared the conventional view of other researchers who refer to the child’s wish thinking, fantasizing, or autistic thinking (in the original meaning of the term) as a self-enclosed thought that doesn’t bother to check against reality. In brief, magical thinking implies that some kind of connection exists between thought and reality, that thinking enters into and can influence the actual world.” (Joseph Chilton Pearce, Magical Child, xiv, xv (preface)). I brought in the idea of “externalizing.” So, is is this why you are doing what you are doing? I could see it as a therapy . . . but of course, as noted, this got out of hand with all of you, doesn’t mean much anymore, not really needed. There should be this evolution of understanding between the internalization and externalizing tendencies; but there appears to be roadblocks in the levels of understanding of the participants, and their levels of functioning. Like I said you could get any misfit playing the game here. I see now though, within oneself, there can be these personal evolutions of meaning, growth, higher levels of functioning.

I can also see why John Lilly with his psychoanalytic background, and his use of “representations of reality,” was worried if these realities were just constructed or not, in his own mind; though, he also used notions of programming and meta-programming.

I’ve run up to the levels beyond even these . . . Intent and existence . . . there’s other truer connections with the world! I got something else coming in now too . . . moving it along with intent and figure/ground, an interactive field of meaning and knowledge.

Intent is in contact with the world, interconnected, consciously and energetically. May the Force be with you!

Makes one wonder . . .
“The World as Will and Representation, Arthur Schopenhauer, 1819” . . . is this the first, as far as these ideas go?

Its eye-opening, strange, what can occur during these experiences.

And when I have these experiences, its not like I “plan” to have them ahead of time. At most, I may tend to go in a certain direction. They tend to “pop-up” on their own, in their own unique presentation. Sometimes they are just “there.”

There’s been one theme I was considering lately: moving from the apparent/typical, engaging new realities, taking it a step further into the multifaceted connections. There’s been certain results lately too. Hmm . . . one could say second attention, or further evolving meanings.

Things cleared up.
There was this quick image of a rounded, rectangular object, vertically orientated, grayish, like a polished stone . . . one could feel its presence, as if it was a portal that went through all the dimensions. Later I had the sensation that I was in the driver’s seat, with the rounded top of the steering wheel in front of me.

I saw this figure lying next to me. I thought he was ill, and I thought I would stretch out my closed hand to him to see what was happening with him. As I did so, I was getting this emerging drawing, like a capital figure U . . . that explained it, it was “you,” ie, me. It was in blue, and suddenly there was a square blue thing like the above grey one. The funny thing is that soon after, in normal reality, I was playing with my computer’s lights and got some big blue ones for those big blue fan squares. LOL. Realities are interconnecting, with me doing subconscious things.

I found myself flying my space craft, and noticed a white rounded cube going up, like the ones above. I thought it looked like a delivery cube van, and accelerated closer to it to take a look. (And we saw a real one lately.)

Although “wholeness” seems at first to be nothing but an abstract idea (like anima and animus), it is nevertheless empirical in so far as it is anticipated by the psyche in the form of spontaneous or autonomous symbols. These are the quarternity or mandala symbols, which occur not only in the dreams of modern people who have never heard of them, but are widely disseminated in the historical records of many peoples and many epochs. Their significance as symbols of unity and totality is amply confirmed by history as well as by empirical psychology. What at first looks like an abstract idea stands in reality for something that exists and can be experienced, that demonstrates its a priori presence spontaneously. Wholeness is thus an objective factor that confronts the subject independently of him, like anima or animus; and just as the latter have a higher position in the hierarchy than the shadow, so wholeness lays claim to a position and a value superior to those of the syzygy. The syzygy seems to represent at least a substantial portion of it, if not actually two halves of the totality formed by the royal brother-sister pair, and hence the tension of opposites from which the divine child is born as the symbol of unity.
~ C.G.Jung , Aion

So, now we can start talking about “core realities” and authenticity . . .