So, we’re moving from the “concrete” levels, “what is is,” to the more “abstract,” aka, Piaget. One can see where the idea of the conscious mind shows up.

There are levels of interpretation involved here, and some can only do so much. Models of the world, representations of reality, internalizations of the external world. Including, of oneself. What is true, authentic?

The average guy thing, in this people context, externalization, is pretty crazy, like what you hear about in typical dreams.

The flows of motivation, the hierarchy of needs, like Maslow’s, may be related to all this, moving from the physical/security, through the social/personal, into that higher process of self-actualization.

There are though, higher levels of functioning available. As far as that “construct” goes, its not just an idea, symbol, but an activation, form. The West is just learning; but the Buddhists, Yogis, or mid-east would have no problems with that.
My rule of thumb is “intent and figure/ground.” Its when intent kicks in that you got some identity and meaning, when things are pulled together consciously, shaped and formed, and make sense. These activations take it up a notch! You’re trying, but this is what is really needed.

Ultimately, we need to get into the more advanced contexts available. Even me, a further step beyond that internal/external idea of foci, for instance, to the intrinsic, and the field of knowledge and meaning. The Life World within the Greater Worlds. Won’t that be cool if those world possibilities are there, no matter what, never mind just the externalizations? I see that now.

Core functioning within an enhanced context . . . Multiperspective.

World potentials! Self potentials!

John Lilly, the creator of the sensory isolation tank, and his use of representations of reality, could speak of moving from the neutral biocomputer state into higher levels of meta-programming.

As far as intent goes, one can speak of the “apparent,” then becoming active, moving through the second attentions.

Piaget’s “formal operational thought” that doesn’t depend upon the concrete world for reference, sounds like Jung’s use of active imagination. There is that level of advanced “abstraction. ” Magical! In our materialistic society, though, reality issues tends to keep it down to Earth.

I was considering the varieties of possible “contexts” here . . .

Once I hit that sense of “interactive meaning,” I was saved. I was working on those more core levels throughout my life, and finally broke on through in actuality. You were interpreting things in your generic, colloquial manner, dragging me down into that lower level, as if that was the real me. Instead of playing your games, I realized there was something a little further along, a real reason to it all. It took some time to find some open ways here. We are able to move from the apparent levels into the greater aspects of life, learning, developing, growing. I know. Besides the typical patterns, there is an encompassing greater context. There’s various directions possible. The Life Worlds within the Greater Worlds.

As I tried to fathom it at an earlier time:

The experiential frame:

-the personal: body, internal/external reality, identity, space/time.
-beyond the personal: the experience of a pristine reality independent of one’s cognitive interpretations . . . clarity . . . deeper sources of being and existing beyond this limited framework . . . archetypical . . . multidimensionality . . . extended, vaster cognition, intelligence, consciousness . . . the ground of being.

Our normal center of attention, externally directed, is only an offshoot, a tangent, a finite perspective of all perspectives, universal views. Inward focuses though lead to other intermediate levels . . . the “subconscious” becomes a treasure chest, a shamanic reservoir of knowledge and paths of breathless wonder.

So, instead of being carried away by the tide, you start swimming.