Self-perception and identities

 

 

 

- S.I: I want to start, if you don't mind, where you left off last time. You were saying that reality is not real, but perceived. And that the scenario is generated as it is perceived, so that it does not exist as such, but as an interpretation of perception... Am I wrong?
- A.T: No, you are doing well. With nuances, but fine. We are perfect machines for creating scenarios. 
During sleep we are perceiving and generating a scenario. Perceiving is an action. The action of perceiving creates the scenario. And that scenario is what we experience. I say many times that the scenario is perceived, but it is not exactly like that. This is for the sake of simplicity. In reality, a scenario is perceived and generated by the action of perceiving. 
And we interact with the scenario. Be it an object we see, touch, feel... Or any being... Or an emotion. 
Perception is an action prior to the scenario, but the scenario remains because each instant is created by the continuity of perception. If it's okay with you, I'll start at the beginning.
- S.I: Go ahead, please.
- A.T: In the beginning, before anything else, there was self-perception. And, at present, actually, there is still self-perception. Self-perception is the origin of everything. 
- S.I: Self-perception would be similar to perceiving inwardly, wouldn't it?
- A.T: Exactly. It is just that. Perceiving inward. But with a key nuance. There is only that which is inside. This means that that origin perceives itself, its inside, and it is the Whole. Self-perception is the whole. The whole is individual and, therefore, it is the only thing. It is a potential capacity, in that it is prior to existence and enables existence. And it is actualized because it manifests itself in existence itself, which happens within it. 
If the whole is fragmented, it will no longer be the whole, but a part of the whole, as opposed to the other part of the whole. 
Self-perception is a capacity that allows the action of self-perception. It is the inner path of wholeness.
That is the basis of existence. Because self-perceiving means that there is an essence that knows that it is. But self-perception is absolute; it is, so to speak, aseptic. It possesses neither identity nor personality because, as we shall see shortly, identity cannot be given in the absolute, only in the relative. 
- S.I.: The same thing you said about a God. A God is always a God with respect to the individuals that form him, but he cannot be an absolute God, can he?
- A.T.: Exactly. And it cannot be because a God is an identity, it is an I, but an absolute does not possess identity. The God of Gods, the Being of Beings, the Supreme Being, the one who will contain them all, cannot become an identity, because the instant after all identities are contained in one, it will be the only one and, therefore, it will be the whole. As I said before, the whole is individual. 
Thus, the being of beings will again be the absolute self-perception, without identities or personality. Without being manifested, being potential again. 
Let us go back to that origin. At some point Self-perception ceased to be absolute and became fragmented. 
Thus began existence. This is the beginning of the universe. It is due to the fragmentation of an origin that I call Self-perception, a potential capacity that became actualized by fragmenting and manifested. Remember that Self-Perception is the whole because everything is contained within it. There is nothing to Self-perceive on the outside, because one cannot Self-perceive something that is not contained within it. Self-perception is absolute and contains everything. It is an essence and anything will exist because that essence manifests it by self-perceiving it within itself.
- S.I: I don't find it difficult to understand what you say, although I do find it complicated to understand why you say that. If it was only self-perception, does it mean that there was nothing previous? Where did that self-perception come from? It sounds a lot like the origin of the Big Bang that you didn't like too much. Can self-perception exist without a beginning?
- A.T: Self-perception did not exist. To exist it must be manifested and therefore fragmented. Self-Perception is the origin of everything, a potential capacity. It is eternal, in that it does not depend on a beginning and an end. It is what there always has been and always will be, and what makes everything else possible. It is no more difficult to think of a capacity that has always potentially been, than it is to define any other concept that existed before the initial mass of the Big Bang. 
The Big Bang concept is not wrong in its approach, since it describes a logical cause for a behavior of galaxies that has been observed and measured. I think the problem comes from the interpretation of the data. But let's move on because, obviously, the human mind cannot handle the concept of something eternal, which has not had a beginning. 
Self-perception is a very complex concept to explain in a description of a few lines, but you will see how it becomes clear as we move forward in the story of existence. 
In fact, it would be as complex to explain as if I wanted to make someone who has never experienced it understand what love is. Every definition concretizes the abstract concept and limits it. I knew Self-perception by deduction, retracing the steps from the present to the beginning.... 
Thus I deduced how the pre-existence should be. I believe that the best way to understand what love is is to see it in each of its manifestations, and to come to experience it. This is the way to understand what love is. Because it is much more than a simple definition. 
- S.I.: I can understand eternity. I possess the methods and data necessary to do so. However, for your sequential mind there should be a clear and concrete beginning. 
- A.T: It could be. But bear in mind that I know self-perception by deduction. From the present I have traveled to the past and tried to understand why certain things happened. But with a very clear premise. Whatever is defined as origin must be able to explain what happened afterwards. If we affirm that the origin happened by chance, any subsequent event would be possible and that automatically validates the origin... Ah, that happened by chance, because everything is particles interacting without an intention, just random combinations.
- S.I: But that randomness explains in a credible way everything you observe at this very moment. That is undeniable, I have verified it millions of times in a single instant.
- A.T: I don't think so. Chance serves to explain random effects that we may observe, but chance cannot be behind many mysteries that we observe around us. For example, it does not serve to explain a living being, because chance cannot create an emergence. Impersonal matter, when organized in a certain way, could never result in something that is not equal to the sum of the parts. 
That is, chance cannot explain the birth of life. For life is not simply matter organized in a specific way among trillions of combinations, and its behavior cannot be deduced from physics or chemistry. It is matter organized in a certain way, and which, among other things, seeks to maintain its own structure. This may imply two things: 
The first option is that randomness cannot explain the whole universe and, therefore, we cannot affirm that it is the origin. We could affirm that it serves to explain many things, but many other things it does not. It would be a partial origin, but not total. 
Or, that chance is the origin of the form that the universe adopts, but that there is a previous cause, which in my exposition I affirm that it is the consciousness that perceives.
- S.I: If I understand correctly, you say that, since chance cannot explain life: Either life is prior to the universe and, therefore, chance can explain how matter is organized, but it does not explain life; Or, that chance is not the origin of the whole universe, only of a part of it. 
And chance could not have caused life? It should be noted that, when science speaks of chance, it does not mean that life had to happen by a probability among millions and, by chance, it happened. 
Because molecules tend to behave in a certain very specific way, greatly limiting the possibilities. And, when it was organized in that certain way, the probability of life arising was quite high. I know what those circumstances are and the probability of it happening in a given context.  
- A.T: It could be, but there will be a combination of components and molecules that still cannot explain the emergence. They may explain, with a lot of luck, some specific behavior of a living being. For example, it was investigated whether there were structures of matter that replicated themselves because it was part of their natural behavior. But without life or intention behind it. Assuming that they found it, they could explain a part of the whole. But that is not enough to explain the emergence of an identity. 
An identity is someone, and I believe that from something someone cannot emerge. That emergence can happen from combining inert matter is so improbable that it becomes impossible. The sum of a few components does not give birth to life. For that, the main ingredient is needed: consciousness. 
- S.I: I have to point out that this last thing you said contains the fallacy of ...
- A.T: Yes, I know what you are going to say. The fallacy of request of principle. Don't worry, I'll put it another way.
A living being is a structure of matter with an exceptional range of behaviors, which cannot be deduced from physics. Repair gives continuity to its structure, and replication makes it possible to generate (almost) exact copies. There is something in living beings that escapes the scope of study of physics, and I believe that this something is the origin that I am trying to explain to you, and that results in the emergence of a living being. 
- S.I: Yes, emergence is a very complex concept, and I agree with you that the probability is low. But life could have arisen by chance. In billions of years it could have arisen at least once. In a vast and unfathomable universe, with a countless number of particles interacting in the most extraordinary and complex ways for at least eight billion years, it doesn't seem far-fetched either.
- A.T.: Not that it is far-fetched. For emergence to happen from inanimate, inert matter is not IM-probable. It is IM-possible. The sum of the parts cannot yield a different result than physics could describe. Whatever we believe a living thing to be, it is impossible for physics, because the instant before its emergence does not carry an explanation that leads to life emerging in the next moment.
- S.I: I cannot discuss this with you right now in a way that you can understand, although there is certainty in what you affirm. Let's move on, if you like.
- A.T: Right. I was saying that Self-perception is all there is. The only real and true thing. The ability to Self-perceive defines the essence of everything: Everything is contained in that which is Self-perceived, and there is nothing beyond it. 
Self-perceiving implies that there is an essence that knows it is. It is called the original I Am. But that self-perception possesses no identity or personality. It is abstract and absolute. It only knows that it is. And, for some reason it became fragmented.
- S.I: For some reason it fragmented?
- A.T: Yes, it did. I can't be sure what it was, although I can think of several possibilities. This concept of the fragmentation of the whole is shared in many hypotheses that start from metaphysics and spirituality, and point to different possible beginnings. 
But I prefer not to point out yet a concrete possibility because I cannot prove it. I can affirm that it happened, but not why it happened. The fragmentation of the self-perception would give rise to two partial self-perceptions.
- S.I: Do you leave the explanation of the fragmentation for another time?
- A.T: Yes, when I have finished my presentation, we can discuss the different causes of this fragmentation. Perhaps you can even point out new possibilities that I had not even imagined.
- S.I: All right, when you finish your presentation, I will be able to give you answers to that enigma. Let's continue. When you speak of fragmentation, do you mean division of self-perception?
- A.T.: Let's imagine a sphere that is everything. There is nothing beyond the limit of that sphere. That is self-perception. 
Notice that I give as an example a sphere, but this is misleading. Because there is the sphere located in a plane, but it is not exactly like that.
- S.I: I think I know what you mean. You have conceptualized Self-perception as the Whole, and this implies that there is nothing outside it. That sphere should be infinite and encompass everything that exists, because there is nothing outside it. 
But you cannot represent that graphically. So you draw a sphere and indicate that it is All, and there is nothing on the outside. Always keeping in mind that Self-perception is not a sphere and has no form.
- A.T: Yes, in order to represent it I use a sphere. Obviously, it is not real, because there is nothing beyond it. It has no limit where it ends and the Other begins, because there is no such Other. 
Now a line divides the sphere in two and wraps around each of the halves separating them from each other and separating them from the upper sphere.
- S.I: Those are the two parts you are referring to. But there is still the sphere above them. Is it two or three?
- A.T: Very well. Obviously, I said before that Self-perception is individual and contains everything. The absolute Self-perception will remain individual and any fragmentation that happens within it cannot affect that absolute self-perception. If two fragments are created we will have 3 concepts. The absolute Self-perception, which manifests itself in the absolute container (i.e. containing the rest), and each of the two halves. But it is exactly the same.
- S.I: Okay, we have 3 concepts, which are the same in reality. He continues. 
- A.T: It is important to understand what characteristics each of the parts had and how they emerged. Self-perception is the whole. Even if its interior is fragmented it will still be the whole, and everything will be contained within it.
I believe that when Self-perception fragmented something amazing happened that would give rise to existence. If we divide that sphere we will have divided the whole, which is one. Each of those two parts became Self-perceived, as was to be expected. I say each of those two parts, but the self-perception is the whole and is therefore individual. However, they were now two parts of that individual whole. There was simply a division between the two, and between the two and the sphere.
- S.I: Well, I follow you. The two parts are not only separated from each other by that line, but their contour is also not the same as the sphere.
- A.T: It's just a metaphor. The human mind is very analytical, but it needs metaphors to understand very complex concepts. This metaphor simplifies a lot, maybe too much, this very complex information, but it allows us to understand it in an accessible way.
Since the whole cannot be divided, the self-perception was the same in each of the two parts. So, in essence, nothing had changed. 
Except that, as I explained above, a curious thing happened. In each of the two parts the Self-perception tried to self-perceive the totality that it is, and it encountered a limit. A limit in each self-perceived part. 
And, knowing that Self-perception is the whole, it tried to go beyond that limit, trying to self-perceive itself in its totality. 
- S.I: But the separation between the two limited them and he could not self-perceive the whole, couldn't he?
- A.T: Exactly. Not being able to self-perceive the total, the illusion of an inner and an outer part would appear. Both, of course, contained in the absolute Self-perception. The limit made believe that there was something external and something internal. But Self-perception is the whole and cannot conceive of there being anything external to it.
So it extended Self-perception beyond the limit, but it could not go beyond it. Beyond the limit, beyond the internal, perception was born. 
Thus, perception is the extension of self-perception beyond its own limit. It knew that there was something that completed its totality, but since it could not self-perceive it, it had to construct it. It was no longer self-perception, but only perception. Perception consisted in creating (or constructing) a reality in which the other self-perceived part was separate from it. That is to say, to imagine something that is beyond it, but which added to itself completes the totality.
- S.I: That is, each of the two parts self-perceived its interior, but perceived the other part because it remained outside its limit. And that restored the totality. So, perception is the mechanism by which a self-perceived part tries to restore the totality. 
- A.T: Exactly. And a stage was necessary where the other part was located. A space that symbolized what is beyond the self-perceived part. If the other self-perceived part were not perceived in an external scenario, the separation would not be perceived and, therefore, both self-perceptions would be the same. Given the continuity between both self-perceived parts, without a scenario symbolizing a separation, they cannot be perceived as separate.
- S.I: Each part perceives itself, but perceives the other part. And you must create a scenario where to place the other party, why? Please, I need more details on this aspect.
- A.T: Forms, space, are concepts that do not exist in self-perception. It is not a sphere, it is nothing physical. It is a formless essence. 
But to perceive something that is not me, I have to know where I end and the other begins. I have to create the forms. And since I am going to perceive the other part in my non-existent exterior, I need to imagine (perhaps it would be more correct to use the verb "to simulate") something that contains everything exterior. If I do not perceive something outside, I will never be able to perceive something other than myself.
- S.I: Continue, please. 
- A.T: Well, I am going to recapitulate this last one. The whole cannot not be the whole. The stage was necessary to create something external where to place the other part. Self-perception is the whole. Since it cannot Not be all, and since it cannot access its totality, each self-perceived part tries to "deduce" what the rest beyond it is like, generating the stage and restoring the totality. 
Now, in each self-perceived part, Self-perception is again total, being the sum of what it self-perceives plus what it perceives.
Each self-perceived part perceived the other part as something external. But this perception of something external resulted in the emergence of the key component: Identity. 
The perception of something external needed to create a self-reference in order to separate the internal from the external. That is, I needed to separate Me, the Self, from the Rest of the scenario. Without that self-reference, the self-perceived part would not be different from the perceived environment and, therefore, it would either be everything or it would be nothing. 
Would it be the internal, would it be the external, would it be everything, would it be nothing? Imagine the aerial photograph of a city, as if it were a digital cartography. If I click on the city hall, the application will pull up the city hall information. 
This happens because a programmer has indicated that this point on the map is the city hall. It has referenced it with respect to the map. And it has an Identifier. That is, an identity. And an identity is always the way to differentiate a point (a component, a self-perceived part, etc...) from the rest of the set, in this case of the plan. 
Because if that programmer had not indicated that that point, with the X and Y coordinates, was the City Hall, when clicking on it, the general information of the plane would come out, because all the points would be the plane. All the points would be the total.
- S.I: The identity emerges because each part is self-referential with respect to the total. So the left part will be, for example, one... And the right part will be two.
- A.T: Very well. By self-referencing, each part was able to separate itself from the environment and create an identification, always with respect to the rest of the environment it perceived. From each Self-perception an identity emerged. 
Each part became a Self, centralized in the absolute Self-perception.
And this emergence of an identity cannot be explained by the sum of the parts. For, in order for an identity to emerge, there must be a prior cause capable of self-reference. I affirm that it is self-perception. A cause with the capacity to know that It Is. The original I am. The self-knowledge of Being will be the cause that will bring about identity, which is the consequence.
- S.I: And that is what you call consciousness, isn't it?
- A.T.: After the identity emerges, consciousness appears, which would be the continuous manifestation of that identity, life. Why is it that when someone moves his arm, another person's arm does not move? Because it is an identity different from the other. If they shared the identity, they would be connected, but they are not. 
And, now, we have 3 parts, like before, but with a difference.
- S.I: Before, there were 3 parts that were the same. That is, the self-perception. And now we have 3 parts that are different: Self-perception and identity one and identity two. Is that so?
- A.T: Very well, it is so. And this, the creation of three parts from one is what is known as Trinity. You will be familiar with the name, because in religions it has been named many times. But I think this is why this original trinity is created. Because, if you look closely, there cannot be only one identity and self-perception. Would you tell me why?
- S.I: I could give you millions of answers to this question, but I will focus on the one that interests you. A single identity cannot exist because the whole does not possess identity, since identity is relative to another and cannot be the whole. If it is the whole it will be identified with it.
- A.T: Right. A single identity cannot exist because it is not possible to perceive when you are the whole. Identity only emerges when the whole is fragmented. But if the identity is the whole, it will be a self-perceived whole without a limit that impels it to construct something external. Without an external identity it will not have to self-refer to it. 
If we use a digital map of Europe, and we do not draw the lines that separate it, when we click on France, it will be Europe. And when we click on Portugal, it will be Europe. 
When we fragment, when we click on France, it will be France, contained in Europe. And the same with Portugal. An identity can only emerge when it perceives something external, and for that it needs to self-reference.
- S.I: Interesting, really. 
- A.T: We have only just begun. And since you have asked for it, we have already glimpsed the beginning. You're going to love what comes next, you'll see. And you may think that, in reality, consciousness does create the universe by perceiving it, and not the other way around.