(4)

It seems to me more and more difficult, as time goes on and I continue to practice the art of "experiencing myself," to distinguish between a self that experiences and a self that witnesses this act of experiencing.  For closer examination reveals that, in actuality, nothing exists outside the realm of the experiencing self.  Even now, as I write these words which take the form of a commentary on the experiential flow that defines consciousness, and though this commentary is, obviously, self-reflective in nature, there exists only the experiencing self.  This experiencing self may at times have more than one component:  e.g. it may be feeling an emotion while also thinking.  It will also be fielding information (though perhaps only subconsciously) gleaned from the physical senses, even while simultaneously feeling and/or thinking.  These various components need not necessarily be directly connected with regard to causality, but they will influence each other, directly or otherwise, to a greater or lesser extent:  the sum total of this influence is that which constitutes, for me and other humans, the experiencing self.

The process of focusing on my experiencing self – i.e. the process of self-reflection – is the process of experiencing the knowledge of my experience of self.  If, for example, I am angry, then mentally step to one side in order to observe my anger, I am now experiencing the knowledge of my experience of anger.  Yet the primary act in which I engage remains experiential in nature.  Any act of self-reflection is the same.  As I write these words, I am experiencing the act of self-reflection – or, to be more exact, I'm experiencing the act of recording the contents of self-reflection.  Or I'm experiencing, imaginatively, that upon which I am reflecting.  Or I'm experiencing the act of reflecting upon an idea.  But in all these cases, there never exists any but the experiencing self.

To whom, or to what, does the experiencing self apply?  The experiencing self may be defined by its participation in the revelatory act of communication, by the degree of self-awareness it has with regard this participation, and by the degree to which it enacts self-revelation through self-communication.  This is to say that consciousness (the process of experiencing) exists in all things – inanimate objects, plants, animals, and human beings – these differing only with regard to the level of self-awareness (the ability to have an experiential knowledge of experiencing) they are able to manifest.  Thus the ability of human beings to self-reflect does not in and of itself define consciousness but is only one of several attributes (emotional cognition and sensory perception being two others) of consciousness defined as a process of experiencing.  To take the former view – that the ability to self-reflect defines consciousness – is to fall prey to egoism and the fallacy of an ideal self.  To take the latter view – that the ability to self-reflect is but an attribute of consciousness – is to understand that ego is a fallacious concept which separates the manifestation of particularity from the "flow of experience" of consciousness as a more general manifestation.  Consciousness manifests itself in all aspects of reality, one example of which is a particular body and brain and (potentially at least) a set of karmic attributes which are, collectively, known as "Simon Ott."  This collective description of parts is then referred to as "I."  "I" as an egoistically conceived being exists as a discrete unit born out of, yet separated from, the larger consciousness, which I would here designate as "the ground-of-all-being."  "I" as conceived without egoism feels no such separation; rather, it knows itself to be a manifestation of particularity through which flows that more general consciousness which constitutes "the ground-of-all-being."  Or, to put it another way, the egoistical "I" would be analogous to my hand believing that it existed as a wholly separate unit from my body and brain.  "I" as understood without egoism knows that the hand is connected to body and brain, is part of the greater whole, and in fact is that greater whole, as expressed through the manifestation of particularity.

But still one question remains, this having to do with the degree of self-volition any manifestation of particularity can legitimately be said to have.  With regard to myself – and to continue to use the analogy of the hand – it would seem I have little true control over how consciousness manifests itself; I am "under its control" just as my hand is under the control of my brain.  Yet I know that free will must coexist equally with fate, and this, if nothing else, tells me that I should be able to somehow manifest self-volition.  But I am not entirely sure how.  That I should continue to examine my own experiential self – that is to say, the way in which the process of experiencing manifests itself through me – seems clear enough.  But I am failing to see at this point how I can manifest free will except in an essentially passive manner.