Aware of Awareness


My Dog,his name is George,he and I been best friends for nearly 13 years now, travel together a go part of those years,nearly together 24 hours a day(he went to work with me). Often I say to him "Oh, George would you tell me what you Observe in Me"

Don't we all wish we had another human being we can be so close to,so in touch with,so Non-Vulnerable,trust to the Highest degree. Some one interested enough to be un-biasied,simply having the ability to be-"Observer " ,as a Sketch artist observing a scene.

  Maybe this is why the emotion of " Love " forms, this need,to have that Observer,that trust?

I very much remember the first time I paid another person 50 dollars a hour to talk to me,to help me become more" Aware of myself", a psychologist back in the 80's, This person ,I trusted them because I paid them for that "Trust". I must say it was nice,to have that trust, the odd thing though it seems,is why as people can't we trust each other,without paying for it?.

    Maybe this is the Fringe humanity can't get beyond "Trust" it's self?

    Are we Afraid to Observe ourselves?

excerpt from; "Gurdjieff & the Further Reaches of Self-Observation"

      "Gurdjieff believed that because of our conditioning and education most of us live our lives as unconscious automatons. Oblivious to our own real potential, our essence, we are totally “identified” with our personality, our self-image, and with whatever thoughts, feelings, images, daydreams, or sensations capture our attention at the moment. Because we so quickly and mechanically say “I” to each impulse as it arises, says Gurdjieff, especially those impulses that support our self-image, we believe we are masters of ourselves, seldom noticing our own inner fragmentation and our lack of will and choice as a result of this fragmentation. We lose ourselves at every moment in one or another aspect of our lives, out of touch with the remarkable wholeness that is our birthright."


Ouspensky personally confessed the difficulties he was experiencing with "self-remembering," which has later been defined by Osho as 'witnessing'. The present phraseology in the teachings of Advaita is to be in awareness, or being aware of being aware. It is also believed to be consistent with the Buddhist practice of 'mindfulness'. The ultimate goal of each is to be always in a state of meditation even in sleep. It was[clarification needed]a technique to which he had been introduced by Gurdjieff himself. Gurdjieff explained to him this was the missing link to everything else. While in Russia, Ouspensky himself experimented with the technique with a certain degree of success and in his lectures in London and America, he emphasized its practice. The technique requires a division of attention, so that a person not only pays attention to what is going on in the exterior world but also in the interior. A.L. Volinsky, an acquaintance of Ouspensky in Russia mentioned to Ouspensky that this was what professor Wundt meant by apperception. Ouspensky disagreed and noted how an idea so profound to him would pass unnoticed by people whom he considered intelligent. Gurdjieff explained the Rosicrucian principle that in order to bring about a result or manifestation, three things are necessary. With self-remembering and self-observation two things are present. The third one is explained by Ouspensky in his tract on Conscience: it is the non-expression of negative emotions-wikipedia

excerpt from; satrakshita.com

    "We are living, but we are not aware that we are or that we are living. There is no self-remembering. You are eating or you are taking a bath or you are taking a walk: you are not aware that you are while walking. Everything is, only you are not. The trees, the houses, the traffic, everything is. You are aware of everything around you, but you are not aware of your own being - that you are. You may be aware of the whole world, but if you are not aware of yourself that awareness is false. Why? Because your mind can reflect everything, but your mind cannot reflect you. If you are aware of yourself, then you have transcended the mind.
Your self-remembering cannot be reflected in your mind because you are behind the mind. It can reflect only things which are in front of it. You can just see others, but you cannot see yourself. Your eyes can see everyone, but your eyes cannot see themselves. If you want to see yourself you will need a mirror. Only in the mirror can you see yourself, but then you will have to stand in front of the mirror. If your mind is a mirror, it can reflect the whole world. It cannot reflect you because you cannot stand before it. You are always behind, hidden behind the mirror.
This technique says while doing anything - singing, seeing, tasting - be aware that you are and discover the ever-living, and discover within yourself the current, the energy, the life, the ever-living. But we are not aware of ourselves.
Gurdjieff used self-remembering as a basic technique in the West. The self-remembering is derived from this sutra. The whole Gurdjieffian system is based on this one sutra. Remember yourself, whatsoever you are doing. It is very difficult. It looks very easy, but you will go on forgetting. Even for three or four seconds you cannot remember yourself. You will have a feeling that you are remembering, and suddenly you will have moved to some other thought. Even with this thought that "Okay, I am remembering myself," you will have missed, because this thought is not self-remembering.

excerpt from; "The psychological basis of self-remembering" by Bruce Charlton

             "Self-remembering refers to those psychological states in we are simultaneously looking inward and outwards, aware both of the environment and of ourselves within it. The name presumably comes from the fact of 'remembering' one's self, while engaged with the external world (as opposed to merely being engaged with the external world and 'forgetful' of oneself within it). They are the times when one feel most alive, awake, and present in the here-and-now. By comparison with self-remembering the rest of life occurs at one remove from actuality, almost like a dream. "

Being the "Observed" and the " Observer", a great connection,,I think my reason of my great passion for posing, for nature,in nature,,to be one with the other enities of Nature,none harming,,just has to be " "Observed" and the " Observer" "..it is amazing how well I came go back in time to that exact time and place in my mind.I was so "Aware " at times as these.


--------------------------------------------Thinking of Thinking----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------  -------------------------------------------------  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------        ------------------------------------

This is quite a Act;  

Research has shown that one of the key traits good problem-solvers possess is highly developed metacognitive skills. They know how to recognize flaws or gaps in their own thinking, articulate their thought processes, and revise their efforts (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983). As adults, we actively engage in these skills in our everyday thinking. We decide what method to use to solve a problem or when to ask for help. We use metacognitive skills to help us decide which elements we understand and which we do not understand. In short, we direct our own learning. Students and novices often lack these skills or fail to recognize when to use them (Flavell & Wellman, 1977). As educators, it is important for us to help foster the development of metacognitive skills in students.These are skills that will help students learn how to learn. 

Sometimes people use the phrase “going meta”when talking about metacognition, referring to the process of stepping back to see what you are doing,as if you were someone else observing it.“Going meta”means becoming an audience for your own performance—in this case, your own intellectual performance. When a person is learning to play golf, for example, seeing a videotape of her own swing can help her to understand what she is doing well and what she is doing poorly.Typically,we do not know what we are doing when we do it,but it is very hard to improve a process that we are engaged in if we do not have a sense of what we are doing in the moment. Even a skilled professional ballet dancer relies on mirrors to help him understand what he looks like and what he is doing as he dances. He has to be able to see his performance as others might see it before he can begin to improve it.The ability to view our own performance is particularly useful when we learn physical skills. However, cognitive work is often invisible and cannot be directly observed. - thinking about thinking / pdf 


I have always had a great need to know how to use a "Compass", to point I would teach my children in the woods how to navigate with the "Compass";

                                          To use a Compass though, first One must Know where One is, then Know which direction One wishs to go.

                                           It very much is a simply Act, if One first Knows where one is. if not , things get very complex, anyone whom has actually been lost at sea, lost in the deep woods knows the feeling of being " Lost ", how panic can start to set in, to truly not know where One is in relation to their path of direction, where they wish to be or go.

                                          So in away One has to think of where they are, and not Forget. then create a direction of travel / a plan

             One reason early peoples / animals have always followed rivers, hard to get lost.

                         -We have Created a Culture though, with no real direction,and are don't even know where we stand-

                                     So fast paced, when forgetting, we are only human, not machines,never can be like a machine, our minds can only process a certain amount, Flooded with so much imformation, we can't even process a single "snap shot", for example if I was to do a sketch of myself in the pose above- I can only sketch one second / one very moment of a step I took- I am not capable of any more then that, I could do 100 or 1000 sketchs, and still not catch what happened that day and time. I we allow ourselves to become so Distracted ,so as we can't even do One sketch, we truly are Lost.

The four segments of the Divided Line

This is the beginning of a series of posts on the Divided Line Analogy, which can be found at the end of Republic, Book VI (509d-511e). I maintain that the Divided Line Analogy is is the hermeneutic key to understanding the purpose of the Republic as a whole, and the proper proportions of everything else in the Republic are revealed by it. The Analogy is so compact that it will take some development to convey its structure and meaning. Perhaps the best way to begin is not with the geometrical construction of the line (as the dialogue does) but to begin where Plato ends, by labeling its four segments:

EIKASIA — translated variously as “imaging” or “imagination.” My preferred definition of eikasia is Jacob Klein’s: “the power to see an image as an image.” Eikasia is a grasp that mere appearance is defective, that the image is not the original, thatthe shadow, sign or reflection is not the thing. Eikasia is the basis of all cognitive achievement, both perceptual and intellectual. All power of thinking with signs is based on a prior power of eikasia. It is a power particularly prominent when perception is ambiguous, such as when a change in distance creates a change in size or when a stick placed in the water appears broken. Eikasia is disturbed by the instability of appearance and initiates a search for an objective resolution to its subjective dissatisfaction. Eikasia adds a question mark to the data of appearance.

PISTIS — translated variously as “trust” or “belief.”Pistis is an opinion that resolves the unstable defects of mere appearance. It is the satisfaction of the dissatisfaction opened up by eikasia. I see the stick broken in water; I trust in the basic integrity of the stick. I see a person growing smaller when she walks away from me; I trust that the size is as stable as the tangible object. Whereas appearances can be contradictory, one cannot act in opposite directions at once. Pistis resolves the ambiguity; it is the resolution that makes action stable and fixed, to keep one from chasing the tail of shifting appearances. One good example comes from a previous stint that I had as a pilot. These are a variety of sensory illusions that can be inflicted upon a pilot, particularly in the absence of a visible horizon when flying in clouds. One of these is a condition called “the leans,” in which cues from one’s inner ear can make it seem like one is flying other than at level, even when everything is level. “Trust your instruments!” — this was the constant refrain in flight school. If the gyro says you are level, you are level, even if your sense of balance screams otherwise. Pistis is a resolute trust in an opinion that has proven reliable against the ambiguity and inconstancy of perception. We would be paralyzed without this power. One glaring downside though is that pistis, by steeling itself against shifting perception, makes itself immune to counter-evidence. As a result, pistis is never self-critical of its own commitments.

DIANOIA — translated variously as “thinking” or “thought” or “thinking-things-through.” Dianoia is hypothetical, calculative thinking. Just as eikasia is “the power to see an image as an image,” so dianoia is “the power to think an opinion as an opinion.”  Dianoia can be thought of as a higher-type of eikasia applied to pistis itself (Jacob Klein’s idea). It is the recognition in opinion of the defect inherent in mere opinion. Both pistis and dianoia are based in opinion. In fact, the same opinion can be taken up in the manner of either pistis or dianoia. (This identity of opinion is perhaps the reason that the two segments on the line necessarily have the same length at the end of the geometric construction.) Whereas pistis contrasts itself favorably with the hesitancies and dissatisfactions created by eikasia, dianoia reintroduces dissatisfaction with its own defects by comparing itself to noesis. Dianoia is an intermediate between pistis and noesis. Whereas pistis lacks self-criticism and is content with the seeming-true of its settled opinion, dianoia is essentially self-critical — particularly in exposing the biases that can make the false seem true and the true seem false. It attempts to replace seeming with measurement, i.e. the application of intelligible ratios. Dianoia is alert to counter-evidence.  Both eikasia and dianoia reach outside themselves toward the completion/perfection provided by pistis and noesis, respectively. Dianoia remains wedded to hypotheses and its progress is always step-wise and temporal, always aiming toward the “unhypothetical first principle of everything.” (Rep. 511b)

NOESIS — translated variously as “insight” or “understanding” or “intellection.” Noesis is both the immanent light of anticipated wholeness within dianoia and a transcendent desideratum outside of dianoia. Noesis is the unknown ‘X’ of form/eidos toward which dianoia extends. Noesis is the place of settled knoweldge. The Divided Line is itself a dianoietic image of dianoietic extension toward noesis, reaching from within dianoia outward toward noetic wholeness. The line assumes a known ratio (the relation of image to original) and applies it to a known basis (opinion) in order to direct a search toward what is an as yet unknown noetic consummation. We are told that (pure) noesis is not at all hypothetical, but begins, moves through and ends with forms. (Rep. 511b) Whereas dianoia reaches toward the whole by considering the parts and their relations, noesis is a grasps of the whole in its undivided integrity. Noesis is similar to pistis in that it provides a resolution to the unsettled questioning of its lower power (eikasia:pistis::dianoia:noesis). But whereas pistis achieves it resolution by closing itself off to higher questions, remaining content with the seeming-true, noesis is the originating source of higher-order questions and is the contentment in the really-true. Noesis is the implicit perfected understanding that makes the imperfect questionable. Noesis is an immediate grasp of truth, without the step-wise stepping from hypothesis to hypothesis that is characteristic of dianoia. Noesis is a flash of active insight that comprehends at once the answer that had been the goal of dianoia’s questioning. Noetic understanding is the goal of the Republic, but sits outside its essentially hypothetical structure. Noesis is a truth that cannot be stated directly; it is insight that cannot be communicated without a corresponding insight in the other. No string of words will ever suffice to replace it — communication of noesis must be indirect and protreptic.