How do you define awareness?


How clear do you think your perception of life really is? We are really two people happening all at once, e.g., the egotistically created self and the self we came to earth with that is almost always in conflict with the other. Tell me what you think controls your life. Your ego or the person you were before you got here. I’d love to hear. Please see my website at; http//.www.spiritual-intuition.com. Namaste

So how do you define awarenes? I’d love your thoughts

Advertisements

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://cbozeman.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/how-do-you-define-awareness/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. The only ‘practical’ definition of awareness might be considered the record of our habitual choices in perception.
    As humans we acquire a core of beliefs and assumptions about the nature of the ‘world at large’, and like the story about the explorer asking a person about a village he is approaching, we all find the world as we are inclined to.
    Two issues here though, we are not necessarily aware of the nature of our core beliefs and assumptions. Unfortuantely that does not limit the effect. The second issue is the ‘as it was in the beginning, so shall it be’ effect.
    The choices I make each day regarding my perception of reality are more likely to happen again tomorrow. Novelty is self-extinguishing.

    (www.wakefielddoctrine.com)

    • clarkscottroger,

      I appreciate your response to the question but would like to follow up with your answer to the question; How do you define “our habititual choices in perception? You mention “core beliefs and assumptions” being something we are not aware of but subject to the effect anyway. Where does this perception come from? Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts,

  2. afraid I must confess to a ‘leap of faith’ premise that is the foundation of the (rest of) Wakefield Doctrine. The premise is that we make certain assumptions as to the nature of the world and then our experiences reinforce (or not) these assumptions.
    This is key the Doctrine in that it appears that the characteristic behavior of each of the three types (clarks, scotts and rogers) is better understood if you try to ‘see the world as they see it’ as opposed to single situation/stimulus-response kind of explanation.
    Starting with this ‘how is the world is percieved approach’ yields predictions of behavior that seem to be consistent with the actual behavior of individuals.
    The core beliefs and assumptions posits that very early upbringing seems to provide most of these. The rest is practise.
    (It’s funny, when I dig deep enough into my own early childhood, I pinpoint instances when what amounted to a ‘throw-away’ statement by a parent resulted in a life-long interest.)
    Anyway, I propose that as individuals we all live in a fairly ‘personal’ reality and when that is understood, understanding (sitiuational) behaior is a breeze.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: