Going Beyond Self

The well-known sequence of “Body – Mind – Spirit” may be expanded as follows:

  • Body (or Sensory input)
  • Perception
  • Experience
  • Information
  • Hypothesis
  • Theory
  • Principles
  • Axioms
  • Spirit (or Self)

All these stages between Body and Spirit comprise the mind. The function of the mind is to assess and determine what is there. The sensory input is assessed as perception. Perception is then assessed as experience. Experience is then assessed as Information. And so on down the line. We may look at these stages as the “Scale of Mind.”

At the top of this scale we have the Sensory Input, which may be characterized as material from some unknown primordial state, which is basic to all existence. At the bottom we have identifiable existence, whether animate or inanimate, the basic unit of which may be regarded as “self.”

One may say that sensory input from the primordial state precipitates through these stages recursively, thus bringing about self, and an evolution of self. “Self” may be looked upon as a UNIT of existence, whether it is a thought or an atom. To understand the make-up of “self”, we may borrow some ideas from mathematics.

  1. A UNIT is what we count one at a time. “Self” has the characteristic of individuality that renders it to be counted one at a time.

  2. A rational number posits a unit that divides into both numerator and the denominator. Such a unit has a finite magnitude, no matter how large or small. Similarly, we may consider “self” to be a finite individuality, regardless of its characteristics.

  3. An irrational number reveals that a “unit” is essentially an arbitrarily constructed concept. This discovery created quite an upset in the mathematical world. Please see Going Beyond Counting. If we look at the parallel here, maybe “self,” though useful, is essentially an arbitrarily constructed concept.

Prior to the emergence of self (whether as thought, or as atom, or whatever lies at the core), there is simply a primordial state that cannot be described. It cannot be called chaotic for there is no reference point to assess chaos. That state is its own reference point.

The primordial state creates its own perception, experience, information, hypothesis, thesis, principles, axioms etc. to finally come up with a fabric of self on a totally arbitrary basis. That fabric then seems to create its own perception, experience, information, etc. to evolve into self. This recursive process seems to evolve a self out of “no self,” much like an irrational number evolves out of “no unit.”

Another parallel may be drawn from the formation of a particle (photon) out of a “no particle” (electromagnetic wave). The electromagnetic wave seems to be a phenomenon of space. Space may be looked upon as empty, or as nothing; but space is an observable phenomenon on its own right.

We all perceive and experience the same physical universe. Is it because we agree with each other consciously or unconsciously? Or, is it because we share the same sensory input as the fabric of our very makeup? Does thought and atom have the same basis?

From sensory input to self there seems to be a progression from impressions to visualization.  This may be looked upon as the gradual introduction of self-determination, or free will. Again it is a recursive phenomenon and it cannot be said if thought came first, or the atom, in the equation of “self.”

Cognitive functions may be an outcome of this developing ability to visualize after much such iteration. Memory may be a combination of impressions and visualizations. The consistency between impressions and visualizations may manifest as honesty and integrity.

Are we really separate from the physical universe? Or, is the physical universe simply an extension of us? Let’s leave that to future contemplation (looking) for now.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • Chris Thompson  On September 17, 2011 at 6:57 PM

    Hi Vinaire,

    You have different styles of writing. When reading your life story, I was touched by the warmth and the well organized details and story. I found it not only palatable but riveting. I stayed with it and read it all the way through.

    When reading your technical materials, it does not come across with the same warmth to me though I can see by the volume and repetitive output that you are doing a lot of hard work on these messages.

    1. Do you understand what I am writing to you?
    2. If so, does it indicate to you that I am correct?
    3. If so, can you duplicate the frame of mind in which you wrote your life story?
    4. If so, do you think you could duplicate that frame of mind when writing technically?

    In your life story, the writing is done for me quite without ego. It is interesting and easy to duplicate and flowing. Makes for an enjoyable read.

    I really want to commend your comment above, “If we look at the parallel here, maybe ‘self,’ though useful, is essentially an arbitrarily constructed concept.”

    Chris Thompson


  • vinaire  On September 17, 2011 at 10:32 PM

    Thank you for your comment. While writing my story it was already there in a vivid form. I just had to narrate it. But technical writing is something very different. Here I am going only on the basis of consistency. But things may change very fast as new factors emerge. It is a very slippery slope where attention is on keeping the balance.

    Maybe, once I have worked out all the nitty-gritty for myself and I am satisfied with it, I may rewrite the whole thing in a much more relaxed style.



  • Vinaire  On October 14, 2011 at 12:33 PM

    When one is looking at knowledge, there is the apparent source through which the “knowledge” has been generated. And then there is another apparent source that is interpreting that “knowledge” into what is finally being perceived. These apparent sources may also be called FILTERS, looking from a totally detached viewpoint.

    Thus, when one looks at KHTK, there is the apparent source (or generating filter) called “Vinaire,” and then there is the apparent source of interpretation (or receiving filter) called the “perceiving self.”

    I, as Vinaire, do not consider myself as the source of KHTK for the following reasons:

    (1) Absolutes are unattainable, so there is no absolute source. In the KHTK terminology the ultimate source is unknowable (cannot be known).

    (2) Most people stop at SELF as the source, and never look beyond it.

    (3) The basic SELF comes into being from the unknowable dimension and then disappears back into the unknowable dimension.

    (4) The SELF acts as an interface between the unknowable and knowable dimensions.

    (5) The SELF interfaces with the knowable dimension through considerations.

    (6) The SELF may interface with the unknowable dimension, but there are no considerations involved in that interface.

    (7) The SELF appears to generate considerations, alter those considerations, then recover and understand the original considerations.

    (8) Thus, SELF appears as a source. The actual source that underlies SELF is unknowable.

    (9) The mechanism to alter a consideration may be called a FILTER.

    (10) The filter may be a layer of consideration slapped over the SELF to make its basic considerations appear as permanent and lasting perceptions.

    (11) To me, self is actually the basic SELF covered with layers upon layers of filters.

    (12) Perceptions result from looking through the filter.

    (13) Exact understanding occurs from looking at the filter itself, which is what KHTK aims at.



    • Chris Thompson  On October 14, 2011 at 8:46 PM

      Have you attempted to lay out logics or axioms?


      • vinaire  On October 14, 2011 at 8:55 PM

        The only KHTK axiom I can think of is that of “unknowable,” or the “state of nirvana,” that may be arrived at through the process of “neti, net,” or that of “looking.”



%d bloggers like this: