meta-: representative of; cognitively about
Not many of us would claim reality as a friend. The world seems not particularly inclined to arrange itself to our individual liking, or might even at times threaten to kill us. And as reality’s company can’t be avoided while we exist, we typically think of the world as something between a vexing and traitorous acquaintance.
Yet here are a few concepts relating to “the self” and “the world” and how these might better get along.
We’re not off to a good start if we misidentify the self. The real self is a spacetime-localized conscious observer — what we call a ‘person’. The self is an individual with a view of the world. Of course things get peculiar and complicated when we start self-viewing — like looking into a consciousness mirror. But the face in the mental mirror is not our real self.
Yes, to be meaningfully cognizant of one’s own experience there must be a conceptual “someone” to be having the experience, and this someone needs an identity. This is the meta-self; ideas about who we are — the person we see with our mind that we most often take for the self. But all along the original experiencing observer is still there. In short the real self is a person who observes reality and uses their mind to conceptualize the observations into “things”, and the conceptualized “thing-doing-the-conceptualizing” is the meta-self. It’s like self-portraiture in the medium of consciousness, perhaps some semblance of the artist at a specific point in their creative cognitive life.
Frustratingly, after generating and committing to a meta-self, we want it to be the authentic observer, as if our person were just a physical appendage being viewed by the eyes in the mirror. Metaphorically, our mind wants to be us as the meta-self — where it’s the mind that observes, thinks, feels, and experiences the world.
Yet can a self-portrait paint? No. Does a person cease to exist as their mind strives to mentally take their place? Of course not. But consider how this striving feels to a sentient person. We all know what it’s like to contend with a ghost-like self that wants to run our life but has no say in what happens as it occurs and can only wish that circumstances were otherwise; a self that provokes, yet at the same time wants no part of the anxiety and discontentment that arise in a person whose mind would rob them of their place in reality. All the while, as the continuous experience of our authentic selves steadily proves, despite our mind’s ambitions, we can’t live our lives as meta-persons.
How then do we better characterize, stay in better mental touch with, our actual self? From time to time consider how the concept “I am my real, not merely my cognitive point of view” must be true for us to have any view at all.
We may resist this idea through sheer mental inertia, but nevertheless a meta-self itself can’t have a viewpoint, let alone be conscious of it. Only a real person could have such gifts — or could use consciousness to distinguish one’s reality from what one’s mind would have one be. Reality, not the self-conceptualizing mind, is the more reliable frame of reference for self-knowing — the more affirming companion that always lets us know precisely who we are, good or bad, and how we might improve our real selves.
Likewise, for everything that might be considered not the self but nonetheless including it, most of us routinely mischaracterize the world. Similar to forming a meta-self, we use our minds to form a meta-reality, the conceptual “everything” within which the conceptual “someone” exists — an abstract version of reality that isn’t real but for the ongoing ideation. Used here ‘reality’ simply refers to the dictionary definition: the experienceable world, actuality, the way things are — the informal meaning of the word that anyone with life experience understands and accepts without controversy: it’s time we face reality; my expectations could be more realistic. (At such times that we acknowledge actual reality, and our reliance on it as a life coach, we’re not so inclined to see it as an enemy — if not yet a trusted friend.)
But like the meta-self, again we want meta-reality, with so much effort put into its creation and so much at stake, to be equivalent to the real thing — or perhaps superior. Our mind is so much more comfortable in its meta-world and will object to any circumstances in the real world that don’t conform. From this position we cite a more formally titled ‘Reality’: something to justify our discontentment, I hate this Reality; something to argue about, my Reality is better than yours; and something to collectively war over, those people must submit to our Reality.
But all along we’re naively referring to meta-reality, not the world we share. Actual reality, the context of human existence, is and must be utterly common to all that exists, even as it’s locally experienced and mentally schematized. So when we substitute meta-reality for reality in our minds, ignoring the difference, with the expectation that the shared world should conform to the separate meta-worlds that only exist in our heads, what but conflict and suffering could ensue?
Experiential reality, our most forthright existential ally, notably in the form of conflict and suffering and their latent alleviation, would have us learn a few difficult lessons:
A meta-self is a poor substitute for a person.
A person using a mind works better than a mind using a person.
And in mind usage, compared to reality affirmed, meta-reality defended is trivial if not pernicious.
Only meta-reality can be adjusted to better coincide with reality, never the other way around. And only a shared understanding of reality, never the clash of disparate meta-realities, could assure our mutual well-being. Thus life would go better, human existence improve, if as persons we’d more routinely favor the real over the meta. To help distinguish between the two, consider this concept: “The world could never be as my singular mind would have it be, but is as any and all conscious beings could experience it” — all humans so amazingly — and fortunately to the truly appreciative — included.
Addendum
The human mind’s career, so to speak, is to create and maintain a cognitive model of the world — a meta-world based on memory and reason, to be used as a quasi-stable frame of reference to which whatever’s happening in reality can be compared. If these match, Great! If not … Anxiety … Danger … Improve the model! With time, life experience thus builds an understanding of how the world works and which behaviors will bring the best results. The more comprehensive, accurate, and stable a person’s meta-reality, be this directed inward as self-identity or outward as a worldview, the better one can navigate the complexities, challenges, and wonders of being.
Meta-reality is the realm of the mind — the formulation of thought, reasoning, conjecture, belief, identity, and what we take for knowledge. Language based, meta-reality is symbolic and reductive — ideation of distinct things and events, causes and effects — requiring the need for constant learning to improve on a settled and too-simplistic mental account of an ever-shifting and inter-derivative world. On the plus side, meta-reality is the story of our life and repository of knowing. It’s our primary tool for self-reflection, communication, and shared understanding. At its very best meta-reality is neotically revelatory — mind-expanding.
Reality is of course what gives the phenomenon of meta-reality a means, and reason, to exist. Reality, wherefore meta-reality. Experiential reality is the only setting that could reliably anchor our cerebral reference frame.
The tricky part is keeping track of which is which, meta or real — all with the peril of failing to do so. As we mentally conflate the two, prioritizing meta-reality, we risk estranging ourselves from the very foundation of our existence — thereby undermining the utility and evolutionary advantage of having a brain. Untethered meta-reality is a succinct definition of ‘insanity’.
“I’m thinking about thinking” never has been and never will be a productive use of the mind as it wanders off into self-referential abstraction where minds and not people do the thinking and might possibly decide what thinking is — all while oblivious to the marvel of a thinking person. But rather “What is it that’s allowing me to think?” at least has a chance to resolve the reality/meta-reality distinction — reorienting the mind to the originative purpose of thinking: discernment of reality.
Perhaps this is the “why” of consciousness: We (and other sentient forms of life) are the agents of reality becoming aware of itself — with the localized experiences of joy, reverence, and universal love being reality’s expression of gratitude for its awakening.