Unconscious projections of our soul

What we  project in public when we ‘dress up’ is a way to reflect to others our own aspirations for ourselves. There are conscious intents and there are these  provide symbols that communicate a persona beyond the person. Or such things of a present socio-pathos and derivations of culture.

Then the more provocatively aggressive suggest either an assertion of actual potential or an overreach of ego. Which brings me to the point of being one who either chooses the moment or the passive subject that is chosen by the moment. If You choose the moment, then you’re emotionally and mentally prepared for what the moment will  bring forth.

There are others who exist in a world of entitlement of presumption.  What they temporally presume as their prerogative  of emotional license of justifications for how we humans are; are  the illusions of their species-centric behavior that allows and enables them to seek projections of fantasy that don’t belong in the material world of temporality that gives that contrarian notions of
 entitlement..

This world is not the alpha-omega of substance and values. It is the metaphor for the forces projecting themselves from the abstract to the tangible. Those forces are designed for energy generation needed for more intense signal transmissions. Aesthetics of optics are the means for this sentient dimension. Signals with more intensity have a stronger projection and affective reach than their lesser signal waves of intensity. In this entitlement culture has random and dispersive signals that either by design or in a spontaneity of variational permutations throws out this ambiguity of intent of projections.

It sets up a filtering gauntlet for the more perceptively discerning. For those with extensive signal interactions, it is an empirical deduction. For those with less or limited signal reactions it becomes a more intuitive hunch. The  engagement proportionately occurs in an inverse  representation: the more empirical experience, the more extensive and the more conventional. With the lesser empirical experience, the more intuitive by infrequent and random chance and the more intense because of the  narrowly intensive space of time.

The latter person relies more on the superficial appearance, while the former would’ve been using the accumulated empirical data to interpret the signals in a more nuanced discernment. The former’s interpretation would be discerning the nuances of convention, while the latter’s intuition would be based on the projected familiar symbolism of his own limited data base.

The projections of images and symbols by the actor can be interpreted for their contemporary context or for whatever subjective interpretation from the receiver’s data-base of meanings. Since such meanings are the conduits of cultural narratives-mythological, legendary, and social-the sender of the projections is broadcasting a narrative that has ambiguous interpretive meanings beyond the conscious intent. Or is there a subconscious motive for the sender?

The conscious choice of appearance to project could have origins that go beyond the individual’s own innocence of choice. The affecting  broadcast is their own feral, alter-ego signalling its existence for other receptors of the same aesthetic-ilk of frequency. This leaves the possibility that we’re archetypal image makers who transmit an energy of personna beyond our pedestrian mundanities.

We’re vectors of subliminal narratives that appeal to our own and others primal recognitions. As it has been said before about ‘Men creating God, as an expediency’. We do the same for ourselves or subconsciously for others, in the expedience of our chosen public (or even, private) appearances.
========================
For the pictorial text and supplemtal video contact this 'OP' at this site.