Awareness of awareness is awareness of the momentary nature of experience since awareness-as-object contains everything that is real, as if all of time is concentrated at this one point and this point is immediately succeeded by another such point, this point again, and another. The lived world is nothing more than a schematisation of such moments which is itself no more than a further moment. It is not circularity so much as an infinity where the whole is contained in the part.

You always perfectly believe what appears in the monitor that re-presents experience within a fractured narrative. This is how you get to have strong feelings of various kinds; they pertain that narrative and colour the implicit belief you have in it. You could never see your self as such and such a personage if you weren't first inclined to see yourself or look for yourself in that doubled way. In this way the ego can be simultaneously central and off centre.

What is unknown or simply given in the subjective pole of experience is always liable to yield to deeper insights, giving up its status as merely given. These are not to be discovered but revealed as something already known and timelessly re-awakened, as if nothing has changed at all. There may be no limit to this and no reason it will not include the nominally objective pole of experience.

What you experience depends on what you think you are, what you think is the source and coherence of the experiencing. What you think you is part of what you are experiencing, Without that circularity there need be no experience at all. Why ever would there need to be, or need not to be?

Consciousness is divided into the experiencing and all that makes experiencing possible which is not itself experiencing. This last includes temporality, unity in multiplicity and multiplicity in unity, causality, realisation of relationality etc., all such basic framing parameters which must necessarily remain as if fixed for the subjective and experiencing part to be possible. To fully realise consciousness is to awaken the foreground consciousness within the background consciousness which then does away with time, unity, multiplicity, causality etc., all re-embedded in their source. The pure subject being beyond all possible experience.

Experience necessarily pertains to a unified field both as content and as container and as both together, but observation also shows that it consists of a mosaic of heterogenous organs operating in different subfields and of different levels of abstraction. The unified nature of experience is seen to be a pragmatic imposition of an idea itself no more than one disconnected contextualisation among others. It is like the blind spot in vision, present at every moment but unsuspected, only in this case it is a veritable dark web of fascia, a mutidimensional negative topology that maintain an organic unity of experiencing consciousness. What marks consciousness off from, say, the idea of matter, is that everything it contains is something it does. So you are as much this dark web of transcendental divisions as the contents that it unifies, only you never ordinarily know it.

The default mode of thinking is like an infant's activity centre. You imagine forth a configuration of givens in which a certain piece is missing and then you come up with the missing piece and complete the pattern, at which point the figure resets and a new problem is there for you. Attention is absorbed and you are not aware of any identity beyond the cycle of call and act. The configuations are more or less voluntary or whimsical, the acts are more or less successful, the mood can have many colours. It is strange the way that consciousness seems to fall into the effortless enjoyment of this process.

In your world there is no such thing as a natural kind, every thing is perfectly unique, every event occurs once only and cannot be repeated, as every moment is itself and every place. You imagine yourself to be in a world of repeated, replaceable things governed by inflexible laws, each in their kind, but this is only an appearance, a convenience of appearance. God is the name of the completed point of awareness from which this uniqueness is fully realised, everywhere and at every time, in fact beyond any notion of space and time.

A theory of types is needed to prevent unrestricted self-reference; the mapping of meta-theory into theory is possible only with restricted self-reference, actually only the appearance of self-reference when interpreted from a position that contains both the theory and the meta-theory but which otherwise is no, or need not be self-referential. Real self-reference is a circularity in the order of types which is just what we seem to experience as long as the loop include at least two distinct positions. Thus there is self-consciousness within the system but never in any one node of the system; the circuit must always go through an other. Also, where there can be one such loop there must be many loops, the loops are nested and the levels of nesting are again subject to circularity. Self-reference in such a system may be either a bad infinity or a good one, but if it is a good one it will lead you back to a non-circular hierarchy of types - the way out that you are always otherwise searching for.

It's not correct that consciousness self-modeling is limited to the positive or appearing or noematic polarity of itself; it models the whole show, but it models the unseen seeing as if it were something positive. This is obscured or obfuscated because self-modelling implies layer upon layer and it is not known how deep into inner layers you are since according to the current model you are always looking as from the first. What distinguishes the true first is that it has no subject, from where the seeing takes place is a complete void. If you were to apply the theory of types then the aim of meditation would be to fall back into type zero, but the theory of types with its hierarchy or tree of categorically distinct types belongs to modernism. We however are in post-modernism which it type free - this both works perfectly well and fails to work at all.

If consciousness were made up out of discrete moments with nothing, that is no sort of consciousness whatsoever, 'between' them, then you wouldn't know it was like this since you could not have access to any awareness of the separations between moments - analogous perhaps to the nothing space of a general anaesthetic. In this case nothing could depend on the relations, continuities or discontinuities of such moments since there would be no common scale or manifold that connected the 'output' of one moment to the 'input' of the next. They could be neither similar or different. This idea however represents a deep model of consciousness, and a conscious moment must always contain a model of consciousness. This internal model is only a model of the positive polarity of experience and hence can very well be one of discrete moments. The negative polarity which could be called the transcendental subject is not part of the model, and is identically the same in all conscious moments and models of conscious moments.

The aim was always to be adequate to the predicament, but what seemed necessary was to do this from the side of the unquestioned adequacy and not that of the predicament which accordingly needed to be continually tailored. The strategy fails, as it was known to, but the idea was to have it fail in a measured way, at least for as long as you could, to borrow against regret, and expect regret itself to be devalued when the time came to pay it off. This was identical to every motive towards clear seeing that you also brought along.

God as creator and judge is a masculine archetype, but cannot be approached without encountering the corresponding feminine archetypes which blaze with different colours of emotional intensity. All of this somehow belongs to the transcendental dimension of the individual mind, it a priori conditions. The inter-relations and pathways between these archetypes does not correspond to any structure of principles or objects of thought, it can be compared to the relations of living persons, but only in a limited way.

It is a mistake to regard the face to face experience as the root of the ethical, as carrying the force of a primary injunction, it is an ethical mistake with probably serious socio-cultural consequences. Instead the face to face must be seen to be about love, to be about facing your maker and judge and to be known through and through and found good: 'Who made the eyes but I?' You cannot know yourself as worthy outside of this encounter, quite the opposite, you can only come into it in humility and abjection, forsaken without any guaranty of the outcome. Take this, in full humanity, as the basis of your ethic and see where you end up.

Unreflective ongoing experiencing is a presencing which implicitly references reflective experiencing, or you could say that experiencing is rendered consistent by a punctuation of in which it is embraced in the concept of experience. That is what it is like to be conscious awake or dreaming. To call this conceptual back-reference experience is only one way of doing so, but perhaps the most natural. But when you think experience, when the concept is sparked you have already assumed a position towards it, an entitlement to have that idea - you are the kind of thing that has an idea of experience, it belongs to things of your kind. This subject which is perfectly fitted to the idea is itself only another idea and so cannot be the basis of the experiencing - it is on the same level, not prior, and the prior subject - which must be here - is in no way fitted to the idea of 'experience'. The idea is a finger point toward the moon, and the moon is you.

Personal identity is a mystery since it cannot derive from identity of the physical body or of any process occurring within it. Your best autopoietic process can only produce an entirely contingent kind of self-identity, every part of which is substitutable. Your identity is the only thing that cannot be substituted, it is necessary and confers the appearance of identity on its objects.

Being aware of being aware is an easy and natural modification, a difference in modes. However there is a difference between being aware of being aware from the point of view of awareness or from the point of view of awareness of awareness. It is the latter that requires some skill, since it involves an inversion of position of the more and the less natural. A point of view is nothing more than a way of stabilising a certain mode of awareness, and a functional self is simply a way of summarising this, a re-setting of the point of origin.

The ego drive is simply to prove that it exists and is unique, which is to say that it is a necessary being. It can never succeed in this although it doesn't necessarily fail, or it fails interestingly. That which is unique has no need or desire to be so; it's of no use except perhaps to show that uniqueness is attainable - at least on the other side of the mirror.

Consciousness is the only thing in your world, the world, that is unsubstitutable. It doesn't seem this way, it seems as if just the opposite is the case, as if there are so many unique and special objects and experiences and as if someone else might as well and usually does encounter or enjoy or suffer them. The unsubstitutability of consciousness hides from view, it has no fanfare, all of its uniqueness is transferred out to external and public matters, it is in a way the most banal thing in the world. The real transcendental illusion is this inversion of values, the worldly world feeds on it, it is the object of desire. The thought experiment cognate to vedantic subtraction is simply to ask whether such and such could be replaced by a more or less perfect simulation and then to find the one 'thing', the only one which cannot.

Fallen into thought, this inveterate habit of treating everything algebraically, substituting counters for counters and moving them around in set patterns. This answers to a need, it has a gravitation behind it. What sort of being would have that as a possibility? Anthropological answers are clearly disqualified. To catch yourself in the act again and to be embarrassed. Taking the whole setting for granted so that you can be so small, ignorant, reduced. Why have days like this? The only genuine embarrassment is metaphysical.

The task of consciousness is to duplicate and falsify reality. That's what it's paid to do and it does it very well. But in order to falsify reality it must itself be real. This is its only weak point, one which it know and guards carefully.

'If you look closely you will see that consciousness is made up of discrete monadic moments, a stream with no underlying continuity etc.' This kind of view is only possible if time is regarded as an objective medium in which consciousness takes place, but this makes no sense on the basis of this very view. A similar logic applies to all 'no self' views. Such inquiries are not yet asking the right question; the key is not aligned with the lock.

The character in the dream never wakes up, only the one who is now awake says, 'I woke up.' But it is not an action that he performed, he did nothing, waking befell him, resumed him. It is the most natural thing in the world that the experience and the experiencer suddenly changed, time and space change and the subject's relations to them, there is nothing surprising about this, it is a feature of the kind of consciousness that you have, a property that goes with its storied nature, the multivalent logic of stories. That which remains constant is the experiencing, which by this evidence must be outside of time and space.

Stories do not constitute an original category, as fundamental as they are to forming the psychological self they require a transcendental condition, something that gathers the elements together in the right way. The earliest stories you can think of are driven by desire, not your desire, but the desire of an other for whom you are an object and which in this way becomes your desire. All the most intense emotions that accompany stories are built in this way, which seems to be emphatically psychoanalytic. This may not be a final account, but any deeper account must be able to explain at least as much of the phenomena, and do so with elegance.

The dreamer has no map to show the way out of the dream. The dreamer may wish the dream to continue but has no fear of waking up. The waking self does no wake up the dreamer, waking supervenes on dreaming; it is the same self and if has no agency in the process. How absurd a dreamer would be who moralised about waking up.