You cannot simply turn to the question of grounding, the trajectory of the current of understanding of which you are a member insists on approaching its own self-grounding as the full-fledged blossoming of the reflexive autonomy which it pursues with unshakeable rectitude. If this succeeds it then it leads to post-human nihilism. At the same point it may also realise with horror its failure and groundlessness. Only then can there be such a turning, but it needs to have exposed with ruthless honesty every twist of thought that has led it to this point.

Everything you do is done from your own subjectivity and in order to realise that subjectivity, your subjectivity is that effort to realise itself. This means that your subjectivity is what it is because it is not its own ground, but only what is its own ground can be the true and the sole subject.

This odd business of basic awareness depends so on being, not the sense of being, but on the irruption of being, on being as irruption, a verb not a noun, or maybe an adverb that can only modify itself. This dependence is concealed for the most part and you get along entirely without knowing or 'acknowing' or 'apperceiving' it. You are only reminded at certain pivotal moments which feel refreshing but where it is mistaken for something 'existential' or a psychological commodity called wonder when all it is is the lighting up of the always present inner shape of ordinary awareness.

There is always a situation, many situations, they overlap, but all of them silent. Sometimes silence is best and the fear that it may never end; the situation is the fear that this silence will never end, that you have finally drained the well. And not before time.

Your worldy being is consumed in variational play upon the causal and spatio-temporal and ontological structure of appearance and it is the adventure of those categories that is taking place to which you only add a weightless knife-edge of actuality, a witnessing. The adventure itself is sheer agony and delight. The difference between you and your life is what is uncanny and strange, but only as seen from its manifest side. Its ever-hidden side is neither uncanny nor strange, and that difference is the most wonderful of all.

Strangest of all, since it cannot be compared to anything, is that there should be this presence, this wondering. A fictional character could as well wonder about his presence, his being somehow, someone, and as long as the entire world does not stop and fall open then you have been wondering like a fictional character, someone whose thoughts can as well be written down. It's the only question you are given and you get precisely one chance to ask it.

Reality with its sublime displays , its wonders and menace would impose itself upon you, but what it addresses is not an answering reality within you, but the indelible and original question of reality at your core, and so it can never, once and for all, do away with idealism, only, perhaps, with its claim to be true.

What cannot be spoken of... but isn't that already speaking of it? For something to be speakable it is not necessary that it be definable in positive terms. Any such definition would only refer it to other more simple speakables, until in the end one would require the deictic, what can be pointed out as 'this' or 'that'. And so what cannot be spoken of could still be pointed to surely, in a situation where one believed one's interlocutor could share the 'experience' with sufficient precision. It is a misunderstanding of the function of language to take its objects to be limited to what can be asserted. And yet, making all these allowances, extending the field all the way into the virtual, there is still that which is unspeakable, and it is closer to you than your nose!

It's impossible to pin down a single instance of what you call experience. Whatever you look at closely enough reveals that it is something else, that its nature is mirage-like. That something occurs is certain, but what that something is, where it starts and stops, is not determinable. It may be that there is only a single unchanging 'moment' of experience and all the variety and development in time that are thought to occur are part of the necessary illusion. There could not be this experience-like going on it there were not a pure experience at the back of it. This pure experience, which is completely 'alive' need not be in time and space or belong to any subject. Its nature cannot be thing-like in any way.

"I am experiencing" in either way this is understood remains an interpretation of the reality. You know this because you have seen this understanding assembled and disassembled over a life time and over the course of a day and a night. The fact that an interpretation functions well within its own recurrent world proves nothing either way. Whatever is placed before the subject something else is concealed behind it in the form of the unquestioned - reality cannot be reached by this device. The interpretation is a solution offered to a certain enigma of being and in doing so it vastly understates that enigma.

If you subtract the flavour from food then it no longer seems real, it is as if you are eating the mere idea of food. And yet the flavour is the most 'subjective' quality of that food and known to be so since it varies so much according to changing conditions. This is not the paradox that it seems since flavour establishes the link between consciousness and bodily need or more simply with will. Flavour represents desire, and desire will, without which mere consciousness is thin, unreal and ghostly.

The mark of the true is that what is not the true collapses into nothing - as if it had never been. This is also the appearance of what it merely taken to be true, but in this case its negation retains an uncanny power of return and the two can maintain a strange co-existence. That is the usual state of things, a fertile confusion.

Experiencing as a name for it understates the enactive participatory side of it. Without that it is impossible to make sense of the central role of truth. Truth in its purely cognitive character is superseded by enactive truth, as the recurrent and ultimate reference point. Experience in this sense is keyed to its truth. In this epoch of so called post-truth this amounts to the contraction of the truth function to the bare self, the Cartesian vanishing point. and the nature of truth, of the truth function, is such that one does not have the same freedom to choose an alternative as one might have in choosing alternate notions of being, of the real. Truth is altogether stickier.

If you follow thought as far as it will go you end with the universal, the major premise, the condition of possibility, the God of the philosophers, or being as the emptiest of categories. But out of the universal you can only get the universal, so if the particular needs to be explained you might have a choice function that is out of the system, or more likely a virtuality like in the many worlds interpretation: 'you can have your particular, your choice, but you must also admit all possible particulars, all possible choices. Starting from the particular as ultimate term you easily get the universal, since that is only a certain idea, a product of thought. Thought however cannot accept it as a starting point, it will always defer to a condition of possibility, or some mathematical formula. This is as it should be, it is the watershed between though and... something else.

This 'thing' that is prior to the first distinction, and by which it can be a distinction at all, has nothing of the general or 'impersonal' about it. It is the most particular of 'things', more so than any thing is personal or particular such as is always with reference to the others. It sheds no light, none at al!, on the 'problem of other minds' or of transcendence. These last may be genuine problems, but only on a certain basis, a certain chosen variant of the field of primary distinctions, otherwise known as metaphysics or ontology. Whether it has, or what it has, to do with beingness remains entirely open.

Whatever the first distinction or most senior phenomenon is taken to be it can only be out of a prior ground to which no category that applies to phenomena of any sort can apply. This prior reality, self-grounding, is the sole reality.

The whole thing is there without let or hindrance at all times but what has managed to become conscious is just a small corner of the whole weave. Consciousness is both bottom-up and top-down, it has a peculiar affinity with the whole which means it must be so peculiarly dual. And so it appears as if there is a kind of reflexive feed-back loop that holds it in its contracted position, and it grants all too much reality to that limiting mechanism. In fact there can be nothing of the kind. What limits is only the belief that something is limited and that struggle and effort are necessary to overcome it. A logic with no analogies.

There are currents of care that ramify into minutae, according to unthought and immediate divisions, and that maintain the texture of everydayness. And against these there are counter-currents with no concrete objects but care itself, care against care, according to an equally unthought protest at time's flow and at the continuous failures of transcendence. You are in the flow as resistance to flow due to that fundamental error that is self.

The world consists of things and processes and relations of things and of agents, and relations of agents etc. It appears as though the things are merely present and all the rest is superstructure, parts of culture and representation, but in fact they are inseparable. The whole thing is seamless, a single event, phenomenon, or act that has no name.

The model of the world is held together by agency, which is only a central part of the model itself. From the inside there is agency, a subject, even free-will and from outside none of these, and no-one holding it together. What isn't true can have no agency, cannot actually do anything, and can't be to 'blame' for any apparent outcomes. It is something else that insists from within the heart of truth, because there cannot be anything to prevent or mitigate it. Seen from the inside this sort of antinomianism has a repellent look however, and should not be entertained.

No matter what descriptive terms are employed they are based on implicit assumptions and an associated model, all of which have no basis at all. It is only that they seem to facilitate communication with others - although the very idea of others is itself a part of such a model, such a thought object or crystal cage. It is impossible to overstate the profound ignorance that precedes these games and is their basis.

It's not that you determine your reality - who could you possibly be to do that? - but that you are always behind your reality. Whatever terms seem most solid in explanation of things, you put them together in some remote priority. And you too, of course are just another one of those useful explanatory widgets. That was put together too, but first the makings of it were owned - not by anyone but by the owning itself.

Intimacy with things, with natural objects, is an attribute of joy if not smething to be desired of itself. It is as though there is a mysterious kinship between the self and things which goes beyond the merely magical thinking of childhood. As though the encounter is a 'conaissance' and not just a passing encounter of divergent destinies. As if these objects need you as much as you need them.

Since that which is sought is the seeker then it is the seeking itself which maintains the distinction and hence the impossibility of its own ending. Perhaps what should be sought instead is the seeking, in order to find out just what truth clain could possibly ground it.

Things do change in unexpected ways, but there can be no model of such changes as if somehow what went before called forth the new turning. The aim of such a model would not be retrospective explanation, but a way of preparing yourself for the possibility of change with the an openness that was attuned to it without knowing what it might be. Is that lesser goal possible, a weak theory of inception? A theory against theory? A thinking against all thinking?