A private language does different things than a public one, it serves a different kind of world-making and so does not have to be translatable. An animal might have a similar language, being the conscious boundary of the unconscious, and in that it is not necessarily the language of the self but becomes so as far as its tokens are not merely repeatable but quotable. Perhaps quotation and even metaphor are precarious achievements here since the pressure of unconscious processes always push towards literal reidentification with the original instance. This tension comes out in dreams which are filled with failed quotations.

Experience of self occurs in a private language and communication and expression in the articulated and shared public language makes continual reference to the unshared private languages about which the question as to whether they have anything in common cannot properly arise - whatever is taken to be common is already public language. This view of the structure of experience is equivalent to the thesis that the so-called hard problem of consciousness is meaningful. But how can a private language be possible when a singular consciousness cannot verify that two instances of the same token are identical? Identity is the very basis of the private language but is incomprehensible in public terms because it transcends time and space - at best this can be gestured towards by saying that for the unconscious everything is simultaneously present.

Experience as that which seeks to be expressed and as that for which this expression and desire are reserved. The forms nd formations experiencing are historical and do not belong to any appearing subject, even if such a subject is essential for bringing experience to light. The subject is a version of its own source, but only a version mediated by as any currents as can be acknowledged. The subject is in the interplay between acknowledgements that it can grasp and others that exceed its grasp. This entire happening cannot be the cause of itself and this presents it with an enigma that cannot be solved by way of any possible experience. What you are is the outside of the outside and entirely clear of any trace of experience.

If there is a capacity for experience to connect directly with reality then it must pass through terror because it touches not only what is within the frame which are the various dream-like worlds of ordinary motives and perceptions but the frame itself. The terror arises in knowing that it is only you that maintains this frame against the outside. Everything on the inside and thought most of all works to keep this freedom hidden.

The imperative to understand everything, meaning to put all cultural expressions in their rightful place within an encompassing insight into the essence of human reality. Intellectually you are compelled to pursue this goal even if you decide to forgo it in favour of merely local expertise, since the latter is not possible if the former is not. The further you go in this, abandoning the relics of great essays of the past failing of truth, the more elusive it becomes, so that you must conclude that you are in a strange hall of mirrors where the perspectives change as you move. There is nothing more 'real' than this and yet it is not ignorance but only the possibility of a knower that dissolves.

The interplay of the operators 'for all' and 'there exists' embed classical logic and its metaphysics of thingness deep in the imagination. This is not dry abstraction but deep in the working marrow of ordinary embodied experiencing. It no longer looks like simple logic, and neither does most of what absorbs your attention on the computer, it bends, sways and convolutes. What makes such logic possible could not share in its nature or obey its laws.

The experiencing that is you is in relation to all other actual and contemporaneous experiencings as if the whole that is made up out of these is a real unity. That you are confined to this one, that the galaxy of other experiencings is structurally veiled to you is just what makes this what it is. This paradox is at the heart of human life - it goes from the whole down to the individual but it feels and is motivated is if it went from the individual towards the whole.

The self in the street, you might think of it as the narrative self, but the staging self is perhaps more suited since it scripts, acts, directs, produces and is the audience for its themes. There is a natural delight in these things and the accompanying idea that it should be the natural starting point of whatever wonderful journey you are on, but this self is no more than its stagings it has no destiny, no goal, and rightly understood, no experience or subjecthood either - everything goes into its projects and projections, there is nothing else. It is merely the changes that fascinate the unchanging.

The material reality with its endless unfolding detail and its extended causal consistency seems to also insist on the claim of being all that there is, but in fact makes no such claim, it is only you, your thinking that it does so by begging the question of the meaning of 'what is'. What shows in this way can make no claim about what doesn't show, about the dark side of being whose black rays pass through all of being, like neutrinos. You do not become aware of these but somehow awareness is modified n such a way as to acknowledge them, and as they pass through the seeing they take some of its 'matter' with them so that the seeing becomes more and more transparent and being is lifted into it native region.

The cogito is less about thinking reaching into being as it is thinking giving the name and role of being to its own delight in itself. Thinking as the child at play that just wants to go on playing forever. And all the sorrows engendered by thought? Its getting lost in its games? Its tantrums? Well, not all games are fun. Thinking pretending it is being; being, the absent parent.

The appearing and experiencing world with its iron laws and golden rules has an existential skeleton, has severity and intensity, and a restless striving for completeness all the while without grounding. This absence of intrinsic nature is not known or searched for and yet is the hidden motivator of will and desire, precisely because it can never be included. If you turn towards it you fall out of the economy of appearance which now, looking back is seen to be only and echo or faded reflection of that other orderless order.

Is it no more than a thought experiment to conceive what you call past and future as merely certain subvarieties within a vast space of non-present being? So far as you believe in experience, in lived experience you are a stranger to this space having only ventured something like a temporal rope-bridge into it and perhaps some near-present settlements of dream and imagination. You might think of it as imaginary space, but what you call imagination is only born within it out of your playful and desperate attachment to Kantian categories of ordered appearance, as it that were the only kind of place where 'you' could live. There is something so lovable about this space that, as much as you might fear it, you wish to dissolve into it.

When you think of reality, of all that matters, you think of the present state of things where present is a compact temporal interval around the point-now. Awareness of death makes it impossible to consider deeper into the past as real since the lines of experiencings that realised it are irreversibly extinguished. The past is dead and the future is abstract, only the present is real, or has any actuality. All of this is conceptually confused, and not least because the present is only what it is by way of retentions and expectations - no qualia to be experienced without that temporal interval in which they develop, like images in a photograph. What is outside of or beyond the present is only understood by way of temporal analogies and and this prevents you from appreciating the full scope of being which is not bound by time, by the sub-phenomenon of presencing. There is no temporal gateway out of time, it is gateless.

The great historical cycle is driven by the striving to escape from the nightmare of history, and hence the irresistible draw towards the high places, the most forward positions. All of this is enough to absorb several lifetimes, but even so the great historical cycle is but an epicycle, not circling the true void at the core but only a local 'black hole' somewhere in the outer provinces of being.

It's not a background consciousness but a background to consciousness, to experiencing in its widest sense, to being and so it is not itself conscious or experienced or something that is. --So, it's nothing at all, you are just imagining it, you come out of nothing and go back into nothing! --Indeed, but you speak as if you know what this nothing is whereas you can only refer to it in relation to things, as the absence of things, as if it were easily understood, but in this way you cannot reach the nothing of which I speak.

The distinction between whatness and thatness continues to latently structure your sense of reality. It has a certain taken for granted quality in modern thought, even when it rules over cruxes that only the select few, which means almost everybody, 'gets' - that too being a part of its taken for granted quality. In fact the distinction breaks down pretty readily. Whatness, which is something like likeness, runs in a spectrum from the everyday second or third hand perception of the familiar and of the increasingly foggy difference between the actual and the simulated to the 'seeing as if for the first time' - the cleansed doors of perception - at which point it transforms into pure thatness; while at the same time, thatness having become the high stakes in the play of experiencing is transformed into a special kind of whatness relative to an even more transcendent, because never manifest, thatness.

Is the background of being, the underlying of the underlying reality such as to bring forth the aggregate of beings, a comprehensive unity of what is disclosed to any kind of presence, a mystical body of being, so to speak, or is that a fanciful notion born of the metaphysical projection of 'conditions of possibility'? Such an aggregate reality would embrace not only the so-called physical cosmos but also the totality of experiencings, every right understanding and every illusion and all the multilevel interactions between the two and in such a way that everything in being would be in its rightful place, belonging to its archetype. Or is it perhaps more truly radical that no such aggregate can prevail, or may there be many different ones incompatible and undecidable on any account? Or would the very notion come apart in living proximity to the source?

The idealist notion of the absolute subject behind all appearance as if there is one ultimate experiencer behind every sentience, is a bit like seeing the multidimensional world as God's streaming service, an idea closely akin to the 'simulation hypothesis' and beset by the same incoherencies. To think or 'experience' not the aggregate of beings but the ground that underlies this event of being, if it means anything at all would have to traverse all such projections of the totality of the phenomenal, including the integration of the sensible in the super-sensible.

Interweaving and overlapping of kinds of activity, activities networked in complex bundles and sheaves - every such activity with its own patterns and habits into which experiencings and realisations enter and leave, and the patterns themselves not static but historical with roots that go deep until they reach founding archetypes which are themselves forms of being. Only when they are known through participation and well enough that these forms emerge can you begin to ask about the space that allows and perhaps even necessitates these catastrophes, can you get beyond the anthropology or sociology, themselves only further complexifications, to the quiet unfolding of a peculiar destiny against the hidden nothing ground.

Subject and object can be regarded as independent agents adventitiously in connection, but buyer and seller are a junction with an asymmetric flow of intelligence, and an event which might or might not occur, in other words a kind of semi-conductor or, as open to third party influences, a transistor enabling unforseen amplifications or attenuations. This only touches on the endless complications in the metaphor.

Instead of subject and object, think of seller and buyer.

There is no experiencer but there are experiencings - that's not quite rightly said, the experiencer is a script, a character defined by a script, a Cartesian script you might say in that case, and in this respect is nothing unusual, the 'mind' being all scripts playing out in various ways according to various assumptions, various kinds of metaphysics. Every kind of identification is possible as long as it fails somewhere, gets entangled and lost, or suddenly emerges emptied out. Just as there needs to be a stage and a director and an audience, all are scripts but not entirely compatible with each other. What is interesting is not the action but whatever it is that makes such actions possible, the sheer unmotivated granting of it!

The character or egoity is what brings experience to the surface of the ongoing functioning of mind, and at a certain cost. What does this character consist in? Caring, distinction, self-reference, functional hierarchy, ownership over drives and so on. None of these things represents egoity in itself, its essence, and since it is besides only a construct and the second or third remove from spontaneity it is not at the origin of these phenomena. So there can be experience without egoity, but any way of interpreting it by understood categories would fail. Egoity must also fail to understand the 'surface' in which it is assumed, but no such limitation can affect the more 'general' being of experience.

You experiencing as human experiencing is grounded in the truth of being so that it can appear at all and be open to unlimited inquiry, but is turned away from this truth and towards the world that it conceives, so that it can be free, creative and culpable on its own terms. That it can open to its core truth is not an incidental possibility as if nature had accidentally left a door unfastened. The truth is a complete inversion of the way of the world and so is not a happening or even in anyone's life. It is not to be stumbled upon in such a way that you remain yourself.

All of those human aspirations for eminence or dominance, immortality, celebrity or acknowledgement for 'lies against time and its "it was"', which seem self-explanatory are only means to an unknown end - since you can always ask, 'and then what?'. The desire to become God, perhaps, if that could only be made sense of. They are the desire for being but in a veiled way since being is outside the scope of all desire. To reveal it would be to be threatened with utter emptiness, or not even threatened, emptiness being already fully the condition of desire, unattainable because it is where you start from.