There is no interface between consciousness and a world furnished with non-conscious objects, not because the two substances are of completely different kinds, so that only an object can affect another object and only something else already subjectivity can come to attention within a subjectivity. That way of posing the question is folksy but absurd. It is because there cannot be a witness to any such interaction, there is no position from which it could be validated. Any 'position' is either all one thing or all the other.

So much goes into fostering the illusion that it is earlier than it seems, that perfect repetition is possible, that matters reserved can be returned to later when the time is right, and so, to revive the eagerness for life that was experienced n childhood. Instead there is the dark unknown ahead and the certainty that all baggage will have to be surrendered, up to an including everything you think you are.

Layers of the onion; it's reflections, self-reflections, reflections in others, interpellations, mirror images all the way down. You cannot undo all of these but only neutralise them by not identifying with the images, standing aside or occupying the unreflected and unreflectable point. Why should capture be so easy? There is immense pleasure in it, even when it refers only to pain.

- Between theory and meta-theory you must choose theory - but in a way that is cleansed of all trace of (latent) meta-theory. The same logic applies in many cases, especially when 'theory' is replaces by 'theoria' and 'meta-theory' by 'theory' (as commonly understood.)

If what you are an an embodied individual in the world is a vehicle for absolute consciousness to experience itself then waking up to this fact would be spoiling the game. The point would rather be to fully integrate the experiencing and if any waking up were involved it would be to a higher level of integration. The realisation of the dream-like or illusory nature of reality could only then ever be a transitional one, preceding a yet deeper acceptance of things as they are.

There are as many self-referential objects and modes in experience as there are simply referential ones, and they are as layered and multi-perspectival, so that any questions about the experiencing self can be immediately responded to, if not answered. There are place-holders for every nuance. Whether the need for an undercurrent of such questioning attached to every kind and dimension of experience is categorical or merely a cultural invention or epochal curse is not clear. But salutary to remember that even the deepest and heaviest token of self is a dead thing without any feeling or sentience at all. That nothing that every appears can be the source itself of all appearance.

"If science ever produces a spirituality it will be a form of shamanism." Technology is already a conjuration of invisible powers but what is missing is to find that they possess agency and purpose of their own and of an alien kind. Findings that contribute to a psychotechnics of amelioration are not enough to define a spirituality. There must also be a gateway into invisible worlds, into those realms that are the obverse face of the appearing world. Every religion already does this in its own way and there is an order that includes all of these various accessions. The scientific world view as it is currently may bump up against these but is in no way equipped to handle them. A case of the Sorcerer's Apprentice.

Every thing and identity involves an aspiration to endurance outside of time and so carries with it an ineluctable pathos. The overcoming of this is at once the entrance into simply being.

Technology as expression of the desire inherent to mind of freeing itself from life, but in the process it exchanges one master for another, one terrifying set of mirrors and limitations for a more terrifying one.

When you remember some object of past attention or event or action participated in you remember this as you having experienced it, you are remembering the experiencing. When the object or event is in the present, is happening now, then it goes beyond your experiencing, it is 'it' that is there in actuality, since you can be sharing the object or event with another or can call there attention to it; there can be a common attention, but there need not necessarily be. The very idea of 'experiencing' is based on a separation from what is going on, so that it is understood as happening for you. Such separation being temporal most of all. Notions of self and of consciousness are interpretations of such lived phenomena, or components of such interpretations. Do they have any other basis? Does the 'experiencedness' of an object or event as in memory have the same kind of being as a memory or as an immediate presence? The first alternative leads to a regress and the second to an impossible objectivity (as if you could point out your experiencing as a common object.)

The idea that consciousness is the fullest expression or representative of the underlying reality has its greatest obstacle not in matter, in the things that furnish the world, but in life itself as the immediate substrate of its own expression. The sheer wildness of life embracing every extreme both positive and negative that is conceivable is of a quality quite alien to the constructions of consciousness as it turns on itself.

The metaphysical pointing to an underlying self does not arise in any action, experience, or intention, but only in the unification of experience (explanations for which are necessarily circular) and in the pure possibility of experiencing anything at all. These indications are outside of the complex interplay between the volitional and non-volitional organs of the mind-body which delineate the embodied self whose action is untouched by the oblivion of being.

Putting aside everything that could not be the core or ultimate subject of experiencing you are driven to the view that there can be but one such, and that all experiencing belong to the same experiencer, unbounded by time or space or logic that pertains to objects. This can be the most terrifying of thoughts, and indeed so can any thought that points to a solitary ultimate truth of being. The error of course is in the thought, in the thinkability, but consider what expansion of understanding would be required to reverse this evaluation.

A single moment of experience, in its every sensory, cognitive, affective, conative, particular and general etc. context is inexhaustible, so that it can never be fully experienced. The vast bulk of it remains latent, is gathered up into the unconscious but open dimension. To project the happening-ness of every such happening as belonging to an infinite recurrence is a way to approach this wholeness. Again, what this adds is the necessary but invisible relation of each actual moment to every other actual moment, the true nature of its fragility and evanescence, of its once and for all quality.

"Nowhere to go and nothing to do." Yes, nowhere to go and nothing to do.

So many of the concepts by which you order experiencing into language are encodings of the idea of an outer perspective on yourself and on things in general. Arguments about free will, for example depend entirely on this - arguments being not only contentions by something like the 'x' in mathematics, the argument of a function. An intuitive knowledge of the secondariness and groundlessness of such a perspective accompanies all such thoughts, weakening them in their bearing. What would Time be if it were freed from all such accretions?

Different paradigms see different realities and these realities do not map onto each other. It's the paradigm that dictates the reality and not as it would appear in each case the other way around. Hence the only reality is in the paradigms themselves, or rather in the realm that contains all their possibilities, and the incompatibilities between them are the only genuine conflicts. Mind is the place necessary for these conflicts and contradictions to play out, it is a property of possible realities.

The idea that what you call experiencing has something to do with the consciousness of a being existing in time is a completely groundless belief. I is not even 'reinforced' by what happens and what you do, since their is no one who could be the recipient of such evidence. All of these notions are tricks of parallax misinterpreted as a view from outside, when by the very nature of things there is no outside. Mistaking this for idealism only repeats the error, which is no error at all.

The ontological core, or the dread at the limit of words, or whatever it may be that opens experiencing like a flower is never the outcome of any line of thought, although it may seem to be again and again. All formulas fail, as do dreams and novelties, gifts and desires. It comes and goes as it will, and when it is gone things go on as they always have. It is nothing but yourself, but you have no hold upon it, can neither summon it nor dismiss it. So much time is wasted in denial or ignorance of this simple reality.

No idea can be perfectly aligned with reality, but ideas of reality are constrained by reality and include an awareness of their own shortfall. The same is true for ideas about the context of ideas. Out of such components a dialectical logic necessarily follows. This logic should not be mistaken for an idea, it evokes the sense of being without expressing it. It is absurd that anything as finitely incidental as an individual mind could have a direct relation to the reality that underlies it, but it is equally absurd that it should have no relation at all - what else could it be 'about'? You hare only the subject of a single idea which you are never able to fully form. All of your attempts circle around it from many different directions. It is only a single idea and imperfect in the way of all ideas, nevertheless all value is in faithfulness to this incomplete insight. More than anything else, thinking is a form of worship.

The unfolding of a procession of beings out of being assumes a teleology and hence a reciprocal movement in the reverse direction only under certain conditions. It requires more than just a progress in knowing towards a point of formal absoluteness but also a progress in being. This is why we can think of the cosmos as evolving towards God, or the Omega point, everything prior to that now seen as lacking in being. This idea is on shakier ground when what is projected is merely a 'singularity' as measured by way of a partial ontology.

The difference between the thing itself and its representation in consciousness is an unbridgeable gap and is known as such in experiencing. On the ontological level, there is no such gap between being and the knowing of being that underlies experiencing. This difference in the orders of reality is inconceivable and yet the simple source of everything.

If physical reality is conceived as that which necessarily unfolds its potentiality to be known as what it is through embodied cosmological awareness then nothing in the world can be as it has appeared prior to the dawning of such insight. In knowing itself it first of all discovers that it has never yet known itself since this very potentiality was expressed only mythologically, in distorting allegories.

The disclosive character of every matter in experiencing supersedes every other apparent source of interest which are always internal to the worlds that arise, whereas it is of the very nature of the experiencing itself and for that reason opens infinitely in every dimension. What else does the infinite but this ability to re-enter itself?

Insight into the unity of being does not entail an ethics, especially not in the form of an imperative to reduce general suffering. To conclude as much is to attempt to cut the absolute down to the stature of the individual. One might as well or better seek to raise the individual perspective to the stature of the absolute which is too great to be caught within any perspective. The aesthetic ought properly to dominate the ethical, but that it fails to do so is testament to the incapacity for a full realisation of what is meant by the aesthetic.