The conscious present-tense self-agent, enjoyer ad sufferer of qualia, rehearser of situations, arbiter of felt but unknow desires, celebrant and celebrity of applied self-images is merely the representative, or face, of the life-historical self and a stranger to its deeper motives and their mysterious sources.

You can imperfectly distinguish the objective and subjective poles of experience, but you cannot determine a subject and an object as two different kinds of thing. All are variants and affordances of the same nameless stuff out of which experience s moulded. Even stuff is saying too much, all such ideas are products of a model of what is going on. A more viable distinction is attention and imagination, but each of these terms has a double face, open. and closed.

If you imagine a single complete moment of your waking experience occurring out of a durationless void empty of emptiness there is nothing to distinguish it from that same moment within the flow of ordinary waking mind. Whether it is preceded or followed by other such moments in a sequence has no bearing on the moment itself. It is a sort of Markov property of experience as self-understood that it needs no connection to other moments - or you could say that its nature is to have always already been 'Markov-ised', that is, that to be what it is it must already contain every retention and protention that defines it. This thought experiment shows that experience and consciousness are two different things - or that the greater part of what it is to be conscious is not experienced.

As far as the world, all relations that appear not to be ideal, relations of power or of affinities or contingencies, coercions, emotions, are nonetheless ordered by types, are constituted, and in that way are ideal in spite of themselves. In the same way that in mathematics all abstractions are reducible to arithmetical relations of integers. Everything is meaning over and beyond the meaning of meaning.

The world as the shared idea framing the significance of the lives it contains such that they are always outside of themselves, is the unsurpassable limit of every self-model. Self free of all self-models is an ever-present reality entirely foreign to all self-models.

You model the world and you and your modeling the world are components of that very model which leads you to the distinction between appearance and reality, but that distinction is itself integral to your model, to wat makes it possible to conceive the nature of experience in the way that you do. This structure takes you further into the world, it mobilises deceptive estrangements that reinforce the original act of misprision.

What is the class of all possible consciousnesses of the reality we happen to be in? What is the class of all possible realities that the one we are in belongs to? Such questions are aimed at undoing all essences and fixities, but the nature of our reality is precisely the coming to terms with essences and fixities that we cannot conceive.

Suffering is caused by desire invites a retort championing desire regardless, but view it rather as meaning: being unable to detach from the world is caused by identifying with the desires that constitute the world. It's not that you want to end suffering but that you seek to reclaim your transcendental freedom.

Idealism or simulation theory are the same as the idea that computation shortcuts are possible, that real processes can be anticipated by going through a sort of computation worm-hole shorter than their mere happening. The belief in this is one of the great idols of thought, but however you conceive it there will always remain a level of intractability. A materialism or physicalism that denies intractable complexity is just a subclass of idealism.

The subject is a zero point within the experiencing world but it is not the zero of that world, it is the zero of all possible worlds that contain that world.

Everything that can be located in experience has causal antecedents and consequences, and so the experiencing itself has no such location. Nonetheless life starts out from the assumption that everything that arises does so just because it is experienced. Even though consciousness is not an event, it seems to matter above all in determining events. This belief is relinquished bit by bit as a result of 'becoming experienced'. And when it is entirely dissolved, when it is seen that only events cause events, that everything you are is an instance of the world, of the world at work, then it is revealed to have been true all along, but in an entirely unexpected way.

Experience is a continual state of surprise of excedence, it is a projected completion constituted by its antithesis, by what it cannot encompass or enter into by what makes it forever incomplete. Experience is embedded in an other-experience which sets its bounds in an other-comprehending. Only experience could so oppose the un-experienceable.

Free will, whether affirmed or denied, is implicitly understood as a hypothetical property of the waking conscious self, the 'I' in the present tense. This entity is so ephemeral and lacking in understanding of its motives that it could never bear the weight of freedom. Insofar as it refers it is to the life and its way of autonomous development - that it gives the law to itself on behalf of a teleology in which its particularity is sublated. It is that you continue to have chosen your destiny out of love for the pattern in which it finds its place, and against all the currents of spirit that would foreclose it.

What happens, the things you do, or suffer, or participate in or just witness, whether salient or trivial, belong to your life and as that life is wholly submerged in life itself, without boundaries, they are life itself. The witness or experiencer of those events is an ever-changing and tiny part of that, your awareness being a small illuminated region moving rapidly within a certain delimited cross section of the endless event. You might experience in this way, but you have chosen a kind of empiricism, believing that your fleeting awareness maps the limits of being.

If you think that the outermost being is headed towards some omega point, even if it is forever unreachable, the marriage of matter and spirit, o some sort of apocalypse (lifting of the veil) then you must conceive the counter-current that desires reversing this movement, or that would bring it about as a by product of its own separate desire as evil in some way. But outermost being is all inclusive, so it must include this will too, cunningly using to works towards an end it cannot conceive. The evil will, however can rise to oppose this cunning, oppose its being used in this way, and so on. The problem of evil is isomorphic to a set-theoretic paradox. Perhaps that's all it is.

A world is defined by what is impossible, or impermissible and by the kinds of strain associated with each such barrier. Every limit can be overcome, and in this sense the world of worlds can be considered ideal, but the working associated with every surpassing is wildly different and does not resemble any mental operation - at least as far as such operations appear bef.re the surpassing.

Anything worthy of attention has something fresh and novel about it and so you search for an internal source of novelty, a sensitivity to microscopic differences, which would be inexhaustible, or for the alchemy of the ordinary. In the end you are forced to acknowledge the irresistible force of repetition and banality, the god of eternal Sunday afternoons. Et in arcadia ego - referring not to death but to boredom.

The subject in experience arises and passes away belonging with the content of experience, but the reference to experience is unitary in access to the identical field. This does not equal an enduring subject except in that it also implicitly references what was not in experience, its hidden other faces. You can return to that same experience again and again uncovering endless hidden dimensions and connections. The self is never actual but is in that open-ended potentiality in which the experience itself is merely one floating shard.

Whatever modifications and detours of experience that arise and demand your inner commentary it is a matter of a human life in a certain running off of its time and of a fixation in a particular one - out of all possible such lives. This is, of course, a framing idea and so must be entertained by an other subjectivity inaccessible to that same commentary. It is a displacement and you realise that here such a displacement can be there can be another and another, serially embracing each its prior. The 'direction' that these point to you is not outward, bears no similarity to visual o even cinematic-ideal space, but is in intimacy, the most transparent, the most invisible, the most felt, the most 'always-already'.

If there were only the version of transcendence required for there to be an inside world and an outside world then the relations of being would be solvable by extending the algebraic substitutions and abstractions of either realm out to infinity, to realisable recursion. It is the fact of other subjects, of outsides of insides and insides of outsides that renders the whole thing intractable, the three body problem of experience. History, or rather the histories, are strewn with failed solutions that start by assimilating two of the three.

The reality of the world projects back to the position of the subject but cannot extend an intensity of being equal to that which lies back behind that subject. It is not a fixed point, however, and varieties of experience carve out a subject-world without boundaries which. merges into the grounding fulness, weakening the hold of the experienced world except where it encounters other subjects.

Every moment of experience arises on a ground and you are not that ground but since it is in some sense 'your' experience only you can be the ground. There is no experience of what you are and so you are not something that merely shares the ground of experience. What there is is a void, an absence, perhaps a project, a you that is yet to be.

Every meaning responds to a question but proves unable to sustain the weight of questioning. Only questioning remains, questioning itself and finding that it is directed to an answering even more direct than itself. You await a response but none is given, none can be given, but still you wait. The response refuses itself and this is misinterpreted as the response of a refusal, a prohibition and you fall back before this empty 'thou shalt not', building a world by filling it with meanings and evasions of meanings. This how your world begins.

All experience is like perception in that it falls upon a surface which is never itself experienced. How is this known, that there is a changing part and an unchanging part? There is only the unchanging part and what 'happens' in it can no longer be called experience.

Idealist or spiritual truth even as it comes close to or perhaps attains self-grounding, can never have the kind of certainty that objective truth has that is verifiable by anyone and independent of any knower. Subjective self-certainty can always be opposed by an other subjective self-certainty, there is nothing to mediate them equally on their own grounds. And yet this is the kind of truth that you seek which can never make good its claim to be a final truth, no more so that ordinary objective consensus truth. Both are shadowed by skepticism, but wile the latter sits easily with it, the former does not.