To be aware of some object s also to implicitly ask, what is it?, where is it?, how did it get to be an object? and other such questions. Awareness is intrinsically investigative, and the system of the world is rich and complex with pathways that lead awareness into incessant movement. Awareness itself can become an object and n this case there is nowhere to go but to the nothing behind it, to its impossible arisal out of that causeless nothing devoid of all attributes.

Every reflection of self in mind is founded on patterns of self-feeling with which it is intertwined and knotted in memory and expectation. While such feeling serves as base it is not original but requires a deeper level of impersonal and distinguished feeling that is not involved with mind and memory, but is experienced as a silent knowing at the very limit of awareness. This knowing knows itself as both whole ad part of an unlimited knowing beyond all embodied consciousness.

Discrimination (viveka): everything about you which can be described via an analogy with something about computers - operating systems, hardware, software, types of memory, networks, interfaces, databases, bootstrapping, simulation, glitches etc etc, or about AI or the internet - and the list would go on and on - is not you and bears no resemblance to anything about the soul.

It's not only artworks whose eyes 'follow you around the room' that look back at you but everything, every object in your world that is an other and a commentary on your being, on your insertion in that world and your entitlement. Every object, as an object of yours, does so in a different way, every object has a story and an intent towards you, and in the end this is because you don't know what it is to see, or to be in the realised possibility of perception, of a going out and a coming back.

What opposes is always of the same nature and so the world that oppresses is the world that resists., the exiled world.

The confusion of consciousness with the sense of sight is the source of many other misapprehensions. It is not only modeling of metaphysics by optics, but the entire panoply of the visual, retinal, imaginal and their antitheses that gets in the way. It is something that is richly structured and completely open, yet not isomorphic to any known structure. It is not finite but sensed at the limit of every possession.

The perceived object as an independent and external existent which is the cause of your perception is a formal domestication of a sensory event which taken by itself would be of overwhelming intensity. As a pure particularity this 'event' is not isolated but brings with it the complete horizon of possibility which determines it, and in addition it and its horizon is at one with your life as the perceiver in its deepest and most active core. This is the only way that consciousness is possible and in everyday awareness it is pushed as far away as possible into a relational conceptualisation by a force of restraint that is mistakenly dignified as common reality.

Awakening consciousness is the effortless illumination of each object of attention in the light of its source as whatness and as thatness in the one original consciousness embracing being and becoming, absolute particularity and absolute universality.

The is a kind of inverted or infernal sublime in the sentimental (as the opposite of naive) admission of heteronomy, the often very skillful and complex realisation of how deeply you, your thoughts and feelings are determined by outside factors. The insistence on this, the crushing of every naive objection is an assertion of power and hence of freedom by its ever more perfect denial. In this case the sense of still standing in the face of all that would crush you, by allying in spirit with every external force, has nothing ennobling about it.

The free, detached, sensitive amused and engaged self of the first awakening is easily lost by falling into the social need for an identity. You learn to imitate yourself and then it falls further into the felt identity, the reference point for every kind of sensuality and opinion, for poverty and divine discontent, the sole link you retain with lost glory.

That which knows, which experiences, ultimately which is consciousness must be free in relation to what is known, experienced, intended and so cannot be tied to it as for example inside and outside. But equally, it cannot be affected by what is of a different intrinsic nature, cannot be involved in duality. That it seems so is of the nature of seeming, the mechanisms of thought and perception, of feeling are just as much what is known and not the knower. That there is a world is of the knower, but not the world know, the explosion of what-ness.

Every vision of unification and reconciliation needs to be countered by an equal and opposite force of diremption and irreducible opposition and conflict. Creation is furnace, and a destruction of any and all resting places.

Consciousness fertilised by particularity gives birth to experience. Experience belongs to a self and is directed towards a not-self, in doing so it gives rise to feeling, perceiving, thinking, knowing etc. all of which are directed towards the enigma of the not-self. The not-self is revealed to be the other-self, or simply the other, which in the midst of irreversible complexification of experience, the universal expansion, first opens the possibility of a return to the source, of a possibility hidden within particularity. You might wonder whether experience is merely one contingent possibility of consciousness? But, no, it is latent in the undifferentiated plenum of original consciousness in a special way.

Experience is particularity - this statement resumes the idea of it as consisting of qualia, but under the concept of a free selection, not of atomic units that make up experience but of wholes which could be, but don't need to be analysed into such units. Here consciousness could refer as well to the underlying plenum, prior to experience out of which the selection is made as to the disclosure that ensues from it. It is a matter of inquiring into the open boundaries of experience, which are present in every moment a d are reflected within experience by the lines between say sleeping and waking, between any two of the macroscopic frames that fill ordinary ongoing living.

Empirically your identity is defined by a hierarchic web of connections, but when you imagine yourself in another time and place you shed these as easily as a suit of clothes. The identity-in-reflection is a novelistic self, one whose relation to circumstances is as contingent and problematic as that of a fictional character. Not exactly a formal degree-zero individual, but one who journeys through experience towards a more or less failed autonomy. All the forces experienced through connection are merely felt and not seen, they form no part of your condition of possibility.

Experience measures itself against its own ideal and that ideal is one of perfected experience as distinct from dissolution into impersonal or general consciousness. Particularity, identity seems as if it is just another positive content to be sublated by the negative, but that would be to abolish experience and overshoot the mark. The ideal is a point of impossibility, as any proper ideal ought to be.

Not just agency, but irritability. You model others as well as yourself, and their mode of you and of your model of them etc. All of this places the self not so much in a world of things but in one of competing intentions, or wills aiming at other thing-like wills, in search of an impossible resolution. In dreams all that remains are the models and the engines that drive them, which themselves ramify into further models.

All action is accompanied by a model of action, agency, motive, resources, obstacles, goals etc. so that the intent is as much to validate the model as to achieve the apparent goal. You are as intent on your intervention in the shared space of all such models as you are on the original action - which in fact barely exists without its abstract reflection. But a model by its nature does not bring anything about, it is your document in a world of things of which you can never be a citizen.

Most of the time there is no thought of the self, but everything takes place under its vigilant protection, within its forum. At the slightest challenge it is ready to come out fighting. All of this is a construct, the most banal of constructs, and this can be seen with a seeing that cannot belong to the self. Where is that forum, that city of mind? Inside itself? Why must there be one at all? There is no trickery involved in this parallax, the self is not a magician that conjures the self. It is only a matter of looking aside.

The Hegelian dialectic is simply a reflection of German sentence structure. A collection of diverse and antithetical thoughts are thrown together and compressed until a point of maximum tension is reached at which point the verb appears, as if out of nowhere, and in an instant retroactively synthesises the meaning. The mind is always at work, depositing meaning jointly from intuition (Anschauung) and its own activity (Verstand). In contrast, a language like French, with its Cartesian obsession with clarity, in which the order of the words is taken to reproduce exactly the order of the ideas, are perfectly suited to literary description and over subtle phenomenology. In English, word order is subject to tacit rules of decorum, as in 'The King's English', and so to the ever-present Other.

The trick of turning attention back from the mind's activity and towards the consciousness in which and by which it is taking place at all, is one that benefits from naivety. As soon as it is thought about you realise that the movement of attention is simply another activity of the mind and so the trick itself is only an illusion, a transcendental illusion what's more, about which there seems to be much that can be discussed - in place of merely carrying it out. The opportunity once offered is immediately lost. History now becomes the various attempts to justify the journey of returning to the starting point.

But you and everyone else seem to be taxed with the task of acquiring and then shepherding your own ego through... through what? Through time, through circumstances, through life ant is thrown at you? Or through 'samsara' whatever that means? It is a kind of place, or a (theatre) stage, a locale, a proving ground, some even call it a movie - something real but not quite real, half-imagine, a haunt of mysterious forces, gods and demons, of laws and coincidences. If only there were a name for it.

Over time many words that remain current in a language acquire several diverse meanings which have nothing to do with each other. Those who are fluent in the language and use these words in conversation or in reading and writing texts effortlessly, selection of the intended meaning is cued by the context and no awareness is retained of the semantic fields belonging to the un-selected meanings. This is the most ordinary thing and yet the complete absence of any tendency towards a semantic synthesis refutes a key pillar of Hegelianism. This, of course is seized on by deconstructionists with their incessant punning, even though the latter tendency is more accurately described as a debased Hegelianism. If the tendency of these diverse meanings is rather to draw apart that to come nearer, isn't this still an indication of an irreducible togetherness of sign an meaning.

One step at a time without searching too far ahead. You accept each unfolding circumstance with equanimity, even when what it is is your loss of equanimity, or especially when it is so. New matters call for a positive response to different degrees, something that must come from within, this is were you will not to will and entrust yourself to what comes up even when it means making a commitment more demanding than you might have hoped. It's the reactions that reveal and which bring what needs to be seen to attention.

In the end the stakes for all inquiry into the nature of consciousness is not the kind of being that it possesses but its relationship with Truth. All that we discover factically about it seems to undercut the possibility of such a relation, except that it remains the sole horizon of all such ventures, of every position taken, of every hypothesis and every denial, even as it resists all attempts at systemisation.