written April 29, 2019
This was the result of attempting to bring my narrative faculties as close to “my” experience of non-dual awareness as possible: I kept trying to explain my experience of “totality” to my friend but became tangled in the mobius-strip-like nature of language. I wasnt able to coherently speak unless I shifted my identification to the ego’s perspective. The words that came *closest* to accurately reflecting this state of mind were: “‘i’ am ‘it'” and “‘it’ makes ‘sense'”. (Where “i”=ego and “sense”=meaning… still trying to figure out how to explain “it” besides “it”-ness)Going back and forth between pure experience and an articulable experience (and trying to come as close as possible to closing the gap between the two) … my ego self was experiencing quite major reverberations that looked/felt/sounded like the attached picture:
This whole experience was like an escape room of “my” awareness from its entanglement in language. I realized that we can only speak in one perspective at a time. As such, words necessitate a metaphysical stance… a creative cutting up of experience in which a level of identification with a “self” is implied. We can not give non-dual awareness a voice because words only “stick” to breaks or fragments between components of our experience. “I see the apple” can only be spoken because an “I” that is distinguished from “an apple” is implied. If we are truly able to transcend the conventional “i” (ego) then we are not able to speak because the distinction between doer and doing dissolves. Thinking about this more made me realize that the “conventional” self (ego) might just be the inculcated inward projection of the syntactical structures that we learn to operate within in the social realm.