Thank you for your response. Fair enough, very convincing within the context in which you framed it (properly).

they haven't yet achieved intersubjective agreement as other things have — Astrophel

I was reading some of your other responses to posts and this came up to illustrate a prior query.

I'd say the antipathy to infanticide needn't acquire intersubjective agreement because, unlike most of what we think of as morality, and I submit, Morality proper (whatever that might turn out to be), said antipathy is already universal in that it is natural.

In all respects, I'm finding your two cents valuable.

But when the value-essence is abstracted from these complexities, we discover a dimension to ethics that cannot be undone. We expect this kind of apodicticity in logic, of course. But certainly not existentially! — Astrophel

That was, firstly, an excellent explanation. And secondly, to my surprise, persuasive in changing my thinking.

There remains an overhanging question which might seem a nuisance, but which you might also be equipped to nip right off.

True, killing the child is bad, no way around it. Brilliant. But could it be that that does not illustrate that the Ethical/Moral isn't entirely a human construction(s), nor that there is an inherent to the Universe, and absolute Ethical/Moral? But rather, the universal antipathy to killing a child is seated in our organic natures. Sure, our morality was constructed on the Foundations of the first dozen times we began re-presenting that organic drive/anti-drive against infanticide. But the universal and absolute--which, you sold me, I totally agree--antipathy is Nature in this particular case, not Ethics.

Gotta have a lot of respect for a person who insisted on going to the front lines in WWI because he wanted to know what it meant to face death. — Astrophel

Totally. Based upon that info above, and how you interpreted "whereof one cannot speak..." I'm going to read some W. Sounds like he has (without "my" knowing it) already infiltrated my Narrative and configured my thoughts.

These are poetic expressions and I don't see any relevance to what we are considering here. — Janus

Fair enough.

Also, I agreed with your differentiation between know and aware that.

If I want to know about Christianity, I want to know what Christ - the sage - had to say. — Tzeentch

If you eliminate the redacted bits,

Love your enemies
Turn the other cheek
It is not what goes into a person that defiles them, but what comes out of their speech
The sabbath was made for humans, not humans made for the sabbath
If you want to follow me, renounce even your families
Don't point to the sliver in your brothers eye ignoring the log in your own
My God why have you forgotten me

That's what I think.

And yet...

I argue that our ethics is grounded in the absolute, and is already part and parcel of divinity. As Witt himself put it (in Culture and Value), the good is divinity — Astrophel

Maybe I did misinterpret

He knew the reason one could not speak of these is because they have a dimension to their existence which has no place in the facts or state of affairs of the world, and are hence unspeakable. It is not that he wanted to draw the line so as to preserve the dignity of logic. He rather wanted to preserve the profundity of the world, not to have it trivialized by some reduction to mere fact. — Astrophel

"to preserve the profundity of the world" by "world" you don't mean..

"which has no place in the facts or state of affairs of the world" you don't mean that world do you?

You mean the "they" and the "these" in "reason one could not speak of these is because they have a dimension to their existence which has no place"

So you mean W told us not to "speak" of these things, not to preserve the dignity of logic, but to preserve the profundity of these things which are before/beyond both speaking and logic. Right?

... I agree.

Locating it pre-fab in memory' is a bit facile, though — Wayfarer

Fair enough. Me again being foolish with my choice of words. Not self deprecating; acknowledging how frustrating that must be for people who make it their vocation to trade words with artful precision.

innate abilities - which is not to say 'innate ideas' - and we also have archetypes — Wayfarer

...and what are these abilities/archetypes if not the evolution of a system of Language etc.? Innate, but whence? I submit, part of that dynamic system of images input into memory over time, and structured and restructured to best fit that individual's Narrative.

You toss these phrases out very casually, as if they're slogans, — Wayfarer

Guilty. Ditto above. I do not mean that the hypotheses I am entertaining relating to Mind is in any way definable as the original Sanskrit terms. There is an unorthodox method to my recklessness, and I acknowledge its flaws and dangers. No need to elaborate. Suffice it to say, just as Nietzsche has found its way into the hypotheses, so, strangely enough, have Vedanta, Mahayana, and Zazen specifically. Any word I text was already written differently by a mind before or around me. But I am too reckless in my expressions.

we are no longer simply biological beings — Wayfarer

Ok. Me too. But I say the beyond biological is ultimately empty, leaving the biological as Real.

to discern', means 'to know what is essence and what is not essence — Wayfarer

Hmm. Do you think then, Advaita too, assumes this discernment is an ability inherent in us? But, for advaita there is ultimately only essence (warning: I am taking liberties with "essence". For advaita there is only Brahman which is Existence Consciousness Bliss, "ecb" and thats what im relating to essence). And discerning is ultimately only discerning that. And discerning that would require turning away from the illusions of Maya (or what I am liberally referring to as the constructions of Mind) and being "awakened" to that Truth as Atman, I.e. that you are that "ecb"--you know, sat cit ananda-- and nothing but. So...that sounds a lot like the human animal unburdened by attachment to minds constructions. One can still relish in the Fiction, just know that you are not that Fiction. You are ecb.

That's Nietszche, isn't it? "Twilight of the Idols". He outlines the history of the idea of the "ideal world" and declares its final dissolution into mere fable. He posits that the notion of an ultimate, ideal, or "true" world beyond our physical reality is not only fictitious but also detrimental to our appreciation and understanding of lived reality. But I don't think it's the only way of seeing it. (Besides, I've never quite understood the idolisation of Neitszche in modern culture. It seems ironic to me.) — Wayfarer

Oh wow! Thanks. Truth is, I've read Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil more than anything. But I appreciate that reference. No doubt exactly that has contributed to the hypotheses I'm considering.

It was Descartes' philosophy that gives rise to the 'ghost in the machine' which typified the modern period. — Wayfarer

That's what I'd say.

That is why I often refer to the non-dualism characteristic of Indian and Chinese cultures. — Wayfarer

I'm with you. For me Advaita and particularly Cha'an out of the Mahayana.

That is Plato's 'idea of the Good' among other examples. We are able to discern it, but it takes certain qualities of character and intellect to be able to do that. — Wayfarer

And here, God, I want to just stop so we continue on the same page. But I have a question. Then, where do we find that Good in our process of discerning if not 1) by ultimately constructing it, or 2) locating it prefab in memory, or 3) a combination of 1 and 2, I.e. revising what has already been input prefab from history?

Is it by anamnesis? Noumena? Does matter (I.e. the universe) really have these "ideas" which we glorify as x y z imbued/embedded/enmeshed/entangled/endowed in it? How? Isn't it way simpler to think that as Language evolved, so did an autonomous system of signifiers coding experience but not of it is real. As in Maya and Samsara unreal. All that is Real is Brahman or Buddha Nature, and ironically we tap into that by being a human being, that animal which shares its nature with the rest of Nature.

I would be very interested in hearing otherwise. I respect your reasoning, know even that there is a way I can be persuaded, but until then I'm fixated on this Narrative among Narratives.

Entire history', eh? — Wayfarer

Ok, I guess I was being dismissive. Why specifically do you question that statement. Maybe you take issue with "entire" history. Clearly I should be more careful. But let's say you accept the folly of my choice of words and treat it as hyperbole, do you not think a lot of metaphysics/religion have focused upon "Spirit" at the expense of the Body?

Ha! Whatever

beliefs are justified if they're true and unjustified if they're false. — flannel jesus

Sorry, I know you are paraphrasing another post

I think beliefs are justified if they are--after a complex but often lightning speed process of dialectic--most fitting for survival. I.e., including but not limited to, does the belief allow for a functional outcome? But also, does it correspond with a fantasy already believed? And, do logic and reason justify the surfacing of the belief into the world or Narrative, and so on. But ultimately beliefs, like all knowable truths, are settled upon when it is most functional to so settle.

Morality is always an act of either interpreting or creating what we believe to be right. — Tom Storm

:up:

And that difference is not only biological, it is also existential. — Wayfarer

I submit it is not biological, but only exisistential. Does that change anything?

viewing existence purely through the lens of Darwinian theory is inevitably reductionist, which is one of the unfortunate characteristics of today's culture. — Wayfarer

I presume you have read my various related posts to be claiming that all we really are is a set of feelings and drives. Hence, biological reductionism.

You would be correct, except that, you have either missed, or--and this I admit, is more likely--I have failed to communicate a seemingly subtle, but actually significant variation. I'll do my best (note Real=ultimate truth or reality, universal shared irrespective of species, and not just, as i submit, that reality constructed by that anamolous species, us--I know you are already straining, indulge me):

1. Yes, the Real human organism is the Body with its drives and feelings, plus whatever is our organic aware-ing of that. The reason, "whatever is," is because that's the very "problem" we face as humans. That Real and organic consciousness is displaced so we cannot access it via the mediator/displacer.
2. Call that reductionism if that's what it is. I'm not sure labeling ideas is always helpful but I respect that it can be. But note,
a) I am not suggesting a lump of flesh in any derogatory way, not even dumb flesh. For all we know, that organic aware-ing is, especially for us super sophisticated humans, an ecstatic state of bliss, etc.
b) accept that (only maybe, until recently) the entire history of metaphysics and religion has been our desperate effort to do the opposite: to suppress the flesh and silence Real organic being, for the sake of glorifying the very thing displacing it.
3. My personal query (of course I do not know) is, what am I really? Not the I who is asking, nor the I that I want it to be. I am that Organic body (Descartes confusion was remaining with the I that wants). That is the consciousness I share with the rest of Nature. So what is all this other stuff? This stuff unique to the I who (thinks) hopes it is (real) Real. It is not some Reality occupying the Spiritual realm. Why would it be? Does that not reek of wishful thinking? Ockhams razor. How are our dualistic explanations not overly complex fantasy?
4. Yet there truly seems to be a dualism. What is Mind? Yes, there seems to be one, because there is. Mind is something other than the organism, unique to humans. It exists, but only in the billions of images stored in our memories. And here's where I've already occupied more than my fair share and must end. But though those images exist, they are empty representations. Reality for us, like all beings, is in our magnificent and cherish able nature: matter. Not the Fiction we write. Final note: lest I further confuse into "nihilism". Yes human existence beyond its Organic Truth, is constructed. But so what? It, like the beehive and beaver dam, serves many great (and harmful) functions. Let it be.

As a lame courtesy to this overall post, this ties in because I am suggesting that a "sick" spirit is just maladjusted Narrative which can be corrected narratively. No need to fret. Find your True Spirit by breathing presently. By the self inhabiting Being, and not becoming. Not new age. Philosophy.

But these entanglements conceal the nature of ethics itself for the question is not raised here if there is anything indefeasible about these affairs. — Astrophel

But the Real the underpins ethical entanglements and makes ethics what it IS, is value, and by value I mean the good and the bad that generates obligation outside of, logically prior to, the language constructs we use. — Astrophel

Asking you authentically, not to set up some argument (sorry, I have learned that some think queries are concealed gotchas):

1. Are you saying there is an ontological "Real" for Morals/Ethics, and that that "Real" is good vs bad? That these are what is indefeasible, or, absolute?

2. Why aren't "good" and "bad" also just "features of a society's entanglements"? Granted, I see that good and bad speak to the pith and substance of ethics. But why isn't Ethics itself, right down to its pith and substance, a functional construct?

Addendum: simplified illustration. In prehistory/prelanguage/preconstruction, X 's mate is killed by Y, X feels the negative feelings which arise from the lost bond. Y might feel the satisfaction of protecting her offspring. Y feels the positive feelings of that. Where is the prehistoric, ontological value? Where does it fall? I say, post history, good and bad were constructed to displace those natural feelings. Only they are ontologically real and prehistoric, because they are organic.

The Brothers Karamazov a character asks: “But what will become of men then?” I asked him, “without God and immortal life? All things are permitted then, they can do what they like?” — Tom Storm

I am a little bewildered at how often I've heard versions of this in response to submissions that God either doesn't exist, or if It does, is beyond good and bad, right and wrong, (and all other dualisms arising only to a species like us who have constructed difference.)

Why do we need God to cooperate (which is ultimately the drive behind morality)? Do people not see that ultimately matters such as these fall only to their "functionality"?

If we, not God, permit murder, people will die. If we steal, there would be chaos. Etc etc etc.

I choose to confess because I feel it is more personal. It is like a redemption with myself — javi2541997

Sure! And why not? If it works, it works. I just say, that "it works," is the workings of Mind.

But, ultimately, who am I?

not until you showed up — Astrophel

While it's likely there was deliberately no logic. If there was, I'd wager this:

While sequestered he was not alone, but with his Body, and thus one with everything.

The reporter reminded him of his Subject (because Subject requires Other) and thus the seeming utter isolation/alienation.

But ultimately, we are utterly not alone; neither in Body where we are one with Nature/Reality, nor in Mind where we are one with History/Maya.

not until you showed up. — Astrophel

:up: :up: :up:

Paraphrased to illustrate:

Jesus: nothing beats belief. Belief will move mountains. If you have belief the size of a mustard seed you will say to that mountain move, and it will move.

Hui neng: came across two of his disciples debating over whether the wind was moving the flag or the flag was moving. "It is neither wind nor flag," said the 6th patriarch of Cha'an. "It is your mind moving."

if there is no access to "reality," then presumably there is no reason to set up a knowledge/belief, reality/appearance distinction in the first place. But claims that beliefs are "merely appearance," presuppose such a distinction. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But there is a reason. That is how IT functions, this anomalous human existence. We built sky scrapers and rockets out of belief.

But in reality, in the Timeless Reality before/beyond/outside of our constructions, we have only constructed belief to stand in for Truth (knowledge), having no access therefrom to Real Truth

It would better be put “there is only belief.” Or “there is no knowledge.” — Fire Ologist

Totally. There is only belief, ultimately. Knowledge is the sneaky tool we've evolved to hide that fact. Or...so I believe.

I think there is a valid distinction between knowledge and belief, — Janus

Does not all knowledge require a final movement to ordain it? And isn't that step belief? I would define knowledge as that "information," input into Mind(s) which, following a dialectical process, ends at a settlement which is believed by said Mind(s).

Now we must be careful not to miss a step. One might say, I know some say the earth is flat but I don't believe it. My knowledge did not require belief. But actually you must believe that some say the earth is flat. If you don't, your statement is that you don't have knowledge that some say the earth is flat. Rumors? I [believe] there are rumblings about the earth being flat. And I don't believe them. But I do believe there are mumblings. Or, I hear there are rumors and I don't believe them.

All knowledge requires belief.

if the idea is simply to live a less stressful life, then fine. But this is not what Gautama Siddhartha had in mind so long ago. — Astrophel

Totally agree. This is not what Buddha had in mind; i.e. the relief from stress. But he did have in mind that the root of all stress, suffering, is the attachment to this profane, including the Ethical (the universal) etc. But while one might argue that Buddha was calling for the annihilation of this "self" who is so attached, I believe he was calling more for its "recognition," as its annihilation is likely impossible.

I agree with you

that it is impossible for a language possessor to remain silent on things one feels inquisitive? Therefore he broke his own code as soon as he uttered the sentence? — Corvus

Yes, and so do we all

As far as I understand this, confessing only heals the spirit because the latter is sacred, religious, etc. I mean, they are different concepts with different results. Don't you think? — javi2541997

Yes. I like "confession" for healing the "spirit" more than apologize. You're right. Or repent. Repent and sin no more. If we want to think religiously.

But still I think we are talking about healing one and the same thing. Whether we call it Mind or Spirit. It might be convenient for discourse to think of the Mind as, for e.g., the seat of reason, and the spirit, for e.g., as the seat of the sacred, and thus of guilt and despair. They are not divided, but the same thing.

You suggest that the Spirit alone can be healed by confession. Yet many forms of psychotherapy involve speaking out your mind's issues to a qualified other. As long as it needs healing by apologizing, confessing or repenting it's "sins" we are speaking of the Mind, the psyche, the whole of human consciousness, and not the Truly Spiritual, which is the Organic body uninvolved with such inventions, but rather carrying on with the life God is giving it.

God could be contacted in some other way than seeing or hearing him. It proves human reason and thinking is not really the 100% certain criteria for all the knowledge in the world.

What are the other means for employment you suggesting? — Corvus

I think God--if there is--transcends our human constructions/conventions, including reason and morality. If God is the Creator/Sustainer/Recycler of all that there is beyond such constructions/conventions, i.e. the "Lord/Lady" of Nature, then accessing God would be by being that nature, your true nature, that living breathing organism. Be-ing a human creature, accepting that reality, as opposed to what we spend the vast majority of our time doing, creating our own reality becoming a human "god."
To incorporate the Abrahamic tradition, the former is the tree of life, the latter is the tree of knowledge.

If we cannot speak on something, we need no imperative not too. We cannot. — AmadeusD

Ha. True. But, and this might have been the point (?) , yet how we do.

Hey, myself more than the next guy! It's irresistible.

Yah I didn't bother looking it up. Do you know the Wittgenstein line?

As for who is morally culpable. Here's my take.

From the perspective of human Consciousness, collective consciousness, or History, we must settle upon the belief (making it a truth) that an individual is morally culpable. History functions under that "we know but we act as if," mechanism best in this scenario. If we were to settle upon the belief that we are all culpable, there would be a need not just for a radical paradigm shift, but one that would take generations to assimilate into functionality.

But from the perspective of an outsider, a being not, like we all are, "trapped" in History, we all built history together, and we continue to do so. Every expression of a single mind to at least one other, triggers at least one reaction (no matter how minute), and so on, building history. Thus given the interconnectedness of all things mediated by human mind, i.e., all things human, we are all morally culpable and all morally credited for every action in said history. Not because there aren't degrees of culpability from locus to locus, but because it is ultimately one structure. As painful a pill to swallow, maybe there is something to the Catcher in the Rye killing Lennon.

have studied most of the religions on Earth but not all of them. I have tried praying to many gods and goddesses. None of them answered my prayers. — Truth Seeker

Could it be the case you might have had prayed to the unreal or fake Gods, and there were no response for your prayer from them? — Corvus

Right, and a variation on Corvus, could it be they answered your prayers in a "language" you have closed yourself off to?

I'm not saying I agree with the depiction of God Gods Godesses here. Who knows, i might agree more with Truth Seeker's view of God/No God.

But, if God exists as Ultimate Reality, I dont think we can establish, judge, understand, discuss God in our terms. So, though I am yet to be a reader or student of Wittgenstein, I've come across enough to say, and I paraphrase, that of which we cannot speak, we must remain silent.

But that doesn't mean the door is closed on God. Only that God cannot be accessed by our Minds. Other means must be employed...

meditation is an annihilation of ones "existence". — Astrophel

Sorry Astrophel, annihilation? Would you accept, a rest, vacation, respite? I think I know what you mean, but meditation is a simultaneous turning away from "existence" and turn toward Reality, or True Being.

I think, like Abraham's temporary suspension of the ethical ( specifically the law against infanticide, broadly, "existence," our world) meditation as we are using it here, is a temporary reprieve from our world, which removes its obstructions and allows brief glimpses of Truth. But the world has become the inescapable* default setting for humans in human existence.

*I think there might theoretically be a "meditative" process which might allow one to exist in a permanent state of Truth, hence "annihilating" existence; but, man, is that unlikely.

Have I misunderstood? Intruded?

I appreciate how thoughtful you are being, and I feel the earnestness in your tone. So, please note (I acknowledge you probably do anyway) that I am not providing answers with any authority beyond the opinions which have collected in my tiny locus of history. I would only hope that you throw them into your own dialectic and I would be interested in learning what eventually comes out. Anyway, because I'm lazy, I won't keep repeating, "in my humble opinion." I just wanted to clarify that I know I sound like I know. But like you, like everyone, I don't.

... I feel my spirit is sick and if I attend meta-ethics they will teach me about principles to motivate better behavior — javi2541997

You're right. But not how you think. The meta-ethics will assuredly heal your "spirit," but you are (respectfully) unwittingly using "spirit" when you mean Mind. Your Mind
constructs and carries the burden of your immorality. Morality is a collection of Narrative trials and errors--like precedents in Anglo Common Law--made by billions of Minds, over the one mind, history. So any malaise you think is rooted in your spirit, is. But not as in opposed to Mind. It is Mind.

It is as opposed to what would belong to God, if there is God or the like, (e.g. Brahman or Buddha Nature also works). The malaise you reference is a construct of the Mind. But what belongs to God, that is, the True Spirit of I (humbly) submit, all religions, is our organic being, our Bodies.

You want to heal your Soul? Be ethical, minimize the focus upon the Subject in your Narrative. Be conventional. Belong.

You want to "heal" (I would say, "be") your Real Spirit, the True Consciousness of an organic being aware-ing always in presence, it's feelings and its drives, in pursuit of prosperity and bliss? Just be that organic being. For God's sake Breathe.

Yet I agree with some users who claim there have to be universal principles or code of conduct which we can rely on. Do you agree with me that lying to our parents is one of the dirtiest things to do? I — javi2541997

Yes. I agree! But I note (remember, with humility and an incessant self doubt) that those codes were written by History, and if God is Real, they have nothing to do with It beyond any arguments that It may have once had an inspirational role.

. I feel my spirit is rotten after doing so, — javi2541997

I feel that, if the foregoing serves any functions, this one is important. God does not judge you for your admittedly dirty lies. You are judging yourself. Good. Within the context of the rest of us, history. And because your Narrative is ethical, you're firing off Signifiers to release chemicals of anti-bliss (clearly I simplify). So see? The system works. It doesn't have to be religion. You feel bad. Fix it. Apologize and henceforth be honest.

But notwithstanding all scriptural and ecclesiastical claims to the contrary, lightning will not strike you.

Again. If morality is not the essence of spirituality, why do we act accordingly? — javi2541997

Well, now, given I haven't miscommunicated, you know why I think. Up to you.

Sorry, to expand briefly on my previous reply.

The corresponding "philosophical" branch for religion (as in thelogy) is metaphysics not ethics or morality. For spirituality, specifically, you might find a sister in existentialisms drive for authenticity.

Yes, morality is a bi-product; but not the essence of spirituality.

The corresponding

Do you feel the same? — javi2541997

I separate spiritually from morality.

The former's "purpose" is soteriological, or emancipatory. That is, to "lift" one up from/out of secular and mundane attachments, including morality. To use Eliade's term, It belongs to the sacred.

While the latter, morality, involves the secular. It may have as its "purpose" the most functional or "best" version of the secular, but it remains nevertheless secular. To use Eliade's term, It belongs to the profane.

I agree that "religions" have exploited spirituality to "scare" us into accepting that the main purpose of same is to "be good."

However, I believe there can be near perfectly moral atheists according to conventional standards of morality; and, (although more difficult to objectively assess) near perfectly accomplished in spirituality (i.e. enlightened/saved) who do not adhere to any moral laws or structures.

Now, I expect resistance on the second conclusion. It is common to view spiritaul persons as "saintly," and to equate "saintly" with being a good person.

But note, that a spiritual "saint" "mukti" "sage" etc. behaves morally, either
1. Because coincidentally, freedom from the attachment to the profane is also freedom from the same attachments which lead us to immoral choices, or
2. Because they are claiming to be spiritual, an presenting their morality as proof, and are therefore, not spiritual.

I mean, if there is a God, and or a spiritual reality, why would it be restricted by our relative morality? And if you think religious morality is not relative, read the old testament, koran, and Mahabharatas to see how much our religious morality has evolved (improved!), relative to our secular views.

I am fine being in the experience machine. — AmadeusD

There's no place like it

Heidegger is describing how the stone shows up for Dasein as — Arne

Thank you.

And this next question is not argumentative, just as my first question wasn't. So I appreciate you taking the time etc. And forgive me for my plain English, I try to stick to the latter when i lack confidence in the terminology.

Is Dasein a pre-human "thing" ("thing" in the most respectful ontological terms necessary) which is inherent in, pervades, constitute the True Being, substance etc. of the Universe, Reality, etc? Or is Dasein particular to the human experience? I have no planned follow up, so if you would explain that, I'll leave it, knowing I might be side tracking.

all a lot of fun! — AmadeusD

Right? And that too is a topic for further discussion somewhere. We know [it is Fiction] but [built into the Fiction is the reward of] we act as if [it is Real]

Consciousness doesn't, on it's face, consist in memories, so I see no reason to have them at-base. — AmadeusD

Might it be that the one which consists in memories, what I've referred to as the Narrative, is that Mind which does not persist. But, to differentiate, "real consciousness" does not consist in memories. And I think therefore ironically, real consciousness, the one which does not necessarily require the fleshy infrastructure to operate its memory store, if it persists in the afterlife, it is necessarily not the Narrative. Sad as it is, "I" is the Narrative, requires memory and its organic infrastructure. I goes never to return with the death of the Body. As for so called real consciousness, perhaps the incessantly present awareness Nature has in Be-ing. Perhaps what I really am, as/along with this body is that incessant presence where death doesn't matter where afterlife doesn't matter. All there is is Be-ing, and Be-ing is aware-ing be-ing. And, admittedly for drama, Tat Tvam Asi. Thou art that. But you are not the Narrative.