Search the Community

It's alive because it is, it could not be and be, but being superimposed to not being. But agree, alive is bad word, better open. About the center, let's see, from that center, I perceive that I, as a center, am a perceiver, but that I, as a substance, am the opening. The opening is absolutely impersonal, but at the same time, I am that. The perceiver is a circumstantial perspective, a structure that occurs; the real is the opening that lives. Life not as a relationship but as a being. As if, given its absence of limits, it is that which I am. The perceiver is always there because it is my structure now, but they are lines; the real is the opening

So you are telling that I'm lying to appear important. It shows your level of perception. I talk about this because I break the mental barrier more or less every day. It's something I've sought out as necessary and something I've learned to do. It's a difficult game; I assure you, there's no possible mistake. Since I can't talk about this with anyone, I'm talking about it here. I can't avoid it. I know how the psyche operates to shut down. I see what the masters say, and I know they're wrong or lying almost always. It's absolutely obvious. I want to articulate the energetic structure that shuts down. I can't stop contemplating how it works, its mechanism. Everything I say here is intended to be totally impersonal, to speak from total clarity. Sometimes emotion escapes, but I try to keep it minimal.

Nothing makes one special and unique. DNA and fingerprints are what distinguishes us from the rest. Life is pain and suffering, death is relief from pain and suffering Therefore advice like these only fuels life with more pain and suffering. Maybe not initially but when life takes a curveball and shows whose the boss, figuratively speaking. Only advice that's of any use is on how to deal with the curveball when it happens, not how to avoid it. It's inevitable. Life is impersonal so our manipulative tactics will only bite us in the end because no two fingerprint is alike, therefore no advice given can satisfy all if even applied.

This is a fantasy. The subject is not an autonomous core that exists prior to language or society. The subject is the effect of the signifier: it emerges only through its position within the symbolic order - the system of language, norms, and shared meaning. To be a subject is to be constituted by this field, not to stand outside it. The idea of reprogramming one’s mind from scratch to become an autotelic “avatar” is itself formulated within the symbolic order. The fantasy of total independence - of a consciousness operating on a paradigm entirely alien to all human conditioning - is structured by the very language and social categories it seeks to transcend. Even the notion of a pure observer or sovereign witness is an imaginary identification: a construction that attempts to cover over the inherent division and lack at the core of subjectivity. One can concede that there may be something akin to a “transcendental subject” - a dimension of awareness radically beyond language, social determination, and all familiar coordinates of the self. But even if such a dimension exists, it is not an “avatar” that can be appropriated or integrated into an autonomous identity. It is fundamentally ecstatic and liquidating: it dissolves the ordinary sense of ownership and coherence. There is no bridge by which this non-conceptual field can be installed as one’s internal world or used as the foundation for an autotelic self. Precisely because it is radically beyond the symbolic order, it cannot be stably claimed, narrated, or lived as a personal asset. If the symbolic order were somehow dissolved completely, what would remain would not be a purified or self-originating “I.” What would appear instead is the Real: a dimension that cannot be symbolized or integrated into any coherent sense of self. This is not a higher form of subjectivity but the dissolution of subjectivity itself. To return from that place and claim the position of an autotelic consciousness would simply be to re-enter the symbolic field in a different configuration. Even in traditions that describe radical non-conceptual awareness - such as Advaita Vedanta or the writings of mystics like Meister Eckhart and Ramana Maharshi - the moment such experiences are named, taught, or transmitted as realizations, they are thrust back into the symbolic order. They become signifiers within the social field, reinscribing the speaker in the shared horizon of language. The fantasy that there is a stable witness entirely outside signification is another attempt to mask the structural division and lack that define the subject. One can create new concepts, new practices, and novel configurations of desire that feel radically singular. This is what Deleuze calls lines of flight. But such creations remain entangled in the symbolic and social domain; they do not constitute an exit from it. The subject does not pre-exist the field of signifiers but is produced by it. Without the symbolic order, there is no coherent witness left - no avatar - only impersonal experience that cannot be appropriated or claimed as one’s own. If anything, „authentic“ spirituality - if it deserves the name - is precisely beyond the need to be special, beyond the fantasy of a unique and unassailable position. It is the recognition that what is most real is also what cannot be possessed.

I'm bursting out bawling today. For no major apparent reason. Thoughts appearing. Thoughts about freedom and what's appearing. Thoughts about the Absolute. Thoughts about how impersonal it is. Thoughts about how real it feels. Thoughts about how it expresses itself. About how it's not going anywhere, this is it, about how this me, is it there or is it? Don't know. Can't know. A feeling is just appearing and that is nothing appearing as a feeling. Everything is nothing being and I can't get a hold of that. I can't control that. I can't choose what to feel, it just comes and goes. Something here notices that, something here sees the impermanence in the appearance. It's wonderfully frightening. If I dwell on that I might develop anxiety so I don't and this here isn't prone to anxiety attacks because there's no dwelling in the what if's about life much, just what is and the past. Future is not a favorite. It can't see it. Doesn't know it at least i know the past and what is. That's the knowing energy. It seemingly develops the dis-ease of anxiety when it doesn't know and dwells in the unknown. Depression is the knowing energy dwelling in the past. Like it built it's house on a depression fault line. The rain came and dug a hole and knowing built it's house on that fault line and depression is the result. It get's deeper and deeper into the hole and for it to get out it has to rise above the fault line or just move out. Most just stay there and live there. The present moment is the sweet spot, they say, but where is the present moment. How does one find it, or remain there. Every time one tries to stay there another moment arises; where is the last moment. It's gone? The one that you abided in prior. So how can one stay in the present. Impossible. Anyway, I'm just rambling on about stuff no one particular topic and I'm going way too much into left field and all over the place. Enough for now.

Why conflate the two issues. I don't see a correlation between sex work and intimacy. How can two people that don't know each other or only know each other on the level of sex work be intimate in the true sense of the word. Sex work wasn't designed to be intimate, genuine intimacy, that is. Yes, it can be paid for but that's not true intimacy and is on the level of transactional. The problem arises when the one that pays expects otherwise. I find that a lot of men can conveniently separate this dynamic in their personal lives but when it comes to a sex worker, they expect her to be more "into it/him" I guess because he's paying for it. They can conveniently have sex with a regular female without feelings or love and it be purely physical but expects the sex worker to have feelings and do it with compassion and love. How can she when she doesn't know you. True Intimacy, sex and sex work doesn't go hand in hand. There's not even a close connection. Guys will get upset when this isn't the case, because they can have sex without true intimacy or feelings but expect the woman to. They'll get upset and say she's only in it for the money when they're only in it for the sex or whatever it is they paid for. It gets me sometimes that men can (some men) expect a female to want to have sex with a man they don't know or even like. They can and do it on a regular basis. Pick up is hard for the reason that women usually need to have a certain emotion 'touched' before they want to have sex while a man can just see a woman he's attracted to to want to have sex with her and without knowing her or even care to. He can pretend to want to get to know her just for the sake of wanting sex from her and women can feel that and that's why they can get so cold. As a sex worker, it baffles me how men can think the woman is turned on just because he is. Most will ask me what I like and want to do, if I asked them the same. I want to go home and eat ice-cream I'm thinking. Why would I WANT to do anything sexual with you, i don't know you, I'm thinking. I'm only doing it because I'm being compensated and because I can separate the two. Pick up guys will get offended by this while they're out there chasing strange pussy from women they don't even know or like or don't even really want to know. I'll be looked down upon for what I do while men will go out see big boobs, a nice ass, a pretty face and want to stick their dick in that strangers pussy for self-gratification; but when I say I'm only doing it because I'm compensated and it's a willing choice, I'll get looked down upon. Men will chase pussy and i will chase money. What's the difference. I'm making a living while they're trying to cum. Which one is more meaningful. Depends on whose looking, I've become numb to all the naysers because I've seen enough to realize that men are more impersonal than women when it comes to sex and they can freely and happily with a proud face spread their dicks around to strangers and strange women who are willing, while for me it's usually on the level of knowing, liking and respecting the guy to want to even have sex with him and after he's earnt his way to receive the love I have in store even if it's just for a brief moment. A guy wants your heart without earning it, but if I earned my way to his wallet, I'm looked down upon. At least I'm not looking to get it for nothing when I'm working. Most men are looking for sex without even trying to earn it. Yes, it's earnt, you're not entitled to a woman's body just because you exist. Do you go about life feeling entitled to other products you purchase, no. Only to a woman because you feel it should be that way. No it shouldn't. Everything in life is earnt, including sex. Doesn't mean monetarily, just earnt in some type of way. Sex work is a different category all by itself.

i feel a desire to share some old pictures. i feel this every year during this time, sometimes in the months inbetween as well, and it may not be the wisest thing to do, i don't know if this nostalgia is healthy, i don't know if i have the right to share these pictures, if this is harmful in any way ...but i feel the desire to share, and maybe this is the wrong place...if so, please let me know, and i'll delete, but i don't know where else i could share them. so these pictures are five years old, and i survived, i "got better" soon afterwards, but when i look at these pictures, my brain still goes she was beautiful maybe more beautiful than i'll ever be, moving forward ( - sadness arises.... desperation) i don't think i want to go back, back down there....but yes, i do still feel some nostalgia from time to time, looking at these images. i was sick back then, i was tired, i was dying hurting myself to the degree that i had to dissociate away, had to leave the body be for a second, to "let the body live", while i refused to identify with it any longer it's messy, it's complicated, it was intense existential impersonal but yeah, i feel like words aren't enough and i want to share these pictures with someone. not sure if it's harmful though. it feels heavy having them on my phone and knowing i'm the only one who's ever looked at most of them. i was pretty alone during these hours when i was, as it felt, at my most beautiful - hours which could have been my last. they aren't instagrammable. most of these shots are pretty ostensibly disordered, aren't the product of photo shoots, but disordered rituals and body checking ceremonies.

Hey Leo, what up, i would love to hear your response on this. The proper Christian claim is that Jesus (and only him) is God, there's no way neither you nor anyone else can be. It's ontologically impossible given that we are created beings while God is uncreated. Jesus is the only bridge to close the gap, you can't do it by yourself. In the gospel of john he says "I am the way the truth and the life... no one comes to the father except through me" Which is the opposite of your bio here isn't it? To a proper christian who knows what he's talking about, saying that you're god means you are deceived. No matter how deep into non duality (and whatever thing beyond that) you went into. The truth expressed in the gospel is that of a personal God, not an impersonal one. Christ is an actual dude who speaks to you, does things to you, asks you stuff, has preferences, is affected by how you live your life. Now one might say the gospels are not accurate, got manipulated or that they spoke some high consciousness stuff in low consciousness terms so people misunderstood it because spiral dynamics and what not. These are all valid concerns but it's important we don't dismiss the topic so easily by labeling it as low level spirituality. Personally, i met several people who had their life transformed by this incorporeal but everpresent dude. They received healings, found spouses with whom they got a happy marriage (which used to be a massive issue before), found a better direction in life and had several miracles happening to them. This doesn't just apply to red people turn blue (some cases of which i know) but to normal people who didn't know anything about him, started praying and had this strong external influence take over their lives. This happens also to people who were deep into spirituality at various levels. You can check the books "youre mine" by sister anastasia and "the gurus, the young and elder paisios". Both authors explain how they were deep into buddhism, non duality, sometimes spiritism, hinduism, yoga (properly done to achieve enlightenment, not the retarded way) and found that at the core of ALL of them there is a demonic deception. You can also check the books by Seraphim Rose, who was a student of Alan Watts who tried many of the eastern disciplines to find Truth to then become and orthodox monk. The christian God is "holy", meaning he's separate from creation. The monks who experience him (yes he's male) directly say that basically all the christian cilches are true. They're not retarded, they're not blue people using blue language and projecting blueness on it, they mean what thehy say knowing what they are talking about and come to totally different conclusions than the ones you came to. Turns out also that the devil and demons are real, actual entities with an agenda and agency over us humans, not just projections of our psyche. So my questions for you are 1) How did you falsify the enightenment experiences you had against the possibility of being deceived by malevolent entities? I'm interested because i had many awakenings and was balls deep into inner work and healing, but stopped because it turns out it can be very dangerous. 2) how do you explain christian saints and monks, even recent ones, coming to radically different conclusions than yours? and if you don't know about them how about the people who claim to have been saved out the new age (which includes every eastern practice and outlook on things that you tried and preached and psychedelics even used in the most authentic and shamanic way) by jesus who often shows up outta nowhere when called in the moments of need and operates miracles? 3) From the way you speak i get the impression you never properly got into christianity, am i wrong? did you ever research it and test it out? Set aside american evangelicals who are often very ignorant and unsofisticated. Did you watch testimonies of people having direct experiences with christ? read books by monks? On the surface christianity looks very confused and even barbaric, but the core is a surprise apparently. I think it would be worthwile to investigate. if you were wrong about everything you'd want to know right? If you're still right and can falsify christianity at the core I'd be very interested in hearing how you do it, so far i could not. If you're interested you can check the books i told you above. You can also check testimonies, just look for new age to jesus, buddhism to jesus, spirituality to jesus etc. you'll find all sorts of peple converting for the same reasons. Steven Bancarz uses you as an example to explain why meditation is dangerous, There are clips from your older videos in this one. Hope this lands for you, have me know what you think please. Thank you

Another general tip for guys in similar scenarios: CALL HER, don't just text You can flip many seemingly dead interactions simply by calling her and instead of just texting. It's shocking how well this can work in the right situation. Texting is just too impersonal and too easy for her to forget about you. But if you call her and she answers, now you're a lot more "real". She can hear your voice and more easily feel your personality. So yeah, don't sleep on the phone call. It might seem old-fashioned but it works. Especially in scenarios where you've already hinted at plans. You could also try FaceTime, but I find a phone call is easier and less pressure than a video-chat.

Yes, that might be considered the 'impersonal' aspect, when one can at least dis-identify from the self construct, seeing the mind's movements more objectively. It's definitely higher order than all the self-referential thinking that most are lost in and/or wholly identified with. The witness can at least laugh at the silliness one used to get so wound up in, and not take the self so seriously. That's always noice.

As an intercultural language fella, I found that such statements using stereotypes and personal pronouns tends to introduce judgment into and 'personalize' the context of a discussion that might otherwise expand the view to a more objective, impersonal look at what the mind is doing. Imo, the previous writer was showing an authentic gratitude for a positive aspect of a teaching in their life, and was even willing to take a risk in doing so. How might the crux of these statements be made using the passive voice and/or without such stereotypes, assuming you are are native speaker of English? I assume you are speaking from your own experience and/or with at least a few Christians in mind, and that's fine. I getcha.

Notice how the indefinite article “a” - a life - becomes the index of the transcendental for Deleuze. In this move, he turns the entire Western tradition inside out. Not by negating transcendence, but by folding it into the immanent - by locating the transcendental in the flickering moment, the impersonal affect, the pre-conscious gesture, the singular rupture. That’s the genius of Deleuze. And it’s where he goes beyond Nietzsche. Because when Nietzsche folds transcendence into immanence, it’s still an act of will to power - a promethean defiance, a struggle against God. But in Deleuze, there’s no struggle. God doesn’t die - it dissolves. It realizes itself as pure immanence, as a life. No hero. No self. No beyond. Just this shimmering excess - A LIFE.

“What is immanence? A life… No one has described what a life is better than Charles Dickens, if we take the indefinite article as an index of the transcendental. A disreputable man, a rogue, held in contempt by everyone, is found as he lies dying. Suddenly, those taking care of him manifest an eagerness, respect, even love, for his slightest sign of life. Everybody bustles about to save him, to the point where, in his deepest coma, this wicked man himself senses something soft and sweet penetrating him. But to the degree that he comes back to life, his saviors turn colder, and he becomes once again mean and crude. Between his life and his death, there is a moment that is only that of a life playing with death.” “The life of the individual gives way to an impersonal and yet singular life that releases a pure event freed from the accidents of internal and external life, that is, from the subjectivity and objectivity of what happens: a ‘Homo tantum’ with whom everyone empathizes and who attains a sort of beatitude. It is a haecceity no longer of individuation but of singularization: a life of pure immanence, neutral, beyond good and evil, for it was only the subject that incarnated it in the midst of things that made it good or bad.” “The life of such individuality fades away in favor of the singular life immanent to a man who no longer has a name, though he can be mistaken for no other. A singular essence, a life…” Gilles Deleuze, Pure Immanence: Essays on a Life

Here's something more "minfucky " than solipsism. There is no perceiver. light falls on a object then gets reflected into your eyes then goes to the perception centers in your so called brain . But where exactly is the image arrive in your brain ? Can you pinpoint a perceiver inside your head or brain ? You can't just say well in the sight perception center in the brain .you'd have to tell me in which millimeter exactly .and of course you can't. There is no perceiver. So there is no you or others. There is just impersonal consciousness or being .stuff going in and out of you .(don't twist the meaning though lol).

Can any solipsist answer the question of how it is possible for the appearance of movement, of events, to exist when only I exist? I already know the answer: because I'm dreaming it. Does no one understand the superficiality of the dream analogy? A dream implies an infinite number of processes external to your field of consciousness; a dream is reality, because the most important thing: you are not you. The you that seems to be a unit that believes it is the center is a multidimensional entity branching out into infinity, with infinite external ramifications. You are like a donkey with blinders on, allowing you to see only what you should see. You are not the donkey; you are the blinders. Reality is infinitely broader and more impersonal than what you perceive.

@Princess Arabia Not necessarily. The morality I speak of isn't something judged or bestowed upon from some higher deity or God. God is everything, but operates on many levels, it's not hierarchy, it's a holarchy. There is only Gods will. The morality I speak of in making conscious choices is only judged by the light of our own consciousness which is God. It's all impersonal from the biggest picture, but it's also sentient and connected as well. Life is a process and flowing creation of creation and destruction. Like the cells of our bodies are constantly going to battle to keep the whole organism alive, but if from the cellular level we start picking and choosing sides as to who were the good cells, who's the bad cells then the harmony at a higher level of the organism would collapse. So on one level or order it can look like chaos and on a higher level you see order and harmony. Everything is highly chaotically ordered and harmonic but from our human perspective it may not look like that, it may seem cruel, it may seem fucked up but that's just the way it is from a certain vantage point, and what makes human life so beautiful and unique is our ability to make conscious choices and to make changes. We can't stop a hurricane from flooding or natural disasters killing animals, but we can see things from a higher perspective and having a deeper awareness, not because a God is judging us, but because of our inner light of radiant transcendance.

@Princess Arabia It seems to be a difference between natural phenomena and our conscious intentions. When a hurricane or tsunami happens, it’s impersonal, it isn't egotistical. Nature includes both creation and destruction. I think In that sense it's immoral or amoral. But when we kill animals it usually comes from our conscious choice, out of necessity, okay fine but a lot of times it's out of convenience. This is where ethics and awareness comes in. Nature may seem cruel or fucked up but we as conscious beings are able to examine our motives and responsibilities. Part of our journey of self Actualization involves not just raising the quality of our consciousness, but raising the quality of our hearts. What are your thoughts on this?

I don't believe any of your definitions except for Undefinable. You can just ignore the hyperbolic stuff and pretend it's the same thing, as something obviously wreaking of humanness like Love. "But Crocodile, Love is impersonal, nonhuman, hyperbolic blah blah blah blah blah blah..."---no! You can't get around that all of these are way too limited points of view. I'll say this: if reincarnation and common implications of it is real, everything is all good. If not then there is no excuse whatsoever to not be a sorcerer, to shift consciousness out of the human into visible and tangible realms which are nonlinear, complex, and nonhuman in order to preserve your awareness after death. Either way, humans and the earth should take on a form of perfect Beauty through genetic engineering, long-term nature, or paranormal means. Humans should be made more intelligent, even more open-minded and more benevolent and more versed into these impersonal, nonhuman, hyperbolic realms so we can explore Beauty and complexity of time, space, meaning, pleasure, understanding, etc. forever as immortals both liberated from reality and enjoying reality.

That's Infinity. It's impersonal. When we say God is selfless, we really mean it. It's a level of selfless unfathomable to a human being.

WHAT IS TRUTH: Truth is what's happening. It's that simple. The complicated version is that it's not happening to you, through you, by you or for you because you, the person/human you think you are doesn't exist. The body does, but there's no one inside these bodies doing anything at will. Life is happening all on it's own and it's impersonal. You can test this for yourself. Notice how you plan things and they don't go as plan. If they do, it's because it's life doing it anyway. Notice how you're addicted to things and cannot stop. It's not up to you because there's no you doing it. Notice how you've been worrying about things all your life and life just keeps on going. Doesn't matter if you got your way or not, tomorrow still comes, next year still comes, a decade goes by and you're still trucking on; worries or not. Notice how you want things to go a certain way but it doesn't all the time. Why can't you always get your way. Why not. Whatever answer you give here will just be a story. All Stories. Reasonings. Excuses. Notice how unpredictable life is. When you move your hand, that's energy. Speak, walk, run, dance, any movement, that's energy. It's raw, it's direct. Neither dead nor alive. It's not polarized. It just is. There's nothing alive or dead. Things just are. A beating heart doesn't mean aliveness. It just means a heart that beats. A dead person and an alive person are the same. One is seemingly dead and the other seems to be alive. Both just are. It's not that energy is alive and energy is dead. Both are energy. Just energy. A dead person still rots. It's never still. It's simply another appearance. It's all appearances. What is, is. That's truth. There's no arriving at Truth. Truth is all there is. If a person tells a lie. That's truth. Solipsism just means there's only ONE. No separation. It's all one movement. There's no "he's me and I'm him because neither exists independently of each other. There's no one asleep and no one awake. All your awakenings are just experiences. It's all empty. Void. Means nothing. Yes, it means everything to the individual dreamer but that's about it. It's still what's happening. Everything that appears is empty, Void of any substance or meaning. It's all stories. There's no God forgetting and remembering. Wait..,yes, the Absolute does appear as forgetting and remembering, but it's just an appearance. The Absolute can appear as anything. The Absolute is God, if you prefer. Same thing. I like the Absolute. Oh my fucking God. There's no God and then there's an appearance. It's God appearing. One. Direct. Why do you think everyone "dies". No man makes it out alive because there's no one to make it out alive because there's no one. Isn't this obvious. You will always be fearful and suffer, so don't even try it. There's no one there to stop that or to say I'll never suffer again. Fear happens and suffering happens. There's no one to say anything. You don't realize youre not there. Take all your stories away and there is just what's happening. You don't want to realize this so you keep on keeping on. THAT'S FUCKING TRUTH. When I say you, i mean the Absolute. It seems to appear as an opening that doesn't recognizes itself. It's the energy that's doing that. Not "you". Whom am I speaking to, no one. It's so fucking obvious. Pay fucking attention, you Absolute fool you. One trick. Notice how whatever mood you're in, you'll see people in that same mood all over the place. Watch whatever you're going through in life in the moment, you'll start to see replicas of it everywhere. Just start noticing.

You're shifting the goal posts. That isn't what you said in your original post. In your original post, you said that the existence of Veganism is an "insult" to thousands of years of traditions and "throws them away" and that that's specifically why you're not a Vegan. And that is quite a different claim to "We will never have a Vegan world due to the existence of culinary traditions." It was very much a justification for your own choices by framing Veganism as "bad because it's a threat to culture"... and not a neutral impersonal statement of how a "Vegan world won't happen because of culture". --- But to your goal-post-shifted point, I suspect that the realization of a "Vegan world" is one that will happen through technological developments regarding lab-grown meat, dairy, and eggs and not through the universal practice of Veganism. But despite a "Vegan world" not being something that will happen in our lifetimes, one can always choose to reduce harm now by going Vegan and taking a small chip out of the profits of the meat and dairy industry. And one can choose to live in integrity with their values even if it isn't going to solve the whole problem. Most Vegans aren't Vegan because they believe that the whole world will go Vegan and the idea that Veganism is going to solve the whole problem. Instead, they look to neutralize their own participation in a system that they disagree with... and for Vegans who are also animal rights activists, they try to persuade others to do the same. Think of it a bit like this story... "A young girl was walking along a beach upon which thousands of starfish had been washed up during a terrible storm. When she came to each starfish, she would pick it up, and throw it back into the ocean. People watched her with amusement. She had been doing this for some time when a man approached her and said, “Little girl, why are you doing this? Look at this beach! You can’t save all these starfish. You can’t begin to make a difference!” The girl seemed crushed, suddenly deflated. But after a few moments, she bent down, picked up another starfish, and hurled it as far as she could into the ocean. Then she looked up at the man and replied, “Well, I made a difference for that one!"

If we're considering experience in the usual fashion, then that is indirect -- a sensory encounter, or the process of making sense of that. You encounter something -- What is it that you're calling direct? We can know about something, identify it, like "that is a nice yellow shirt." We can know how it relates to us and what charge it has for us, yet I wouldn't call this direct but perhaps personal experience. Do we? Direct access as in direct consciousness. But I think we are starting to speculate too much. Let's keep it real. Seems to be more objective than a mere idea, I don't see why it has to entail a perceiver. It could be like the body functioning -- a function of biological life that occurs rather naturally on its own. A perceiving is pure and impersonal, as Wei Wu Wei said. Not at all. In my experience (), memory is incredibly biased and subjective. It is safe to say that it often is a complete misrepresentation of "what happened." The recording that you talk about sounds like a pipe dream -- we likely didn't even payed much attention to what actually happened. Concept is a much broader notion than a mere idea. It is not. A memory of playing football is not the experience of playing, since we've established that the experience it is referring to isn't happening now. It is a thought. Not aware of something but the fact of awareness itself. Regarding your second sentence, yes, it seems to be that way. It is tricky. It doesn't mean they're the same, though. Cheers!

What does it mean when someone says that Consciousness is an impersonal field. I don't get it... Sounds kinda negative.

This is why I don't use this as a prime example when speaking on these matters and it has nothing to do with the topic. My experiences were not one of being on the streets or too impersonal. These would be situations where interactions were just normal interactions just like everyone else. Don't judge what you're unaware of just from what ilve told you because my interactions with men outside of my line of work was way more traumatizing or negative than with the men in my line of work. So my work doesn't have much influence on any negativity towards men that I may have if any.

Uni ..as in universe/whole. Consisting of only Oneness, or everything. Including apparent separation, multiplicity. Sounds better to me, but it’s personal preference. The world arises as both the personal and impersonal, all inclusive. One without a second can be realised, but to label it, is to claim it, which is to divide it into knower and known. And that’s what’s apparently happening all by itself. But don’t take my word for it, just silently realise it. And you do, that’s why we’re here.