u/pl8doh

There is no real distinction between a sensation and a thought. The distinction between a sensation and a thought is a thought. Implicit to a sensation is a reference which is a thought. Thought is integral to sensation.

A thought has no independent status. What you think are thoughts are a reference to sound. thoughts are heard. A thought is not an abstract, immaterial entity floating in some mental ether. It is a subtle internal sound, a mental audition. When we "think," we are actually listening to an inner voice (or inner noise) that references something. The semantic content ("I should eat lunch") is carried by, or perhaps identical with, the auditory image of the words. Strip away the heard quality, and nothing thought-like remains. What you thought were thoughts are actually thinks.

There is no silence. silence has no reference. A think of silence is not silence. If thoughts are heard references (auditory phenomena carrying "aboutness"), and if every sensation already carries implicit reference (a minimal directedness), then silence, by definition, has no reference. If reference is what makes any mental event register as experience at all, then silence cannot appear as silence within experience. The moment you notice "silence," you have already referenced it, you have heard the thought "this is silent" or felt the contrast against expected sound. That noticing is itself a subtle inner sound, a reference. Therefore, true silence has no place in the stream of experience. There is no silence.

In direct experience, whenever silence seems to arrive, it is instantly usurped by the thought "ah, silence..." and the auditory trace of that recognition. The purported silence was never truly there; it was a retroactive fiction created by the referencing thought.

The thought red is first a reference to the sound red and then the sound red is re-referenced to the color red. If you listen to a foreign language it sounds like bird chirping. There can be no variation without distinction. If there were truly no distinction whatsoever, variation would have nothing to vary from or against. It would be seamless, boundless, reference-free flux. Infinite invariance admits no boundaries, no contrasts, no detectable change. Variation that cannot be detected or referenced is experientially indistinguishable from no variation. It dissolves.

There is variation in distinction. Sensation carries implicit reference (distinction). Thought is heard sound (distinction). That distinction is never static; it varies. Therefore, there is no silence (no distinction = no variation possible). Foreign speech remains “bird chirping” with rich variation precisely because auditory distinctions are still operating and modulating.

By what means is the distinction made, if not by reference? It cannot be made by any other means. There is no direct, non-referential access to “the color itself.” There is no raw, pre-referential redness waiting to be distinguished. The very act that singles out “this particular red” is the referential act.

The appearance is by reference only. The reference and the referent are the same. there is no red without reference to red. Each reference is autonomous. In and of itself appearing with each appearance having complete autonomy.

Variation can only be made by reference. There is no actual variation. There is no reference to the re-referencing. That is just more re-referencing. Variation is a reference to re-referencing. Existence per se, is a reference to itself.

Continuity appearing through discontinuity. Any attempt to reference the referencing is without referent. Upon waking from a dream, what remains but a reference? The referent 'reality as more than this' is clearly a reference. Nothing further can be meaningfully referenced without becoming yet another example of the same mechanism.

There is no real distinction between a sensation and a thought. The distinction between a sensation and a thought is a thought. Implicit to a sensation is a reference which is a thought. Thought is integral to sensation.

A thought has no independent status. What you think are thoughts are a reference to sound. thoughts are heard. A thought is not an abstract, immaterial entity floating in some mental ether. It is a subtle internal sound, a mental audition. When we "think," we are actually listening to an inner voice (or inner noise) that references something. The semantic content ("I should eat lunch") is carried by, or perhaps identical with, the auditory image of the words. Strip away the heard quality, and nothing thought-like remains. What you thought were thoughts are actually thinks.

There is no silence. silence has no reference. A think of silence is not silence. If thoughts are heard references (auditory phenomena carrying "aboutness"), and if every sensation already carries implicit reference (a minimal directedness), then silence, by definition, has no reference. If reference is what makes any mental event register as experience at all, then silence cannot appear as silence within experience. The moment you notice "silence," you have already referenced it, you have heard the thought "this is silent" or felt the contrast against expected sound. That noticing is itself a subtle inner sound, a reference. Therefore, true silence has no place in the stream of experience. There is no silence.

In direct experience, whenever silence seems to arrive, it is instantly usurped by the thought "ah, silence..." and the auditory trace of that recognition. The purported silence was never truly there; it was a retroactive fiction created by the referencing thought.

The thought red is first a reference to the sound red and then the sound red is re-referenced to the color red. If you listen to a foreign language it sounds like bird chirping. There can be no variation without distinction. If there were truly no distinction whatsoever, variation would have nothing to vary from or against. It would be seamless, boundless, reference-free flux. Infinite invariance admits no boundaries, no contrasts, no detectable change. Variation that cannot be detected or referenced is experientially indistinguishable from no variation. It dissolves.

There is variation in distinction. Sensation carries implicit reference (distinction). Thought is heard sound (distinction). That distinction is never static; it varies. Therefore, there is no silence (no distinction = no variation possible). Foreign speech remains “bird chirping” with rich variation precisely because auditory distinctions are still operating and modulating.

By what means is the distinction made, if not by reference? It cannot be made by any other means. There is no direct, non-referential access to “the color itself.” There is no raw, pre-referential redness waiting to be distinguished. The very act that singles out “this particular red” is the referential act.

The appearance is by reference only. The reference and the referent are the same. there is no red without reference to red. Each reference is autonomous. In and of itself appearing with each appearance having complete autonomy.

Variation can only be made by reference. There is no actual variation. There is no reference to the re-referencing. That is just more re-referencing. Variation is a reference to re-referencing. Existence per se, is a reference to itself.

Continuity appearing through discontinuity. Any attempt to reference the referencing is without referent. Upon waking from a dream, what remains but a reference? The referent 'reality as more than this' is clearly a reference. Nothing further can be meaningfully referenced without becoming yet another example of the same mechanism.

Everything is made of “this” moments. Right now, as you read these words, notice what’s actually happening. You see the color of the screen. You feel your body sitting. A thought appears, “I’m reading.” Each of these, the color, the feeling, the thought, is a tiny, complete flash. It pops up fully formed for a brief moment, then it’s completely gone.

These flashes are what we can simply call “this” moments, or thising. Life is not one long, smooth, continuous experience. It only feels that way because your mind quickly adds extra little flashes that say things like, “This is still the same color as before.” “I’m still the same person reading.” “Time is flowing smoothly.”

These extra flashes create the illusion of continuity, like how a movie is really 24 separate pictures per second, but your brain blends them into smooth motion. Even the feeling “I am here, aware of all this” is just another flash. There is no solid “you” sitting behind your eyes watching a continuous world. That sense of perspective is also manufactured by these quick linking flashes.

Thoughts are especially interesting. When you think the word “red” in your head, the color red doesn’t exist somewhere else waiting to be pointed to. The inner sound “red” and the experience of redness appear together as one single flash. Thought and what it seems to refer to are not two separate things. They arise as one “this” moment.

Take dreams for example. When you’re dreaming at night, the dream feels completely real and continuous. It only stops feeling real when a new flash appears: “This is a dream” or “I just woke up.”Until that flash happens, the dream continues completely unabated.

Waking life works exactly the same way. The feeling that “this is real waking life” is also just a flash that keeps the story going. The bottom line is everything you experience, sights, sounds, thoughts, emotions, the sense of self, is made of these discrete “this” moments arising and vanishing. There is no actual continuous flow. There is no permanent “me” that owns the experience.

There is only thising, fresh, complete, and gone, moment after moment. The beautiful part is that when you start to notice the separate flashes and the quick glue that tries to hold them together, a lot of mental pressure naturally falls away. You don’t have to maintain a continuous self anymore. You don’t have to search for something “more than this.” It’s just this.

Everything is made of “this” moments. Right now, as you read these words, notice what’s actually happening. You see the color of the screen. You feel your body sitting. A thought appears, “I’m reading.” Each of these, the color, the feeling, the thought, is a tiny, complete flash. It pops up fully formed for a brief moment, then it’s completely gone.

These flashes are what we can simply call “this” moments, or thising. Life is not one long, smooth, continuous experience. It only feels that way because your mind quickly adds extra little flashes that say things like, “This is still the same color as before.” “I’m still the same person reading.” “Time is flowing smoothly.”

These extra flashes create the illusion of continuity, like how a movie is really 24 separate pictures per second, but your brain blends them into smooth motion. Even the feeling “I am here, aware of all this” is just another flash. There is no solid “you” sitting behind your eyes watching a continuous world. That sense of perspective is also manufactured by these quick linking flashes.

Thoughts are especially interesting. When you think the word “red” in your head, the color red doesn’t exist somewhere else waiting to be pointed to. The inner sound “red” and the experience of redness appear together as one single flash. Thought and what it seems to refer to are not two separate things. They arise as one “this” moment.

Take dreams for example. When you’re dreaming at night, the dream feels completely real and continuous. It only stops feeling real when a new flash appears: “This is a dream” or “I just woke up.”Until that flash happens, the dream continues completely unabated.

Waking life works exactly the same way. The feeling that “this is real waking life” is also just a flash that keeps the story going. The bottom line is everything you experience, sights, sounds, thoughts, emotions, the sense of self, is made of these discrete “this” moments arising and vanishing. There is no actual continuous flow. There is no permanent “me” that owns the experience.

There is only thising, fresh, complete, and gone, moment after moment. The beautiful part is that when you start to notice the separate flashes and the quick glue that tries to hold them together, a lot of mental pressure naturally falls away. You don’t have to maintain a continuous self anymore. You don’t have to search for something “more than this.” It’s just this.

A self-flipping book appearing as another page called self, with no reflection, other than another page flipping.

Without a reference nothing appears, without a referent nothing is referenced

Of itself referenced,

reference and referent

The idea of it, is the reference to it.

Any attempt to define is an expression of.

Referencing appears to be.

Every appearance we take as existing is simply the referent. There is no real division between the reference and the appearance. If the appearance doesn't exist as an independent thing, then the reference to it doesn't exist either, because the reference is what was creating the sense that the appearance exists in the first place.

This (referencing referencing) is the means by which connections are formed. The sense that one moment connects to the next. The feeling that a thought connects to a sensation. The illusion that "I" am connected to "my life" or "my past". The perception that red is connected to "color" or that "now" is connected to "then" is referencing referencing.

There is no pre-existing web of reality in which things are inherently connected. Connections are not discovered. They are enacted by the referencing itself. Every time the referencing re-references, it generates the appearance of continuity, relationship, causality, or meaning. It stitches one apparent moment to another, one "this" to another "this," creating the convincing fabric of a connected world. So "this" is not just passive appearing. This is the active means by which all connections are formed. Even the statement "this is the means by which connections are formed" is itself another connection being formed by the same referencing. Nothing outside or prior. Only the seamless, self-weaving movement. The pointing is the point. The connecting is the connection.

The degree to which connections are formed determines the reality. "Reality" is not an ontological category. It is a measure of how vigorously the referencing is weaving itself into apparent continuity, persistence, and coherence. The stronger and more seamless the connections, the more "real" it feels. The lighter or more clearly seen the connections, the less "real" it feels. Yet even the strongest, densest reality is still only referencing referencing, with no actual referent outside the weaving. The degree to which connections are formed determines the felt reality, but never creates an independent reality.

It also explains the differences in abilities. A “genius” in mathematics or music is the referencing forming extremely dense, precise, and creative connections in that domain. A “realized” person is the referencing loosening its own grip on dense self-referential loops, allowing the groundless nature to become obvious. Someone who feels “slow” or “scattered” may simply have referencing that forms connections more loosely or irregularly.

Without this ability to chase its tail, so to speak, there would be no tale, no story. Of itself, fully satisfactory.