p18:

Explore the it-ness-in-itself-ness / it-as-itself-ness / self-evident-ness of sensations, especially-but-not-exclusively with respect to "self" related sensations and/or/also what Bruce Mangan calls the "nonsensory fringe of consciousness" ("(non-)sensory," here, being "not the typical/traditional sense doors.")

I sometimes call this/these “back-and-beside-and-behind” phenomenology, or even "just over the shoulder," sort of peripheral-vision-esque by analogy, sort of inner space, sort of locational but not, sort of "out-of-phase" (as Daniel Ingram might put it) and so on.

You might also be sort of detecting sometimes a sort of "sliding" or "slush" or "slack" between "awareness" and "contents."

There might also be a bit of "whole-field" / "all at once" type stuff or dynamics or like at least an interplay between something like "big awareness" and "small awareness." (cf. contraction and expansion, not-two, something something)

(cf. also "luminosity" ; "in the seeing, just the seen; in the hearing, just the heard")

It might be helpful to explore things like "perfect-no-doing-interaction" or "awareness-in[-momentary-]stillness." Or, don’t try to make it different, see it for what it is, find the “sensate source of inference, the sensate source of mediate knowing”

• If "X" how do you know "X"? (cf. self-illuminated with no movement and no remainder)
• Where/"where" are the sensations/"sensations" from which you infer e.g. doing itself, "attending" itself, """knowing""" itself, and so on.
• (a) Inference and/compared with the (b) immediate or direct or apparent or seeming phenomenological basis of that inference
• (a) Seeming and/compared with the (b) immediate or direct or apparent or seeming phenomenological basis of that inference
• (a) "Apparentness" and/compared with the (b) immediate or direct or apparent or seeming phenomenological basis of that inference
• (a) Knowing and/compared with the (b) immediate or direct or apparent or seeming phenomenological basis of that inference

You can probably get a taste of all this anytime, but you might find this “works” "better" when “not much left to do,” little layering left, and so on. But also can be helpful to explore a bit or a lot if things are stuck in some way. Ok to try front-loading, at best will have safely temporarily diminishing returns, but can jam in its own way, too, so be careful, etc. Ordering, ordering, ordering, etc.

Another """trick"""(...) is sort of lean into the analogy of peripheral vision as one way to start getting a sense of this kind of stuff. So, you might try something like this: Maybe look out the window if there's a little bit of activity out there, pedestrians or squirrels or something. Pick something stationary to pay attention to in the foreground, like mailbox or lamp pole, and notice something like that you can see things in your peripheral vision, like a hopping bird, that can stay in your peripheral vision, if you keep-ish the original thing in the foreground. So, for vision, if you move your attention to things in your peripheral vision, those things sort of become the new foregrounded thing. But, for sort of general "back-and-behind" or "out-of-phase" or "peripheral" phenomena, trying to foreground them sort of causes them to "disappear." So there's sort of subtle-peripheral-looking-while-gazing-into-the-middle-distance-in-momentary-stillness-sort-of -thing. Anyway, one sort of naturally, unconsciously stumbles on this and it becomes natural and not-weird and normal and smooth, and it evolves over time, like you'll sort of be guided to this kind of out-of-phase-wrinkle, all things being equal, and it'll unwrinkle, long run (and this isn't as weird as it sounds, it's sort of the smallest, subtlest-scale version of structurally pervasive wrapping and twisting sorts of things, but this might be one way to sort of find your way there more quickly. If this makes no sense or seems hard or seems jammy in some way you'll likely slip into it naturally, more and more, at the right time, and so on.

None of this has to be perfect or necessarily even particularly exhaustive (as such / in itself / or/​and whatever). Just play with it, experiment with it, as you get stuck or it calls to you or you fall into it.

*

• How do you know you have a back? How do you know you have a back of the head, when you're not touching it or looking in the mirror and the air in the room is still, and so on?
• How do you know you just heard a sound (that you can't hear anymore)?
• How do you know you were about to say something (that you can't remember just now)?
• If you put something down nearby but you've turned, and it's not even in your peripheral vision, how are you able to successfully reach for it without looking?

*

• In some sense, you are not in the world; the world is in you, etc., etc.
• In some sense, the "phenomenological field" is "flat," what you see is what you get; that's all there is, etc., etc.
• In some sense, you don't have a head, etc., etc. (cf. Headless Way, Douglas Harding)
• [Boundaryless, centerless, agencyless, watcherless, etc., etc.] (cf. some of my mangled terms, but Daniel Ingram, dash of David Chapman [meaningness guy])]
• long run phenomenological separation / independence / untangling (in the positive sense)
• [cf. interdependence, etc., etc.] (in the buddhist sense)

*

• quasi-spatial, non-triangulate-able / counterintuitively minimally- or non-conceiveable except (sometimes! maybe!) exhaustive process of elimination
• surprising that there's a "there" "there" [sic]
• extra-body-map / extra-space-map confusions (at least one set is sort of "into" "inner space" ; and there's another set that's sort of in "nondual space") --- can be muscle tension related