/lit/ - Literature

I've been reading this for the last couple weeks, its a tough read. I was just wondering about other people's insights and opinioons about the book. I also just want to talk to someone about it

>>20562403
To put it another way, there is no way to imagine what you could call the “noumenon” or thing-in-itself in a Kantian sense — a thing, a truth, apart from an observer observing it, or a world apart from a world-maker, an apparent ego or entity who projects the perception of a world which it actually is of the same essence of. No “I am” without a perceived world for the “I am” to even perceive itself as existing at all — whether it is the physical sensory waking world, the dreaming subtle world, or a state of apparently timeless spaceless contentless awareness in deep sleep — and no “I am” without the world it is perceiving and experiencing so that it can sense that it is (“I am”) in the first place. Behind any possible situation, experience, or “truth” you can imagine, this “truth” or experience does not exist without the experiencer (“I am”) there to experience it, to lay claim to it. Hence, to use strange phraseology, “I am” is in all cases necessarily the world, the truth behind whatever interpretation of, experiencing of, and truth of or about whatever world you are imagining. “I am” is always “the world” and “the world” is always “I am” — neither of which are hard objects like a round sphere or rock you can hold in your hand and rather clearly, distinctly ascertain, weigh, measure, and list qualities of, but which, rather, blend into one nameless thing which is both and neither, simultaneously being the truth behind “I am” and “the world,” behind and beyond subjectivity and objectivity, the false subject-object dichotomy. None of this requires drugs to understand.

So what do you think about that book? Is it worth reading?