It occurred to speculate through postulates, or rather postures, which are available to apes.
- There appears (to whom? from where?), usually behind the eyes, a locus out of and into which intention, attention, internal imagery, thought, etc. expand/contract. Most often this space is not noticed as anything but the phenomenally given site of identity and control. If one(who?) does attend to (what? from where?) this space it is apparent that the aforementioned sensations, usually experienced as constitutive of subjectivity, occur absent a separate controller/originator discernible within phenomenal space across time. If, when this is noticed again and again phenomenal bifurcation into subject/object relations does not collapse, as it can if the reports of mystics are to be accepted, aporetic affect ensues.
- There appear agent and action, cause and effect, observer and observed. Idealizations of rationality, morality, sociality and their operations syntactically require scission which is not, it seems, phenomenologically necessary. Intentionality itself, phenomenal directedness, awareness, i.e. the nock of the arrow of attention and its objects are noticeably fabricated, contingent. This seems to make reflexivity requisite if we are to make any sense of substantive epistemic activity. Which bullet to bite? I am not sure; some variety of illusionism may have the right of it despite THIS incorrigible seeming immediacy.
So, what of it? Of myself it’s wished I could only say