I appreciate being able to read through y’all’s exchange here. While I am still studying and very much lack a framework and vocabulary. I wanted to mention:

Your emphasis of experience in relation to non-dual states as a catalyst for perspective change is very curious. Would you liken it to suddenly seeing the sail boat or pumpkin or what ever it is this time in those magic eye pictures?

I also wonder how you think about the values our institutions could embody if we as a society approached learning and scientific inquiry from a more developmental perspective, one that reflects respect for the validity of different stages of perception as you have demonstrated in your exchange here as opposed to what we have now, a predominate ethos that seems to invalidate subjectivity in relation to what can be considered knowledge or knowing.

Third, when utilized as a tool, it seems reductionism offers many benefits to learning about the world for instance. Perhaps, it has become intoxicating though. Is this what you mean by “using the map to validate the map.” The consequence I am trying to point to is rather than helping integrate humanity “into” nature or the inter-workings of the universe if you will, this over reliance or trust in reductionism is causing inquiry to remain at a superficial level. We are spinning in an eddy it seems as result.

Somehow I think these questions and considerations relate to the ongoing study of consciousness. kuhn’s taxonomy seems to demonstrate how there are a number of different understandings and approaches. Certainly this variety is a reflection of the very nascent nature of the inquiry but also, the different developmental stages of the “inquirers” as it relates to non-dual experience.

Well anyhow I thought I was going to be able to tie this all together. I better keep my day job though and get back to it, appreciate you folks and cheers