Major Premise: Reality Interdependent with Humans

[Veritas Aequitas]

The problem with the Philosophical Realists is they assume without proof there is already a pre-existing reality to be mapped.

What I am talking about is both the MAP and territory emerging spontaneously as reality.

Ah. Of course reality pre-exists, the idea that it "emerges" is just anthropomorphic, relational magical thinking. Why would existence/nonexistence have anything to do with what's going on in a human head.

There is the perception/direct experience in our head, and there are all kinds of conceptual overlays/conceptualizations made from this, also in our head. Collectively this is the MAP.

And then there is the totality of existence/the universe, this is the TERRITORY.

The MAP is part of the TERRITORY too, it's an inseparable part of the universe. It makes no sense to claim that the map and territory somehow additionally interact, co-emerge, mess with existence/nonsexistence.

I don't know what's so difficult about this, but even people like Kant couldn't see beyond the made-up duality of noumena and phenomena. And yes this also led to nonsense QM interpretations like the Copenhagen, thankfully now times are changing.

A small child can conceptualize a separate independent external world easily because that is PRIMAL and instinctual.
A small child can easily differentiate the 100% contrast between a piece of ice [H2O] and clouds.

But it takes a higher mind [evolved and evolving] than the child to shift perspective to understand that ice [H2O] and clouds are both the same from the perspective of molecules.
In comparison, you are like the child who do not have the capacity to shift perspective where necessary.

[AlexW]

when you are talking about 'reality' you are always talking about the MAP of reality that is in your head. Not about reality itself.

Yes, agree - we can only point at "reality" - not define it.

What I am talking about is both the MAP and territory emerging spontaneously as reality.

When stating that there is something like "reality" we are already applying a map.

It gives the impression that one might be able to exit the map and enter the territory, but this is actually not the case - the one who wants to reach reality is actually the one who keeps "you" from "reaching" it (not that reality would be anyplace else but here/now, but the problem is that the one who wants to experience "reality" is simply not able to do so)
Why? Because the one who wants this is him/her-self just a bundle of thoughts - and thought simply cant experience anything - it can only talk about things, but not know them directly.

The map is always only within conceptual thought - it "emerges" due to certain conditioning that has been acquired over the years.
The territory/reality never really emerges - there is no one to whom it could emerge - no one who could know it... the one who believes to know it is only a thought... "in reality" there is no "one" knowing anything at all - ever...
Its a construct of the mind that states "I know..." - but the mind can only ever know the map - no... it actually IS the map - and when "you" leave the map/ enter reality "you" are no more... (until "you" are reconstructed and continue "living" in the map)

[Veritas Aequitas]

when you are talking about 'reality' you are always talking about the MAP of reality that is in your head. Not about reality itself.

Yes, agree - we can only point at "reality" - not define it.

What I am talking about is both the MAP and territory emerging spontaneously as reality.

When stating that there is something like "reality" we are already applying a map.

It gives the impression that one might be able to exit the map and enter the territory, but this is actually not the case - the one who wants to reach reality is actually the one who keeps "you" from "reaching" it (not that reality would be anyplace else but here/now, but the problem is that the one who wants to experience "reality" is simply not able to do so)
Why? Because the one who wants this is him/her-self just a bundle of thoughts - and thought simply cant experience anything - it can only talk about things, but not know them directly.

The map is always only within conceptual thought - it "emerges" due to certain conditioning that has been acquired over the years.
The territory/reality never really emerges - there is no one to whom it could emerge - no one who could know it... the one who believes to know it is only a thought... "in reality" there is no "one" knowing anything at all - ever...
Its a construct of the mind that states "I know..." - but the mind can only ever know the map - no... it actually IS the map - and when "you" leave the map/ enter reality "you" are no more... (until "you" are reconstructed and continue "living" in the map)

There are many layers within a hierarchy of selves, i.e. including the conscious and subconscious self, the empirical self and the transcendental self.
There are many selves within the conscious self and many selves within the subconscious self with the The Minimally Conscious State [MCS]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25317
as the final stage of the subconsciousness before physical death.

Your idea of 'there is no one' is merely referring to 'one' perspective within the many perspectives of the empirical selves. There are many layers of the self that one is not conscious of which at the final stage is the MCS.

It is obvious the MAP emerges within certain conditions to some a self [consciousness] but at a more refined perspective, at the same time the whole of reality also emerges spontaneously with the person.
When a person dies there is no more experience of reality.
When humanity is extinct there is no more collective experience of reality.
Is there a reality after humans are extinct??
The answer is there cannot be any definitive answer without humans answering it.

Note Wittgenstein's;
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

When one speaks of any really-real-reality, that is at best a language game [Wittgenstein].

Thus the most realistic view is that of a spontaneous emergent reality which one need to strive to optimize one's and humanity's well-being & survival within that reality.

I have argued why humans have a very strong proclivity for the 'territory' as absolutely independent from the 'map' is due to primal psychological compulsion by an existential crisis. This is a very complex topic awaiting anyone's exploration.

[Atla]

A small child can conceptualize a separate independent external world easily because that is PRIMAL and instinctual.
A small child can easily differentiate the 100% contrast between a piece of ice [H2O] and clouds.

But it takes a higher mind [evolved and evolving] than the child to shift perspective to understand that ice [H2O] and clouds are both the same from the perspective of molecules.
In comparison, you are like the child who do not have the capacity to shift perspective where necessary.

I stated and implied a dozen times in various ways that the external world isn't separate/independent, and you say I can't get out of this perspective? I think you're the one who doesn't understand that this goes beyond your perspectivism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A small child can conceptualize a separate independent external world easily because that is PRIMAL and instinctual.
A small child can easily differentiate the 100% contrast between a piece of ice [H2O] and clouds.

But it takes a higher mind [evolved and evolving] than the child to shift perspective to understand that ice [H2O] and clouds are both the same from the perspective of molecules.
In comparison, you are like the child who do not have the capacity to shift perspective where necessary.

I stated and implied a dozen times in various ways that the external world isn't separate/independent, and you say I can't get out of this perspective? I think you're the one who doesn't understand that this goes beyond your perspectivism.

I was addressing that post to AlexW.
I presume you disagree with my views above.

Yes, I have explored my views beyond perspectivism to the inherent psychological impulses, e.g.

• I have argued why humans have a very strong proclivity for the 'territory' as absolutely independent from the 'map' is due to primal psychological compulsion by an existential crisis. This is a very complex topic awaiting anyone's exploration.

What can you say beyond my views above?
Perhaps you could provide counter arguments to the views I presented above.

Btw, how do you intend to extricate yourself from the reality which 'you' are part and parcel of to speak independently from that reality?

[Atla]

I was addressing that post to AlexW.
I presume you disagree with my views above.

Yes, I have explored my views beyond perspectivism to the inherent psychological impulses, e.g.

• I have argued why humans have a very strong proclivity for the 'territory' as absolutely independent from the 'map' is due to primal psychological compulsion by an existential crisis. This is a very complex topic awaiting anyone's exploration.

What can you say beyond my views above?
Perhaps you could provide counter arguments to the views I presented above.

Btw, how do you intend to extricate yourself from the reality which 'you' are part and parcel of to speak independently from that reality?

Oh okay, though you were replying to my post, not AlexW's.

You keep opposing the idea of an independent reality (which I agree with), but I don't think that this is the default idea that goes beyond this kind of perspectivism.

The default idea here is an absolutist, objective point of view. Approaching the ideal of objectivity as much as possible. If you were godlike and outside reality, what would you see? This is of course also a perspective constructed by humans, it's sort of an absolutist perspective that contains all other perspectives. When we talk about reality (= all there is), we usually default to this absolutist point of view, at least in Western philosophy. This has nothing to do with an existential crisis.

[AlexW]

There are many layers within a hierarchy of selves

Maybe... but they all have one thing in common - they are all mind-made.
Without thought there is no way to even state "I am" - to define something as "self" one requires conceptual thought = a map

the conscious and subconscious self, the empirical self and the transcendental self

These are all definitions - yes, you can layer the self into levels if you like, but its still all mind

the whole of reality also emerges spontaneously with the person.
...
Is there a reality after humans are extinct??

You are mistaking reality with a map of reality.
The person is part of the map - it is not the experiencer of the map (or of reality).

We might be the only animals entertaining conceptual thought, but this doesn't mean anything "in/for" reality... it will spell the end of the human-style map of reality when all humans are gone, but reality cannot leave, it can't go anywhere...

When a person dies there is no more experience of reality

A person dies when the concept of "I am" dies - this has nothing to do with "reality" - the only thing that changes is that there isn't any "one" left to state anything about "reality" - no more map-making.
The death of the person (the end of the identification with the individual self) doesn't have to be the end of the body... (even in most cases the conceptual I doesn't leave before the body dies).

[AlexW]

A small child can conceptualize a separate independent external world easily because that is PRIMAL and instinctual.
A small child can easily differentiate the 100% contrast between a piece of ice [H2O] and clouds.

OK... didn't know that was addressed to me...

Yes, agree, a child is born with "PRIMAL and instinctual" functionality, but it only acquires conceptual knowledge later on (e.g. the idea of a "separate independent external world").
The first concept is "I am" (it appears around the age of 2) - the rest is all built on this foundation (you could say the "I am" is the creator of duality).
Before the "I am" arises the child is not even aware of its own existence (meaning the existence of itself as a separate individual) - sure there is experiencing happening, but it is not happening to anyone specifically

[Veritas Aequitas]

I was addressing that post to AlexW.
I presume you disagree with my views above.

Yes, I have explored my views beyond perspectivism to the inherent psychological impulses, e.g.

• I have argued why humans have a very strong proclivity for the 'territory' as absolutely independent from the 'map' is due to primal psychological compulsion by an existential crisis. This is a very complex topic awaiting anyone's exploration.

What can you say beyond my views above?
Perhaps you could provide counter arguments to the views I presented above.

Btw, how do you intend to extricate yourself from the reality which 'you' are part and parcel of to speak independently from that reality?

Oh okay, though you were replying to my post, not AlexW's.

You keep opposing the idea of an independent reality (which I agree with), but I don't think that this is the default idea that goes beyond this kind of perspectivism.

The default idea here is an absolutist, objective point of view. Approaching the ideal of objectivity as much as possible. If you were godlike and outside reality, what would you see? This is of course also a perspective constructed by humans, it's sort of an absolutist perspective that contains all other perspectives. When we talk about reality (= all there is), we usually default to this absolutist point of view, at least in Western philosophy. This has nothing to do with an existential crisis.

The drive for an absolutist POV has a lot with the existential crisis.

In the extreme, the believers of the Abrahamic religion invent an absolute God to grant them salvation with eternal life in heaven to resolve/ease an existential crisis. Just believe and the existential crisis just disappear within waking consciousness.

The other aspects of an absolutely-absolute are degrees of the existential dilemma.

[Atla]

The drive for an absolutist POV has a lot with the existential crisis.

In the extreme, the believers of the Abrahamic religion invent an absolute God to grant them salvation with eternal life in heaven to resolve/ease an existential crisis. Just believe and the existential crisis just disappear within waking consciousness.

The other aspects of an absolutely-absolute are degrees of the existential dilemma.

Nah, the main drive here is simply a need for objectivity. The ideal of objectivity is basic to the scientific process, and this has greatly influenced Western philosophic thought as well.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are many layers within a hierarchy of selves

Maybe... but they all have one thing in common - they are all mind-made.
Without thought there is no way to even state "I am" - to define something as "self" one requires conceptual thought = a map

the conscious and subconscious self, the empirical self and the transcendental self

These are all definitions - yes, you can layer the self into levels if you like, but its still all mind

the whole of reality also emerges spontaneously with the person.
...
Is there a reality after humans are extinct??

You are mistaking reality with a map of reality.
The person is part of the map - it is not the experiencer of the map (or of reality).

We might be the only animals entertaining conceptual thought, but this doesn't mean anything "in/for" reality... it will spell the end of the human-style map of reality when all humans are gone, but reality cannot leave, it can't go anywhere...

To be more detail, there is the empirical-rational self and the so claimed pure transcendental self.

The empirical-rational self is the self that thinks, "I Think." This self is easily proven by empirical rational justification.

The pure transcendental self is the "I AM" which some claim is the permanent soul that can survive physical self. Others [like you] do not agree with such an independent soul or "I" but your view is as below;

When a person dies there is no more experience of reality

A person dies when the concept of "I am" dies - this has nothing to do with "reality" - the only thing that changes is that there isn't any "one" left to state anything about "reality" - no more map-making.
The death of the person (the end of the identification with the individual self) doesn't have to be the end of the body... (even in most cases the conceptual I doesn't leave before the body dies).
[/quote]
Your task is how can you prove the reality of that "reality" after the death of the person and after the extinction of humans?

The most you can do is to speculate and that is driven by psychology to some degree in relation to the existential crisis.

Note in the case of Buddhism , it deal directly with the existential crisis and thus Buddhists [in principle] do not have to bother to prove such a "reality" exists but rather one focus all of one's energy to live optimally.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

[AlexW]

To be more detail, there is the empirical-rational self and the so claimed pure transcendental self.

The empirical-rational self is the self that thinks, "I Think." This self is easily proven by empirical rational justification.

How do you use "empirical rational justification" to prove the "self that thinks"?
Can you please elaborate?

Your task is how can you prove the reality of that "reality" after the death of the person and after the extinction of humans?

A thought happens, stating: "this requires a proof!"

The problem is that every proof is always only achievable within the arena of thought - within duality. Reality, the non-dual absolute, cannot be proven using dualistic thought (and unfortunately this is the only tool that "you" have to prove anything at all).

Now this is a dilemma... "I" (=a thought) want a proof and I work hard on different ways to achieve it, but unfortunately this is doomed to fail... "I" simply cannot prove reality. Its only when the "I" vanishes that reality can actually "know itself" - why?
Because "reality" is pure knowing - it is not limited or dependent on an individual self/I - it is the knowing presence that is here all the time and that "contains" every-"thing" (thought included).

The death of the person (as stated previously) is simply the vanishing of the "I am" - what remains is knowing presence (=reality), devoid of individuality. All that can be said about this presence is what thought comes up with at a later point in time, when pure presence is again flooded with thoughts about what just happened. It is again a map that is made up, it is not reality, but it is a good pointer to this no-thing that is ever present.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To be more detail, there is the empirical-rational self and the so claimed pure transcendental self.

The empirical-rational self is the self that thinks, "I Think." This self is easily proven by empirical rational justification.

How do you use "empirical rational justification" to prove the "self that thinks"?
Can you please elaborate?

The "self that thinks" is the empirical evident ordinary self.

1. The "empirical rational justification" of oneself;
It is indisputable that oneself [of a normal person] will have the personal conviction based on empirical and rational proofs that 'one's self that think' exists without doubt. nb: Descartes.
In this case one uses one's mind to gather empirical evidences of oneself and rationalize that oneself-that-thinks do exists.

2. The "empirical rational justification" of 'other selves that think'
It is very evident from one's experience there are other selves that thinks.
One can see, feel, taste, hear, smell the presence of other selves via empirical proofs and rationalization.
Then one can test easily whether they exist as selves-that-think.
This is confirmed via the Theory of Mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

Thus 1 & 2 above confirms the "I-that-Thinks" or "Self-that-thinks" exists.

Descartes believed because there is no doubt the "I-that-Thinks" or "Self-that-things" exists therefore [a big leap] the "Self that is AM", i.e. the I-AM also exists.
This "I-AM" is a subset of an absolute reality, i.e. the case of 'soul' and 'God' or Atman and Brahman.

It is proven by many [philosophers - e.g. Hume and others] the 'I-AM' do not exists permanently or absolutely.

Others like you believe the "I-that-Thinks" or "Self-that-thinks" is not permanent but there is an underlying "reality" that is permanent and absolute.

I am arguing only the "I-that-Thinks" or "Self-that-thinks" exists and the underlying reality or absolute is an illusion driven by desperate psychological impulses.

Your task is how can you prove the reality of that "reality" after the death of the person and after the extinction of humans?

A thought happens, stating: "this requires a proof!"

The problem is that every proof is always only achievable within the arena of thought - within duality. Reality, the non-dual absolute, cannot be proven using dualistic thought (and unfortunately this is the only tool that "you" have to prove anything at all).

Now this is a dilemma... "I" (=a thought) want a proof and I work hard on different ways to achieve it, but unfortunately this is doomed to fail... "I" simply cannot prove reality. Its only when the "I" vanishes that reality can actually "know itself" - why?
Because "reality" is pure knowing - it is not limited or dependent on an individual self/I - it is the knowing presence that is here all the time and that "contains" every-"thing" (thought included).

The death of the person (as stated previously) is simply the vanishing of the "I am" - what remains is knowing presence (=reality), devoid of individuality. All that can be said about this presence is what thought comes up with at a later point in time, when pure presence is again flooded with thoughts about what just happened. It is again a map that is made up, it is not reality, but it is a good pointer to this no-thing that is ever present.

You don't seem to realize the nuance that the "Reality, the non-dual absolute" is actually thought-based idea and is actually illusory driven by psychological impulses.

This thought-based idea of non-dual absolute is not generated by the conscious self or even the normal layers of the subconscious but sustained by the Minimal Conscious State.
I have explained in various threads, example, those who experience a no-I or non-dual state, actually involved a switching-off the various layers of the selves [conscious and subconscious] except the Minimal Conscious State [MCS] and the autonomic system.

Note the case of Jill Bolte [presumably you are familiar] who have had such an experience of an altered state of consciousness where her empirical individual self just vanished i.e. switched off due to a serious brain damage from stroke.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_ta ... anguage=en

But her Minimal Conscious State was not switched off [only happened in permanent death].
After a while she [with her MCS and some remnant faculty] was able to switch on to normal consciousness.

Note those who practice meditation for years also can switch off various levels of their empirical self except the MCS and some basic autonomous activities.
Some take drugs and hallucinogens to switch off.
Many with serious mental illness also has their empirical self switched off, note temporal epilepsy, schizophrenia, etc. Some think they are God or God's agent.
For some it just happened due to various reasons.

Therefore there is no non-dual absolute reality. It is only your brain that had deceived you to think [after a switched off] such an idea [not concept] is real when actually that is merely an illusion.

Point is whilst the 'individuality' of a person is switched off, the MCS and basis autonomous functions still remain within the individual physical body that is alive minimally.

[AlexW]

In this case one uses one's mind to gather empirical evidences of oneself and rationalize that oneself-that-thinks do exists

Can you please name some of these evidences?

When you look for the "self that thinks"... 1) Where do you look? And: 2) Who is the one looking?

My reply:
1) There are only 2 places to look. First one can look in sense perceptions - seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touch. Do any of these (uninterpreted) percepts contain any information about a "self that thinks" or even about "self that sees/hears/feels"...? No! Nothing there, no entity to be found.
Now all thats left is thought. Looking at thought, one will find that thoughts simply appear and vanish... but there is no creator, no thinker of these thoughts anywhere... Yes.. there is the idea of a thinker (a "self that thinks") but this is again just another thought arising and vanishing... to whom do these thoughts arise? The "self that thinks"?? If so, where is this "self that thinks" - Answer: Its only another thought that states I am the "self that thinks". But there is no separate entity there - no thinker, no self.

Now the question arises:
2) Who is looking?
According to thought some"one" has to be there to look, hear, think... No..? But you can look as much as you like all that you will ever find is experience and interpretation of experience (thought) - no separate entity that would be looking/thinking...

Could you please let me know your reply...? How do you "gather empirical evidences of oneself and rationalise the existence of the "self that thinks"? (without simply relying on another thought that states the obvious - e.g. "I am the self that thinks! Here I am! Better believe in me!"

Others like you believe the "I-that-Thinks" or "Self-that-thinks" is not permanent but there is an underlying "reality" that is permanent and absolute.

Agree, the "self that thinks" is not permanent - it is only a story, a belief that we all subscribe to but never really question (well, now we actually do, but this doesn't happen very often in normal life )

I am arguing only the "I-that-Thinks" or "Self-that-thinks" exists...

How does it exist? In which way? I agree that it exists in a certain way or form - as the conceptual stories/ideas that "exist" in our heads.
But can an ever-changing collection of thoughts really be said to "exist"? When you were a small child you might have believed Santa exists - you were pretty damn sure he is real - but alas... he is just a bundle of conceptual thoughts... Maybe the "self that thinks" is like Santa?
The thoughts exist, yes, but does the idea - the self (or Santa) - that they talk about truly exist?

You don't seem to realize the nuance that the "Reality, the non-dual absolute" is actually thought-based idea and is actually illusory

I do know very well that what we label "reality" is just an idea, it's exactly like anything else that we talk about - the "self that thinks" included - its an abstraction, a map.
Tell me one thing that is not a "thought-based idea" and therefore "actually illusory" - I am curious what you will find...

[Veritas Aequitas]

In this case one uses one's mind to gather empirical evidences of oneself and rationalize that oneself-that-thinks do exists

Can you please name some of these evidences?

When you look for the "self that thinks"... 1) Where do you look? And: 2) Who is the one looking?

My reply:
1) There are only 2 places to look. First one can look in sense perceptions - seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touch. Do any of these (uninterpreted) percepts contain any information about a "self that thinks" or even about "self that sees/hears/feels"...? No! Nothing there, no entity to be found.
Now all thats left is thought. Looking at thought, one will find that thoughts simply appear and vanish... but there is no creator, no thinker of these thoughts anywhere... Yes.. there is the idea of a thinker (a "self that thinks") but this is again just another thought arising and vanishing... to whom do these thoughts arise? The "self that thinks"?? If so, where is this "self that thinks" - Answer: Its only another thought that states I am the "self that thinks". But there is no separate entity there - no thinker, no self.

Now the question arises:
2) Who is looking?
According to thought some"one" has to be there to look, hear, think... No..? But you can look as much as you like all that you will ever find is experience and interpretation of experience (thought) - no separate entity that would be looking/thinking...

Could you please let me know your reply...? How do you "gather empirical evidences of oneself and rationalise the existence of the "self that thinks"? (without simply relying on another thought that states the obvious - e.g. "I am the self that thinks! Here I am! Better believe in me!"

You can empirically prove yourself by direct/indirect experience of seeing, touching, smelling, listening, tasting, your own self to prove the existence of your physical self. You can also prove yourself as a thinker. These are the evidences and proofs the self-that-think or I-that-think exists.

Other selves can also do the same to prove you as a self-that-thinks exists.

Thus there is a self-that-thinks or I-that-thinks which can be proven by I-that-think [different level of the self].
It is the I-that-thinks which thinks [obvious] and this vanishes upon death.

There is not separate I that is a thinker.
It is the I-that-thinks that is thinking which can be proven.
We already agreed there is no separate permanent entity re the "I-AM" that thinks.

I am arguing only the "I-that-Thinks" or "Self-that-thinks" exists...

How does it exist? In which way? I agree that it exists in a certain way or form - as the conceptual stories/ideas that "exist" in our heads.
But can an ever-changing collection of thoughts really be said to "exist"? When you were a small child you might have believed Santa exists - you were pretty damn sure he is real - but alas... he is just a bundle of conceptual thoughts... Maybe the "self that thinks" is like Santa?
The thoughts exist, yes, but does the idea - the self (or Santa) - that they talk about truly exist?

It is very easy to prove.
If you are an executioner in a death penalty or witness you can directly prove it to yourself and confirm by other witnesses.

Before the prisoner is executed to death, s/he is the thinking self, i.e. a self-that-thinks. You can easily observe that self-that-thinks exists and is thinking and acting.
After the execution is carried out, there is no more self-that-thinks, there is only a corpse.
In this case you can easily verify a self-that-thinks exists before the execution and a self-that-thinks does not exist anymore after the execution.
QED.

You don't seem to realize the nuance that the "Reality, the non-dual absolute" is actually thought-based idea and is actually illusory

I do know very well that what we label "reality" is just an idea, it's exactly like anything else that we talk about - the "self that thinks" included - its an abstraction, a map.
Tell me one thing that is not a "thought-based idea" and therefore "actually illusory" - I am curious what you will find...

I cannot.

But you are claiming you can, i.e. there is a reality that is not thought-based idea.

What you don't seem to realize is, your,
there is a reality that is not thought-based idea.
itself is a thought-based idea.

"Thought-based idea" can be very misleading.
To avoid the concept of duality, it is actually an emergence out of a self-that-thinks and an MCS-based-self in holistic interaction with all there is.
MCS = minimal conscious state.

Your experience of non-duality or absolute and thinking/inferring there is an underlying absolute reality is an illusion.

Btw, if you simply give up the idea of an absolute reality underlying the self-that-think what have you to lose? But one thing for sure is, there is a psychological discomfort in even thinking about it.

It is only the compulsion of desperate psychology [to a mild degree in your case] that compelled you to cling to an existence of a reality that is absolute.

In contrast, Buddhism teaches one not to cling to such illusion so as not to induce dukkha [sufferings].
Buddhism also teaches non-duality but one must not cling to it except to tread the Middle-Path with non-duality as complementary to duality, also note Ying & Yang.