@Zweistein The reply to this post will be split into several ones, as there are many thing to unpack. 
The metaphorical image I quoted was discussed in terms of the mirror=boundary so far. Let's get into whatever lies within the cell.
Whatever arrives at the mirror=boundary is, by itself, infinitely ambiguous.
Not only that my words as you read them right now are ambiguous by themselves, but the fact that you even see words is dependent on the fact that you look for them. If you were to see the mirror=boundary in its full transparent glory, you would not see anything at all, as you wouldn't even know what to look at.
As I go on a walk in the forest, there are no trees until I look for them. I may be deeply lost in thought, imagining my holidays. Even though I am in the forest, the forest is not in me. There are no trees at the boundary=mirror.
So, all of what I perceive is the projection of my reality. Contents of this reality is what I call beliefs.
Beliefs are not only some ungrounded fantasies that we have. Beliefs also include knowledge.
When I know biology, I notice the structure of a flower. When I know psychology, I notice mental illness.
Beliefs are not at the boundary by themselves. They are what decides what is possible to make out of the ambiguity of the mirror=boundary.
So, whatever I am writing now is entirely a projection of my beliefs.
They manifest themselves at the mirror=boundary as nothing in particular.
As you notice them, you make something out of them by projecting your beliefs.
Therefore, my beliefs are never what you read.
I believe that we agreed on that so far and let's call this the boundary-perspective.
So, what I see you did in your post from the boundary-perspective is:
Project a possibility of belief that teacher=pupil (which is unknown) Project the belief that the world needs healing Show me that these two beliefs form a paradox Discard the possibility of belief that teacher=pupil (return to the known) The paradox from the boundary-perspective seems to bear repulsion to the unknown.
This whole post in which I honestly describe my personal projections and assume that we both share them through our inherent sameness is what constitutes the mirror-perspective. This whole text is based on the assumption of exactness through the described structure and it is what should be used to turn the boundary-perspective into a mirror-perspective. This movement I cannot describe any better than in this post:
From the mirror-perspective, what I=you=we do in contemplation is:
Project a possibility of belief that teacher=pupil (which is unknown) Project the belief that the world needs healing and acknowledge its origin Recognize that these two beliefs form a paradox and treat it as a sign of inner conflict between beliefs Re-frame/re-contextualize either of those beliefs so that they do not form a duality of opposites The paradox from the mirror-perspective seems to bear attraction to the unknown.
For now, I cannot say anything about re-framing because I am completely blind to its nature.
I need to observe myself more as I do it.

@now is forever If there is 'the other', then it is a boundary.
Reality is then fragmented into infinite amount of separate pieces, all of which touch via boundaries.
Whatever appears at the boundary is always being projected on from our own personal reality.
Whatever is being put at the boundary by the other is not what appears for the 'I'.
If 'the other' exists, then it is a boundary and the boundary is impenetrable.
If 'the other' exists, the infinite amount of Is are trapped within infinite amount of cells and we are all infinitely lonely.
However, this infinite loneliness is universal and shared. Loneliness is loneliness.
This recognition can be done only by equating the 'I' with 'the other' by meeting him as neither a teacher, nor a pupil.
In this meeting, we acknowledge that all cells are equal.
If all cells are equal, then it is not a boundary, but a mirror.
If it is a mirror, then the only this there is, is I=you=we.
Separation is connection. Duality is oneness. Relative is absolute.
The ground is groundless when you zoom. Can you see it now?
There is no difference where you are. There is no way to tell a master from a pupil.
That can also be seen as something that is shared to ground I=you=we.
That is grounding in groundlessness.

@Leo Gura Funny how we agree on that and proceed to draw contradicting conclusions from it.
It makes me think that there is a difference in scope of what we consider language.
To me, of course: there is English, Russian and Polish. Those are languages.
There are written languages, spoken languages and 'inner' languages in which we think.
There are also more subtle languages such as, for example, painting and music. It is much more visible in those that:
Especially in abstract art, in which - when we don't know the context - everything we interpret is our projection.
There is still value in doing that if we want to observe ourselves and need a Rorschach blot.
There is also nothing wrong in learning the context of that art and interpreting it via this lens.
We should however acknowledge that the context is incidental in the sense that is the lens through meaning manifests itself.
When we learn the context for abstract art, we are still in a context of learning. We project that context onto the context that we learn.
Derrida famously deconstructed painting by questioning whether the frame is a context for interpretation.
To establish what I mean by language, let me carry this deconstruction out further.
Not only that the frame is the part of painting, but also the wall it is on.
The wall is the part of museum, which is a part of a city, which is a part of a country and the world.
That world is a part of cosmos, which is possibly a part of multiverse and so on.
All of that is a part of the painting through the possibility of deconstruction in relation to Materialism (which is not absolute).
All of that, the total sum of everything in relation to the painting is a subject to language to me.
From this point of view, English is a language, but so is the situation in which you are sitting in front of a computer.
We are 'reading' any situation 'as if' we were communicating.
We are projecting meaning onto this blank Rorschach blot of reality depending on the unknown context we're currently in.
It something similar to what you said in the video about deconstruction. Derrida was just a bit short of explaining nonduality.
The other movement is by recognizing that there are various possible contexts and context is always absent in a sense.
The possibility of deconstructing context is what I previously described as openness and meeting the other as neither master, nor a pupil.
By 'other' I do not only mean a person, but in this broad sense of language - even a table by which you sit.
When we meet a table as an equal, we are willing to let the table be what it is.
Not only as a place to sit by, but we let it be whatever it is. (Even firewood, or whatever else with total surrender).
This interplay of context and content is what constitutes the mind in the universal sense.
The mind between the ears may use English as a language, but the language of the universal mind is Tao.
The Ego of the brain-mind is personality, but Ego of the universal mind is more in lines of Law of Attraction.
In this sense, language is total. All of it is a metaphor because of projection.
Even if language is relativistic, there is nothing dualistic about metaphors.
The mechanism through which metaphors work is Absolute.
This absolute is present in any everyday interaction, even when we talk about trash.
That is because of inherent ambiguity of relativistic divisions.
They are like blank skeletons of meaning that we can apply at various places.
There is nothing relativistic in the movement that applies them.

@Leo Gura
The notion that language is inherently dualistic is what is both the reason for, and the conclusion you draw from your example.
The dualistic nature of language is what lets you understand the question about trash as relative.
This is what you bring to the table when your spouse asks the question and it determines the possibility space of answers.
Duality of language is a cyclic dependency that upholds the distinction between the relative and the absolute as a necessity.
From my point of view, language is not inherently dualistic. It is a choice you (consciously, or unconsciously) make.
I am sure that I am projecting, because this response is dependent on my personal understanding of what you wrote thus far, and if it somehow misrepresents your understanding of language, then please guide me out of it.
However, if you disagree that language can be non-dual, then please hear me out as I will try to sketch a perspective from which it is apparent to me.
The dualistic notion about language is the 'filter' through which we project meaning on the question about the trash.
Broadly speaking, this filter treats language as a tool to establish relationships in the relative domain.
Asking: "Hey, did you take the trash out?" is the question about the relationship between the trash and our living space.
If I wanted to answer this question, I would then establish relationship as positive, or negative. Say that the trash is out, or not.
From this point of view, any other answer would not be an answer to this question, because it asks about the relationship.
This notion is most prominently explained in the Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, which he concludes just like you:
The problem with this approach is that language is not only used to establish relationships, but also to carve the absolute into pieces between which the relationships are established. So now, 'the trash' and 'the living space' can be described, by pointing finger at them and calling them names. But pointing a finger is also a form of a relationship that has to be understood first! How do you point a finger at pointing a finger? How do you explain what pointing a finger is without prior language? Therefore, by the very nature if it - the dualistic notion of language can never be completed. 
I believe that this is the true meaning of the Tractatus - it is a critique of the dualistic view of the language, and not a defense of it.
The non-dual view of language is more in line with his second book, Philosophical Investigations. 
From this point of view, language is like trying to learn the game of chess from a Chinese master through the internet with no chat.
All you can do is move the pieces and let him correct you. This is only possible because we both arrive at this context with presupposition that I am supposed to learn, and he is supposed to teach. With this presupposition however, it is incredibly difficult for the student to establish a rule and change the game of chess. How much time would it take for the master to understand that he is supposed to let me do the illegal move?
This way, in real communication, it is absolutely crucial that we approach the situation as neither the teacher, nor the pupil, so that we can understand each other. This undifferentiated openness, the unknown, is the absolute that underlies all language.
From this point of view, all interactions are ways to establish oneness. Even conflict is nothing else than one person doing an illegal move and the other correcting them. It takes time to understand that there is a mismatch of context, but approaching the situation as neither the pupil, nor the teacher is what preserves the possibility of interaction. From this point of view, there are no 'bad situations' one may get when he does not distinguish relative and the absolute. It is that any distinction between us is the root of all problems.
In this sense, asking whether I took the trash out is not about the trash at all. It is a question whether our relationship (I=you=we) is complete enough so that my spouse does not have to concern herself with this banal matter of taking the trash out.
So the proper response is not saying: yes I did, or: no, I didn't. The proper response in this context is: don't worry about the trash, honey.
And yes - you can say that the trash do not exist and it can be a valid answer, if oneness is established in relation to spiritual culture.
Problems that arise when you respond in this way come from 'the other' when what you do is so unlike any other interaction that you previously had that they do not even recognize it as a form of communication. It's like meeting the Chinese master, and starting up front with establishing a rule that it is okay to throw pieces at your opponent. The trouble it gets you in is predicated on the lack of intelligence on both parts.
One is hasty enough to establish a rule too quickly, and the other is not open enough to notice his will to do so.
First, you need to learn to play chess, then show the master that you are his match, and only then you can start to make your own rules so that he understands it. It is entirely possible to throw pieces at each other intelligently, but it takes time and skill.
Or unconditional willingness to stay open, which is an inner relationship to the Absolute.
A more civil conversation in this tone would be:
"Hey, did you take the trash out?"
"Why would we want to take them out if we just brought them in?"
(the trash are the same as grocery = the trash doesn't exist)

The issue is our inability to let go of ourselves/minds. We get so caught up in physical reality and the ego-mind we completely get over-infused in a play without taking a breather here and there and being the observer. We have forgotten how so we must step back in awareness to remember how simple it really is to remain in our natural state. Surrender and Let go, go with the breath of life and be the awareness you are.

I got some downloads last night about the electromagnetic vibratory frequencies of humans and most humans on earth vibrate at 40,000 - 60,000 Hz (cycles per second) on average although this constantly fluctuates moment to moment. Those who are more into self-actualization/realization average around 95,000 - 165,000 cycles per second and those who are more awake to their true selves vibrate on average 165,000 - 200,000 or above cycles per second.
The Buddha and Jesus had a vibrational frequency rate around 300,000 cycles per second and when one reaches 333,000 cycles per second that is when the physical becomes non-physical or the threshold between physical reality and spirit(if you will) or 5th density is at 333,000 cycles per second or a vibratory frequency of 333000 Hz.
I am guessing the more Enlightened Beings and Gurus, Monks, Sages, Yogis, Teachers ect.. today vibrate between 200 and 300 thousand as when all of humanity is at peace or the general movement of the planet is that of a peaceful and harmonious life, we will all vibrate roughly above the 200 thousand range where we will be living in 4th density thus more "quasi-physical" as we are still physical to some degree just embody more of an order of spirit/knowingness/beingness.
(if you may)
Here are also a picture explaining different vibratory frequencies. I believe 1 = 1000 cycles/hz.

 

What exactly is consciousness?
Well.. It is Self awareness, self reflection. Shall we? (Note: You may have to read several times as integration may be required as all answers are within the text)
In order for you to know that you are you, you have to have something else to compare it to. Without a concept of an "other", you would not have a concept of "self". Therefore, consciousness is literally, self-reflection/self-awareness. The ability to "know" the self by knowing what is "not" the self.
The idea is that existence is "one unbroken thing". There is an aspect or a form or a version of existence that we shall call "THE ONE" for convenience, that does NOT KNOW itself. It is completely homogeneous in the sense that there is nothing else but it. Therefore, there is absolutely no reference point for it. It has no sense of self, no experience, no self-awareness whatsoever but there is also the version of existence that DOES KNOW itself and that is what we will term for convenience "ALL THAT IS".
It is literally the existence that is aware of itself because it creates within itself a kind of reflective pattern of resonance energy and therefore creates "otherness" within itself, a reflection of itself and therefore it can "know itself" that way by comparing the reflection of itself to itself and become self-aware.
Those reflections continue to reverberate on and on and on and on... infinitely and each and every one of those reflections then is literally "all that exists" within "all that is". (All that all that is) is made of all of you, all of us, everything you can imagine, is a reflection of existence knowing itself through ALL THAT IS.
So consciousness very importantly requires the concept of "otherness" within existence in order to "know" itself and life experiences and time/space and all that you ever experienced, experience now and will experience is the product of ALL THAT IS knowing itself in all the ways that it can.
Every single thing/being/concept within existence are all the different eyes of god(if you will) through which it "sees" itself in those reflections but because it is actually consciousness itself, because it is "conscious of itself" then all the reflections are also made of "that" consciousness. All the reflections are conscious too such as all of you, all of us, everything.
Now everything may not express the idea of self-aware-consciousness in the way that we do but everything is still an expression of self-aware-reflected-consciousness(so to speak). Even a rock has some degree of awareness that it is "this rock" and not "that rock" but it may do that through a being such as yourself by "you" noticing that there is "this rock" and "that rock", you are including the idea of your reflection of consciousness in such a way that the rock can know itself through "your" perception even though it may not know itself exactly in the way that you do, it is still on some level "aware" that it is its own rock.
So consciousness is everything, is everywhere and you can experience it in a number of different ways. If you get more aware of the nature, more aware of all that is, more aware of different parallel realities/dimensions/aspects of imagination/creativity ect.. because there cannot be anything that you can imagine that is not somehow part of "all that is".
Existence is what it is. It is in no way shape/form subject to anything because everything exists within existence. Time/space are subject to existence, existence is not subject to time/space. Existence just has one quality. IT JUST IS. That is its nature. It IS and therefore, NON-existence is not something that existence can become. Non-existence has its own quality, it is that which does not exist. Therefore by definition non-existence "doesn't exist".
Therefore, everything that you experience is part of existence on some level "real" as a reflection of ALL that is experiencing itself in all the ways that it can and expanding and expanding in infinite reflections to allow for the expansion of ALL THAT IS knowing itself.
Now the structure of existence never changes, that is fixed. It is a definitive/reflective structure. What changes, what expands are all the different "viewpoints" experiences/perspectives of the structure that never changes. So it is both changing and unchanging, exhibiting that "paradox" of that which does not know itself and that which does. This is why it all comes downs to the ancient idea you've heard for thousands of years as why it is so important to KNOW THYSELF... because the idea is.. as you know more and more of who and what you are as an expression and a reflection of the infinite of ALL THAT IS, you experience more of "BEING" All that is, as the aspect, as the reflection of All that is that each and every single one of you is.
So remember that this is why that the true point of power is in PARADOX. Somewhere in-between what appeared to be... two polar opposites, that which does not know itself and that which does, is (in a sense) the truth of existence itself. Because everything issues from that center-point and demonstrates very clearly that even though sometimes you "think" of existence as a duality.. positive/negative, it is in fact, actually a "trinity" which explains (one way) the comments of (1+1=3) because there is always a balance point in the center and therefore being in that Balance-Point, being in that state of being is always the state of being that will allow you the best possible way to know yourself, the best possible way to receive more of the reflection of yourself and as you expand your perspective and expand your experience of ALL THAT IS from your unique point of view, you then become more and more of who you truly are, which is ALL THAT IS.
But you have decided here and now to play a game for a while of forgetting who you are because you need to forget who you are in order to remember who you are from a new point of view. You have to wipe the slate clean in order to have a truly new experience because if you exist only in the timeless state, there is no change, there is no growth, there is no discovery. So you play the game of imposing on yourself these kinds of "blinders"(if you will) to forget that you are in fact infinite. To forget that you are in fact eternal, to forget that you are in fact.. ALL THAT IS, so you can play the game of of not being ALL THAT IS and explore and discover new perspectives of yourself and that's what allows ALL THAT IS to grow and expand forever and ever and ever... It never ends
We have ideas that we call blending with GOD or becoming GOD consciousness, becoming infinite/absolutely infinite ect.. Most think when we blend with GOD then i guess that's it? Not necessarily, because as you BLEND with GOD, what you actually experience is that you ARE GOD, there is nothing BUT you and this is what each and everyone of you can experience because its holographic in nature, its holographic in structure and therefore just because you might suddenly experience yourself as ALL THAT IS, doesn't mean its necessarily finished because you could experience yourself as ALL THAT IS from one perspective, experience yourself as ALL THAT IS from another perspective, and on and on and on and on ect.. The ringgggg has no beginning, the ringgggg has no end. EXISTENCE JUST IS, and it is ALWAYS, ALWAYS (becoming and being)-simultaneously... again the PARADOX shows its head.
In light of the idea now that you may have a bit of a reflection of the idea of consciousness being a reflection, being a sense of self, based on the sense that there is another, that seems, that appears, to not be you, you have a sense of that game of existence that it plays with itself, to awaken itself to new understandings of exactly what it is.
Just absorb all of this in your own way, doesn't matter how you interpret this, its your own journey/path. You are your own reflection, you are your own representation of all that is and without your unique perspective, all that is could not be ALL THAT IS. So always please remember, you are valid, you are valuable, because if you weren't needed, believe me, you wouldn't exist. Because ALL THAT IS doesn't make mistakes
So the fact that you exist is validation enough to prove that ALL THAT IS needs your unique perspective, your unique reflection, your unique experiences in order for it to actually be ALL THAT IT CAN BE.
KNOW THYSELF, BE THYSELF.
??

You understand -- right? -- that most of the evil done in the world is done by people fighting for their rights?
Fighting for rights is ego 101.
I know you don't, which is why I went out of my way to underscore that it is a survival issue.
The ego is very sneaky. It loves to don the veil of devoting oneself to the "protection of others" when in fact you are devoting yourself to advancing your own egoic agenda. Devotion creates a self-righteous ego which then goes on to commit great atrocities. All great atrocities are done in the name of good, freedom, liberation, truth, rights, fairness, etc.
What do you think terrorists and Nazi's are doing? They are trying to make the world a better place.
"Make the world a better place" is ALWAYS relative to your ego! There is no such thing as an objectively good world. A good world for one group is a bad world for another group. Which is why conflict happens.
Even if you think you can get all of mankind to work peacefully together, that is still mankind's collective ego. Who's to say that mankind is a good thing, and not a cancer in this universe? You? Mankind? Ha! Do you see the conflict of interest problem?
This is very important to understand. Otherwise you will still be under the ego's influence.
Consider: the only reason you care about mankind is because you identify with being mankind. That's your ego. If you were an ant, you wouldn't care about mankind at all. Nor would you care about slavery, human rights, or anything else of that sort.
Your self-identification extends far beyond your physical body. You identify with all sorts of abstract self-images, like the image of "being a decent human being who fights for the rights of the weak and the poor against the oppression of the strong and greedy". That's YOUR self-image! It turns you on. You get off on it. Playing this role is an addiction.

IOW you are aware of what state you is in, but not aware of how you get into them.
If you were very vigilant you would notice that you (awareness, clarity) become a certain state when identified with certain thoughts. IOW you lose your clarity and become limited, ie identified as some-thing, ie, a thought-construct in a thought-construct, a self in an environment (a context). IOW you are now in a state.
The trick is to be aware that you are only playing a part in this make believe context, this state, this world. To always be aware that it is just a play and thus be able to play your part to the hilt. This means you can really enjoy the drama, even when your 'character' is about to have cancer surgery say.
This is what is called 'having the (internal, or external) grin of the Buddha.'

I've been using Leo's map and doing the work (minus psychedelics), and it works for me. It's not about living a happier dream, it's about the ultimate freedom from the dream - this illusion is just a projection of the ego, nothing less nothing more. And as Leo said above, you must choose to discover for yourself...or not 

Only relative to your ego.
The point is, that so-called "reality" is not a reality at all, but a dream.
Horrors do not really exist in the world. But the ego cannot fathom that. Hence the need for awakening.
As long as you're stuck inside the dream, you will believe it is real and that the stuff happening inside of it matters.

Psychedelics show you aspects of the ego-self you do not wish to face on a day to day basis. Once you get the cosmic joke and drop all care of the external reality and simply be yourself, you will transcend past old habits and see them from a new, greater perspective thus leading people stuck in addictions/loops to see past these endless forms of suffering. Once you evolve, they no longer serve you. Psychedelics help you get a glimpse of the evolved-self (so to speak).

THERE IS NO SINGLE, OBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE WHEN IT COMES TO CREATING AND DEVELOPING CONCEPTUAL SYSTEMS — AND THIS APPLIES TO CONCEPTUALIZING ENLIGHTENMENT -- EACH PERSPECTIVE HAS THEIR OWN UNIQUE CONCEPTUAL SYSTEMS ABOUT ENLIGHTENMENT — AND THERE’S NO 'ONE RIGHT WAY' OR OBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE TO THINK ABOUT ENLIGHTENMENT
Once you open your mouth it's not like you're coming from nothin'.  There is no objective perspective to come from.  All you got is your Existential Truth and your Conceptual Understanding, and the synergy that comes from that.  That's what makes up your Perspective, right.  So, it's rather arrogant to assume that the way you frame things is the way to frame things, even if you're trying to be factual.  Facts still involve thought-stories.  There's a measure of decision there in how facts are framed and conceptualized.  So, you gotta be more Perspectival in how you see reality.  There really is no true Perspective.  That doesn't mean that all beliefs are arbitrary.  That just means your conceptual systems and experience have framed a unique Perspective in you.  And there's no unbiased, pure Perspective.  And this applies to conceptualizing Enlightenment too.
You can have two Perspectives who both grok Existential Truth, yet have very different conceptual systems regarding Enlightenment in their Conceptual Understandings.  And that's fine.  That's to be expected.  Your Conceptual Understanding is a complex adaptive system that's been evolving since your birth, basically.  It's your thought-stories.  No two people's thought-stories are gonna be the same.  That's what makes Perspectives Perspectives -- they vary from one another.  We should stop running from that and embrace our differences.

Just observe any sense of lack in yourself (in terms of nondual knowledge) and the compulsion/seeking to acquire more. Don't get sucked into it.  Just passive, choiceless observation.  A whole insight may arise in that it will be seen that it is just thought-self seeking security in its own movement; seeking security in knowledge (i.e. thought) to self-perpetuate.   This is what is meant by "whole" insight: thought/self/fear/knowledge all seen as one and the same movement.  It will astonish. 
Thought-self will read the above and habitually make knowledge/thought/concept out of it -- to perpetuate its movement -- and say "OK, I understand this now," which is another subtle trap.  The above is just a pointer.  The insight is direct and with you.

I came up with the following distinction and would like to hear a second opinion.
Green sees that everybody has their own point of view and sees them as a part of society that should ideally work towards a common goal.
It sees that everybody is essentially equal by the virtue of emotional response to transgression of personal values.
It tries to harmonize and align their value systems so that they can account for everybody else in cooperation.
The means through which it harmonizes people is by subjecting them to common good, the society.
It is different from blue in the sense that rules of said society are not established by authority.
The rules are established as the path of least resistance through various value systems and optimize mean happiness of an individual.
They are not good or bad in the absolutist (blue) sense, but are at best good enough. They are established by consensus.
Yellow on the other hand sees that not only everyone is equal in the green sense, but also every single one of them is always, strictly speaking, right.
It sees that there is no common ground when it comes to comparing perspectives. Every single human has his own, disjoint world.
A perspective is a self-contained universe that responds to stimuli in a way that makes sense for this particular perspective.
When one person speaks, the other hears his own interpretation. The interpretation that is predicated on his perspective.
When Green tries to subject Red to common good, Red sees common good as something else than Green.
They may even agree on what to do (verbally), but go about it in opposite ways with benevolent intent.
It makes no sense to judge Red from Green's perspective. All perspectives are disjoint.
The key difference is that Green fails to see this crucial distinction that there is no common ground to compare perspectives.
You cannot put people on a single playground and expect them to follow common rules, as they understand them differently.
You have to treat each person as playing its own game, and construct society as a mechanism composed of different (living and feeling) parts.
That's a whole different level of complexity that requires systemic thinking.

"The first half of the trajectory – from Symbiotic embeddedness to Achiever independence -- fosters the increasing separation from the newborn’s union with the mother towards the discrete, self-sustaining adult identity with clear boundaries, an self that is capable of making reasoned decisions, postpone gratification and pursue meaningful goals and purposes. It is this self-governing Achiever that is often 
viewed in the modern world as the fully developed “adult.”
The second half of the trajectory – from Pluralist to Unitive -- represents a step-wise deconstruction of the sharp and artificially created boundaries towards an ever deeper identification with all that exists. 
The second half can also be likened to an ongoing individuation towards a more holistic, full-bodied, and integrated self that is fully aware of its interdependence with other systems and one that 
can take a perspective on its fundamental non-separateness. This movement can be usefully described in having two layers.
A) The general systems stages which comprise the first differentiation and integration – from the Individualist-Pluralist to the Strategist stage.
B) The second differentiation and integration – from the Construct-aware to the Unitive stage. The latter two replace Loevinger’s Integrated stage (I6 or E9). It is likely that Loevinger could not conceive of a self-identity with fluid boundaries because it was not part of her psychometric frame of reference. She may also not have discovered this kind of open, non-delineated self-view because it did not occur in her samples. To her, the concept of later stages and ego-transcendence belonged to the “stratosphere” (personal 
communication 1998)."
 

Correct!

Yes. This is very beautiful. It's a great insight for me.

This is very deep. Amazing pointer. You have to know something to write that. 
Cosmic love
 

Reality is not infinate. Awareness, the self, the ever present, unconcerned one sentiency, discriminate from all objects of the cosmos is the infinate.  The watcher who only watches. It never loves, it is not powerful because love and power are objects. It never created this cosmos because it is not a creator. It is merely witnessing a dream of time. It is infinate because time is also an object. 
 It is the only thing that is actually alive . The rest is all mechanics. 
Once you have the experience there is no turning back.  You are alone and the world is in you. 
That is a simple switch from being a person to being the infinate. 
To understand with ultimate conviction while you dream your person's dream is enlightenment. 

@Saumaya There is an important practical difference though:
People can realize one part of enlightenment without realizing another part. This not a hypothetical point. It happens very commonly.
For example, one can realize no-self but not realize Absolute Infinity. Or one can realize no-self but fail to have an insight about the nature of love or the nature of other beings.
So, even if in your particular case you managed to somehow realize all the facets of enlightenment in one fell swoop. Which I highly, highly doubt. That would be a special case. The more general case for people pursuing enlightenment is that they will have to access each facet individually, and then all of them collectively, at various times. Otherwise, people will have one profound insight and think: "That's it! That's all there is. I'm done." When in fact they have only scratched the surface, nowhere even close to done.
Take some strong psychedelics and see how many different levels and facets of consciousness there are.
Of course in the end it's all ONE consciousness. But consciousness manifests itself in various ways, for example: dreaming vs waking consciousness. You can say that dreaming and awaking are ultimately the same, because everything is ultimately nondual, but this is not true from the unawakened person's POV -- and that's who your teachings should be aimed at.

@Faceless Ok, I get what you're saying. No offense, but it's very beginner level to me. If you spoke in a more straight forward manner, regularly, on your posts people could understand you better.
Anyways, I'm awareness! Thoughts are me, but I'm not my thoughts. This is discriminated in the intellect. There's me (awareness) and there's thoughts with me. They come and go. It makes no difference to me. It's a matter of do I identify with them..or not. If I do, well that can be a problem. If I dont, no problem at all. 
Thought is not the enemy. Psychological thought comes from identification as a person and not your true nature. So, telling peeps to stop psychological thought without them knowing their true nature isn't going to work, imo.
 
 

It’s not a theory to me. Theory implies somthing abstract (of thought) 
This is to cut the tether of thought all together. Not thoughts, but the movement of thought as in a cessation of the self (knowledge, experience, memory) which is “static” witch approaches the now “dynamic” with the accumulated content of the past that imposes itself on the now and projects itself into the future. 
 
Did if you ever read my nature of experience thread? 

In case anyone is interested-
"Enlightenment sickness boils down to this:  if the apparent individual person — i.e. the ego — is claiming to be enlightened, then the ego has co-opted the knowledge and is using it to glorify itself.  In such a case, “enlightenment” is just another badge of honor that the apparent individual person is pinning on himself and using to set himself apart from and usually higher than the rest of the ignorant masses in order to compensate for a deep-rooted and ever-obtaining sense of incompleteness and inadequacy.  Thus, the vision of non-duality has obviously not been assimilated and the apparent individual person is still taken to be one’s identity.  The Self (capital "S") doesn’t get “enlightened” because the Self is the light. When you realize who you are, you realize you are not the human being you appear to be.  Nor is anyone else.  Nor, for that matter, is there anyone else.  There is only you, awareness, with innumerable “designs” appearing within your being.  This is why we say moksha, or liberation, which is what constitutes “enlightenment” according to the scriptures, is from the apparent individual person, not for the apparent individual person."
~T. Schmidt

@Betterself Yes, you are alone. As God.
Nonduality means there cannot be any "other" who is not you. The deepest levels of nonduality can make you start to feel lonely, as you realize that you created this entire dream all by yourself and the illusion of "otherness" gets shattered. It can feel very solipsistic, but also, as the mind adjusts to your new understanding, the loneliness should dissipate.
I do not exist. You created this forum to entertain yourself. And here you are reading all these posts that you yourself wrote to yourself. Seeking advice from "others" who are really just yourself.
Try to see the beauty of that.
Aloneness and connection are ONE. You can look at it like the glass is half empty, or the glass is half full. By being everyone, you are infinitely connected to everyone.
You still haven't surrendered fully to nonduality. Yes, it's very radical and scary to surrender fully to it. The truth is radical beyond words. Your fear of being totally alone is precisely what you must explore and ultimately surrender. The ego-mind hates it of course and will be resistant, trying to anchor itself into something, anything to avoid Absolute Nothingness and Total ONENESS.