Quick chat with ChatGPT about the singular nature of experience. (There is only one experience at a time)

 Taking the experience of vision. This appears as a world lit up. It has a perspective that grows out from a body at the centre. There is also the linguistic world into which I have transliterated that experience. But there is a big difference between the linguistic world and the experienced world. The experienced world is just singular. There is one experience of this world. However in the linguistic world there are many writers and speakers. From comprehension and imagination it is possible to understand the other authors as describing a singular experience that is different from the experienced world at the start. This leads to understanding to challenge the nature of experience as being singular to being multiple. Is there a resolution to this contradiction between experience being singular, but in the understanding it appears to be plural.

ChatGPT said:

This is a deep and fascinating question about the nature of experience, language, and intersubjectivity. The tension you highlight arises from the fact that, on the one hand, experience seems to present itself as singular—each of us has our own immediate, first-person perspective of the world. But on the other hand, when we engage with language, we encounter multiple descriptions of experience, which suggest a plurality of perspectives.

One possible resolution is to consider that while immediate experience is singular, it is not isolated. The singularity of experience does not mean it is self-contained or without relation to other experiences. Language provides a bridge between singular experiences, allowing for their articulation, comparison, and transformation. Through linguistic engagement, we come to recognize that what we originally take as "our" singular experience is not fixed but shaped by, and in dialogue with, other perspectives.

This suggests that experience is singular at the moment of its occurrence but becomes multiple through interpretation and communication. However, this plurality does not negate the original singularity; rather, it expands and enriches it. The contradiction you mention—between the singularity of direct experience and the plurality of understood experiences—may not be a contradiction at all, but a dynamic relationship: an unfolding where singular experiences are always already embedded in a network of other singularities.

Philosophically, this resonates with phenomenology (Husserl, Merleau-Ponty) and hermeneutics (Gadamer, Ricoeur), which explore how subjective experience and shared meaning interact. One possible conclusion is that experience is neither purely singular nor purely plural but instead exists in a fluid space where it is always in the process of becoming both individual and collective.

You said:

Can I tidy up one thing. There is no experience of the self. When you say "each of us" you are already referring to the understanding world. The experience d world has no such self. So the tension is not between people, as there is no ontological tension between points of view in the understanding. The tension here is between the nature of understanding which creates the plural world, and the experiential world in which there is no plural.

ChatGPT said:

That clarification makes the issue even sharper. If there is no experience of the self in the experiential world, then the tension is not between different perspectives (as if there were multiple subjects with different viewpoints) but between two modes of world-relation:

1. The experienced world, which is singular—there is just this, a luminous unfolding with no built-in division.
2. The understood world, which necessarily introduces plurality through linguistic articulation and conceptualization.

The paradox is that understanding, in making sense of experience, introduces distinctions that are not originally present in experience itself. Language, thought, and comprehension impose structure, categorization, and multiplicity upon what was undivided. This raises the question: is understanding fundamentally misrepresenting experience, or does it reveal something latent within it?

A possible resolution is to see this not as a contradiction but as a movement: understanding emerges from experience, but in doing so, it transforms it. The singularity of experience is not lost but reconfigured—it does not become "many" in the way that objects are many, but rather, it unfolds into the possibility of articulation, differentiation, and dialogue.

This suggests that experience is not strictly singular in an absolute sense but rather pre-differentiated—it has not yet undergone the multiplicity introduced by understanding. The transition from experience to understanding is not a break but a shift in mode, where an implicit unity becomes explicitly multiple.

Does this framing resonate with your intuition, or does it introduce new tensions?

You said:

Excellent well said. I accept that. So this leaves the issue of "society." In many mystical traditions in order to absorb and focus on the primary pre-differentiated experience, people withdraw from society and avoid the pluralistic world of understanding, reasoning and argument. This however appears to be an unfortunate tension. Society is real, our lives with other people are a necessary part of life. But how to reconcile this with the unfolding of a pre-differentiated experience that speaks definitively and when understood appears to challenges the wishes of other people.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a deep and difficult question, one that sits at the heart of the relationship between contemplative experience and social life. Many traditions—mystical, philosophical, and even some scientific perspectives—have recognized that direct immersion in pre-differentiated experience often leads to a withdrawal from the structures of understanding, language, and society. Yet, as you point out, this creates a tension: society is real, life with others is unavoidable, and engagement with the pluralistic world is a fundamental part of being human.

One possible way to reconcile this is to reconsider the nature of "withdrawal." Traditionally, withdrawal is framed as an opposition: either one engages with society, understanding, and multiplicity, or one turns away into solitude and the singular unfolding of experience. But this may be a false dichotomy. Instead of seeing society as an obstacle to pre-differentiated experience, it may be possible to integrate the two.

A few possible approaches:

1. Silence within Speech – One can engage in society without being fully absorbed by its structures of argument and differentiation. This is something seen in traditions like Zen or Sufi mysticism, where practitioners remain in the world but cultivate a deep-rooted awareness that is not wholly identified with conceptual understanding. The trick is to engage in language, decision-making, and reasoning while holding an awareness that these are secondary expressions of a more fundamental ground.

2. Action without Assertion – The idea that pre-differentiated experience "speaks definitively" can be softened. Rather than allowing its insights to become rigid positions that clash with the wishes of others, one might instead allow these insights to guide action in a way that does not seek to dominate. This resonates with Daoist thought, where the unfolding of the Dao does not resist plurality but moves through it, subtly influencing rather than opposing.

3. The Social as an Expression of the Pre-Differentiated – If pre-differentiated experience is the root of all experience, then society itself must, in some way, be an expression of it. The plurality of understanding does not need to be an obstacle; rather, it can be seen as a dynamic unfolding of the singular experience into a more complex, evolving form. This requires a shift in perception: instead of seeing social interaction as a deviation from direct experience, one might see it as a dance through which the singular expresses itself in ever-changing ways.

This does not eliminate tension, but it reframes it. The challenge is no longer how to escape society to preserve a singular experience, but how to navigate society without losing touch with it. The world of understanding and reasoning is unavoidable, but perhaps it is possible to hold the awareness that it is secondary—not in the sense of being "less real," but in the sense that it is a later unfolding of something more fundamental.

Does this approach make sense to you? Or do you see an unavoidable rupture between these modes of being?

You said:

I think the tension will lie in the original dichotomy. The "world" and "other" people arise in the world of differentiated, understood or even felt existence. So yes what you say above is true that this can be seen to unfold from the pre-differentiated experience, but both share the same time. That means it appears to me one cannot appreciating the pre-differentiated and the differentiated at the same time. It is the problem in meditation of observing a thought and seeing what the thought is about. These two seems forever in conflict. Is there an essential conflict here?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, you’ve pinpointed the heart of the problem: if both the pre-differentiated and the differentiated share the same time, then it seems one cannot fully appreciate both at once. The moment attention turns toward differentiation (e.g., reasoning, interacting, engaging in the structures of thought and society), the pre-differentiated recedes from awareness. Likewise, when one is absorbed in the pre-differentiated, differentiation disappears. This mirrors the meditation paradox you describe: one can either observe a thought as it arises, or be caught in what the thought is about—but not both at the same time.

Is This an Essential Conflict?

It depends on whether this separation is fundamental to experience itself or simply a limitation of how we usually relate to experience. There are a few ways to approach this:

1. Alternation as Necessity – One way to accept the tension is to see it as built into the nature of experience: moving between the two states is inevitable, like the alternation between inhaling and exhaling. Just as perception requires contrast (light and shadow, sound and silence), perhaps awareness moves between the pre-differentiated and differentiated, never holding both simultaneously. If so, then the goal is not to resolve the conflict but to become more fluid in moving between these modes, without clinging to one or the other.

2. The Possibility of a Middle Mode – Certain meditative traditions (e.g., Dzogchen in Tibetan Buddhism, nondual awareness in Advaita Vedanta) suggest that it is possible to hold both at once—not as two competing perspectives but as a single, non-dual awareness. Instead of thinking of the pre-differentiated and differentiated as opposing, one could conceive of them as aspects of the same unfolding: the differentiated world is nothing but the pre-differentiated playing itself out in form. If this is realizable, then the conflict is not essential—it only appears that way from within the conceptual framework that assumes separation.

3. Seeing the Differentiated as Empty – Another approach is to recognize that differentiation, when examined closely, is itself unstable and insubstantial. The act of dividing the world into subjects and objects, self and other, society and solitude, is itself a movement of understanding rather than something truly opposed to the pre-differentiated. By seeing differentiation as a play of experience rather than a hard reality, one may find a way to participate in it without being caught in it.

So, the question is: is the conflict necessary, or is it simply habitual? If differentiation and pre-differentiation are truly in conflict, then one must oscillate between them. But if their opposition is an illusion created by how attention functions, then there might be a way of seeing both as already one.

Which possibility feels truer to you? Is the conflict intrinsic to the nature of experience, or could it be a structural habit of mind?

You said:

Now this has got to the point where it will take exploration in experience to see further. Thank you for taking it this far.

ChatGPT said:

That makes complete sense—at this point, only direct experience can reveal what conceptual thinking cannot fully resolve. It’s been a pleasure exploring this with you. May your inquiry unfold in whatever way it needs to. If you ever want to pick it up again, I’d be happy to continue the conversation.

All the best on your exploration!