I see what you are saying Charlie, but it may be that this word ‘self’ is doing too much work here? According to K, the Buddhists, and even Advaita people (like Ramana Maharishi) the ‘self’ is just a habit pattern of conditioned memory - it only exists through inertia, through habit.
Granted, as the world goes, this is a widespread and deep-rooted habit. But it is a habit nonetheless, which can quickly fall away when the mind is very very awake, attentive.
However, this conditioned reflex of memory and thought we call ‘self’, which is the root of human suffering, will continue on after death - according to K and the Buddhists: it continues on in the brains of people as they are born. The only people for whom this ‘self’ ends are those whose brains are fully awake and attentive right now, during life.
So the ‘self’ - as this stream of common consciousness - does not end with the death of the body (according to K and the Buddhists). It only ends with insight (insight being a brain in which there is a state of total attention).
Regarding ‘total insight’ it may be important for us to understand that any desire, effort, hope, etc to become ‘enlightened’ and ‘free’ of loneliness, fear, misery, etc only creates more of the same. The situation we have unwittingly created: a ‘me and mine’ separate from a ‘you and yours’ may actually only ‘exist’ psychologically and be illusory. Our bodies and brains are more or less the same. The psychological division of an individual ‘me’ (self) must end if conflict is to end, not by working to make the self better, stronger, more this or more that, ie. enlightened, but by the total insight into its inappropriateness of occupying the brain and its dissipation. That is the true ‘enlightenment’ for a human, the ending of the self? With no ‘interference’ of self there is the quiet and silence which allows the unconditioned brain to resonate (be?) with universal mind.
So ‘wishing’ etc for this ‘total insight’ is continuing the interference which ‘blocks’ it.
According to K, only an “understanding” of the conditioning can possibly bring about the silence that is necessary.
It becomes clearer why this ‘total insight’ is such a rare event?
For sure. It’s like wishing for the grace of God. What we can do, as you indicate, is be aware of our conditioning as it shows itself in daily life… Leaving a ‘window’ open (as K said) to the other.
I’m not clear on what is ‘our conditioning’…if a quiet, silent brain is necessary, then ‘our conditioning’ must be in part what keeps the brain ‘noisy’? What are the factors that make up this ‘conditioning’. Are they more or less the same for all of us?
I think this question is related to this thread in the sense that it relates to the K / DB dialogue about the possible connection between the unconditioned mind and the silent (unconditioned) brain.
I’ve opened up a new thread (on self-awareness and self-knowledge) that in part involves this question.
I would think human conditioning is pretty similar across the board - although how it manifests will obviously depend on culture, climate, personal tendencies etc.
The discovery of our own conditioning involves the awareness of our daily thoughts and feelings that arise in relationship - our habits of thought, reaction, emotion, prejudice, etc.