The link between nebulosity of the self and selflessness Hi David. I hope you get around to expanding this section soon. This issue is one of the most interesting to me; meaning and selfhood seem especially connected. At times, the most strongly connected of all. Which is possibly why few, if any, of the various Buddhist chatter around this has made much sense to me. I still can’t quite see why seeing yourself and everyone else as illusory is meant to have any kind of positive effect on anything, but maybe I’m being simplistic and misinterpreting. I’m embarrassed to admit my bog-standard conception of self used to be - like, I suspect, many non-religious people - ‘biological unit governed by a brain’, something objective, with the definite boundaries that entailed, and that the amount of popular science books saying this is an illusion - like the Bruce Hood one - were just overcomplicating the plot. Then, of course, came the acknowledgement of nebulosity: organisms without brains and without conceptions of self, all the different cells in bodies that make up a whole, that kind of thing. The problem then became more about defining life and non-life, let alone self and no-self. Should something like many organisms’ appearing to lack self-consciousness mean a jump to ‘there are no selves and never have been’? Or: is the human experience of having a self enough for it to ‘really exist in the world’, as a thing? I suspect this might be another issue where your characterisation of meaning as crossing the subject/object boundary might come into play…?