I find the use of squares within squares in making sense of the structure of experience useful.
This represents a single spatio-temporal horizon that is present
, i.e. cognized. (By turning the diagram flat -- i.e. horizontally -- one can get a better sense of how it represents the structure of a line.) The lower right-hand corner represents the sense bases, i.e. the lived body -- a "here" that is pre-objective which can only be experienced within the contextual duality of the "six bases of contact", i.e. it requires an outer periphery, a multiplicity of "theres" (one of which is the singular object of attention "this" against a common ground made up of a plurality of "thats"). The two bases together with consciousness is contact. The initial square I take to be the "base" (or "field" or "region", i.e. āyatana
) referred to in the Kāmaguṇasutta:
“Therefore, bhikkhus, that base should be understood, where the eye ceases and perception of forms cease. That base should be understood, where the ear ceases and perception of sounds cease.… That base should be understood, where the mind ceases and perception of mental phenomena cease. That base should be understood.” SN 35.117
The ceasing of this first initial square -- it's coming to an end -- sets the structure in motion. But in doing so it undermines the stability of the transcendental nature of the structure. The experience of transcendence is indelible to the structure, but so is its contingency upon contact.
If you take the diagram above as the "real" horizon that I happen to be experiencing "now" as my field of vision and consider the three other spatial
horizons that are presently beyond my vision -- i.e. are "imaginary" -- a more general experience of greater complexity becomes apparent.
This of course represents my physical presence in my room, within my house, within my town, within my state, within my country, within my world -- which begs the question: With the absolute
ending, the utter passing of the whole of that initial square is it legitimate to qualify anything as mine?
This is where people fall back on transcendental consciousness: identifying it with the self or with God. In the case of Husserl, human finite consciousness is one level below that of divine infinite consciousness that spans the open-ended horizon of immediate experience.
https://www.academia.edu/8240822/On_Hus ... sciousness
The concern with an originary non-temporal experience is present throughout the Bernauer manuscripts. In text 2, perhaps one of the most lucid and insightful papers of the whole collection, Husserl turns to the distinction between finite, human consciousness and divine consciousness (Hua XXXIII, pp. 45–46). Consciousness is flow, says Husserl, but not flow in the ordinary sense of a water stream. It is a flow that does not occur in objective time but rather carries objective time within itself. Consciousness is present consciousness, and only as present consciousness is it consciousness of a reality (‘‘wirkliches’’) that in its own reality encloses the consciousness of its own reality (Hua XXXIII, p. 45). Unreality is not a nothing but rather a true having-been and a true will-be. As an ideal possibility, the present is all-embracing (allu¨berspannendes), omniscient (allwissendes) consciousness of itself and of all its own intentional states (Besta¨nden)—once we bear in mind that the horizon of obscurity, in which the past and future of the stream of consciousness are blurred, and which limits the perfection of consciousness’s self-perception, is an accidental limitation that can be thought of as infinitely widened in such a way that, as an idea, an omniscient, divine consciousness will result that includes itself in perfect clarity. By the same token, the finite consciousness is also omniscient, its intentionality too encompasses all its past and future, though not clearly, but as a potentiality for further clarity (Hua XXXIII, pp. 45–46).