Hmmm... This is interesting. My psychiatrist father wanted me to follow in his footsteps, never very overtly, and he never pressured me, but it was clearly his wish. In those days I came to the conclusion that comparative linguistics was where it's at in terms of understanding how the mind works. Later in life (ca 1985), I was deeply involved in designing advanced systems for a company, and began to comprehend how afraid people are about thinking about thinking. An interview with Edsger W. Dijkstra (EWD for intimi), which had been commissioned by a magazine, and which he called the best interview of his life, was nevertheless not published for the magazine, which presumably had a fairly upper management readership (It was later published in the EWD archives: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/misc/vanVlissingenInterview.html).
In my personal journey, I find the need to go one step further. Truth is by nature, by definition, non-dual. Truth is true, and everything else is a lie. So everything that is true in the duality of consciousness, is necessarily a lie. It is the perception of differences that allows our judgments of what is "truth" or a "lie," and therefore every such decision is conditional, situational. This is the Rashomon effect.
The purpose of consciousness is witnessing to its own reality, for since it is not real, it must have constant confirmation. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. Duality, by its nature seeks to obliterate non-duality, and therefore everything in duality is a lie. Brains do not think, minds do. Brain activity is merely the physical manifestation of thought, but not its cause. Are we minds that have bodies, or bodies that have minds. The materialism of the west believes the latter, but contemplative experience suggests the former, and now the likes of Brian Whitworth (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf), Thomas Campbell (https://www.my-big-toe.com/), and Bernardo Kastrup (https://www.bernardokastrup.com/) are starting to come full circle, and understanding the physical realm as virtual reality, and thereby end up with non-dualism.
Krishnamurti for one is always very clear that our problem is making the distinction of the observer and the observed, which is the function of consciousness, see https://www.youtube.com/shorts/s1jSJ-cDl9g.
Conceptually then, it makes sense why A Course in Miracles, calls the laws of consciousness, the laws of the ego-mind, "the Laws of Chaos," and it even puts quotation marks around them:
⁴The laws of God work only for your good, and there are no other laws beside His. ⁵Everything else is merely lawless and therefore chaotic. ⁶Yet God Himself has protected everything He created by His laws. ⁷Everything that is not under them does not exist. ⁸“Laws of chaos” is a meaningless term. ⁹Creation is perfectly lawful, and the chaotic is without meaning because it is without God. ¹⁰You have “given” your peace to the gods you made, but they are not there to take it from you, and you cannot give it to them. (https://acim.org/acim/en/s/142#4:4-10 | T-10.IV.4:4-10)
In short, it makes sense to realize that within consciousness everything is relative, everything is conditional, and "thinking," as we think we do is about interpreting assumed differences. Maya works by inspiring these differences, i.e. there are the universal constructs that seem to manifest in all languages, and endless variations in how these are developed further within different spheres, cultures, geographies. The way back is never so easy, for within perception, we cannot do otherwise than perceive differences, as we assume consciousness is the beginning, when consciousness is only the beginning of an awareness of something other than ourselves, i.e. the world. So the observer and the observed, are not aware they are one. The prism cannot remove itself from the white light. It's reality is "proven" by the colors of the rainbow which it sees.
Ergo, it helps to understand that consciousness is merely the foundational lie we tell ourselves. After that, everything is tautological.
⁵You are still convinced that your understanding is a powerful contribution to the truth, and makes it what it is (https://acim.org/acim/en/s/222#7:5 | T-18.IV.7:5)
