I cannot offer you at this time a whole new lexicon (nor do I think one is particularly necessary). I will endeavour, instead, to detail my understanding of what David and/or QSR have already spent considerable time defining.
What I’m getting at is that I think confusion may arise from attempting to identify the notion of the “hidden void†with the I. Particularly in light of references to free-will and other comments/questions such as:
They're not coming from nothing whatsoever, but I don't think there's any way to be certain of where they come from, other than reality itself.
I can't directly see the source of my thoughts. We can suppose they come from a biological machine, but we can't be certain that they really do. "Biological machine" is just another thought. All of science is just thoughts. It's only through probability that we can know if our thoughts about science are correct. But probability just isn't the same as certainty. They are fundamentally different.
Yes, all of science is just thoughts.
This is why I said to you earlier in this discussion that it is important to consider the hidden void when considering the Totality. Otherwise, as David outlines in the above quotes, you are merely constructing another construction in the moment that involves an “I†(viewpoint) with things to view and think about (sense). This is the make-up of the construction, itself. Hence, I said earlier:
Past, present and future arise (appear) at the same time based on what was known/experienced, what is known/experienced and what will be known/experienced. That's all.
The construction is entirely about form. Science is entirely about form. Knowledge and experience are entirely about form -- none of which can appear or exist (remembering the crucial point that David makes about concepts such as “waiting, time etc†have no meaning outside of consciousness and, thus, the construction) -- without a viewpoint (I) to appear or exist to.
In each moment, the physical world and any other personal imaginings the “I†may have through it and as part of it, ARE the construction. The “I†exists as part of it just as any other part of it. Without awareness, or the senses, or the I (point of view) -- there is no appearance: there is no individual (I). These things lack inherent existence.
As David points out, this does not mean that the physical universe -- or any other potential, individual constructs cease to exist when you do. It just means that if there is no thing which can perceive, things can not be perceived.
To be trapped in illusion would be to mistake any part of the construction AS Ultimate Reality, which -- again -- includes the hidden void. Or, to take any single, momentary
appearance of Ultimate Reality and, again, hold on to it as something concrete -- hold on to it AS form (in thought and/or mental images).