With computers I've found a quick and dirty fix is a good start. So I'll start quick and stop when I'm getting dirty.

I assumed from reading your earlier posts that our attitudes/ideas
would diverge but only after reading that last post do I understand how
far. I'd use the word 'holistic' in the philosophic sense to define my
view of consciousness even though the word's meaning has been debased.
Simply put (not that I have many opportunities to put it to anyone) I
see personal consciousness as a wonderful construct created by the
gestalt me and that it tags along always a bit behind the times and
seeing only a bit of the picture sort of like much of our visual field
is constructed rather than "seen." Despite the wishes of seers and
meditators for umpteen generations there has never been a method for
humans to directly access the underlying software-hardware unity and
never can be though we can get hints at it's workings through emotion,
intuition and other faint glimmers though unfortunately these are
notoriously if not totally unreliable. Techniques such as brain mapping
may provide impersonal insight into how we "work" but so far I have to
reserve judgement as to whether they will have any influence on
individuals in the future.

Furthermore I think emotion is a far more important driver of our
life than reason, intelligence and logic though I generally live as if
these are important and enjoy their function. Carrying on from this view
is the idea that attempting to gain more control or understanding of my
deep workings may well be counter-productive and even if driven by my
hidden and hopefully better self the results would not warrant the time
and effort.

To understand much of your post I would have need to continue
meditation 30 years ago but I'll take a stab at your more common
statements. It could be argued (though I won't) that you have just
replaced the vocabulary of Indian spirituality as you've known it with
one based upon recent research.

"And as so my subjective ‘meditation’ practice became better informed by brain mapping science"
I don't see how this can have any real meaning unless you're actually
hooked up to and observing a personal brain mapper while meditating.

I see no reason to wonder "what exactly does happen that I sit down in one state of mind, and get up some time later inexplicably joyful and more creative"
as this is the default human condition. Rest of any form, exercise of
any form provides this delightful result and it is so certain that it is
virtually never discussed or questioned. OT: I'm a hard-ass in some
ways and think most of the modern human problems caused by ease and
prosperity could be solved by enforced exercise of a reasonable
duration.

There is something looking out from behind our eyes, and this
‘something’ has a quality of awareness, and although continually
involved in the pageant of consciousness during the waking state,
awareness does not have the ability to see itself - This could be a
more metaphorical way of saying there is no method for humans to
directly access their underlying being but your vocabulary is that of
spirituality and probably carries more connotations than my balder
statements.

there is this pervasive sense of ‘urge’ that sets in, urge to
grow, urge to know, urge to experience, urge to do, urge for all these
specific things
I don't think "awareness always trying to but unable to ‘know’ itself"
is an accurate explanation for the root of human activities but is a
product of your long term interest in meditation, consciousness, etc.
Just because Prem Rawat could repeat and repeat and repeat that sentence
with 'thirst' replacing 'urge' does not mean it's untrue but tends to
that direction.

Earlier I went back through your posts.

Your post of 30/5/2015:

I appreciate the simple joy you take in daily life, in the little
things (as do I as well) but do you think that all of that time you
spent on your ass did not contribute the that nice place you are now?
I can't speak for Lakeshore who spent 20 more years on his ass than I
did but a lot of waves have washed up on the beach since last I sat and I
don't think it has much direct input now.

You were splitting hairs down to electron microscope level: "So
what is actually selfless and non-narcissistic, anyway, when 'selfless'
deeds get compensated by some form of return, even if it takes the form
of feeling better about one's self." Selfless actions are defined as
those in which the only possible compensation is feeling better about
oneself though this reward is not guaranteed especially if you start
thinking too much about how selfish you are trying to be selfless."
though the next day you moved back into the gray on selflessness.

and using extreme behaviour as the norm

All life forms compete for air (its infinite), for space (there's
more than we can use), for food (not anyone who reads this Forum). We
kill and eat each other, step on each other, sacrifice others to get
what we want. ONLY IF NECESSARY

Apprehending oneself as just simple 'being' takes the edge off all of this wanting and competing.
Now I guess we're judging from our own experience and you're probably a
lot more competitive than I am but "all this" seems to grossly
over-estimate the wanting and competing in the comfortable and
co-operative lives of most of us. Even the most competitive life is
>99% co-operation.

31/5/2015
It's been years (maybe 10) since I looked into current trends in the
"spiritual scene" but at the time I thought the greatest bullshit
artists were the non-dualists who were either pissing in each others'
pockets (I really don't understand the derivation of this charming
slang) or back-biting each other or claiming a recognition of their
state from some supposed authority. How did I become so cynical about
this? 50 years of intense interest and involvement in the subject and
it's fashions and it's scandals. I began naively and ended up kicked
into shape by reality (I don't mean just DLM).

I see I'm wearing out my goodwill so I'll stop.