Well, the highest significances and True Beings, or the lowest significances and false beings… Does it really matter if there is no contrast?
Do you mean the same type of thing will re-emerge? (If it re-emerges manifold where it was formerly onefold, it cannot logically be the same thing.) But does it really matter to me whether someone or something like me will emerge, even manifold? I think every self-valuing has a ground for fear or despair, and that that ground only falls away, only turns out not to exist, if–not when–the self-valuing realizes it is groundless in itself, is an indirect self-valuing, an other-valuing. This realization is frightening and desperating from the perspective of the non-self-realized self-valuing. And I think getting accustomed to the realization defeats its own purpose–or would defeat it, if it could ever be achieved absolutely. Custom or habit is precisely the great pacifier against the horror of the Real, that is, the empty, the groundless, the fleeting. Killing oneself or lasting mystical union is no solution, for the solution can only be experienced as such–and thereby be such–in the contrast with the problem, the experience of life or consciousness as problematic.
Do you mean “rather than using an Idea” or “rather than as an Idea”? I think I initially took you to mean the former, but now I’m not sure.
Ideas and models exist as direct experiences–unless by that you mean sensory as distinct from mental experiences (note that Buddhism considers mind to be the sixth sense (not the “sextessence” of the other five)). I supposed I reified the will to power until my recent “Understanding” of the self-valuing logic. Now I truly see that there are “no things […] but only dynamic quanta, [… whose] essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their ‘effect’ upon the same.” (yet again Will to Power 635.) The self-valuing called, among other names, Mitra-Sauwelios now values itself mostly, or ultimately only, as something that makes that understanding or insight possible for itself; likewise all its “others”, its “world”. For this however it needs some kind of dehin, an “alteration of the personality” (for this term see Will to Power 135-36), a higher self or blessed not-self to sustain it(self) the needs and desires it needs to fulfill in order to “keep up the good work”. I’m currently reading Chögyam Trungpa’s Cutting through Spiritual Materialism in a Dutch translation Johannes gave to me, via you, some fifteen years ago, and which I repeatedly almost didn’t keep (I guess I’m finally ready for it). The word mededogen as used in that translation, which is probably just its translation of “compassion”, I’ve only been able to accept or understand in the sense of gedogen, “tolerance”, at least with respect to myself (he speaks of “compassion on oneself”). This tolerance is a kind of patience, of pain or suffering–the duhkha of Binah (the Master of the Temple being the Master of the Law of Sorrow according to “One Star in Sight”); compassion with the passions of all sankharas.