Here we again have usage of the word "arational" without an indication of what's meant with it. Earlier in this thread there was a charge that the video mixes two distinct context together. If you want to learn you could take that suggestion to become more clear and speak about what you mean.

Arational is independent of reasoning and understanding. It is what it is, any map is not the arational.

I'm made up of neurons that exist in the physical world.

That's a logical conclusion, a map. You haven't seen your own neurons and even if you could in this very moment, you couldn't be the neurons which you are seeing. You are constant, you can become aware of the neurons which you observing somehow, but you know that it's not you. Even if you somehow could look into your brain, there would always be a middle-man, a mirror, a computer, screen, the software that runs the computer and so forth.

If you exclude all of which you think is you, you will be left with you, no doubt. By that, I mean truly excluding all the senses, thoughts and everything which you think is you. All non-constants. You do not change. The body changes, thoughts changes, senses, feelings changes. You cannot be something which changes, you can become aware of the changes.

When you have increased your awareness in this way, and after you have excluded everything you think is you (including the I thought) and in desperation, your brain will finally show you who you are. Which might be the arational.

Speculation: Being arational does not require a map, even if some may call it "void" "nothingness" "nothing and everything" or the experience "enlightenment". Since you become arational, you were and already are everything. Technically, you are your environment and the environment doesn't exist or revolve around a "you" I think, from neurophilosophy or something.

When talking subjective experiences of experiencing things, whatever it is might actually be objective.

Now these are extraordinary claims which for me is speculation, it is a map like any other and I was just thinking out loud, even if it might not be relevant to the discussion. Sorry about that.

Noticing that you don't understand is a good first step. It's usually required for learning. Learning is hard when one already thinks one understands. In rationalist terms that's the skill of "noticing confusion"

In the same way, you wouldn't buy an expensive object if you already had said expensive object, because you think you already have something, you don't think you need something.

Basically you argue that there the meaning of language as if language is made up of plantonic ideals and in the next sentence you say that everything is just a map and therefore there's no such thing as the meaning. That's internally inconsistent.

I don't understand again, I mean that language is a map, all communication, every letter, every word, it's a human projection. I t ' s a h u m a n p r o j e c t i o n a n d n o t t t r u e .

As far as the substance goes, you argue against "is_a" statements and that "A is not B" when that isn't claimed. The claim is "A references B". Reference is a concept that's distinct from identity ("is_a").

I understand that everything is a reference, and some might not think about it. But what's the different between "is x" and "references to x" it's just a shortcut to say "is x"? Even if "is x" might be argued is flawed, like you think I mean, so the counter argument is "I reference to x, which means, is x in my language" but what I mean is that everything is a map, human projection, reference or not. The arational exists outside of reasoning etc.