Definition of Consciousness

[Alex Jacob]

Manes---so many definitions.

Diebert,

A finger is always allowed to point. The issue very much is mental, emotional, physical, social and spiritual health. There is no question about that. I think everyone that writes here is in agreement on this. We all seem to know there are myriad problems---the sickness---and we all have ideas about what a 'cure' means.

I think the core of the issue may hinge on the proposition---a proposition that is forwarded by, for instance, Kelly and Ryan in direct terms, but is expressed also by Kevin, David, Dan and yourself---that this 'enlightenment' is a sort of mental exercise, an intensification of mental 'reasoning', an engagement with 'logic' of what seems at times a superhuman sort. This is a crass and vulgar distortion in my opinion, and could be evidence of the sort of self-deception indicated in the phrase:

'The ability to fool oneself as no one else could'.

"It would be quite hard to gauge an 'unfettered' mind over the Internet, now wouldn't it? If one however shows some degree of sanity, or at least a preference for sanity, clarity and demonstrates to some extent emptiness, its realization, then certainly a light is being spread. It's no rocket science really, no smoke, no theater, no sophistication necessarily involved when it comes to this."

Ah, but with this you have qualified so much. This view of 'enlightenment' as an intense mental effort, a rational undertaking exclusively, takes a stand against, for example, a religious orientation toward the question. You-all have pathologized a belief in God, a most incredible thing. To say 'I believe in God' is to spout-out evidence of your insanity, on this list. That's 'keeping invisible friends', etc. But to say 'preference for sanity', 'clarity'---who here could argue with you? Yet, what if real 'enlightenment' actually requires more? What if it actually involved a relationship with a creator, a God, a theo? That could be defined as 'intelligence greater than one's own limited intelligence', which turns the super-rational formula upsidedown, something into which one comes to rest, or something in which one rests.

You see, it is what y'all exclude, so forcefully, ruthlessly sometimes, that sends up red flags for me. To attain the 'enlightenment' y'all define is to follow very strict guidelines that you oversee (I think sometimes you have invented them, cobbled them together spuriously), but if anyone suggest other possibilities, the dogs are released, you get torn to shreds here. The raving neurotics come out of the woodwork with all their voluminous proofs. A torrent of accusations, recriminations---diagnosis.

You say 'emptiness' because that's your predilection, the bent of your spirit, but it could very well be a sort of fullness. Who can say definitively?

[skipair]

Alex,

Yet, what if real 'enlightenment' actually requires more? What if it actually involved a relationship with a creator, a God, a theo?

Ok, your structure here is basically, "you say 'enlightenment' is x,y,z, but what if it's a,b,c?", and then you move onto something else without following through with any more investigation.

If you were to stop on one thought and see where it comes from, instead of constantly moving forward, you might find that it's more difficult to come up with things to say.

I just don't want you to pretend to think you're actually looking into the validity of this whole thing. For some reason it's important for me that you know that. You have a perception of there stance, pose a few questions about it, relate it to a few ideas, and then do not follow through with any of it. This is not thinking, not reasoning, it's just talking.

You say 'emptiness' because that's your predilection, the bent of your spirit, but it could very well be a sort of fullness. Who can say definitively?

Frankly, I would call this sentence a perfect example of emptiness, because effectively you've just said nothing.

[Kelly Jones]

Repeating this one again - makes the third time I've asked the first question:

Back to an earlier question that remains unanswered: if Consciousness is eternal and infinite, how do you explain differences in consciousness? If you happened to be a rock, would you be more capable of your so-called "knowing gnostically" than being a human? And, why bother with your hourly daily session of transcendental meditation, since you can't get away from consciousness in everything you do and are?

Deign to answer this, oh great Messianic one?
_____________________________

By the way, I've checked out your master Merrell-Wolff's page. Master is the defining word, with its connotations of slavery.

He's quite a pompous, self-important person. Sticking his stage-by-stage attainments up like a C.V. high-up on the splash page of his website (or perhaps his acolytes did this) is repulsive. A mini-me of Kant reincarnated. Also, it is very telling that he criticises nothing.

I think he had some true insights, and his reasoning is definitely more consistent and coherent than yours (you tripped up in your regurgitations of his dogma), but he's far from being a good teacher.

Merrell-Wolff didn't complete the first, and the most important, stage in becoming enlightened, ie. gaining a perfect intellectual understanding of the Infinite. He stuck in the 'mountains aren't mountains' stage, where he held onto the notion of 'THAT' instead of resigning himself to its fullest express in things.

If he had completed this stage, his tight grip on his treatise-like philosophy would have relaxed, and his mind would have opened up to countless different ways of being able to express his wisdom.

I bet you anything his wife was younger, pleasant, amenable, a good cook, and a blonde.

I personally wouldn't call him enlightened. I think his one mistake was redefining consciousness to mean Truth, because it prevented him from seeing the self and all experience as bounded. In Buddhist parlance, it's called failing to smash apart the Alaya consciousness.

[Steven Coyle]

I think mikiel is just going on (and on) about emptiness.

[brokenhead]

You-all have pathologized a belief in God, a most incredible thing. To say 'I believe in God' is to spout-out evidence of your insanity, on this list. That's 'keeping invisible friends', etc. But to say 'preference for sanity', 'clarity'---who here could argue with you? Yet, what if real 'enlightenment' actually requires more? What if it actually involved a relationship with a creator, a God, a theo?

That would be an inevitable consequence resulting from first realizing that there is a God.

That could be defined as 'intelligence greater than one's own limited intelligence', which turns the super-rational formula upsidedown, something into which one comes to rest, or something in which one rests.

Or from which one proceeds. But Alex, it requires an ability to be completely honest, this granting the existence of such an intelligence.

You see, it is what y'all exclude, so forcefully, ruthlessly sometimes, that sends up red flags for me. To attain the 'enlightenment' y'all define is to follow very strict guidelines that you oversee (I think sometimes you have invented them, cobbled them together spuriously), but if anyone suggest other possibilities, the dogs are released, you get torn to shreds here. The raving neurotics come out of the woodwork with all their voluminous proofs. A torrent of accusations, recriminations---diagnosis.

But Alex, they aren't raving neurotics. They are in fact being rational. It's like having someone keep saying come on in, the water's fine, and they keep replying, you cannot drown on dry land. You cannot argue with this.

The dry land is a tiny island known as A=A. That's why you cannot argue with it. It makes no difference that there is nothing on this island and the mainland is just a short swim away.

[Alex Jacob]

Skipair, I appreciate your comments. I make the effort to pay as much attention as I can to their presentation, and I do not say that it is without merit. It could be of supreme value to someone in another position than myself. Some ideas have the capability to rescue and to 'save'. They can help us out of a morass.

There is no idea any one of 'them' has presented to me so far that I do not understand, conceptually. Each idea has a certain merit, I admit that. But it is not enough of the picture. These are partial solutions to a far greater problem.

For your own sake, which may be interesting to others, I suggest you do that 'work' that you are recommending to me, so that others can see what this process looks like.

Y'all seem to love to reason through things. Some of you just love math puzzles and I remember a thread some time back where people participated in solving math puzzles and they seemed to get such pleasure out of it. This is a characteristic style of thinking for this forum, but it bores me to tears. I deal with philosophy and reasoning, apparently, from a different orientation, and my goals are different. There are a few people here for example who strongly dislike the things I say and the way I say them. The feeling is mutual. I see this as a classical example of the polarity between the mathematical and the literary, language-oriented mind.

Also, I want to deepen my own communion with God, as I understand God, not to diminish my fellowship. The activities of the QRS, and those who share their orientation, have a very different goal in their sights. What it is exactly, I cannot say because I do not understand it. I.e. it would also be regressive for me, counter-productive. I serve another purpose here, and the junta, for now, seems to put up with me.

[skipair]

Skipair, I appreciate your comments. I make the effort to pay as much attention as I can to their presentation, and I do not say that it is without merit. It could be of supreme value to someone in another position than myself. Some ideas have the capability to rescue and to 'save'. They can help us out of a morass.

Well, you are definitely wetting panties across the globe. And I'm sure they thank you for saving them, in that special way.

For the rest of us, I'm not so sure. :D

There is no idea any one of 'them' has presented to me so far that I do not understand, conceptually.

I highly doubt this is the case. Or maybe it would be better to say that you understand your perception of the concepts presented to you, but that is not to say that your perception, your interpretation, is the correct one.

For an analogy I'll assume that you do not believe 'they' understand where you are coming from. They say they do, but if they really did then they'd do things rather differently, wouldn't they? Likewise, if you actually understood the intended meanings presented here, perhaps (necessarily) you'd also do things differently.

As it stands and as I see it, you are both absolutely certain you understand their position, and baffled by how they've come to their conclusions. Of course these two ideas don't jibe, and it more than likely means you don't actually understand - something I also freely admit about myself.

The difference between you and me, it seems, is that you've chosen to spend time speculating upon this non-comprehension in terms of how they went wrong, and how they are wrong, and all the things they seem to reject from life. Whereas I see my non-comprehension as an opportunity to hold my tongue and instead try to comprehend. Am I not being more reasonable about this?

I see this as a classical example of the polarity between the mathematical and the literary, language-oriented mind.

Personally, I don't really understand either one of them.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Manes---so many definitions.

Not so many as it seems, essentially they appear related. The pony one is the most appropriate though in your case, or the lion; chief of the fur. Good to see you picked up my jest.

...that this 'enlightenment' is a sort of mental exercise, an intensification of mental 'reasoning', an engagement with 'logic' of what seems at times a superhuman sort.

A major misunderstanding, still, after all this time you've spend here. This 'superhuman' reasoning is more like our hands and feet - if you want go somewhere, construct something, then you cannot get anywhere without them. On the philosophical path, there's not far to go without the intense self-critical effort and questioning as you describe.

This view of 'enlightenment' as an intense mental effort, a rational undertaking exclusively, takes a stand against, for example, a religious orientation toward the question. You-all have pathologized a belief in God, a most incredible thing.

Again, why do you think people 'here' (as if there's some distinct group, only in your dreams!) view 'E' as 'intense mental effort'? A puzzling description and it seems you're arguing with yourself. The reason that a rational undertaking is involved is because the default mind, as your quote says, tends to fool itself. Which better method there would be than such an alien, cold, abstract invasive activity like reason might be described as. It's like a doctor's scalpel - it's not the end result, it has nothing to do with it apart from being a necessary means, at least for those driven to wake up.

To say 'I believe in God' is to spout-out evidence of your insanity, on this list.

It's unclarity, meaning that someone who says "I believe in God" just satisfies himself with a vague, conflicting henid of a truth - he's afraid to take it further. It's not that the faith is wrong, heaven forbid, but it's childish, unformed.

Any more enlightened view of God understands and encompasses any faith you'd like to assert. But it has gone so far that it doesn't need to bow and gravel in uncertainty anymore.

Of course if you want to insist that some of the population here would be better off by starting to believe in God instead of imagining they have reached beyond one, then you're probably right.

You see, it is what y'all exclude, so forcefully, ruthlessly sometimes, that sends up red flags for me.

Exactly, it's supposed to appear so horrible, otherwise it probably isn't true or important, as a general rule. Can there by any doubt that a 'deluded' mind is actively working to resist liberation from the delusion? So its biggest fears, disgust or neglects are probably the keys to its own undoing.

In a way, you too, are fighting your own shadow here.

You say 'emptiness' because that's your predilection, the bent of your spirit, but it could very well be a sort of fullness. Who can say definitively?

Indeed, emptiness is the only road towards encompassing the fullness of reality itself. In itself a useless attainment as it has no direct function, no direct relation to any specific thing. Therefore it's usually discarded and put down as totally insignificant, not saying anything, not doing anything.

Still, it's from here that everything else comes forth, so where else would you want to be? What else would you want to accomplish? There's now completeness and depending on what was sown initially, the world will be moved and shaken accordingly. And did I already mention the view?

[maestro]

The reason that a rational undertaking is involved is because the default mind, as your quote says, tends to fool itself. Which better method there would be than such an alien, cold, abstract invasive activity like reason might be described as. It's like a doctor's scalpel - it's not the end result, it has nothing to do with it apart from being a necessary means, at least for those driven to wake up.

Excellent summary. I think you would be a better expositor of the role of logic, than QRS who often confound the matter with finding absolute truths through logic alone. Ultimately it is a combination of experience and logic.

[Kelly Jones]

That could be defined as 'intelligence greater than one's own limited intelligence', which turns the super-rational formula upsidedown, something into which one comes to rest, or something in which one rests.

Or from which one proceeds. But Alex, it requires an ability to be completely honest, this granting the existence of such an intelligence.

So liars prove the existence of Kathulu or some other Satanic nightie-eater?

Alex: You see, it is what y'all exclude, so forcefully, ruthlessly sometimes, that sends up red flags for me. To attain the 'enlightenment' y'all define is to follow very strict guidelines that you oversee (I think sometimes you have invented them, cobbled them together spuriously), but if anyone suggest other possibilities, the dogs are released, you get torn to shreds here. The raving neurotics come out of the woodwork with all their voluminous proofs. A torrent of accusations, recriminations---diagnosis.

brokenhead: But Alex, they aren't raving neurotics. They are in fact being rational. It's like having someone keep saying come on in, the water's fine, and they keep replying, you cannot drown on dry land. You cannot argue with this.

The dry land is a tiny island known as A=A. That's why you cannot argue with it. It makes no difference that there is nothing on this island and the mainland is just a short swim away.

What a sense of humour.

Is the mainland other than what it is? (A=A)...

Or are you saying, the majority of people on earth don't understand or credit that A=A, therefore the mainland isn't known as A=A.

[Kelly Jones]

QRS who often confound the matter with finding absolute truths through logic alone. Ultimately it is a combination of experience and logic.

What kind of experience are you talking about?

There's a reason that QRS and others expound the virtues listed in the header, as vital to the path to enlightenment. That is, they are vital!

[Kelly Jones]

Alex, is your main complaint about the methods promoted by the Genius Forum diehards, that it hurts?

And yet what would the path of to ultimate truth be like, if it didn't demand sacrificing falsehoods - all falsehoods, even those and especially those that we love most?

[maestro]

What kind of experience are you talking about?

Simply that one cannot reason about the world without interacting with it.

[mikiel]

Manes---so many definitions.

Diebert,

A finger is always allowed to point. The issue very much is mental, emotional, physical, social and spiritual health. There is no question about that. I think everyone that writes here is in agreement on this. We all seem to know there are myriad problems---the sickness---and we all have ideas about what a 'cure' means.

I think the core of the issue may hinge on the proposition---a proposition that is forwarded by, for instance, Kelly and Ryan in direct terms, but is expressed also by Kevin, David, Dan and yourself---that this 'enlightenment' is a sort of mental exercise, an intensification of mental 'reasoning', an engagement with 'logic' of what seems at times a superhuman sort. This is a crass and vulgar distortion in my opinion, and could be evidence of the sort of self-deception indicated in the phrase:

'The ability to fool oneself as no one else could'.

"It would be quite hard to gauge an 'unfettered' mind over the Internet, now wouldn't it? If one however shows some degree of sanity, or at least a preference for sanity, clarity and demonstrates to some extent emptiness, its realization, then certainly a light is being spread. It's no rocket science really, no smoke, no theater, no sophistication necessarily involved when it comes to this."

Ah, but with this you have qualified so much. This view of 'enlightenment' as an intense mental effort, a rational undertaking exclusively, takes a stand against, for example, a religious orientation toward the question. You-all have pathologized a belief in God, a most incredible thing. To say 'I believe in God' is to spout-out evidence of your insanity, on this list. That's 'keeping invisible friends', etc. But to say 'preference for sanity', 'clarity'---who here could argue with you? Yet, what if real 'enlightenment' actually requires more? What if it actually involved a relationship with a creator, a God, a theo? That could be defined as 'intelligence greater than one's own limited intelligence', which turns the super-rational formula upsidedown, something into which one comes to rest, or something in which one rests.

You see, it is what y'all exclude, so forcefully, ruthlessly sometimes, that sends up red flags for me. To attain the 'enlightenment' y'all define is to follow very strict guidelines that you oversee (I think sometimes you have invented them, cobbled them together spuriously), but if anyone suggest other possibilities, the dogs are released, you get torn to shreds here. The raving neurotics come out of the woodwork with all their voluminous proofs. A torrent of accusations, recriminations---diagnosis.

You say 'emptiness' because that's your predilection, the bent of your spirit, but it could very well be a sort of fullness. Who can say definitively?

Regardless of my past disagreements with Alex, this is the *most intelligent* post I have ever read here.... well, one of the most anyway.

[Kelly Jones]

M: QRS who often confound the matter with finding absolute truths through logic alone. Ultimately it is a combination of experience and logic.

KJ: What kind of experience are you talking about?

M: Simply that one cannot reason about the world without interacting with it.

You're defining experience as causation, so you cannot separate logic from "experience", because they are one and the same.

As soon as there is logic, then there is causation. And absolute truths are embedded in causation.

[mikiel]

My computer is FUBAR again,. Composed a reasonably intelligent reply to the below (and the above)... no cosmic symbolism intended... and the F-ing machine froze an I lost it. (It's 10 yrs old... obsolete really.)

Repeating this one again - makes the third time I've asked the first question:

Back to an earlier question that remains unanswered: if Consciousness is eternal and infinite, how do you explain differences in consciousness? If you happened to be a rock, would you be more capable of your so-called "knowing gnostically" than being a human? And, why bother with your hourly daily session of transcendental meditation, since you can't get away from consciousness in everything you do and are?

Your question require my question as a prelude. Why do you assume that Consciousness as an eternal and infinite (not to mention omnipresent!) Presence is incapable of differentiation as it maqnifests (as Creator?) I have said often enough to make us all sick, in answer to you persistent misunderstaning in this regard, that "C" (It) is *both* eternally peresent (and infinete in Presence) *and* the perpetual creator, in Its capacity as immanent Intention-to-create... all diversity of manifest forms... creation.

Honestly!... what part of the above do you *not get?*

Deign to answer this, oh great Messianic one?
Your sarcasm demeans you in this context.
_____________________________

By the way, I've checked out your master Merrell-Wolff's page. Master is the defining word, with its connotations of slavery.

You obviously *do not get it!* I am a part of a community, of folks who understand Merrell-Wolff. *It is not a belief system.* Joel understood him... tor the "Heart" of the teaching. Likewise I understood Joel. He and i both went on to *Get it* through our own Walk ... beyond the intwllectual understanding.

He's quite a pompous, self-important person. You obviously did not know thw man. Your insults are superfluous, reflecting only the pettiness and shallowness of your own mind... sans "that which is beyond mental content."\
Sticking his stage-by-stage attainments up like a C.V. high-up on the splash page of his website (or perhaps his acolytes did this) is repulsive. A mini-me of Kant reincarnated. Also, it is very telling that he criticises nothing.
You ridicule without understanding... very much like your own Gurus in this forum. I have compassion for you but no sympathy.
Go to you own egocentric hell of mentation without spiritual union... and "fry" there untill the truth of unity with the loving, universal One dawns on you. It won't be too long now as i have been given to see it through the pyramid prophecy vision... for which I am ridiculed here and elswhere.

I think he had some true insights, and his reasoning is definitely more consistent and coherent than yours (you tripped up in your regurgitations of his dogma), but he's far from being a good teacher.
How did I "trip up?" Real dialogue goes specific. Criptic bullshit is the earmark of this forum.

Merrell-Wolff didn't complete the first, and the most important, stage in becoming enlightened, ie. gaining a perfect intellectual understanding of the Infinite. He stuck in the 'mountains aren't mountains' stage, where he held onto the notion of 'THAT' instead of resigning himself to its fullest express in things.

You missed where he "gained" "a perfect intellectual understanding of the Infinite." It is in his masterpiece... which you obviously have not read. Yet you presume to criticize from the overview presented by my friend, Thomas.

If he had completed this stage, his tight grip on his treatise-like philosophy would have relaxed, and his mind would have opened up to countless different ways of being able to express his wisdom.
Did you even read "the Heart of Franklin Merrell-Wolff's Philosophy" which I gave you as a link? I think not. You are shooting from the hip... quick draw style. i does not do justice to his work and only exposes you as a fool... the requirement for all followers of the "QRS Philosophy!"

I bet you anything his wife was younger, pleasant, amenable, a good cook, and a blonde.

I personally wouldn't call him enlightened. I think his one mistake was redefining consciousness to mean Truth, because it prevented him from seeing the self and all experience as bounded. In Buddhist parlance, it's called failing to smash apart the Alaya consciousness.

[Kelly Jones]

If everything is a manifestation of the same consciousness, why aren't they all experiencing the same intentions?

I used these sites to examine Merrell-Wolff's ideas: link - link - link. Are they reliable in your view, Mikiel?

[Kelly Jones]

Do you think a rock, or some gas, could be capable of greater 'gnostic knowing' (your sort of achievement) than a human? Or are they all equally capable of the same degree of enlightenment?

[mikiel]

If everything is a manifestation of the same consciousness, why aren't they all experiencing the same intentions?

You may qualify as the dumbest preson I have ever conversed with on the internet... not counting actual morons/ idiots/ and religious 'believers.' I can repeat answers over and over and you keep repeating the questions I have already answered. I would define this as stupidity on your part... tho you obviously have a command of the language... to argue as a rationalist without any experience at all in the mystic realm... One with God, of which I speak. Do you think we can carry on an intelligent conversation considering these extreme differences? I don't think so.

I used these sites to examine Merrell-Wolff's ideas: link - link - link. Are they reliable in your view, Mikiel?

They didn't work for me. I'll try again later.

[Tomas]

If everything is a manifestation of the same consciousness, why aren't they all experiencing the same intentions?

You may qualify as the dumbest preson I have ever conversed with on the internet... not counting actual morons/ idiots/ and religious 'believers.' I can repeat answers over and over and you keep repeating the questions I have already answered. I would define this as stupidity on your part... tho you obviously have a command of the language... to argue as a rationalist without any experience at all in the mystic realm... One with God, of which I speak. Do you think we can carry on an intelligent conversation considering these extreme differences? I don't think so.

I used these sites to examine Merrell-Wolff's ideas: link - link - link. Are they reliable in your view, Mikiel?

They didn't work for me. I'll try again later.

They work for me.

Thanks, Kelly :-)



Peace Up



.

[mikiel]

Do you think a rock, or some gas, could be capable of greater 'gnostic knowing' (your sort of achievement) than a human? Or are they all equally capable of the same degree of enlightenment?

How stupid can a human being be? You are becoming the definition of that on this forum.
I have bored everyone to death with my answer to this question, yet you keepnasking it.
I take no pleasure in humiliating you... but ... here it is again:

No. (several times over.) No rocks or gas or any other matter not evolved into sentient beings are " equally capable of the same degree of enlightenment?" OMG... does this finally explain it so that there will not be another several posts asking the same question... already answered many times? How stupid can one "intelligent": person be on a given subject... a blind spot in (her ?) brain.
s'cuse the typos... gotta go.... Briefly.

[Kelly Jones]

No. (several times over.) No rocks or gas or any other matter not evolved into sentient beings are " equally capable of the same degree of enlightenment?"

Thanks, you've answered only the second question. I'm not being pedantic. I'm not being a Dr Azzecca-Garbugli. There is a point to this line of questioning....

The first question is: Are rocks, gas or anything non-sentient capable of greater enlightenment than humans?

We've established you think they're not capable of the same degree. They are clearly different from humans. But this could mean they're capable of a greater degree of enlightenment. So please answer that question.

[mikiel]

No. (several times over.) No rocks or gas or any other matter not evolved into sentient beings are " equally capable of the same degree of enlightenment?"

Thanks, you've answered only the second question. I'm not being pedantic. I'm not being a Dr Azzecca-Garbugli. There is a point to this line of questioning....

The first question is: Are rocks, gas or anything non-sentient capable of greater enlightenment than humans?

We've established you think they're not capable of the same degree. They are clearly different from humans. But this could mean they're capable of a greater degree of enlightenment. So please answer that question.

OMG! You are even more stupid than I could have imagined!

If matter is not "sentient" it is not capable of greater consciousness of the Creator of all... (the One conciousness manifesting galaxies, gasses, rocks, planet... all manifest creation...) than humans.

Rocks and dirt are obviously less conscious of the omnipresent consciousness (forgive my repetition... it describes The Creator as well as I can) than humans.
But how is it that you think you are more conscious than the stars... source of all energy and Light to all planets?

Are you on the top of the consciousness scale just because you are human? (See my critique of your anthropomorphic bias ... ethno-stupidity... a carbon based creation inhabiting Earth... thinking you (we) are the epitome of Creation. Consciousness is our true identity. All forms are manifest consciousness. Some kow it... enlightened humans... most don't... I suspect all rocks and gasses... matter still unevolved into "conscious beings" do not. I suspecty that Gaia, Earth, is conscious of the One Being we are all parts of.
Likewise our Sun. (How stupid of you to think you, a parasite on Earth are more conscious of the One Creative Consciousness then Our Energy/Light Source, the Sun... and all stars.

This was a futile (i am nearly sure) exercise in expanding your very limited horizons.
Don't bother to reply. You have no idea what the place of humans is in the cosmic scale of consciousness. One Consciousness... so many individual manifestations of IT.

[Iolaus]

She also says she has no belief system. What do you think about that?

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: The first question is: Are rocks, gas or anything non-sentient capable of greater enlightenment than humans?

Mikiel: If matter is not "sentient" it is not capable of greater consciousness of the Creator of all... (the One conciousness manifesting galaxies, gasses, rocks, planet... all manifest creation...) than humans.

Thanks for clearly answering my question. Now we're getting somewhere.

Rocks and dirt are obviously less conscious of the omnipresent consciousness (forgive my repetition... it describes The Creator as well as I can) than humans.

Ah! Less conscious of something, are they? There's something that humans are conscious of, that is equivalent to enlightenment, eh? Odd that you keep returning to using this word 'conscious of' (something), even though you claim it has no content or object.

How stupid of you to think you, a parasite on Earth are more conscious of the One Creative Consciousness then Our Energy/Light Source, the Sun... and all stars.

Hang on a mo. I'm a human. I'm sentient. Are you now saying that gases are sentient (the sun being a star, and stars are great balls of burning gas)? Or are you saying that non-sentient forms are certainly more capable than sentient forms, of greater consciousness?

Or is burning gas somehow sentient, and non-burning gas non-sentient......? ;-)

This was a futile (i am nearly sure) exercise in expanding your very limited horizons. Don't bother to reply.

I have to admit it was like toying with an insane mouse, Mikiel. Not very compassionate of me, but I can't take you seriously. Your concepts disintegrate like a burnt leaf, they're so fragile.

You twist and turn like the proverbial snake-oil salesman:

- You define consciousness in one way for sentient forms, and in a different way for the non-sentient, but then go ahead and define them both as being manifestations of the same 'universal consciousness' (which is supposedly 'that without any content'!);

- You say that rationality is limited, and incapable of effing the ineffable Universal Consciousness; then you turn around and say that effing the ineffable UC is mystic gnosis, and equate mystic gnosis with deductive reasoning - which is very much a form of rationality;

- You say that sentient forms are more capable of ETI than non-sentient forms, then turn around and say that sentient forms are less capable than non-sentient forms of ETI.

I am sure you are getting sick of this discussion. You're like a Victor Vac salesman walking into Arkwright's grocery, and coming out without having sold your vacuum-cleaner, but with an armload of groceries you didn't need.