Definition of Consciousness

[mikiel]

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

Night owl commentary:
I don't know where she said she has no belief system... but..
She obviously does. One specific belief of hers (extrapolated from her data-base of anthropomorphic stupidity)...

Stars can not be conscious because they are just material objects... like rocks but more fiery and life supporting for the only entities that matter... "thinking" humans.

I'm really rather tired of replying to her repetitive questions which I have answered many times. As Ive said, she is the dumbest person I've ever met here who can actually speak (write) coherently without grasping the content of my replies (redundantly) to her tediiously repeated questions.

I care not at all what her belief systems are. I know that logic and reason have *nothing* to do with enlightenment, so the rest is passe'.
And, as a gnostic, I know that all the universe... and all parts of it, are "alive" and conscious in their own... non-human... way. No "proof". No logic to support it. I just KNOW via the common (universal) consciousness we *all* share.
I tire of the tedium of the flatland philosophy here.
I may go and not return. Very possible.
Thanks for your extra-ordinary presence here.
This is a very small pond.
I am inspired to go elswhere,... and will not share the specifics...
see the Ramayana Syndrome... Six Strings hounding me for nearly two years over two websites.

yes... a signature...
mik I el

[mikiel]

If everything is a manifestation of the same consciousness, why aren't they all experiencing the same intentions?
Repetition # 99: Consciousness is omnipresent. It differentiates in the process of maniestation as/through the myraid of forms. Same Identity (One Being)... multitudes of varieties of manifestation... you and I... Sun and stars and galaxies.

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

Yes.
BTW the changing lines of aphorism at top of page in first link are available to browse by scrolling in the
"Aphorism on Consciousness- Without- an- Object" section of the second link.
Anyone with the inteligence to read all of both links (the third is just a Wiki summary) will come away with a good idea of his profound wisdom and an accurate picture of what enlightenment actually is...

It goes beyond mere logic/ reason and mental philosophical discourse on all manner of *objects of consciousness* all substituted for actual enlightenment in the "QRS philosophy."

[Kelly Jones]

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

She obviously does. One specific belief of hers (extrapolated from her data-base of anthropomorphic stupidity)... Stars can not be conscious because they are just material objects... like rocks but more fiery and life supporting for the only entities that matter... "thinking" humans.

You are the one who states that the sun and stars are more conscious than sentient beings of Universal Consciousness, in the same post as stating the very opposite:

Kelly: 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.

I have never made the claim that consciousness (present in sentient beings) is superior to non-consciousness (present in rocks, gases, galaxies, and so forth). You did.

My entire probing challenge to you, Mikiel, has been to indicate quite clearly that your idea of enlightenment is dependent on conscious understanding.

When placing that clear and blatant truth against your object of enlightenment, namely, 'Universal Consciousness', the cracks show immediately. The reason should be obvious to others here: you define consciousness to be empty of content, yet obviously this understanding is a thing of consciousness.

As Ive said, she is the dumbest person I've ever met here who can actually speak (write) coherently without grasping the content of my replies (redundantly) to her tediiously repeated questions.

I know you think this, given you have repeated the false claim many times. Yet your answers often contradict themselves. All I am doing is continuing to point out the sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant problems in your responses.

As I theorised earlier, you don't like consciousness. So you hate anyone who probes those blockages of yours against thinking about consciousness.

I know that logic and reason have *nothing* to do with enlightenment, so the rest is passe'.

You don't actually use either reason or logic, so you are not qualified to judge their value.

And, as a gnostic, I know that all the universe... and all parts of it, are "alive" and conscious in their own... non-human... way. No "proof". No logic to support it. I just KNOW via the common (universal) consciousness we *all* share.

There's an example. Statements out of thin air. Exemplifying religious dogmatism.


Let me explain the problem to you, as I see it.

Many people would assume that consciousness is a constant presence, because of the way memory works. I'll put it in a syllogism:

1. Something appears - and this is how consciousness is identified (something happening).
2. One remembers other things - and consciousness is identified there too (using memories).
3. Therefore, consciousness is assumed to be a thing ever-present, separate from 'something appearing'.

In fact, it is not.


On mental illnesses characterised by superstition:

1. Identifying things is the process of the 'I'.
2. A fragile ego desires to concretise the I.
3. Therefore, a fragile ego identifies consciousness as some super-natural thing, like a soul, or a deity.

[mikiel]

Kelly,
So you are not going to comment on the philosopy of consciousness without an object, either generically speaking or as the Path of Knowledge, Western style which is a major Western contribution to understanding enlightenment.

You return again to your misconceptions i have already repeatedly addressed.

m: [Kelly seems to believe that] "Stars can not be conscious because they are just material objects... like rocks but more fiery and life supporting for the only entities that matter... "thinking" humans.")

You are the one who states that the sun and stars are more conscious than sentient beings of Universal Consciousness, in the same post as stating the very opposite

:

You are the anthropomorphic one here... sticking to "life as we know it." I have said (over and over) that all things are manifestations of One Omnipresent Consciousness. (Creator consciousness continually creates creation.) Rocks are manifestions of "rock consciousness"... not sentient but consciousness-as-rocks. Likewise with all other matter, energy and (the go-between state) plasma.
My gnostic knowing (see a-priori epistemology) is that creation is all manifest creative consciousness. Stars much more than rocks, one knows intuitively, but once a "being" knows the Source (consciousness) in all, there is no more hierarchy of which beings are more conscious *of this unity* than others.
So you misunderstood my reference to stars and galaxies in this context. Stars are 'star consciousness'... etc...
You can call them inanimate, unconscious balls of fiery gas if you like. Humans could be characterized in worse terms if you consider how we are shitting all over the only home we have.

Maybe one more point will suffice here to illustrate how consistently you misconstrue what I say.
You wrote:

... you define consciousness to be empty of content, yet obviously this understanding is a thing of consciousness.

(Over and over)... Consciousness can transcend all content (the central point of Merrell-Wolff's work) *AND* it is the Agent of creation of all "things", through Intention... a 'stepped down' dimension from Its transcendental nature/aspect. Until you get this, it all over your head.
You can discover this truth for yourself if you sit still for awhile without being a slave to the constant mental activity which rules your life. Beyond the content of consciousness (*what you are aware of*) Who/What is aware. Consciousness is That in Which/Whom all content arises, both conceptual and perceptual.

If all you can do is attend to the content, you miss this whole point, upon which enlightenment depends.

Gotta go. "Eugene Celebration" in progress.

[Kelly Jones]

once a "being" knows the Source (consciousness) in all, there is no more hierarchy of which beings are more conscious *of this unity* than others.

Yet you, who claim to know the Source, wrote:

If matter is not "sentient" it is not capable of greater consciousness of the Creator of all..

Are you now going to say I'm equally conscious *of this unity* as you are? I thought not.

I'm getting absolutely nowhere with you, because your thinking is so foggy.

On the one hand, you say everything is Consciousness, that only some things have a special kind of consciousness that allows them to know the Universal Consciousness, and that others definitely do not. On the other hand, you say this special knowledge isn't distinguishable from total lack of it.

The whole problem can be easily solved if you stop using the word consciousness to point to Everything. Consciousness is always tied up to experiencing things knowingly, so you just end up saying 'rocks know' in inverted commas. It's totally unnecessary.

All you need to do is realise that consciousness is made by cause and effect, and that all things are made by cause and effect, but that not all things are conscious knowing. This doesn't alter the truth that all things are the Infinite.

If you don't do this, then you end up saying that the Infinite itself (the Universe) itself is an experiencing, conscious, knowing entity with intentions. When you do this, then enlightenment becomes a ridiculous and infantile notion of tapping-into a particular state of consciousness, namely, the Infinite Who Is A Conscious Entity, and using this altered trance-state to identify oneself as part of that Who. For instance, a necessary part of your enlightenment is describing it in an otherworldly, mysterious way.

All this has absolutely nothing to do with an understanding founded on reasoning.

So you cover up these problems by refusing to reason about anything, and by redefining consciousness to mean something otherworldly and mysterious. This is why you are forced to quibble over the nature of knowledge, which is always the result of definitions and reasoning process, claiming that true knowledge has nothing to do with reasoning or definitions.


KJ

[Kelly Jones]

Mikiel,

As you completely refuse to reason about your statements, but only repeat them with insults, you are providing an excellent contribution to this board. That is, an example of what not to do.

I'm sort of undecided about you. You could play indefinitely the role of a training program for beginner-thinkers to test themselves on, here. And, by hanging around, you might be stimulated to think more, and perhaps overcome your resistance to and hatred of reasoning. On the other hand, your touchiness and lack of humour about criticism is a definitely a form of bullying, which, coupled with that resistance to reasoning, gets tiresome rapidly.

If you were more rational and science-minded, like Victor Danilchenko, then your touchiness would be easier to put up with.

I think, if you can work on being more coherent, and not contradicting yourself so often, then I wouldn't mind if you hung around the forum.


Kelly Jones

[mikiel]

once a "being" knows the Source (consciousness) in all, there is no more hierarchy of which beings are more conscious *of this unity* than others.

Yet you, who claim to know the Source, wrote:

If matter is not "sentient" it is not capable of greater consciousness of the Creator of all..

Are you now going to say I'm equally conscious *of this unity* as you are? I thought not.
Correct. You are obviously not. Knowing our Identity in/with Source is gnosis, aka enlightenment, which totally eludes you. And obviously non-sentient things like rocks, tho manifestations of The One Consciousness are not "sentient" in the common sense of the word and certainly not enlightened... no matter how you distort what I have said.

I'm getting absolutely nowhere with you, because your thinking is so foggy.
...Because you are totally clueless what gnosis is. See my Lst entry in the "God" thread for further elaboration on how you active avoid what has been repeatedly said here on the subject by me, McFarlane and Merrell-Wolff...
none of which you are presently capable of getting from your flatlander- logician myopic perspective.

On the one hand, you say everything is Consciousness, that only some things have a special kind of consciousness that allows them to know the Universal Consciousness, and that others definitely do not. On the other hand, you say this special knowledge isn't distinguishable from total lack of it.
You are puting words in my mouth which I never said. Of course there are degrees of consciousness among the "parts" as to their knowing the Consciouness of Which/Whom they are manifestations.

The whole problem can be easily solved if you stop using the word consciousness to point to Everything. Consciousness is always tied up to experiencing things knowingly, so you just end up saying 'rocks know' in inverted commas. It's totally unnecessary.

Again... refer to the body of knowlege caled "Consciousness Without an Object" in reply to your insistence that ..."Consciousness is always tied up to experiencing things knowingly.." It is prior to content known, as I have repeatedly said and which you are still ignoring. (See the aphorism just quoted in the "God." thread.


All you need to do is realise that consciousness is made by cause and effect, and that all things are made by cause and effect, but that not all things are conscious knowing. This doesn't alter the truth that all things are the Infinite.
All you need to realize is that consciousness both transcends cause and effect *and* IS the Cause of all effects. (Gnosis.)

If you don't do this, then you end up saying that the Infinite itself (the Universe) itself is an experiencing, conscious, knowing entity with intentions. When you do this, then enlightenment becomes a ridiculous and infantile notion of tapping-into a particular state of consciousness, namely, the Infinite Who Is A Conscious Entity, and using this altered trance-state to identify oneself as part of that Who. For instance, a necessary part of your enlightenment is describing it in an otherworldly, mysterious way.
There is nothing mysterious about eternal, infinite, omnipresent Consciousness to each and every enlightened person on this planet. You are far from it, stuck in your head full of concepts as you are and totally ignoring the transcendental aspect of consciousness.
Therefore there is no further point in this argument. You *can not get it* as long as you cling to the limits of the finite rational mind as the end-all of what is *known.*


All this has absolutely nothing to do with an understanding founded on reasoning.
Hint:
Refer to the part of of Merrell-Wolff's bio-sketch where he pondered Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" as a preparation to his own gnostic breakthrough. Then contemlate the specific stages of his breakthrough... beyond reason alone.

So you cover up these problems by refusing to reason about anything, and by redefining consciousness to mean something otherworldly and mysterious. This is why you are forced to quibble over the nature of knowledge, which is always the result of definitions and reasoning process, claiming that true knowledge has nothing to do with reasoning or definitions.

Again I refer you to the branch of epistemology which addresses Gnosis as a-priori knowing... by identity. I don't diminish reasoning for what it is. But I also know its *limits* which you do not and will not until you get a glimpse of what Merrell-Wolff, Joel Morwood and mikiel (Oopse, third person again...) know as enlightenment.
This will hopefully end my futile conversation with you.


KJ

Bye

[Kelly Jones]

I refer you to the branch of epistemology which addresses Gnosis as a-priori knowing... by identity.

So you do know that the law of identity is A=A?

All it means is that a thing is what it is, and not what it is not. A thing cannot be itself, and not itself.

This statement:

consciousness both transcends cause and effect *and* IS the Cause of all effects. (Gnosis.)

... contradicts the law of identity.

The only way to transcend causation is by having no interaction with causation. None at all.

Knowing our Identity in/with Source is gnosis, aka enlightenment, which totally eludes you. And obviously non-sentient things like rocks, tho manifestations of The One Consciousness are not "sentient" in the common sense of the word and certainly not enlightened...

Sentience is nothing more or less than knowing things consciously. It follows from this that non-sentience is best not called consciousness.

[mikiel]

This is for the general readership of the forum, as Kelly Jones and I have declared an end to our tediuus conversation.

Regarding KJ's statements:

So you do know that the law of identity is A=A?

All it means is that a thing is what it is, and not what it is not. A thing cannot be itself, and not itself.

Consciousness (cosmic or localized) is NOT a "thing." It can be *both* the eternal, transcendental, unchanging awareness and, as it shifts from transcentental mode into intentional mode, the Creator... the uncaused Cause of any/all manifest "things", i.e., creation.
KJ continued:

This statement:

Quote:
(m:)consciousness both transcends cause and effect *and* IS the Cause of all effects. (Gnosis.)

... contradicts the law of identity.

The only way to transcend causation is by having no interaction with causation. None at all

.

This is the clearest of all examples of how "either/or" reasoning can not grasp the "both/and" nature of consciousness.

Consciousness has the capacity to *just be awareness itself.* This is known to meditators as nirvana, among many other names. It also has the capacity to activate manifestation through the power of intention.

This is not so mysterious when it is scaled down to localized consciousness (each a loci of omnipresent, cosmic consciousness.)

In the course of my meditation practice (an hour a day for 38 yrs) I discovered, after about three months, that I could be absolutely still for awhile and then begin noticing activity in the mind, sensations, etc. Then, after meditation, I could of course become fully active as a "doer", creating "my life."
I each case, the first person, "I" denotes consciousness. It can either be still or active. In still mode it can either be a passive, totally disengaged Witness of all variety of phenomenal experience or transcend awareness of all content whatsoever.

This must remain a total mystery to all who have never experienced "sitting"... just Being Still.

The scripture, "Be Still and know that I Am God" is based on this transcendence of "the creation" into becoming The Creator (locally, of course.)
The above is my "critique of pure reason" for whatever it may be worth to anyone here able to transcend the driven mind even for a brief period of stillness... which is enough to get the essence of it.

When both aspects of consciousness are experienced as ongoing potential reality perpetually and permanently, this is gnosis, non-dual awareness... enlightenment.

A=A indeed! I Am Consciousness... the One Identity in all forms/individuals. Same "I" manifesting the life of mikIel here, now as author of this post. Not all that mysterious really.