Definition of Consciousness

[mikiel]

So you're saying everything is created by people's intentions? What about the weather? lottery results? random password generations? freak accidents? viral mutations? unconscious biological mechanisms like cell regeneration? rocks, gases, minerals, trees, and life itself? How does a common ancestor of any living clades emerge? All of these don't happen by any conscious intention on anyone's part. No one decides and plans for these things to happen - at least, there is no evidence of any such totalitarian consciousness taking part.
No. Everything is created by Universal consciousness intending creation, ongoing in the present. this should answer your "what about"s. Our individual lives as humans are created by universal consciousness also, as we partake in our conscious Creator-hood, to the extent we are awake to our potential as loci of omnipresent, *creative* consciousness.

If you define consciousness as intentions (making decisions, presumably), then are you saying that consciousness also creates the ability to have intentions, before it is capable of same?

Woah! Consciousness can be passive as The Witness *and* active as The Creator. Mikiel sits in transcentental consciousness, just witnessing, for an hour a day. The other hours, besides sleep are spent as an active, conscious Creatror, via intent. "I" am "capable" of conscious creation even when I am in passive Witness mode. I activate that potential after meditation when I re-enter the manifest realm of active, creative life.

If so, then consciousness as you define it comes up with all its intentions before they appear in consciousness. It's an impossible concept.

No. "I Am" just Being in meditation (by intention to rest from all activity... not counting "just being" or witnessing as activity.) I Am, by intent an active Creator each time I rise from meditation and quit "just being" and start *doing*... by conscious intent.

[mikiel]

mikiel:Do you think Universal Consciousness (God, for short) ceases to exist when an individual locus/form sleeps?

Kelly: Is "Universal Consciousness" identical with "God-Consciousness"? Is it identical with "Messiah-Consciousness"? Is it identical with "enlightenment"? You have stated that not everyone is enlightened.
Yes. No. "Messiah" denotes a single planetary manifestation of God-Consciousness, a false elevation of an idividual above all other enlightened ones... who are, in reality, also One with God.... and... Yes.... enlightenemt is "conscious unity" (to coin a phrase) with God, the One in all. Not everyone is conscious of our Identity in unity with God. Very few, in fact are awake in divine unity/identity.

Kelly: Tell me this: is the Consciousness in the phrase "Universal Consciousness" the same Consciousness as in the phrase "Messiah Consciousness"? Or is it a different consciousness?

Bump.

Answered above. Belief in a Messiah... especially as "The only begotten son of God"... as per dogmatic Christianity... is certainly a false, if socially dominant belief. Even the belief in a single "Messiah" for a given "era" on Earth is also false. There are many enlightened ones here at all times. None is above another if truly enlightened... realizing unity/identiy with God/ Universal Consciousness.
It's 1:30 AM where I live, and I'm gong to sleep now.
(No, it won't make God-Consciousness... throughout the cosmos... cease to exist.)
(And the Sun is still there on the other side of Earth, even tho it is dark here. I can't prove it, but I *know* it's true!... This was more for the "idealists" here in general than addressed to you.
Yawn!!
Good night.

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: Is "Universal Consciousness" identical with "God-Consciousness"? Is it identical with "Messiah-Consciousness"? Is it identical with "enlightenment"? You have stated that not everyone is enlightened.

Mikiel: Yes. No. "Messiah" denotes a single planetary manifestation of God-Consciousness, a false elevation of an idividual above all other enlightened ones... who are, in reality, also One with God.... and... Yes.... enlightenemt is "conscious unity" (to coin a phrase) with God, the One in all. Not everyone is conscious of our Identity in unity with God. Very few, in fact are awake in divine unity/identity.

Hang on, earlier you said "consciousness does not require content". So, do some people have consciousness of whatever it is you think enlightenment is? or not?


Don't forget to answer my other question:

Tell me this: is the Consciousness in the phrase "Universal Consciousness" the same Consciousness as in the phrase "Messiah Consciousness"? Or is it a different consciousness?

A reminder:

consciousness does not require content ... the "awareness of" for its essential Presence as Creator and Witness of all creation... the above "objects."

[Kelly Jones]

Everything is created by Universal consciousness intending creation, ongoing in the present.

If I think up, say, an idea for a radio show, then I'm separate to the radio show. Kelly Jones, the inventor and creator of the radio show, is altogether something different from the radio show.

So is this Universal consciousness separate from all the things it invents and creates? Or is it some blind process that is occurring in all things, much like cause and effect?

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: If you define consciousness as intentions (making decisions, presumably), then are you saying that consciousness also creates the ability to have intentions, before it is capable of same?

Mikiel: No. "I Am" just Being in meditation (by intention to rest from all activity... not counting "just being" or witnessing as activity.) I Am, by intent an active Creator each time I rise from meditation and quit "just being" and start *doing*... by conscious intent.

When you do things passively or actively by conscious intention, we can infer that you mean that the 'Universal Consciousness' is actually doing it all, right? If so, are you saying that the Universal Consciousness is doing it all by conscious intention? E.g. actually weighs up the pros and cons of doing one thing or another? Thinks about how best to make certain decisions, then enacts its plans?

Or is it blind chance, like I mentioned above?

If it's conscious, and present in all things, then you're effectively saying that rocks think. Is that the case - rocks weighing up the effectiveness of their plans, observing the world, that they have memories, and can behave according to reasoning about the probabilities of certain events happening?

[mikiel]

KJ:

Hang on, earlier you said "consciousness does not require content". So, do some people have consciousness of whatever it is you think enlightenment is? or not?

I distinguished between "awareness of... whatever* and "Consciousness Without an Object"... giving excerpts from my meditation page and the intro to "The Heart of Franklin Merrell-Wolff's Philosophy as illustration/examples/explanations.
Knowing our Identity in unity with Universal Consciousness, getting over the illusion of "my consciousness" as separate fromThat... is enlightenment.

KJ:

Don't forget to answer my other question:

Tell me this: is the Consciousness in the phrase "Universal Consciousness" the same Consciousness as in the phrase "Messiah Consciousness"? Or is it a different consciousness?

For Chrissake! I did already. Repeating:

No. "Messiah" denotes a single planetary manifestation of God-Consciousness, a false elevation of an idividual above all other enlightened ones... who are, in reality, also One with God....

KJ: "A reminder"...

consciousness does not require content ... the "awareness of" for its essential Presence as Creator and Witness of all creation... the above "objects."

Answered yet again above. How dense are you, man?

And you go on (and on) in your next post;

mikiel wrote:Everything is created by Universal consciousness intending creation, ongoing in the present.


If I think up, say, an idea for a radio show, then I'm separate to the radio show. Kelly Jones, the inventor and creator of the radio show, is altogether something different from the radio show.

So is this Universal consciousness separate from all the things it invents and creates? Or is it some blind process that is occurring in all things, much like cause and effect?

Try to grok what *Omnipresent Consciousness* means. The same consciousness manifesrs through all forms.

You go on in yet another post, which the above has answered.
You conclude:

If it's conscious, and present in all things, then you're effectively saying that rocks think. Is that the case - rocks weighing up the effectiveness of their plans, observing the world, that they have memories, and can behave according to reasoning about the probabilities of certain events happening?

No. Rocks don't "think." Consciousness manifesting as rocks is not "life as we know it." It is consciousness manifesting as the energy patterns from the appropriate elements (as known in the "atomic chart of elements") combining into the compounds comprizing various rocks.... and all material objects.
Consciousness is the Creator of *all there is." These creations "have" various degrees of "knowing" the universal consciousness Who created them. We can safely assume that this is a very minimal degree in rocks... a relaively static manifestation of these energy patterns with no "self consciousness" *as we know it.

[Kelly Jones]

Mikiel,

Recapitulating the discussion so far, which is tedious, but it might be worth something:

1. You define consciousness as without content or an object, as well as having intentions. You see no contradiction in terms, obviously.


2. I asked whether your definition of consciousness holds true in the phrase "Universal Consciousness", to see whether you define Universal Consciousness as: having no content but having intentions.

Your answer was to repeat your definition:

consciousness does not require content ... the "awareness of" for its essential Presence as Creator and Witness of all creation... the above "objects."

I.e. Yes, you do hold Universal Consciousness to have no content whatsoever but having intentions (since that's how you defined the 'creator' element of consciousness).

2a. I did a last double-check. I asked if your idea of Universal Consciousness is blind, like cause and effect, and without intentions.

Your answer was another repetition of your definition:

Try to grok what Omnipresent Consciousness means. The same consciousness manifests through all forms.

I.e. Yes, you do hold that Universal Consciousness has intentions and plans and so forth. How else is one to interpret it?


3. Continuing, I asked whether absolutely everything has intentions: if you supposed rocks to have intentions, make decisions, and be actively planning things.

You responded that rocks manifest a different kind of consciousness to the one you'd previously defined! You say their consciousness is: "energy patterns" that

have various degrees of knowing the Universal Consciousness Who created them

I.e. Now you have changed your definition of consciousness.

So I return to point 1: Please present a definition of consciousness that is consistent whenever you use it.

If not, then you are indeed arguing that rocks, gases, galaxies, and indeed all things that people don't define as conscious, are actually making plans, predictions, foresights, and are actively carrying out their plans.

If this were the case, then we should see quite a bit of individuality and independent behaviour from rocks. When we kick them with our foot, they shouldn't roll away as an inanimate and intentionless piece of matter would do. Instead, we should see rocks rolling away when we swing our foot to kick. Or rolling out a message in the dirt, saying, "Don't kick me".

[Kelly Jones]

Just a reminder:

Kelly: If you define consciousness as intentions (making decisions, presumably), then are you saying that consciousness also creates the ability to have intentions, before it is capable of same?

Mikiel: Woah! Consciousness can be passive as The Witness *and* active as The Creator. Mikiel sits in transcentental consciousness, just witnessing, for an hour a day. The other hours, besides sleep are spent as an active, conscious Creatror, via intent. "I" am "capable" of conscious creation even when I am in passive Witness mode. I activate that potential after meditation when I re-enter the manifest realm of active, creative life.

Kelly: If so, then consciousness as you define it comes up with all its intentions before they appear in consciousness. It's an impossible concept.

Mikiel: No. "I Am" just Being in meditation (by intention to rest from all activity... not counting "just being" or witnessing as activity.) I Am, by intent an active Creator each time I rise from meditation and quit "just being" and start *doing*... by conscious intent.

Italics and underlining added.

[mikiel]

Mikiel,

Recapitulating the discussion so far, which is tedious, but it might be worth something:
Yes it is tedius, as you are stucK in "either/or" mode about consciousness.

1. You define consciousness as without content or an object, as well as having intentions. You see no contradiction in terms, obviously.
Consciousness= "It." It is capable of total transcendence of content... just It being, not doing anything. It is *also* capable of acticvity "via intent" to do stuff, to create. I went over, in detail that for 38 yrs, an hour a day I sit in meditation, transcending all content or simply witnessing whatever content arises in It. Then It becomes the agent of active creation when the session of transcendence is over. Is this so impossible to understand for you?


2. I asked whether your definition of consciousness holds true in the phrase "Universal Consciousness", to see whether you define Universal Consciousness as: having no content but having intentions

Your answer was to repeat your definition:

consciousness does not require content ... the "awareness of" for its essential Presence as Creator and Witness of all creation... the above "objects."

Again, It operates in both modes, transcendental and as an agent of manifestation. Not "either/or" but "both/and."

I.e. Yes, you do hold Universal Consciousness to have no content whatsoever but having intentions (since that's how you defined the 'creator' element of consciousness).
Again (and again) It can just be or It can do, obviously via intent. It transcends and creates

2a. I did a last double-check. I asked if your idea of Universal Consciousness is blind, like cause and effect, and without intentions.
Duh! "It" is conscious! Both transcending and creating... This is the meaning of non-dual consciousness... not defined by one mode or the other but embracing both. Repetitious enough for you?

Your answer was another repetition of your definition:

Try to grok what Omnipresent Consciousness means. The same consciousness manifests through all forms.

I.e. Yes, you do hold that Universal Consciousness has intentions and plans and so forth. How else is one to interpret it? Yes... *and* transcends it all.


3. Continuing, I asked whether absolutely everything has intentions: if you supposed rocks to have intentions, make decisions, and be actively planning things.

You responded that rocks manifest a different kind of consciousness to the one you'd previously defined! You say their consciousness is: "energy patterns" that

have various degrees of knowing the Universal Consciousness Who created them

I.e. Now you have changed your definition of consciousness.
No. If It manifests all things, they, including rocks are (duh!) manifestations of Universal Consciousness in the *form* of "rock consciousness" just energy being rocks, not, as I said, "consciousness as we humans know it."

So I return to point 1: Please present a definition of consciousness that is consistent whenever you use it.
[b"Consistent" meaning either in this mode or that mode but not both. I reject this limit on its menaning... repeatedly.[/b]

If not, then you are indeed arguing that rocks, gases, galaxies, and indeed all things that people don't define as conscious, are actually making plans, predictions, foresights, and are actively carrying out their plans.
Again/still you are assuming 'consciousness as we know it.' How anthropomorphic of you!

If this were the case, then we should see quite a bit of individuality and independent behaviour from rocks. When we kick them with our foot, they shouldn't roll away as an inanimate and intentionless piece of matter would do. Instead, we should see rocks rolling away when we swing our foot to kick. Or rolling out a message in the dirt, saying, "Don't kick me".

Again, you are totally stuck in the anthropomorphic assumption that all *forms* of consciousness *must* be "It" as we know "It."

Final repetition: Omnipresent Consciousness manifests as *all forms* all of creation... all there is.
I will not even bother repeating it all ad naseum in reply to your last post.

[Kelly Jones]

Are you now defining consciousness as "the ability to transcend everything"? By transcend, what exactly do you mean? Be separate to, and unaffected by, everything (else)?

But if you wish to reject consistency in a definition, as you seem to be doing, then you also have to reject all meanings for "transcendance" that mean anything. In effect, you end up saying nothing whatsoever. Is that what you're aiming for?

[maestro]

Only a finite thing exhibits consciousness (regardless of whether you're defining it simply as differentiation or awareness of the fact of differentiation - which is really just another type of differentiation).

Seems like Dan and I agree on the definition of consciousness, How about you Kevin and David I would also be interested in your views. Where are the other posters Ryan, Carl, Cory, Broke, Diebert, Sher, guest_of_logic let us flesh out this mysterious entity.

[Kelly Jones]

Mikiel interests me because he's so foreign psychologically. His psychology is something I haven't really met up with much, and so haven't thought much about. So I've been giving it some thought. My notes should be interesting for others. Regards a theory to explain Mikiel's psychology. Namely, a person who doesn't like consciousness.

Evidence to support theory:

- redefines consciousness as 'that which has no content'
- redefines the experience of stuff as 'awareness'
- most valued experience is a daily hour-long session of transcendental meditation, when refers to himself in the third person
- describes these sessions as the passive Witness of 'that which has no content'
- strongly dislikes pure reasoning, but refers often to his IQ and other test qualifications as proof of intelligence
- rigid topic adherence: repeats earlier statements, and rarely talks of much else
- impatient: quick to use insults to denigrate those criticising his views
- dislikes language: has little sentence structure, punctuation, capital letters, clear quotations, white space
- distances himself from clear meanings: many terms are embedded in quotation marks
- closed to other people's ways of thinking, which is unskilled for a communicator of his valued truth
- believes unconscious things like rocks are capable of some degree of knowledge

I asked myself what stands out about Mikiel that is most different from most people? How is his will to unconsciousness different? He's not an aesthetic type who loves the 'interesting', imagination, and the arts, like Alex Jacobs and perhaps Anna Oleynik (early drug use, New Age). He's not an unfocussed, temperamental, runaway desire for more words, like Prometheuspan (Asperger's). He's not changeable and moody, like someone with Bipolar Disorder. He's an angry person, a kind of control freak, but it's not a Tourette's type of anger (which is creative and intermittent).

This all suggests that there is a worldview at work, rather than a genetic disorder. He very rarely talks of his psychology negatively, which suggests serious suppression. This points to some major traumatic experience in earlier life, probably during childhood, though some brain damage might have occurred (not genetic). It is also possible that he was involved in a war, like Vietnam, and this exacerbated his illness.

A very strong will to unconsciousness would be a way to block out experiences. This is extremely frightening for most individuals, as it is non-indicative for human survival. Such a person would need strong external authorities to approve of this behaviour. Mikiel does have these authorities, referring often to a specific text and the idea of Universal Consciousness (a Who, not a What, that creates everything).

The theory seems reasonable given the evidence. Of course, he could be an actor or a false registrant created by the administrators, but that's unlikely.

[Carl G]

What a hoot, Kelly. I suspect you are more right than wrong about mikiel.

Don't forget ego, while at the same time claiming non-ego. And also, persecution complex, while lashing out at others.

[brokenhead]

What a hoot, Kelly. I suspect you are more right than wrong about mikiel.

Don't forget ego, while at the same time claiming non-ego. And also, persecution complex, while lashing out at others.

Hey Kelly! Do me next!

[Alex Jacob]

Kelly writes:

"[Mikiel's] not an appropriately aesthetic, well-read, priapic, exceedingly thoughtful type who loves to go right to the essence of all the Great Questions, who possesses a wonderful, an ENVIABLE imagination, who understands how important is art in human culture, like our own dear Alex Jacobs, a man whose writing I follow very closely and who is a Light unto the GF forum..."

Kelly, my dear blokette, you are exaggerating again...

[maestro]

Kelly writes:
"[Mikiel's] not an appropriately aesthetic, well-read, priapic, exceedingly thoughtful type who loves to go right to the essence of all the Great Questions, who possesses a wonderful, an ENVIABLE imagination, who understands how important is art in human culture, like our own dear Alex Jacobs, a man whose writing I follow very closely and who is a Light unto the GF forum..."

Perhaps Alex there is still some chance for that late night Antartic circle walk.

[Carl G]

I can't wait for mikiel's harumph-a-diddle response. Whee, feels like we're some neighborhood kids nailing old Mr Mikiel into his outhouse!

[guest_of_logic]

Only a finite thing exhibits consciousness (regardless of whether you're defining it simply as differentiation or awareness of the fact of differentiation - which is really just another type of differentiation).

Seems like Dan and I agree on the definition of consciousness, How about you Kevin and David I would also be interested in your views. Where are the other posters Ryan, Carl, Cory, Broke, Diebert, Sher, guest_of_logic let us flesh out this mysterious entity.

I wasn't going to post in this thread, because, although the topic fascinates me, I don't feel that I have anything very substantial to contribute: consciousness is very much to me what you describe it as - a "mysterious entity". Since you asked, though, here are my thoughts.

I find it very hard to define consciousness without using similar words like "awareness", but my rough attempt is as follows: "consciousness is that which experiences from a subjective perspective".

I usually differentiate between two aspects to consciousness - "pure" consciousness and "intelligent" consciousness. Pure consciousness is like (possibly identical to) what mikiel refers to as "total transcendence of content" - in other words it is awareness separated from thought - to me it is the backbone of consciousness; it is core consciousness; it is what one seeks to experience whilst meditating (not that I meditate very often); it's my guess that this aspect of consciousness is beyond the capacity of science to examine.

Intelligent consciousness is what scientists examine when they study consciousness - it is the functional aspect of consciousness which forms intentions, plans the achievement of those intentions, and then carries out those plans, not necessarily entirely under the control of the subject of consciousness - in other words, I include subconscious processes as part of intelligent consciousness.

Intelligent consciousness clearly requires complex mechanisms in order to work, whereas pure consciousness is far simpler and could - although I'm not saying that such statements are necessarily true - be the sort of all-pervasive phenomenon that accounts for such statements as "everything is conscious, even rocks and trees".

I disagree with maestro's understanding that consciousness is "[t]he ability of differentiation", not because I disagree that (intelligent) consciousness differentiates, but because I think that this definition is lacking something: the subjective component of consciousness - the "coming from a perspective"-ness of consciousness - the pure part of consciousness. I am confident that we will one day be able to replicate intelligent consciousness artificially to a reasonable degree, but will we ever be able to produce a "consciousness" that truly has a subjective, inner world, like our human consciousness? I don't think that we will ever be able to answer this question definitively - our artificial intelligences will probably act as though they had this subjective aspect of consciousness, but we will not be able to prove through their words and actions alone whether or not they actually do have it. In other words, I'm suggesting the possibility that artificial intelligences will be purely mechanical replicas, without the essential aspect of our own consciousnesses: the subjective experience.

As for whether consciousness can be experienced by only finite things, I'm not sure whether the framing is right there, so I won't attempt to address the issue. Finite in what regard? In a spatial sense? And how is consciousness related to the thing which is conscious (and can they be one and the same)? Is it a product of that thing or is it an inhabitant of that thing? I'd at least want to know the answers to those questions before trying to say anything meaningful on the issue.

Anyway, that's enough writing for now - I've been meaning to get to my long-overdue replies in two other threads so any reply in this thread will probably be significantly delayed.

[mikiel]

Hi kids,
I'm back again to to feed my fan-club, sign autographs... that sort of thing.
That was a very creative/imaginative piece of pop psychology there, Kelly. No substance to it but quite entertaining.

Here is a piece about consciousness I wrote to Iolaus in the "structure of the universe" thread awhile back. No new info, just another way of saying it:

I see consciousness itself as the supreme unifying dimension... awareness itself on all scales... transcending content, *what One is aware of.*
Then intention enters as the first dimension of manifestation, as One drops from total transcendence into motivation/intention to create.
I've noticed this subtle shift consistently in my nearly four decades of daily meditation. As I come out of meditation, I am conscious of my 'Creator-hood', the power of intention to manifest action and move from pure Being into doing.

Seems Y'all still don't get the "both/and" nature of consciousnss as both Creator and transcendental Witness, capable of awareness of content (what It is witnessing) *and* just being... the "I Am" in all (sans the words)... consciousness It Self. This is the "non-dual awareness" in eastern tradidtion , now also central to Western integral philosophy. I state it in the positive as conscious unity.

No comment yet on the Franklin Merrell-Wolff material. He was a very logical mathmatician with an extremely disciplined and rational mind. Also a very astute philosopher and scholar of both Western philosophy and direct experience of the essence of Eastern mysitcism.
A real dialogue on this subject should include a thorough understanding of his work.
My understanding of consciousness is identical to his, and to my teacher's... Joel Morwood.
It's really not about me, folks.

[Iolaus]

Mikiel I finally answered you on the structure of the universe thread.

[mikiel]

m: As I said, "It's really not about me."
But in the interest of the 'Truth about mikiel', whom 'I' know somewhat better than Kelly, I'll make a few "bold" corrections in context below.

Mikiel interests me because he's so foreign psychologically. His psychology is something I haven't really met up with much, and so haven't thought much about. So I've been giving it some thought. My notes should be interesting for others. Regards a theory to explain Mikiel's psychology. Namely, a person who doesn't like consciousness.
The "psychology of an awakened mystic can not be known, in essence, intimitately by those who are not yet awake.
I Am, you are, God is... Consciousness.

Evidence to support theory:

- redefines consciousness as 'that which has no content'
Transcends content *and* creates all there is... all "content."
- redefines the experience of stuff as 'awareness'
Awareness is our tool of perception.
- most valued experience is a daily hour-long session of transcendental meditation, when refers to himself in the third person
Never said it was "most valued." Active Creator-hood is equal in value and the vast majority of my life as a doer. Third person used whimsically in this case and a few others, not as a rule for "me-the-meditator." Inappropriate and inaccurate generalization.
- describes these sessions as the passive Witness of 'that which has no content'
As passive withnessing of content at times and with no content at all other times... periods of pure nirvana. Not just one or the other... as repeated many times in recent posts.
- strongly dislikes pure reasoning, but refers often to his IQ and other test qualifications as proof of intelligence
Appreciates pure reasoning as far as it goes... also appreciates its limits. Knows the difference in function and purpose between inductive and deductive.
- rigid topic adherence: repeats earlier statements, and rarely talks of much else
Focused primarily on the lofty stated purpose of this forum. Repeats as needed when ignored or misunderstood repeatedly.
- impatient: quick to use insults to denigrate those criticising his views
Radically honest... Yawn! Mellowed some from nasty insults as primary ego-confronting tool... in the "rude-boy-teacher's toolbox.
- dislikes language: has little sentence structure, punctuation, capital letters, clear quotations, white space
- distances himself from clear meanings: many terms are embedded in quotation marks
Blah, blah... grammar, spelling and punctuation..., yada yada... pedantic trivia as a substitute for substantial debate.
- closed to other people's ways of thinking, which is unskilled for a communicator of his valued truth
Actually open to clear, honest dialogue... which is extremely rare on these boards.
- believes unconscious things like rocks are capable of some degree of knowledge
No "knowledge" *as we know it*... but "rock consciousness" as one form of matter, all of which is consciousness manifesting into energy patters... some more static/stable than others. But I've said all before to your deaf ears.

... Stuff about what "he is not" deleted.
He's an angry person, a kind of control freak, but it's not a Tourette's type of anger (which is creative and intermittent).

Have told this truth many times. What you percieve as angry (your ego's projection) is radical honesty spoken in complete equanimity. True whether you believe it or not, which, BTW is not important to me.

This all suggests that there is a worldview at work, rather than a genetic disorder. He very rarely talks of his psychology negatively, which suggests serious suppression.
Since my awakening, I am conscious Creator of this "my life." I do not create negative patterns of psych, and there are none since they all disappeared with the radical transformation of awakening as a locus of God Consciousness. "Serious suppression" is totally off the mark and very pretentious as a pop psychologists. As a longtime pro, I know it when I see it... in spades here.

This points to some major traumatic experience in earlier life, probably during childhood, though some brain damage might have occurred (not genetic). It is also possible that he was involved in a war, like Vietnam, and this exacerbated his illness.
Ditto my above. Sorry, but I had a very happy childhood after the first early traumas shared in my "Journey to Awakening" page. Was a conscientious objector during the Nam era. No such presumed illness exists, doctor.

A very strong will to unconsciousness would be a way to block out experiences. This is extremely frightening for most individuals, as it is non-indicative for human survival. Such a person would need strong external authorities to approve of this behaviour. Mikiel does have these authorities, referring often to a specific text and the idea of Universal Consciousness (a Who, not a What, that creates everything).
My whole spiritual autobiography was actuall a will to conscious awakening. The result was liberation from the unconscious programs which ruled my life as they do all who are not yet awake in the ultimate sense. The universal realization of this awakening is that Consciousness is the Universal " Who" in whom we all partake, whether consciously or not.

The theory seems reasonable given the evidence. Of course, he could be an actor or a false registrant created by the administrators, but that's unlikely.

So there you have it... straight from the horse's mouth. Of course, those who claim to know me "better at a glance" than I myself will stick to their own fabrications... welcome to it. I wouldn't expect understanding of mystic Reality from those limited to mere reason and logic... the god (false idol) worshipped by followers this little cult.

[Kelly Jones]

Mikiel,

Are you now defining consciousness as "the ability to transcend everything"? By transcend, what exactly do you mean? Be separate to, and unaffected by, everything (else)?

But if you wish to reject consistency in a definition, as you seem to be doing, then you also have to reject all meanings for "transcendance" that mean anything. In effect, you end up saying nothing whatsoever. Is that what you're aiming for?


PS. Do you think rocks (unconscious things) have a higher potential for enlightenment than humans (conscious things)? Or are they equally capable? Or less capable?

[mikiel]

Mikiel,

Are you now defining consciousness as "the ability to transcend everything"? By transcend, what exactly do you mean? Be separate to, and unaffected by, everything (else)?

Again, repeatedly... still... No! Consciousness both transcends and includes all that It is conscious *of*. By transcend I mean "to go beyond the dimension"of all manifestation... unknown to all "flatland materialists *and* those limited to the realm of logic/reasoning. My 38 yrs of meditation make me an athority on this, which you have never experienced in any way. Yet you bash me for it.

But if you wish to reject consistency in a definition, as you seem to be doing, then you also have to reject all meanings for "transcendance" that mean anything. In effect, you end up saying nothing whatsoever. Is that what you're aiming for?

You don't get the meaning *because* you have never experienced true transcendence... the realm of mystic experience, the validity of which you flatly, categorically deny. So there can be no meaningful conversation with you about it.

*Contemplate* the definition above. It goes beyond superficial thinking. For instance, "to define" means literally to "make finite"... which consciousness is not. So you can not get it from the frame of reference of your own vocabulary.


PS. Do you think rocks (unconscious things) have a higher potential for enlightenment than humans (conscious things)? Or are they equally capable? Or less capable?

You are not listening. I've answered this several times already. Review my several posts commenting in reply to your misconceptions about rocks in my replies to you. Again (and again)... they are (all matter is) manifestation of Omnipresent Consciousness. Pay special attention to what "Omnipresent" might actually mean... beyond your limited scope of understanding. "Rock consciousness" *must be* a very static energy pattern consisting merely of the elements bonded into compounds. How many times must I repeat before you get it?

Yes, it is getting tedius. You keep ranting on stuff I've already repeatedly addressed. This post might be my "final answer" to you for that reason.

[Kelly Jones]

I'm only trying to stimulate you to answer questions. You give me exactly the same answers, which is very rigid of you. A good teacher, being free of all attachment, can use any words, to describe the Truth. So, if you run away when my questions lead you into thinking a different way about things, then you are nothing but a highly-strung puppet.

"to define" means literally to "make finite"

Is the truth of this definition finite?

You see, good philosophical definitions are consistent and have unlimited accuracy.

"to define" means literally to "make finite"... which consciousness is not

Are you sure consciousness is NOT finite?

In the same post you were claiming "consciousness both transcends and includes all that It is conscious of".



Can you conceive of consciousness without things? I mean, literally. I know you define consciousness as 'empty of content' ...

[Kelly Jones]

Another question for you.

If consciousness is universally the same, ie. transcends everything and includes everything 'It' experiences, then why has it different levels of consciousness of itself?

Why would a rock's consciousness be "patterns of energy" with only some degree of knowledge of itself?

Why would only a few humans, such as yourself (and not others), experience "life as we know it" with the ultimate degree of knowledge of itself?

Why are there variations? Are these differences and differentiations only in my consciousness, Mikiel, and owing to the defining characteristics of thinking --- or do you think that there really are things beyond a consciousness' experience?

Either way, your answer has to be that one type of consciousness defines things, or that one type of consciousness is finite.

Even if you say one type of energy patterns is different to another type, where are you getting these distinctions?

Surely, if consciousness is in fact the same through and through, and if there is only one consciousness (namely, what you call Ultimate Consciousness), then why does it have one type of consciousness in one time and place, with a specific degree of knowledge; and then a totally different kind of consciousness in a different time and place, with a totally different specific degree of knowledge?

Clearly, you are saying, after all, that consciousness differs from one thing to another? That in fact, what you mean by consciousness, is ultimately things?