Words have meanings from dictionaries and various wiki's, and words have meanings from convention; but in any case, words are defined by other words . . . unless one is lucky enough to get a gesture thrown in as well. As such, much of what goes on here in FFL is semantics. I could build a case that nearly all what is referred to as Philosophy is really semantics, but to build such a case is too ironical for a hump day.
Now, I think that Edg's plea for a distinction between awareness and states of mind is important - the actual words we use far less so. Everyone knows what is meant by states of mind, we've all seen, heard, tasted, touched and smelled stuff, we've all felt happy or sad, remembered Grandma's cookies . . . and etc. And folks know what is meant by awareness, we all know we've got it by the mental states listed above. But most folks will not see a need for the distinction between awareness and states of mind - especially the hard core materialists (ie those who believe this world alone exists) IOW, most people will see making the distinction between awareness and states of mind as hand-waving - as making a plea for some supernatural force or soul, or so called hard problem of consciousness. Is this really an important distinction? Depends. Can an individual locate awareness, as in, being aware of being aware? And is this not just another state of mind. This gets to the heart of FFL, putting aside any specific issues with Maharishi and the TMO, is there a distinction between awareness and states of mind -and is this distinction not merely semantics?
