Platt --
> Thanks for the further explanation. The way I see it, consciousness > is the ultimate reality or substratum of creation, whose primary intention > to fully be itself forms the basis of 1) evolutionary creation and 2) the > multi-dimensional field of experience -- a description I borrowed heavily > from. Your referenced source defines Consciousness as "the ultimate reality or substratum of creation, whose primary intention to fully be itself forms the basis of a multi-dimensional Relative Field of Experience or the Creation Game with its involutionary and evolutionary cycles." Everything in this definition is pure speculation, but then I don't know what kind of a belief system Synchronicity is. (The Glossary doesn't define it.) It seems to be taking Donald Hoffman's premise that "consciousness and its contents are all that exists" and seasoning it with a hefty dose of mysticism. (My suspicions about this site were further aroused by a side-panel advertising a "Blessed Mother Apparition.") As someone who finds my thesis tough reading, what do you make of this definition for Entrainment? > - the interactive resonant response of any form to the energetic vibration > of its environment. In the Synchronicity Experience, entrainment refers to > the upward shift in vibration that an individual experiences in proximity > to > the far more balanced, accelerated, and impactful frequency of vibration > of the Master, or to vibrational entrainment technology, as in > Synchronicity > soundtracks. I suppose it's inevitable that mystics would catch up with technology, or vice-versa. But "High-Tech Meditation"?? What are you up to, Platt, and why do you need a source like this when you claim to find the MoQ philosophically satisfying? [Platt]: > UTOE totally ignores the cat in the mirror. So I presume he either lacks > self-consciousness or is unimpressed. He certainly lacks empathy towards > anything but his bowl of Fancy Feast. But, I presume as a living creature > he possesses some aspect, however small, of your Essence and Sensibility, > and is to some extent conscious (aware) for he howls mightily if I > accidentally step on his foot. So he has self-value sensibility for sure. He certainly feels pain and no doubt is cognizant of the fact that you are its cause. I suppose one could say that he values homeostasis over trauma; but so does a garden beetle or house fly. No, I'm afraid that doesn't qualify as self-consciousness; it's the biological instinct to survive. > I tend to get very confused with words like sensibility, sensitivity, > sentience, sensation, perception, awareness, consciousness, experience, > observation, cognizance, conception, intellection, intuition, etc. not to > mention Primary Source, Essence, God, Quality, Absolute, etc. Hopefully > that's just me. Hopefully. But all these terms relate to subjective apprehension, and their use is often misconstued. But with your indulgence, allow me to try to distinguish them. For me, Sensibility is fundamental "feeling". Sensitivity is the acuteness of feeling. Sentience is the capacity to feel. Perception is "recognitive" feeling--the beginning of cognizance. Awareness is proprietary (self-conscious) perception. Experience is objective perception (cognizance). Conception is "idealized" perception. Intellection is "reasoned" perception. Observation is "investigative" perception. Intuition is inductive or theorized intellection. (I'll stop here, since, except for Quality, all the other words you've cited are defined in MY Glossary.) And thanks for your continued interest, Platt. Cheers, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
