Ham, [Platt previously] > > 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.
[Ham] > 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? I find the definition as I edited it to be an accurate description of what I believe. As for the source, I found it simply by entering "define: consciousness" in Google. Like other sources, I take what I find of value and leave the rest. Like you, I find the site's definition of entertainment atrocious, and the rest of the site may be completely bogus. I haven't examined it other than its definition of consciousness. >From a cursory glance, however, I gather it's filled with a lot of New Age stuff of which I am no fan. As for your implied suggestion that if a source is is questionable one should avoid it entirely, I take exception. For example, the current debate over global warming is a debate over reliable sources as much as anything else. Same goes for much of philosophy. > [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. Well, I find that a distinction without a difference. I too would cry out in pain if hurt, and I gather you think I am self-conscious. Just because UTOE can't verbalize his pain by saying "Ouch, that hurt me" doesn't indicate he lacks awareness of his painful paw belonging to himself.. > > 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.) Thanks, Ham. Your glossary of terms helps. I wonder if others here agree with it. I also wonder if you have a "source" for your definitions. :-) Always fun to converse with you, Ham. Warm regards, Platt 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/
