Dialoguing - A Neo-Buddhist and a Symbiotic Panentheist
Clyde G. is a respected thinker and Neo-Buddhist who has been acknowledged for his ability to ask questions going to the heart of issues regarding metaphysical models of reality.
Our ability to affect ‘The Whole of Reality’ - Part IV
[050529 djs] And where does the totality of consciousness lie? The totality of consciousness would appear to lie 'outside' the physical. The totality of consciousness is what the physical 'lies within'. The totality of consciousness is the manifestation of the unmanifested. The totality of consciousness is perceived at this juncture of history as G-d yet is not G-d for we, humans, are capable of understanding 'the totality of consciousness' and by definition G-d is that which we, humans/limited beings, are incapable of comprehending.
[050530 cg] WOW! I understand "the totality of consciousness" as merely a concept, a label for a collection of things, but not an entity itself. I certainly agree that "the totality of consciousness" is not G-d.
[050530 djs] Why not an entity in itself? cck's concept of poly-solipsism, where in the individual exists and is separated from other individuals by 'nothingness' which allows each individual to retain its own individuality. If one models this concept in the form of a plane where the points 'contained' within the plane are the individuals. If one then pictures the plane having a layer above it and below it composed of the same nothingness as that which separates the individuals one from another, one can then visualize all the points in the plane contributing their 'knowing' into a vast 'expanse' of 'common knowing' reaching infinitely above and below the plane. This commonality of consciousness is simply part of the 'the totality of consciousness', i.e. an entity itself just as you and I are entities ourselves. Again I am not suggesting this 'is' the case but rather I am suggesting it is a reasonable concept which does no harm to any religions (including Buddhism) and does no harm to any lack of religion.
[050531 cg] Herein may be a subtle difference in understanding (meaning, I may have difficulty explaining my understanding).
I understand the usual meaning of 'the totality of consciousness' as a conceptual (mental) reality such as "chair" or "person"; i.e., one can think of, speak of, and point to examples of "chair" or "person", but there is no physical entity to which one can point. For example, think of 'the totality of blueness'. Would you argue that 'the totality of blueness' is a physical entity, although things are blue?
There are mental entities, but they are the individual thoughts, feelings, images, etc. that occur. There is the concept, a mental entity, of 'the totality of consciousness', but it has the same attributes as other concepts; i.e., the concept of 'the totality of consciousness' does not itself have consciousness.
Having said that, I also understand that Reality (capital "R" meaning all-inclusive existence) includes, but is not identical to, the totality of consciousness, as a simple summation. …
[050603 djs] I would suggest your last paragraph is demonstrated in ‘Graphic’: Diagram 050605: The whole of Reality, Sections ‘D’ and ‘E’.
[050531 cg continues] … In this usage, I would not apply the attribute "entity" to the term as the attribute may suggest an intentional intelligence or some other attribute merely because we label the summation.
[050603 djs] Question: What word would you ‘prefer’?
[050528 cg] Sharing a passing (now eternal?) thought,
[050529 djs] If there is such a 'thing' as a/many knowing entity/ies then: Yes, an eternal thought.
And if there is no such 'thing' as a/many knowing entity/ies of knowing, then: No, it is not an eternal thought.
Rationality/reason, however, would suggest: It is an eternal thought.
[050530 cg] WOW! All physical and mental things that arise and pass away are eternal as information. This present moment, in all its fullness, exists as it is because all of the preceding moments, in all their fullness, existed and this moment with its trace of all previous moments is the cause of all the next moments, in all their fullness, to exist.
[050530 djs] WOW? As to the comment after the exclamation: If you are simply reiterating what I have stated: What is your thought about it? If you are stating what it is you 'believe': Then I agree.
[050531 cg] WOW, you seem to be stating that the eternality of information depends on 'entities of knowing'. I am stating that the eternality of information does not depend on the existence of 'entities of knowing', where 'entities of knowing' does not include G-d. Of course, if you define G-d as the ultimate 'entity of knowing', while I would disagree with your definition of G-d (I would not use the terms "entity" or "knowing" to describe G-d.), we would be in agreement regarding the eternality of information.
[050603 djs] Regarding: Of course, if you define G-d as the ultimate 'entity of knowing' … we would be in agreement regarding the eternality of information.’
I do and so it seems we are in agreement.