Is the mind an object of consciousness, just as thoughts are objects of the mind?
>>41626439All created things are objects of consciousness. All objects are imaginary.
>>41626458>createdThis is not an answer, but merely an acknowledgment that nothing has been created.
>>41626458imaginary objects which can.be created and maintained co-conscipusly are the trappings of.existence.
>>41626478Wrong. All individual objects are created. Nothing you can point to was not imagined into existence by Mind.
>>41626439They are objects of perception
>>41626481Yes, 'trappings' is a good word. Existence itself is uncreated, undifferentiated, witness-consciousness. The trappings are the imagined contents of experience.
>>41626491 But the mind is not (you). It can be halted and observed in meditation. In this sense, it is an object.
>>41626439The constitution of everything in the universe has always been in some manner shape or form. What people see in the mind is a representation of a object that doesn't exist in itself cause it lacks a soul, albeit if it is another lifeform. When you die it's just oblivion and psychotransmanifestation across a larger meta reality of intelligent processes which include a clone of yourself which is quantum immortality.
>>41626514The local "mind" that you identify as "yours" is indeed a limited object that has been imagined into being by the insuperable Mind of the creator.
>>41626525>What people see in the mind is a representation of a object that doesn't exist in itself cause it lacks a soul, albeit if it is another lifeform.That doesn't actually explain anything. The act of perception occurs. But what exactly is it that you perceive?
>>41626458>All objects are imaginary.But if I take off your panties and pinch your buttock, it won't be a imaginary object
>>41626577>But what exactly is it that you perceive?Nta, but you perceive the figments of God's imagination.
>>41626584>it won't be a imaginary objectIt won't feel to us like one, but it was imagined into existence all the same.
>>41626615>you perceive the figments of God's imaginationIf they are figments of God's imagination, they are, in a sense, ontologically one with God. Therefore, they should not be treated as something that lacks a soul. But actually, this is not an answer to the question of what they are. Are they energy fields, or something else?
Wait, it's all me experiencing myself?
>>41626638Energy fields are physical, hence illusory. Nothing physical is real. What they are are sensible noemata in God's mind. They are not soulless but they are spiritless in themselves, like all created things.
>>41626665If>Nothing physical is realhow can the so-called>noemata in God's mindbe real? They are literally conceptions within a mind, which itself is an object of consciousness. I don't think 'real' or 'fake' are the right categories to truly understand it. Also, who said that energy fields can only be physical?
>>41626697>They are literally conceptions within a mind, which itself is an object of consciousness.All objects are imaginary in that they are imagined into artifactual existence, but physical objects are illusory in that they present the false appearance of being mind-external.
>>41626733>All objects are imaginary in that they are imagined into artifactual existence, but physical objects are illusory in that they present the false appearance of being mind-external.If they present the false appearance of being mind-external, then there is no ontological difference between subject and object in the very moment of perception. Therefore, the situation is analogous to a movie being watched by the mind, which is itself being watched by consciousness. And this analogy still does not answer the fundamental question: what is the nature of this movie?
>>41626807>there is no ontological difference between subject and object in the very moment of perceptionThe difference is that the object of perception abides in God's mind (macrocosm) while the local mind of the subject (microcosm) holds the qualia of its apprehension.In truth, there is only one eternal Subject, God. All the rest has no existence beyond the imagination.
>>41626858>In truth, there is only one eternal Subject, God. All the rest has no existence beyond the imagination.Alternatively, all that exists is God Himself, since there is no division between subject and object. You refer to it as "God's imagination," yet this is still a concept within a mind. The microcosm is like the macrocosm; the difference and limitation exist only at the relative level of human perception.
>>41626439I am not, therefore I think not? I am, therefore I think not. I think not, therefore i am not.Am I not Think I am ThereforeTherefore I am not Ihink amTherefore I think I am not. Make sense?
>>41626900>Alternatively, all that exists is God HimselfYes, but God himself is fundamentally a Subject: the Spirit-Being that allows awareness. The objects of awareness, the creations of his mind, are ontologically secondary since dependent on the capacity for awareness.
>>41626932 If all is God, nothing is secondary, and no independent objects exist. Hence, duality and separation are illusory. The individual's consciousness and the Absolute's are not different; the microcosm-macrocosm likeness is one of essential identity, not mere analogy.
>>41627060
>>41626980>nothing is secondary, and no independent objects existContradiction. To be secondary is to be dependent. Objects are dependent, the Subject isn't.>Hence, duality and separation are illusory.Yes, because they are imaginary divisions that represent themselves as real.>The individual's consciousness and the Absolute's are not different; the microcosm-macrocosm likeness is one of essential identity, not mere analogy.Yes. But you can't describe the process of perception relationally without first distinguishing microcosm from macrocosm. There are different levels of explanation. Some concepts are inherently dyadic or triadic.
>>41627120>ContradictionThere is none, because if all is God, the fundamental distinctions between subject and object dissolve. They are not separate entities but one and the same in essence.>Yes. But you can't describe the process of perception relationally without first distinguishing microcosm from macrocosm.True, but this is a limitation inherent to our relational language and models, not a property of reality itself.>There are different levels of explanation. Some concepts are inherently dyadic or triadic.Exactly. These concepts are merely tools for description, not entities with independent existence. This, again, stems from the confines of language. From the perspective that "all is God," such tools become ultimately unnecessary.
>>41627226>These concepts are merely tools for description, not entities with independent existence.That's another way of saying that objects are imaginary and that only the One Subject truly exists. Once you descend to the realm of objects, you have already introduce plurality. Plurality does not truly exist, there is only the One.
>>41626439This thread has been great so far, some really decent talk.In my studies, however, I have come to the conclusion that the mind is not in fact a reality. Consciousness thinks according to its own level of reality awareness. The mind is, in truth, a perceptual box designated by consciousness to explain the source of thought, when in fact, thought comes from the very structure of consciousness and is from the universe, and one's own place in it at all times.It may be difficult not to argue with this notion for almost anyone, but if one spends time talking with a separate consciousness, many thousands of hours.. Then the divisions inherent in all awarenesses become clearly variable according to numerous factors. Thus, one mind can become all minds on a long enough timeline.
>>41627896>is from the universe, and one's own place in it at all timesBut 'place' is an illusion. Place requires introducing the duality of presence and absence -- being here but not there. All dualities are fabrications. But they can be useful fabrications for those bound to them in this mortal life. When we graduate to immortality, we are set free from all fabricated limitation.
>>41627896 I can actually confirm that some thoughts and images come from elsewhere. Thing is, our consciousness is probably just a part of something grandiose — like a universe-spanning internet across dimensions, or a universal consciousness that permeates everything. Problem is, we're too underdeveloped to use it properly. So all we get at this level are random thoughts and images..
>>41626439No your chair isn't having deep existential thoughts.Lay off the pot.
