It all depends on what the meaning of "is of" is...
[edit]- Is this crucial sentence ungrammatical?:
- "Awareness is the venue for consciousness, and the transcendent aspect of Reality, Omnific Awareness, is what consciousness is of."
- I am stuck at "is what consciousness is of".
- Awareness is the "venue" (ground?) for consciousness, but awareness and Omnific Awareness, and Omnific Awareness and consciousness, have what relations to each other?
- Please will someone rewrite this, while retaining the correct meaning? I am very interested to know what that might be. Thank you in advance, kind philosopher and/or Indefinite Monist.Vendrov (talk)09:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for what is meant here, there doesn't seem to be an endless number of possibilities..? Actually I can only think ofone and as long as I get it right it even makes perfect sense.
- (1) Awareness is the venue for consciousness || (2) ..and the transcendent aspect of Reality,Omnific Awareness, is what consciousness is("made") of. (Or, "composed of", or, whatever you like:Omnific Awareness here, obviously, is meant tobe (~to equate to) consciousness. At least, this is my understanding and personally I couldn't even call the notion abstruse; surely not more abstruse then many of the competing "ideas". Although I can't quite help the vague feeling that, eventually, this really is nothing else but a fashionably redesigned version of idealism (the article's denial notwithstanding) -- redesigned, of course, only as concerns those new (?), 'special' terms applied to it. "Omnific Awareness".. well, simply replace it by.. say, the good old ABSOLUTE, or the WILL, or 'Global/Universal/Cosmic Consciousness', or Brahman, The World Soul, or, you name it. What would it change? I've got no problem with the concept at all, I can't just see the difference to anything else, or what's supposed to be new or special about it, or why it wouldnot be an idealistic approach -- as to my understanding it clearly is. All the same, I somehow like it, it's fresh, and the article is fine as it is.Zero Thrust (talk)11:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
