|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2018 12:33:58 GMT -5
The question is misconceived and cannot be answered as asked. There isn't an appearance that relates to a real peep with real eyes that can only see with the use of them. That's a story about what appears, but the appearance is empty. You need to confirm / explain your foundation regarding what constitutes a conscious aware Marie and an appearance of Marie . The conscious aware Marie has eyes just as the appearance only Marie has eyes . The appearance of Marie cannot see, just like the cartoon character cannot see . You have said that the eyes are created through the actual / seeing / through them (rough translation) So there is only perception had via sight through a conscious, aware peep . You have said that everything is an appearance in consciousness .. So to say there isn't an appearance that relates to a real peep with real eyes is incorrect isn't it because you have already made a distinction between an appearance only and an appearance that is consciously aware .
I have seen of late that andy has asked you a good few times to explain yourself in regards to these differences . The distinction I've made is between an appearance that is not associated with a point of perception, and one that is. Given that, do you still have a question?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2018 12:44:10 GMT -5
Different context. Ramana is talking about human consciousness. Consciousness is always Self-consciousness . Self is all that is . Self can only be conscious of Self . There cannot be Unselfconscious existence . This is why your theory of make believe appearances only running all over the earth plane don't actually exist . Like said it's just your fantasy . No foundation . No evidence . You haven't even said how your theory came about . That's right, but appearances don't exist. What exists is the Consciousness that may or may not be experiencing 'through' a given appearance. Ramana's comments were conditional on experience happening. "If you are conscious of anything you are essentially conscious of yourself", and you only know that about yourself.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 7, 2018 12:44:24 GMT -5
You need to confirm / explain your foundation regarding what constitutes a conscious aware Marie and an appearance of Marie . The conscious aware Marie has eyes just as the appearance only Marie has eyes . The appearance of Marie cannot see, just like the cartoon character cannot see . You have said that the eyes are created through the actual / seeing / through them (rough translation) So there is only perception had via sight through a conscious, aware peep . You have said that everything is an appearance in consciousness .. So to say there isn't an appearance that relates to a real peep with real eyes is incorrect isn't it because you have already made a distinction between an appearance only and an appearance that is consciously aware .
I have seen of late that andy has asked you a good few times to explain yourself in regards to these differences . The distinction I've made is between an appearance that is not associated with a point of perception, and one that is. Given that, do you still have a question? Well, to go back to the figment (non-experiencing person appearance) that has the personality. What constitutes 'personality'? For example, can a figment demonstrate illness? I would have to assume so, but then this leads to more questions. If a figment has a personality, can the figment love? If so, well, this leads to more questions. To say that a figment person has no point of perception will always lead to a thousand questions, because the distinction between 'people' and 'figment people' is a misnomer. As you said yourself recently, 'people are conscious'. That's just the contextual truth here. We can discuss whether a paperclip is conscious, but we shouldn't be debating whether people are conscious (unless we want to initiate a pointer to a prior consciousness).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2018 13:09:10 GMT -5
Sure, I have heard you speak about silence to others but I haven't heard you point silence to other members simply because they asked you straightforward question/s, such question/s that at the time went unanswered. Your thoughts of all things are imaginary was not concluded in silence was it . The koans of old are not concluded in silence . The philosophy of the gateless gate was not concluded in silence . All I wanted at the time was an acknowledgement of these simple facts but was instead fobbed off . In regards to no reflective thought regarding moving out of the way of the elephant .. How do you know it's an elephant when you move out of it's way? Why instead do you not run towards it shouting out I love you Mr Elephant? Are you going to answer me these questions or are you going to fob me off and point me to the silent corner again? I've tried to answer your questions several times, but you didn't make any attempt to understand what I explained, so I gave up and quit trying to communicate. I've told you repeatedly that I consider thoughts to be mind-talk. When the mind becomes silent, and that almost always happens in threatening situations or accidents, the body functions without conscious reflective discursive verbal thought (mind talk) because that kind of thought is slow. The body instantly responds to threatening situations because it knows through subconscious mental functioning and memory what's going on, and it acts appropriately. This is why I've distinguished between body-knowing and head-knowing. One of the peripheral goals in Zen is to attain a state of mushin--which is a state of mental silence. When the mind is silent, there is still seeing and understanding, but not through intellectual reflection (not through mind talk). After someone surmised that you consider perceptions to be thoughts, I realized that all we could do was agree to disagree about how to use language to describe what's going on. AAMOF, the koans of old are all resolved totally through silence. No thought or even perception is involved. The body understands the answers to all koans, but the answers come from silence and from the body's innate intelligence. That's why when Zen students are given a koan as homework, they go and meditate in silence--from which the answer suddenly appears as a realization. The answers to many koans do not involve words; the answers require a physical response, and that response suddenly appears out of silence. The first time it happens, one is amazed, but then realizes that the body can be trusted to know what's going on in a different way than through thoughts or perceptions. FWIW the gateless gate is not a philosophy. It's a phrase that points to what happens when someone suddenly sees into their true nature via a CC. Only then does it become obvious that thingness is a cognitive/conceptual illusion, and that no real boundaries exist. How does the body suddenly manifest the answer to a koan in the absence of either thoughts or perceptions? This is like asking "how do blood cells know where to go as they move through the body? The cosmos is intelligent and reflective thought is not necessary for the body to function. In fact, at any moment the body is doing trillions of things of which we are totally unaware and for which thoughts and perceptions are utterly unnecessary. Just as a blood cell knows where to go as it moves through the body, the body, as a whole, knows what to do when an elephant charges. If you don't understand or appreciate what I'm pointing to with these words, then lets agree that there's no common ground for communication about this subject and we'll leave it behind. No harm, no foul. On one hand, you talk about thingness being illusion, and OTOH talk about blood cells knowing where to go to accomplish some task, implying cause/effect in an objective universe, the observation of which points to a transcendent truth. Have I understood correctly?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2018 13:40:30 GMT -5
I've tried to answer your questions several times, but you didn't make any attempt to understand what I explained, so I gave up and quit trying to communicate. I've told you repeatedly that I consider thoughts to be mind-talk. When the mind becomes silent, and that almost always happens in threatening situations or accidents, the body functions without conscious reflective discursive verbal thought (mind talk) because that kind of thought is slow. The body instantly responds to threatening situations because it knows through subconscious mental functioning and memory what's going on, and it acts appropriately. This is why I've distinguished between body-knowing and head-knowing. One of the peripheral goals in Zen is to attain a state of mushin--which is a state of mental silence. When the mind is silent, there is still seeing and understanding, but not through intellectual reflection (not through mind talk). After someone surmised that you consider perceptions to be thoughts, I realized that all we could do was agree to disagree about how to use language to describe what's going on. AAMOF, the koans of old are all resolved totally through silence. No thought or even perception is involved. The body understands the answers to all koans, but the answers come from silence and from the body's innate intelligence. That's why when Zen students are given a koan as homework, they go and meditate in silence--from which the answer suddenly appears as a realization. The answers to many koans do not involve words; the answers require a physical response, and that response suddenly appears out of silence. The first time it happens, one is amazed, but then realizes that the body can be trusted to know what's going on in a different way than through thoughts or perceptions. FWIW the gateless gate is not a philosophy. It's a phrase that points to what happens when someone suddenly sees into their true nature via a CC. Only then does it become obvious that thingness is a cognitive/conceptual illusion, and that no real boundaries exist. How does the body suddenly manifest the answer to a koan in the absence of either thoughts or perceptions? This is like asking "how do blood cells know where to go as they move through the body? The cosmos is intelligent and reflective thought is not necessary for the body to function. In fact, at any moment the body is doing trillions of things of which we are totally unaware and for which thoughts and perceptions are utterly unnecessary. Just as a blood cell knows where to go as it moves through the body, the body, as a whole, knows what to do when an elephant charges. If you don't understand or appreciate what I'm pointing to with these words, then lets agree that there's no common ground for communication about this subject and we'll leave it behind. No harm, no foul. I asked you straightforward questions that related to your theories being of the mind that is not of the silence and I spoke to you about the reality of the elephant squashing you regardless of what you think of it . There were no answers to these questions but rather more pointers, pointing me to the silence . The silence as said many times is not where your theories have derived from . The silence will not save you from the elephant . You didn't comment on any of these matters . Suggesting I made no attempt to understand what you explained is ridiculous based upon you not acknowledging a world I initially said . All I wanted was acknowledgement to these facts . The body as said before doesn't know what an elephant is . Only you do . You head-knowingly know that an elephant can squash you so there is an immediate response to get out of harms way . The cells in your eyes / lens / cornea do not know what an elephant is, only you do . And of course certain koans can be resolved by being silent, but the koans themselves are not born from the silence, this was the point I made . There is instead noise and theories upon theories where koans are concerned that are thought up in mind in order to contemplate upon .. Your theory of imagination like said is not conjured up from within the silence . It's just more noise created trying to counteract the noise created from another's theories .. This is what I was suggesting / questioning . This is why pointing me to the silence was inappropriate because you was too busy being deafened by your own noise that you didn't hear or take your own advice . No point in chatting away suggesting that the other would benefit from the silence lol . Do you see the irony? I don't need the silence or the suggestion of it . 25 years of daily meditation takes care of that thanks all the same . In regards to the blood cells doing their thing, they are designed to do their thing, just as the whole mind-body construct is designed to carry out certain functions . For the blood cells to carry out there duties is not likened to one having a thought about having a cup of tea or not . One has to have the thought to have a cup of tea and then get off their butt and put the kettle on . The legs don't respond on their own merits in regards to getting up through having some kind of memory that they have to walk to the kitchen in order to put the kettle on . If the spirit was not of the body, like when a peep is asleep then why doesn't the body cells move out of the way of danger? It doesn't because the ship requires a conscious captain at the helm in order to steer the ship out of dangers way . I understand what you have been saying for the record I just don't agree with what you say and have given my reasons for why, I can also appreciate what you say as much as you can appreciate what I say . I didn't however appreciate the ironic pointers made and ignoring what I had asked / suggested as previously stated butt I am not losing any sleep over it .. He commented on all of them, actually, in order AAMOF. <---(learned that from ZD, but at first I had to try to understand what he meant) What that tells me is that he went through your post line by line to address all of your questions. You know this because you proceeded to respond to those answers, so it seems odd that you would say there were no answers. It occurs to me that what you mean when you say "there were no answers to these questions" or "you didn't comment on any of these matters" is 'you didn't answer to my satisfaction' or ' you didn't resolve my concerns'. Is that the case? (serious question- please answer)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2018 13:54:43 GMT -5
Nobody's looking. There is awareness, there is consciousness. Below you said... ''Awareness is the act of being aware. Consciousness is the act of being conscious. To assign either to one who is perceiving, or one who knows, would be a mistake.'' Now, I understand what you mean by this, the word 'act' is key (because it bypasses the idea of a 'one' or 'something' that is aware/conscious. This is what I have been asking you to clarify for weeks. So the 'act of being conscious' and the 'act of being aware' IS prior to appearances/form. What do you see as the difference between the two 'acts'? Do these 'acts' have a beginning and ending? Are these acts like the 'ocean' i.e always Whole? Are they ever not Whole? There is Awareness in the absence of something to be aware of. the first is awareness, the second is consciousness. (capitalize or not, doesn't matter)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2018 14:06:20 GMT -5
Below you said... ''Awareness is the act of being aware. Consciousness is the act of being conscious. To assign either to one who is perceiving, or one who knows, would be a mistake.'' Now, I understand what you mean by this, the word 'act' is key (because it bypasses the idea of a 'one' or 'something' that is aware/conscious. This is what I have been asking you to clarify for weeks. So the 'act of being conscious' and the 'act of being aware' IS prior to appearances/form. What do you see as the difference between the two 'acts'? Do these 'acts' have a beginning and ending? Are these acts like the 'ocean' i.e always Whole? Are they ever not Whole? There is Awareness in the absence of something to be aware of. the first is awareness, the second is consciousness. (capitalize or not, doesn't matter) Why can't you tell him whether Awareness is Wholeness?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 7, 2018 15:00:19 GMT -5
Consciousness is always Self-consciousness . Self is all that is . Self can only be conscious of Self . There cannot be Unselfconscious existence . This is why your theory of make believe appearances only running all over the earth plane don't actually exist . Like said it's just your fantasy . No foundation . No evidence . You haven't even said how your theory came about . That's right, but appearances don't exist. What exists is the Consciousness that may or may not be experiencing 'through' a given appearance. Ramana's comments were conditional on experience happening. "If you are conscious of anything you are essentially conscious of yourself", and you only know that about yourself. You said that there are appearances running around that are not consciously aware . Ramana is speaking of Self consciousness being conscious of Self . Your so called appearances that you speak of running around appearing to be perceiving don't exist, it's made up innit . You said that these appearances only appear to be giving birth and appear to be partners and wives and these appearances do everything that a real perceiver does .. You can't tell the bleeders apart can you . Your suggestion that 'What exists is the Consciousness that may or may not be experiencing 'through' a given appearance' makes no sense to me, because there are no appearances that are not consciousness and all objects that are mind-body related are encompassing awareness becoming consciousness .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 7, 2018 15:05:18 GMT -5
You can't possibly know what reasons lie at another's feet . You don't even know if they are mere appearances or not . You only seem to know certain things about others when it suits you to bolster your agenda . Then you can't possibly know that about me. I don't hide behind some intellectual quandary . I have a good spider sense that relates to others . I know when others have an agenda towards me, I know when someone loves me or not, understands what I say or not .
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2018 15:08:15 GMT -5
Those who may be experiencing and those who may not are both appearances only and would be indistinguishable. Hence the statement that we can't know one from the other. The distinction is not in the context of form. Yes they are indistinguishable, hence why you don't know. But what we are talking about here is experiencing 'people' and non-experiencing 'people'. That was your word. So what are 'people' here? Does an experiencing 'person', have thoughts, feelings, heart, lungs? If not, can you describe an experiencing 'person'? And what is the difference between an experiencing 'person' and a non-experiencing person? Okay, I will be honest here and say that there is a level of disingenuousness to my questions. I KNOW the questions are bullsh/t, because I also know the theory is bullsh/t. I feel like I am asking you questions about Santa's reindeer. However, I guess my hope is that in you answering questions about the reindeer, you might suddenly remember that this is all nonsense. Yeah, that's where Tenka's questions come from too, and why I don't answer most of them, but they also demonstrate a serious lack of understanding power. There's no theory, just an absence of knowledge. The only mystery is where your knowledge comes from. Though it's not really so much of a mystery anymore. As usual, TMT and flawful logic.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 7, 2018 15:09:50 GMT -5
You need to confirm / explain your foundation regarding what constitutes a conscious aware Marie and an appearance of Marie . The conscious aware Marie has eyes just as the appearance only Marie has eyes . The appearance of Marie cannot see, just like the cartoon character cannot see . You have said that the eyes are created through the actual / seeing / through them (rough translation) So there is only perception had via sight through a conscious, aware peep . You have said that everything is an appearance in consciousness .. So to say there isn't an appearance that relates to a real peep with real eyes is incorrect isn't it because you have already made a distinction between an appearance only and an appearance that is consciously aware .
I have seen of late that andy has asked you a good few times to explain yourself in regards to these differences . The distinction I've made is between an appearance that is not associated with a point of perception, and one that is. Given that, do you still have a question? There are no appearances running around pretending to perceive the mountain or pretending to be Marie . There are no appearances that exist in the waking world that don't attain a pop . You have never met one, nor can you supposedly tell them apart . Again let me repeat Ramana ... Awareness becomes consciousness in the presence of an object - mind-body experience . There are no appearances that are not consciously aware in the way you have described .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 7, 2018 15:12:58 GMT -5
Yes they are indistinguishable, hence why you don't know. But what we are talking about here is experiencing 'people' and non-experiencing 'people'. That was your word. So what are 'people' here? Does an experiencing 'person', have thoughts, feelings, heart, lungs? If not, can you describe an experiencing 'person'? And what is the difference between an experiencing 'person' and a non-experiencing person? Okay, I will be honest here and say that there is a level of disingenuousness to my questions. I KNOW the questions are bullsh/t, because I also know the theory is bullsh/t. I feel like I am asking you questions about Santa's reindeer. However, I guess my hope is that in you answering questions about the reindeer, you might suddenly remember that this is all nonsense. Yeah, that's where Tenka's questions come from too, and why I don't answer most of them, but they also demonstrate a serious lack of understanding power. There's no theory, just an absence of knowledge. The only mystery is where your knowledge comes from. Though it's not really so much of a mystery anymore. As usual, TMT and flawful logic. Please don't speak on my behalf . Speaking of whether your wife is a real perceiver is not a b/s question .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 7, 2018 15:19:17 GMT -5
I asked you straightforward questions that related to your theories being of the mind that is not of the silence and I spoke to you about the reality of the elephant squashing you regardless of what you think of it . There were no answers to these questions but rather more pointers, pointing me to the silence . The silence as said many times is not where your theories have derived from . The silence will not save you from the elephant . You didn't comment on any of these matters . Suggesting I made no attempt to understand what you explained is ridiculous based upon you not acknowledging a world I initially said . All I wanted was acknowledgement to these facts . The body as said before doesn't know what an elephant is . Only you do . You head-knowingly know that an elephant can squash you so there is an immediate response to get out of harms way . The cells in your eyes / lens / cornea do not know what an elephant is, only you do . And of course certain koans can be resolved by being silent, but the koans themselves are not born from the silence, this was the point I made . There is instead noise and theories upon theories where koans are concerned that are thought up in mind in order to contemplate upon .. Your theory of imagination like said is not conjured up from within the silence . It's just more noise created trying to counteract the noise created from another's theories .. This is what I was suggesting / questioning . This is why pointing me to the silence was inappropriate because you was too busy being deafened by your own noise that you didn't hear or take your own advice . No point in chatting away suggesting that the other would benefit from the silence lol . Do you see the irony? I don't need the silence or the suggestion of it . 25 years of daily meditation takes care of that thanks all the same . In regards to the blood cells doing their thing, they are designed to do their thing, just as the whole mind-body construct is designed to carry out certain functions . For the blood cells to carry out there duties is not likened to one having a thought about having a cup of tea or not . One has to have the thought to have a cup of tea and then get off their butt and put the kettle on . The legs don't respond on their own merits in regards to getting up through having some kind of memory that they have to walk to the kitchen in order to put the kettle on . If the spirit was not of the body, like when a peep is asleep then why doesn't the body cells move out of the way of danger? It doesn't because the ship requires a conscious captain at the helm in order to steer the ship out of dangers way . I understand what you have been saying for the record I just don't agree with what you say and have given my reasons for why, I can also appreciate what you say as much as you can appreciate what I say . I didn't however appreciate the ironic pointers made and ignoring what I had asked / suggested as previously stated butt I am not losing any sleep over it .. He commented on all of them, actually, in order AAMOF. <---(learned that from ZD, but at first I had to try to understand what he meant) What that tells me is that he went through your post line by line to address all of your questions. You know this because you proceeded to respond to those answers, so it seems odd that you would say there were no answers. It occurs to me that what you mean when you say "there were no answers to these questions" or "you didn't comment on any of these matters" is 'you didn't answer to my satisfaction' or ' you didn't resolve my concerns'. Is that the case? (serious question- please answer) Your welcome to post Z.D'S answers to my questions if you like . Are you matroning again? Still haven't heard your response to my question/s asked about the appearance of Marie that is consciously aware . First of all you need to get straight what I actually asked and what Z.D actually answered . If you can find the time to do this perhaps you can find the time to answer my questions that I asked you days or weeks ago that related to the appearance of Marie that is consciously aware .
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 7, 2018 15:21:49 GMT -5
I've tried to answer your questions several times, but you didn't make any attempt to understand what I explained, so I gave up and quit trying to communicate. I've told you repeatedly that I consider thoughts to be mind-talk. When the mind becomes silent, and that almost always happens in threatening situations or accidents, the body functions without conscious reflective discursive verbal thought (mind talk) because that kind of thought is slow. The body instantly responds to threatening situations because it knows through subconscious mental functioning and memory what's going on, and it acts appropriately. This is why I've distinguished between body-knowing and head-knowing. One of the peripheral goals in Zen is to attain a state of mushin--which is a state of mental silence. When the mind is silent, there is still seeing and understanding, but not through intellectual reflection (not through mind talk). After someone surmised that you consider perceptions to be thoughts, I realized that all we could do was agree to disagree about how to use language to describe what's going on. AAMOF, the koans of old are all resolved totally through silence. No thought or even perception is involved. The body understands the answers to all koans, but the answers come from silence and from the body's innate intelligence. That's why when Zen students are given a koan as homework, they go and meditate in silence--from which the answer suddenly appears as a realization. The answers to many koans do not involve words; the answers require a physical response, and that response suddenly appears out of silence. The first time it happens, one is amazed, but then realizes that the body can be trusted to know what's going on in a different way than through thoughts or perceptions. FWIW the gateless gate is not a philosophy. It's a phrase that points to what happens when someone suddenly sees into their true nature via a CC. Only then does it become obvious that thingness is a cognitive/conceptual illusion, and that no real boundaries exist. How does the body suddenly manifest the answer to a koan in the absence of either thoughts or perceptions? This is like asking "how do blood cells know where to go as they move through the body? The cosmos is intelligent and reflective thought is not necessary for the body to function. In fact, at any moment the body is doing trillions of things of which we are totally unaware and for which thoughts and perceptions are utterly unnecessary. Just as a blood cell knows where to go as it moves through the body, the body, as a whole, knows what to do when an elephant charges. If you don't understand or appreciate what I'm pointing to with these words, then lets agree that there's no common ground for communication about this subject and we'll leave it behind. No harm, no foul. On one hand, you talk about thingness being illusion, and OTOH talk about blood cells knowing where to go to accomplish some task, implying cause/effect in an objective universe, the observation of which points to a transcendent truth. Have I understood correctly? Yes. There is only THIS, but THIS can be imagined in many ways. I like Alan Watts imaginative description of THIS as "a fabulous electronic dance." I prefer to say that THIS is a living presence, but these words, too, can only be a pointer. A student once asked ZM Seung Sahn, "What will happen when I die?" ZMSS replied, "You're already dead." I didn't understand that response until later. What he was pointing to (in an effort to stop the student's mind) is that THIS is infinite and includes all. It is neither born nor does it die (or it can be conceived as including both aliveness and deadness at the same time), and its primary feature is awareness. During a CC it becomes obvious that awareness is infinite, and I'm sure that you would agree with this. Maybe THIS is a two-dimensional light show, and maybe it's a three-dimensional light show, but either way it doesn't seem to make any difference in daily life. We all respond to THIS as if it is three-dimensional. ATST, Zen neither affirms nor denies physicality, and it rejects speculation in general. It simply accepts however THIS manifests through direct sensory perception, and responds directly and non-intellectually to whatever is happening. When I write about blood cells knowing where to go, I'm usually doing so in an effort to illustrate the vast intelligence of THIS in comparison to the relative triviality of intellection. I'm not doing it because I have a belief in an objective universe, and I certainly have no belief in causality (causality being another kind of cognitive grid). I can understand the reasoning behind "all there is is consciousness, POPS, and appearances," but that seems to me like reaching a static conclusion about something that is dynamic and beyond comprehension. The Zen approach, which is also my general approach, is to interact with THIS however it manifests. This means that much of the time this body/mind functions in mental silence and remains in a state of non-abidance. I live in the world as if it's three-dimensional, but whether it actually is or not doesn't matter in the least to me. I only know that when it rains, the pavement gets wet.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 7, 2018 15:34:32 GMT -5
Below you said... ''Awareness is the act of being aware. Consciousness is the act of being conscious. To assign either to one who is perceiving, or one who knows, would be a mistake.'' Now, I understand what you mean by this, the word 'act' is key (because it bypasses the idea of a 'one' or 'something' that is aware/conscious. This is what I have been asking you to clarify for weeks. So the 'act of being conscious' and the 'act of being aware' IS prior to appearances/form. What do you see as the difference between the two 'acts'? Do these 'acts' have a beginning and ending? Are these acts like the 'ocean' i.e always Whole? Are they ever not Whole? There is Awareness in the absence of something to be aware of. the first is awareness, the second is consciousness. (capitalize or not, doesn't matter) Aha. I never quite understood the distinction between awareness and consciousness before. So, awareness can exist in the absence of something to be aware of, but consciousness requires something to be conscious of and someone or something to be conscious. Is that correct?
|
|