[Yes, no doubt those statements in particular do have the potential to become quite potent mind hooks. And so if I'm honest, in the final analysis, it's probably something I personally would refrain from saying, if for no other reason than that.
But the thing is that a lot of the stuff we talk about when taken to the extreme can end up sounding a little absurd on the face of it. We saw it in my conversation with enigma recently where he ends up talking about dodo as potentially a POP, and I end up talking about holy cr@p. (At least there's a precedent in common vernacular for mine). But I do think we have to be prepared to take it to the extremes, and as you allude to, have a feeling that much of the prejudice that arises when we do so, comes through attachment to the way we use the conventional paradigms as a vantage point when we talk about and consider them. Which of course by and large is a necessity.
Yet often when we begin to delve deeply into even those conventional paradigms even they start to lose coherence.
You've previously mentioned much of the discord comes through mixing contexts, which again is no doubt true. But ideally I prefer my contexts to transition reasonably smoothly into each other. That’s the real challenge here, and so far it's eluding me. It may not be possible. And certainly not if there is no direct reference for the context in which a pointer is used, and/or people aren't coming empty.
The truth is I have mixed feelings about the underlined, and have found those phrases highlight the limits of my own insight and understanding. It's challenging in that way, which I quite enjoy. But I'll take this opportunity to talk a bit about that.
With regard to the reservations I share about those particular phrases, obviously it has to do with the way they are constructed, and the implications of that. Because when talking about a rock as being conscious (small c), rather than an expression of Consciousness, it means we're effectively talking about it being consciously aware, or self-aware. And for me, traditionally at least, that context is synonymous with sentience, an attribute I would normally reserve for 'bio-chemical organisms'. (As an aside the level of complexity needed for a given organism to possess the attribute of sentience was a matter of contention on the Suffering thread, with me taking the stance it's applicable across the board, to varying degrees). But we're talking about rocks here anyway.
In Buddhism they talk about Buddha Nature, the potential for a being to become liberated (albeit not a concept the Buddha himself taught). But the point is I think it's fair to assume no-one on either side of the argument would talk about rocks as having the potential to become liberated. Other than from the rock-face I suppose.
Additionally, despite the very compelling arguments about ultimately not knowing, (which to a degree I can relate to), I've been forthright in stating that I don't see a rock as qualifying as a nexus of perception. On the basis I would also reserve that the for more complex and intricate, the more elegant expressions of Consciousness, namely the bio-chemical organism which 'possess' Buddha Nature.
So I just want to highlight again that I'm effectively talking about reservations that arise through how I relate the statement 'rocks are conscious' to the conventional paradigms. Those paradigms that I might normally associate with conscious awareness, like sentience and POP's. I've left aliveness, but clearly another area where even the conventional paradigm vantage point doesn't stand up to a deal of scrutiny btw.
...
Because here's the thing. This is a particularly subtle and encompassing issue. One that imo incorporates both realisation and transcendental Experience as prerequisite. And the subsequent expression of this Experience involves going right to the heart of where the immovable object meets the unstoppable force and attempting to push the boundaries of communication. In many respects due to all this, the signs we employ become especially tenuous, and in doing so, we open ourselves up. A leap of faith it required, (as it happens on both sides of the communication). In a sense, by even taking it on we expose and make ourselves vulnerable, which is one of the reasons I appreciated the comment at the time. This actually goes for stuff both the current warring factions talk about.
But the point is that in talking about this juncture of the nature of reality, we are way past convention anyway. Things break down and the normal rules don't really apply, (much as they say about QM). At least to an extent because obviously any communication has to be structured in order for it to be relatable, and so the trick is finding a balance. And of course this is all extremely susceptible to pointer licking, and then defence is very difficult. Could take years, hehe.
What's interesting is that I'm confident saying that all those on the other side of the discussion can relate to the notion of rocks as an expression of Consciousness. Or Awareness as I prefer. For me, even undifferentiated Awareness or Aware/Space is only ever really an abbreviated form of 'the Awareness that is Aware of itself' but I accept that might be contentious. I don't think it's so contentious to say 'all' is no other than Awareness expressing as form. If so then ultimately both self-Awareness and Self-awareness are merely Awareness-awareing, and that's in keeping with your Segal quote. I think we've all ruled out Self-awareness in relation to rocks, so the question becomes, if form is the path Awareness-awareing takes, at what degree of complexity does self-awareness occur. Or, to what if any degree could conscious awareness be said to be present at the level of 'rockness', because that's what we're essentially talking about. At least I am.
Science indicates that certainly individual cells can be said to act intelligently, and demonstrate self-preservation. But what about their constituent parts. Even atoms are sometimes described as acting Intelligently, can be envisaged as self-organising, and in nature there is a principle known as self-similarity, which basically means it's turtles all the way down.
Anyway, at a certain stage we do have to revisit the question as to what degree of complexity some of these states of being can be said to arise. Those lines were never really drawn anyway. And perhaps a good way to do this is to begin to consider them in their most abstract form. Do atoms qualify as even rudimentarily sentient/perceptive on account of merely their attractive/repulsive forces, and self-organising principle. Hey, I just noticed I'm straying dangerously close to making a case for doggy dodo as being a POP. Btw, it should be noted that sapience (the ability to think and reason) is not a requirement of those things, just in case that's what anyone's envisaging when there's talk about rocks being conscious.
But I'm gonna put all this aside for now, firstly coz I've rambled enough, and secondly because rather than abstraction, the real issue here is the legitimacy of the direct apprehension of the 'aliveness' inherent within all creation at all levels. Ultimately it's a holistic consideration. Again that is to say we are talking about the process of Awareness awareing, and the path that takes. In this form I am consciously aware, and make no mistake, my being in form takes a universe.
Absolutely, I'm all about the balance and without it very little tends to stand up to a deal of scrutiny. It's like having one short leg. Inevitably you just go around in circles.