In this case consciousness is defined to include everything not-physical: the divine is included. God can’t be defined, obviously- but It can still be postulated as the source of everything, which is what Amit Goswami does.

beyond consciousness is infinite awareness which is infinite intelligence.

now we cannot define this infinite for to define infinite is to limit infinite..’

therefore “God” cannot be defined.

what do you think???????

I know it appears that consciousness causes awareness but appearances can be very deceiving.

with the evolution of consciousness process we advance in awareness not consciousness.

consciousness is a flow of thoughts. our level of awarenss determines the quality of our flow of thoughts.

what do you think??????

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to accept you don’t know all the answers, even for a philosopher

Yes, I was very happily surprised to to read this philosophy student starting about pluralistic causality. Hadn’t heard it before either. However, there is the issue of: how does it all come together into ONE world? And Blavatsky does talk of a ‘first cause’ – I’m planning to go into all that next week (if I don’t get side tracked).

I’ve thought along those lines myself, it’s neat to be able to label it now. I’ve never understood people who seem to think that either “spirit” or “matter” have a monopoly on causality. I think I stand close to where Descartes stands. I see them as possibly two sides of the same coin, two modes of manifestation of the same “stuff.” I’ve read that the “mind-body problem” never concerned Descartes–that he just kind of accepted that the two work together as a whole somehow, without feeling the need to explain how. Kind of a dubious position for a philosopher, but I forgive it.

Several seems okay.

Thank you for this blog of yours.