Old Notes

As you walk away, you unfold the notes the lady gave you and begin to read the sections that catch your eye...

...how best to show that it's not just "all in our head", as they say? Think about this: we make some observations, pointing out that we learn new things and forget old ones; the ramification being that our consciousness is limited and there extends something beyond it. For if our consciousness represented the complete expanse of reality, where would things go when we forget them, and from whence would they arrive...

...maybe the extent of reality can be summed up by all the conscious actors put together. An amalgamation of all consciousness at all times, constituting a single, whole super-consciousness that is reality. If we cast our net in such a fashion, I suppose we would exhaust everything that could be perceived or referenced. Yet, people have pointed out several challenges to that approach...

...the perception or referencing of a thing is distinct from the thing itself. I can see this box of things here, yet I understand the box has some independence from my awareness. If this stuff was wholly subsumed by my awareness, presumably I could organise this exhibit just by a force of will; I could picture the items out of the box and in their proper place. I could also assume that method doesn't work, given that this place is still a mess...

...an amalgamation of consciousnesses would no longer resemble anything we would describe as consciousness, so we need to be careful about calling it a "divine mind" or some unique, distinct, and special thing. For there would be no dominant point of awareness or self, no particular perspective or experience. At least when we had the individual, we could identify his perspective and theoretically carve out his experiences or awareness...

...with the amalgamation, we will go beyond particularity. If we wish to subsume everything within a pan-consciousness, it won't have a sense of distinct self-hood; I suppose we should just revert to calling it Being at that point, which in turn would entail giving up all the surrounding claims that led me here. Consideration involves distinction, a part viewing a part, such as myself regarding the box. If I remove the ability to consider, to be directed at anything "other", then why even bother using the word "consciousness" or "mind"...

...even if I just define it as awareness per se, with no subject but rather just a pure sensation of being aware, it's not clear what I will will have achieved. For what does awareness signify when there is an absence of particular identity, absence of particular sensation, perspective, focus, or subject? It is no consciousness at all. It would be an indistinguishable humm; perhaps that is what the metaphysicians here have in mind when they discuss the breadth of what-is, a monotone humm of all meaning and significance, with no privileged aspect. So, again, I come to Being and I forget what I sought to achieve by dragging mind into things.

Folding the notes back up, you decide to...

Choices:

  1. Turn back and head to the general exhibit on change...
  2. Continue to the Guesthouse...