Talk:Indefinite monism

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Religion / Mind Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Philosophy of religion
	Philosophy of mind

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 of one 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 to be (~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 would not 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]