Talk:Indefinite monism

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