Levels of Consciousness

i'm level 3 then
#second line

double post

[edit on 1-12-2009 by angelx666]

reply to post by v01i0


Hypocritical? Not at all.

The point that i was making was that unless you count yourself as being level 5, its impossible for you to make these definitions. How can you define something you know nothing about personally.

So, if you had stated that you were indeed a level 5, i would have ceased my line of questioning. As a level 5, you could objectively look back at all the other levels of consciousness you had experienced.

That is the sole point i was making.

But as you refused to comment on you level of consciousness, it made your definitions rather weak, some might say irrelevant.

As for trolling......

Is it trolling when somebody reads a post and has questions about it?
Is it trolling when somebody reads a post and disagrees with its content?

All you would have to do is look at all my other contributions on ATS to know i am no troll.

Stating at the beginning 'if you dont like this then do not read/comment' is a cop out. If i disagree with something im not going to just shun it because you implied to do so.

The question mark (?), the single most important symbol there is. Get used to it.

Thanks for your replies so far.

Peace.

reply to post by LiveForever8


Regardless, I made out those points in my OP which I quoted for you in my last reply, stating the 'theory' which was suggested, is not an absolute truth and it may contain errors, imprecisions and such.

The irrelevance is your opinion and I cannot but appreciate your view of it.

Thanks for commenting,

-v

reply to post by v01i0


I think we have a very different idea about spirituality. But thats alright, no use arguing about that since apparently our definitions are different. We would have to agree upon a definition to discuss appropriately. If it interests you, my definition of spirituality is something like this: holistic approach to the wholeness of existence substantiated by action. In a sense its almost philosophy. What makes it different from pure philosophy is basically the "action" part that goes beyond "action of the mind", that which basically constitutes philosophy.

Now anyhow I think you misinterpreted what I meant about death. I agree that there is no use in believing or paying attention to anything that we cannot subjectively experience, unless we believe for the sake of research and experimentation. What I meant about death was not necessarily the after-life. (And this is why I think that the levels of consciousness go well beyond what you have described, and here I'm being totally in the psychological aspect of it, which for me also is part of spirituality, but not for you since your definition of spirituality seems to be different from mine). Death is something that occurs constantly in our lifes and we are usually unaware of it. We even are used to think that we are going to live forever. It scares us to think of what comes after...because maybe nothing will come. We are scared of ceasing to exist. And that is why the awareness of death is something much harder to attain than the awareness of life of which you presented to us. You associated death with ghosts, but it doesn't need to be so. Death could be associated with the food we eat. It could be associated with laws, it could be associated to emotions.

I hope you see my point in saying that there is much much more to the levels of consciousness and that all the levels you proposed are actually just a "first set".

reply to post by Geladinhu


I kinda know what you mean and I think that I won't disagree. I have died many times since I was born and I think I'll die over and over again. In the end, we might not have that distinct opinion about spirituality - while I don't believe in ghosts nor spirits in general, I know that there are deep meanings behind those words themselves; they are more like linguistic symbols, that are meant to describe aspects of mind...

But as I said, I wanted to keep this thread as secular as possible, without going to deep in meanings - if you use imagination, you'll find the level 5 to be the level where things actually starts (as you might already have, as you suggested it in your initial post). It is the initiation.

Now that you explained yourself more, I kinda understand the point you tried to put in your 1st post. But beyond those levels, it's another topic.

-v

reply to post by Geladinhu


Consciousnes is far more explicit to expeirence and reality through awareness then it is to the accumilation of life knowledge. I like to think of consciounsess as our ability to be aware and observe from a primal view point, and all the learning, knowledge and understanding or wisdom as part of the learned investment while being consciously aware.

Everything would be attributes of consciousness such as wisdom, knowledge and understanding. I think we need to look at which attributes are expanded upon with certain level criteria.

Consciousness is just to broad spectrum of an ideology because it trancends into so many levels and categories on its own from physical to non-physical focus states.

When considering more the levels of consciousness, following representation may be made:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/d6b9863ea582c35d.gif[/atsimg]

On X axis, we have increasing consciousness where on far left there is zero and little consciousness and it increases towards the right end of axis. In the end of X, there are fully or highly conscious beings.

On Y axis, there are freedom of choices, or free will, or however we want to express it. More high the gaussian curve peaks on axis Y, the more we have possible choices that the being can make, or choose from.

So, as the level of consciousness increases, more the possibilities seems to become. But as we reach the peak of the curve, suddenly the choices begin to decrease.

Explanation goes as follows:

Imagine an insect or animal on the far left of the X axis. It has little choices and small to none free will - it is more like driven by it's instincts and it reacts to the any given stimuli by instinct.

In the middle, both sides of the peak, are the human beings (with various levels of consciousness) described in the OP. Level 0 person does not really have lot of choices. One has to behave as the society and culture demands. But here one can still exert some freedom. As we approach levels 2 and 3, there are more freedoms, and more consciousness.

But as the consciousness begins to reach very high levels, the options seems to decrease, as one is aware of the right choices, and most likely is bound to commit them. They know what needs to be done, and they usually do it.

On far right are fully conscious beings that cannot err. They simply make the right choices, demanded by their consciousness and awareness.

Does this make any sense?

-v