a reply to:
glend
No, you aren't being brain dead
I refer to that as "the seat" of conscious
It is (at least I think) the best way to describe it for all parties
But again, you should identify a distinction between conscious, and consciousness
It works the same way for a concept like "God", as it would for any other separate conscious to your own
The concept of "God" is, again, locked into perspective. Which people don't often acknowledge or understand as they are talking about it, or arguing
the point
Even within the same collective religion you'll find this problem
Some Christians see it removed from self as a separate and unknowable entity. "A" conscious. Others will refer you it as something connected to
themselves, within conscious thought (as "mind"). Others see it as something instinctual which they "feel", as through their emotional self in love,
etc, which is consciousness
The different aspects of self, all identify the same concept, from a different perspective within the seat of that conscious
Because they are, essentially, trying to identify the seat itself
It is a self-depreciating cycle, whichever way you look at it. Unless you learn to discern the value of the observers perspective on what and how they
look at it
In analysing it, you either see the seating "God" connected as self in conscious, with can turn into a "My God" and a belief that you understand and
know God better than anyone else. Because it is part of your identity of self (which is technicality correct, though not right) ...
Or you feel it instinctually as consciousness, which leads you to a more spiritual understanding where God is something felt, rather than something
that need be defined or possessed, as self
You are defining, from best I can tell, from the middle ground where the seat is within the thinking (which you identify objectively as "mind")
This is technically the best way to view and understand the concept in its fluid nature because it exists Inbetween and can be relatable to both sense
of perspective
Theos literally means "thought", so "mind" seats perfectly in understanding the concept
The problem you are going to experience, is that you are trying to explain a fluid concept, whilst sitting on the fluid bridge, to those who don't see
the fluid nature. They are polarised
Perspective is the key
Are they looking at it originating from their self as conscious? Or the emotional return of self as consciousness?
The seat and that which sits in it are definitively different from each other. But neither could exist without the other, which is why allot of people
get confused
Seat = God, Thought, Science, Philosophy,
Conscious = Self / I
Conscious Thought = Mind (seated)
Consciousness = Emotion / Emotional self / Reflection
This list is a little more abstract than the last one, but I thought it might be a little more helpful to you
Awareness is tied into identifying self for the fulfilment of need. It is relative, but it is action and process, not perspective, so it shouldn't be
included in this basis, as it may/might/could/will confuse the matter
edit on 5 9 21 by Compendium because: Spelling and edit