The latest theory of Pan-psychism, which appears to be little more than Animism with bells and whistles, states that consciousness is simply in everything. This lends to the description that the absolute is consciousness.
No.
This approach is merely repeating the Abrahamic failure of conflating "god" with a concept.
Source itself is beyond any primitive notion of what it is.
Not in the same terms as for the relative, limited being, as for the absolute. The absolute does have consciousness - it has our consciousnessness, but also something else: in Von Hartmann’s terms, it is Unconscious Thinking, that which accounts for the intelligibility of the universe along with it's basic existence, the ‘what’ of things, as well as the ‘that’ (being) of things
That presupposes the cosmos / universe is intelligable. My knowledge of physics is even less than the arcana of Platonic cosmology but from what I can see it is unfathomable.
By intelligible I mean insofar as it is represented in human consciousness, not as it is in itself - the in-itself taken in Von Hartmann's sense would be an Unconscious entity, or rather THE Unconscious entity, a combined will and intellect. What is intelligible, or potentially intelligible for us is really only our intuitive representation of the universe, existing only within our mind.
Mr C is, I believe, quite on the mark.
The latest theory of Pan-psychism, which appears to be little more than Animism with bells and whistles, states that consciousness is simply in everything. This lends to the description that the absolute is consciousness.
No.
This approach is merely repeating the Abrahamic failure of conflating "god" with a concept.
Source itself is beyond any primitive notion of what it is.
Excellently stated! Thank you, sir 🙏
Thank you for helping to keep philosophy alive and pertinent, Mr C.
🙏🙏
LOVELY!!! 😊😊😊😊💜💜💜💜👏👏👏👏
Thanks Aria!🙏🙏
Thank you, Ross! You get me thinking deeply about these things! 🙏
Thanks Jo-Ann!🙏🙏
You’re welcome, Ross
I would have thought a sine qua non of intelligence is consciousness. Surely they are two sides of the same coin.
Not in the same terms as for the relative, limited being, as for the absolute. The absolute does have consciousness - it has our consciousnessness, but also something else: in Von Hartmann’s terms, it is Unconscious Thinking, that which accounts for the intelligibility of the universe along with it's basic existence, the ‘what’ of things, as well as the ‘that’ (being) of things
That presupposes the cosmos / universe is intelligable. My knowledge of physics is even less than the arcana of Platonic cosmology but from what I can see it is unfathomable.
By intelligible I mean insofar as it is represented in human consciousness, not as it is in itself - the in-itself taken in Von Hartmann's sense would be an Unconscious entity, or rather THE Unconscious entity, a combined will and intellect. What is intelligible, or potentially intelligible for us is really only our intuitive representation of the universe, existing only within our mind.