Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
Consciousness layers/levels (etc) can be said to have differing qualities or experiential paradigms. What I am pointing out however is a generalization that these can be qualified in the same category, and distinguish them apart in their prevailing intensities or degrees.
You do a very good job at making a circular argument seem not circular.

You cannot simply excuse something off as "outside of generalization" just because "it is beyond characteristics".

If you cannot distinguish it because it is indistinguishable.. then it is simply that; indistinguishable.

You, by your own words, have just shown that there is no difference in any of the qualities. Your own definition of consciousness defeats itself. You say that there are different levels, but that they cannot be distinguished because they are indistinguishable by the differing levels of distinguished consciousness.

In other words, there are no varying levels of consciousness.

So do you mean non-existence? I will argue as if the answer is no, and that you mean, "void", because to compare anything with non-existence is absurd. Void is not non-existence, as it is defined as emptiness or nothingness while it still has a quality of existence.
Ok.. you didn't actually say anything here..?

I've already pointed that pure consciousness is no different than pure subjectivity, and at this level, nothing and everything are experientially identical. So what's your question? Consciousness is present in nothing and everythingness, or at least related to a prevailing degree. Hence the attribute of "all-encompassing."
Again, if you cannot distinguish them, then they are the same.

According to my research, we can say it is energy, or power. It is hard to describe because of its non-linear properties, but without it, nothing has the intelligence to manifest life, much less a manifest universe, or even existence at all.

What's the "objective side of things" you speak of, when consciousness itself is a radically subjective term? You can validly speak of neither observing nor objectivity while pretending that the all-prevailing subjective context: consciousness, doesn't exist! Nothing of observing, an observer, an observation nor even objectivity itself can independently exist, hence there cannot be "just existence" without consciousnesses. This is not only taking all "sides" of the argument into account, it is accepting the context that you seem to have ignored. You cannot escape the subjective context, which is infinite, and of course that means I'm not talking about opinions.
lol.. seriously really.. I cannot believe what's happening here.

You ask me to consider that it is the subjective person that's looking at all these consciousness.. but you ignore that this subjectivity can be objectively observed!

Why do you think psychology exists? Because there are consistencies in people's consciousness. We can objectively find characteristics common in all humans. For example, cognitive reasoning.

Are you willing to argue that there are no objective consistencies in peoples cognitive reasoning because, subjectively, we could all subjectively decide our own ways to cognitively reason?

~