The constellations of the manifestations of Consciousness are complementary, their reciprocal changes – i.e. interactivity – maintain the continuum of existence.
When a constellation dissolves, its components become part of another constellation.
The formation- & dissolution phases of the constellations are concurrent.
A manifestation of consciousness comprises poles that determine its time/space. The poles unite in Here/Now, which thus functions as a transformation point of the manifestation.
The constellations of the manifestations of Consciousness are complementary, their reciprocal changes – i.e. interactivity – maintain the continuum of existence.No they don't.
The constellations of the manifestations of Consciousness are complementary, their reciprocal changes – i.e. interactivity – maintain the continuum of existence.No they don't. I assume that everything which exists is a manifestation of consciousness and is subject to Here/Now. I also assume that past & future aspects are time/space fragments – or random experiences – of Here/Now.
Would someone please translate this into English?
Would someone please translate this into English?Similar to jufa in another thread, the OP is good at stringing words together into what appear to be meaningful sentences. But ultimately it's just subjective new-agey/old-philosophikey talk that's pretty much devoid of meaning. But it's definitely fun to talk like that. Oh I should add, I don't mean to imply he's being maliscious or deceptive.
Would someone please translate this into English?Similar to jufa in another thread, the OP is good at stringing words together into what appear to be meaningful sentences. But ultimately it's just subjective new-agey/old-philosophikey talk that's pretty much devoid of meaning. But it's definitely fun to talk like that. Oh I should add, I don't mean to imply he's being maliscious or deceptive.Oh no, I'm quite sure that this all means something to him. Or it may a sort of verbal ink blot test -- the way you interpret the meanings of the words may be what the whole question is about. Hmmm...
Well, it was a cool title, “Constellations of Consciousness”
The other day I heard a term “Anosognosia” apparently it’s the official medical/psychiatric term for the inability to recognize the “self” as in one’s self.
Interestingly, seems to me deep thinkers are always falling all over themselves to tell us that the self doesn’t exist.
Fascinating conundrum.
Then that got me to thinking that we, me, myself, are actually more like a myriad of Russian Nested Dolls, than one particular self.
I say this because I feel that the circumstance have a lot to do with bringing out one or the other aspect of myself. If I’m with my siblings, it’s totally different that on the job, if that job happens to be helping in an accounting office or tying in to climb up on a dangerous roof and remove snow, or when I’m on the road hitch hiking (like in the good ol days) or picking a hitchhiker these days - all those bring out slightly different person.
Not to mention our personal and physical evolution as the decades pass.
Thus, I like the term constellations of consciousness. Even if I haven’t a clue what it or the poster means.
{CLARIFICATION: pointless musings, in a pointless discussion, no questions asked, nor argument suggested - shooting the breeze, it’s what makes the world go round. }. 
I see what you’re saying. To me, I guess I’m too literal minded. When I read “constellations” I was thinking of astronomical constellations, and they don’t dissolve (well I suppose they do, but you’d have to wait millions of years to notice it). The “pictures” that make up constellations are all in our heads, really. Some of them are obvious, like Cygnus and Aquila, but others are less so, like Pegasus. So if he’s talking about consciousness, the self, as metaphorically like a kind of cognitive illusion, I suppose he might be on the right track. But I don’t know what he might mean by “time/space fragments”.
I interpreted “constellation” the same way, but knowing words sometimes have two meanings I looked it up and found “constellation” can also mean a group of related things. The OP makes no sense with either meaning. This is nothing but New Age drivel.
I see what you're saying. To me, I guess I'm too literal minded. When I read "constellations" I was thinking of astronomical constellations, and they don't dissolve (well I suppose they do, but you'd have to wait millions of years to notice it). The "pictures" that make up constellations are all in our heads, really. Some of them are obvious, like Cygnus and Aquila, but others are less so, like Pegasus. So if he's talking about consciousness, the self, as metaphorically like a kind of cognitive illusion, I suppose he might be on the right track. But I don't know what he might mean by "time/space fragments".If Here/Now is omnipresent, past/future aspects of a manifestation can be considered as time/space fragments - or random experiences - of Here/Now. Concerning "constellations": a point needs at least another point and an observer of the two in order to manifest - the three form a basic constellation. For example: three dimensional consciousness consists of eight interactive points or poles (see cube) The above is an investigation in the dynamics of consciousness, as far as i am aware of (so are all of my writings)
I interpreted "constellation" the same way, but knowing words sometimes have two meanings I looked it up and found "constellation" can also mean a group of related things. The OP makes no sense with either meaning. This is nothing but New Age drivel.How do you define (and discriminate) "Now Age"?
New Age thinking is based on the belief there is an underlying spirit permeating the universe. All manner of nonsense arises out of this belief. Your original post is a prime example of New Age belief, including the lack of substance. If you want anyone here to take you seriously you’ll need to provide some solid evidence after you explain your meaning in non-mystical language.
Dear Sr. Member
after 10 years in the posting business, you might have noticed that attacking and ridiculing ideas one does not understand, emphasise ones ignorance.
Dear Sr. Member after 10 years in the posting business, you might have noticed that attacking and ridiculing ideas one does not understand, emphasise ones ignorance.Dear Junior; After 10 minutes on the internet, you might have noticed that attack and ridicule are the norm. I'm not saying it's good, but you might want to get used to it. Also, don't think it went unnoticed that before you finished your sentence about someone attacking and ridiculing, you attacked them with ridicule. (BTW I think you meant "emphasizes"). You asked for a definition, and you got one. If you think "New Age" is something serious, then try to defend it, but to many people here and elsewhere, the definition includes "nonsense". If you think your ideas don't fit that definition, you've got work to do.
Dear Sr. Member after 10 years in the posting business, you might have noticed that attacking and ridiculing ideas one does not understand, emphasise ones ignorance.I understand New Age beliefs quite well, hence the ridicule. New Age beliefs are based on an unwillingness to accept cold, hard truths. The universe is physical. We are a fluke and have no right to be here. All the knowledge and wisdom we possess have come through centuries of observation, hypotheses, testing, theories, and more testing in science; and through observation, logic, debate and more debate in philosophy. Nothing is settled, but many things are ruled out. The proper path to knowledge and wisdom is to follow the evidence wherever it leads. New Age thinking reverses that, and relies on willfully ignoring facts while adhering to wishful thinking.