|
I'm sorry I was a bit imprecise. What I meant to say was that we are not parts of the universe. This is not the same thing as saying we are not part of the universe. Even if we are not separable from the universe in fact, we are separable in thought. I can think about an individual human being without thinking about anything other than him or her, and I can say true things about that human being without necessarily referencing anything else that's in the universe.
But perhaps we mean different things by the word 'universe'? I'm meaning something along the lines of the background to what there is, so that we're not even part of the universe, but 'in' it. Perhaps you mean something like 'everything there is'. Even that can be understood in two ways. If you mean the set of all that there is, I'm not sure it even makes sense to ascribe even potential consciousness to something that's a mathematical construct. If you mean the contents of the set of all that there is, I'm not sure it makes sense to ascribe any unity to such a diversity of concepts.
And yes, Mantus, we're on a communication network right now. That's not what I meant. Jem's idea requires, not merely mediated communication of consciousness (through speech or text), but unmediated communication of consciousness.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."
"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
|