Pedantus wrote:

> 
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip@bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1030928100958.20656m-100000@mail...
> >
> > Previously, viv.eshwar posted:
> >
> > > This is confusion, and it's just wrong.  Vibration is the content of
> > > awareness.
> >
> >         Please explain what "Vibration is the content of awareness" means.
> 
>    Its a clumsy metaphor. When all the complicated mystic elaborations are
> condensed to their common implied content, we might in all fairness say that
> he "vibration" label refers to the idea that our human mind is like a sense
> organ--we "see" the truth or falsity of a proposition (whatever) via the
> unconscious (or pre-conscious) mind's retina-like response to the abstract
> stimuli.  The "vibration" of an abstract stimulus; i.e., the essence of a
> word, an idea, an image, and so forth, is the unspecified "content" of the
> phenomenon called "awareness". Viv might not know to what he is trying to
> refer, but that is not at all important. The mystics message, when reduced
> to its most rational underpinning essential, is simply an insistence that
> humans have metaphysics...the empiricist's claim that humans have no
> metaphysics is simply a false premise...the mind is not inanimate.
> 



This is a clumsy explanation of an ordinary fact.  One of the things you
can be aware of is vibrations.  For example, sound is a vibration.  

This statement was made necessary by Screedmo Woolmonk's idiot dictum:

>Vibration is awareness.

Vibration is NOT awareness.  Vibration is one of the things you can be
aware of, if you're a sentient being.

As above, so below
viveshwar