Plato and his 5 stages of regime...we are in the final Regime state IMHO, based on the perspective you presented as I see it.

I MUST note that I suspect that tyranny has been the order of the day since the inception of social commitment...the emotional climate of society is a metric of how well the tyranny is diffused from its associated source and into the public perception of reality.....

To answer this simply confusing OP:

RHETORIC/SOCIAL ENGINEERING/PSYCHOLOGY

Would the word "unpack" be a better word for you to avoid this mental block? You see, if you want to be picky, asking for a definition is a common tactic used for two reasons: understanding(obviously, or so I thought) and additionally, in the hopes of discovering that my definition is somehow falsifiable on its face.

So let me know how you would like to "describe" consciousness, and please attempt to restrain picking apart irrelevant parts of my arguments for the sake of flexing muscles or feeling me out( don't know, don't care).

Pasted portion of my only remaining post after my first three:

I subscribe to a hard deterministic reality.... meaning, I do believe in objective truth seen through a subjective lens.Perspective and communication focus that Lens.


I call myself a "moral relativist"( for lack of a better term), This consists of:


-My belief, that my goals and motivations are the very best tool I have for improving my perceived situation.This being the fundamental basis of confident choice making.


-My belief, that through increased mindfulness I can make rational decisions about my goals in specific situations based on critical thinking and reflection.My fundamental process for in the moment assessment.


-My belief, that there are common attributes shared by groups, these attributes dictate proper ethical behavior within those groups. There are groups within groups that dictate differing dynamics for optimum goal completion(ex. religious people within secular organizations). In essence, we are all humans on this planet that breathe eat and sleep in very similar ways... This puts all humanity within a large group that dictates some very specific optimal methodologies for improving situations: Breathe, eat, sleep etc. As you begin dividing that group into subgroups, more nuanced methodologies will emerge as you become aware of the specific layers of groups you fall into for your current situational calculation.

-My belief, that all people act within their own perceived best interest (you too, Gandhi!)


-My belief, that If you can see yourself as part of a collective whole, and appreciate that you are an integral part of that whole, you will act within your best interest to make that whole better. I addition, as you develop this way, you discover that the most efficient sustainable change begins within yourself and moves outward
So, in summation:

I think "NO" but am not sure as I haven't really tried to draw distinctions between labels for our moral compass.

Hey Buddy, you are my first follow(based on this initial question).

Personal non-answer answer:
I find very little interest in knowing: anything about the turtles I cannot see beyond with the tools my body can provide me with, but I know that I am limited in that respect. In addition, and partially based on that perceived shortcoming. I subscribe to the belief that micro/macro infinity is the only position to take within the realm of the scientific process without presupposing conclusion. Also, my vision may improve in my search for distant turtles.

you said: 'Shouldn't take much. It's already the majority view- by far.'

These 10 words not only served to delay my response, but also required me to temper my response a number of times. For that, I thank you.

You added: 'Summed up by the repeated use of "my". What works for me vs. thee, essentially.'

I see this part as an ambiguous explanation of the initial 10 words, and do not want to devalue whatever message you are attempting to convey with it.

Could you clarify why you think the moral relativism I am espousing is the majority view?

Or,

Could you acknowledge that the"moral relativism" you are speaking of is an established term within your vocabulary that you refuse to redefine or allow distinction within?

In addition,

"Shouldn't take much": could have been interpreted as dismissive... it directly answered my post's question with, "YOU FIGURE IT OUT"

"it is already the majority view-by far.": In case you didn't notice, this statement assumes that you understand the internal moral landscape of every individual within the majority you speak of that carries the self-label of "moral Relativist".

We can hit the other paragraph if you hang in there....again, Thank you!

Seems like a non-starter until someone comes up with a coherent definition of Consciousness...

Step 1: Am I aware?

Awareness(Sentience): (of) environment,(of) corporeal body, (of) Mind
- What separates environment from the corporeal body ?
- What separates the corporeal body from the mind ?
- Are the above distinctions valid ?
- Are any of the above boundaries complete (perceived autonomy) ?

Step 2: Now that I think I am aware...what can I do with it?

Agency(choice/action): (Do I) Process,(Do I) Decide,(Do I) Act
- Can I think about what I am aware of ?
- Can I think about how I feel about what I am aware of ?
- If I "chose" to do something, why did I choose it ?
- When exerting my will(saying "hello") without being perceivably restrained, does "hello" come out of my mouth?

If you, or anyone can complete steps 1&2 while maintaining some level of cogence and present it to me, I would be happy to engage further...

Scemo Villaggio
(first forum comment)
7-27-2020