Is this a response to my having said that distinctions begin with consciousness? You have expressed it here in reverse; that mind (not consciousness) begins with distinctions, and I think that works too since we can say they are co-arising. So, I take it that for you mind is intentional consciousness, and by 'consciousness" you mean satchitananda? — Janus

Yes, this would be how I think of it. I don't speculate beyond a certain point since there would be little value in doing so, but for the sake of relating consciousness and mind this would be my interpretation of what is said.by those who know. Plotinus states that we should not think of 'The One' as God or mind, and so this seems to be the arrangement. Would you agree? Or is there another way of looking at it? . . . .

Yes, this would be how I think of it. I don't speculate beyond a certain point since there would be little value in doing so, but for the sake of relating consciousness and mind this would be my interpretation of what is said.by those who know. Plotinus states that we should not think of 'The One' as God or mind, and so this seems to be the arrangement. Would you agree? Or is there another way of looking at it? . — FrancisRay

Speculation can be a fun exercise of the imagination, but I don't take any of these ideas very seriously because I think what-is in its non-dual nature cannot be captured in concepts. I'm not too sure about the idea of "those who know" if it is understood that they know something propositionally that is hidden from the "unenlightened". I think of it rather as an altered state of consciousness, wherein a whole different way of (wordless) seeing and understanding opens up. So, I would agree with Plotinus that we should not think of 'The One' as God or mind, in fact I would say that we should not think of the non-dual as "one" because it is both one and many, and neither one nor many. and even saying that could be misleading.

I see my neighbor take the trash out. I believe that my neighbor is not just flesh but the site of another streaming of the world. — plaque flag

Of course, everyone takes it for granted that others, including animals, have their own inner experiences that are hidden from others. I cannot know your experience, even in principle, except insofar as you describe it, (assuming that telepathy is not a possible thing). Such descriptions are inevitably poor compared to the experience itself, and being dualistic in nature cannot ever adequately express the non-dual nature of experience. The conclusion is that all our propositional talk is really inadequate, except for practical tasks, and only poetry serves to possibly be able to present a more vivid picture by allusion and metaphor. But you can't coherently argue about the truth of poetry, as it is not truth apt in any propositional sense.

So, all these kinds of arguments, for example, about whether being or consciousness or matter is fundamental or whether things can exist independently of the human are fatally flawed and potentially misleading.

Note: when I wrote this, I hadn't read your above post where you mention ESP.

We seem to agree. But by 'knowing' I mean a state of consciousness, so maybe not entirely. It is said that knowing is fundamental, and this knowing would not be 'propositional talk'. . But at this depth most of us can only speculate. My concern is with what can be proved in metaphysics, which is that such knowledge is possible.

I'll be off now. Thanks for the chat. . . . . . , .