>>> Frank Masingill on Universes 
 FM> I'm fascinated as to how consciousness as a part of reality could be
 FM> "different" from it!!
 WE> So have mystics and philosophers thru the ages!  Really it depends upon
 WE> your viewpoint.  A subjective viewpoint would note that consciousness is
 WE> ubiquitous in everything we observe for our observing brings to the
 WE> observed our consciousness.  So consciousness permeates all that we
 WE> observe.  An objective view will hold that the rock isn't conscious and
 WE> indeed it isn't.  Neither are we when we are unconscious.
 FM> William, it seems to me that you went immediately from my question
 FM> into a kind of subjective dichotomy between subjective and objective
 FM> and never got around to mentioning reality at all.
I said that it would stir up some confusion.  You have verified my point.  So 
what is your viewpoint, objective?  As indicated, mystics and sages of the 
ages are still pondering this.  The mystics have a subjective view.
 FM> My question was meant to show my surprise that consciousness COULD
 FM> be different from the reality of which it must be a participating part.
This is an objective view, that consciousness is a participant.
 FM> The minds which imagine themselves either detached from
 FM> reality or standing over reality like a strong, independent monarch are
 FM> the most easily fooled into mistaking the shadows for reality.   
Reality and shadows, is this objective thought?  I think it's a subjective 
moan about the 'trial and error' of human perception.
                  Error Free Thought
Results are always obtained by successive approximations.
    If at first you do not succeed, try, try, try again.
No matter how well first approximations are made, some will require a second.
    The best you can do is get it right the first time, but nobody's perfect.
 FM> How *I* view the world from an immanantist point of view doesn't
 FM> necessarily reflect reality, does it?  
Don't know.  What's an immanantist?
---
---------------