Can you think and list those items in your life which you know, which you are aware of, which skate upon your daily existence, but which you cannot describe minutely in the absence of analogy?
In other words, what can you describe thoroughly, without hesitation or deviation, in a most fastidious fashion that would sate the curiosity of (or at least appeal familiarly to) both a person born without the 5 human senses and a person born with all 5 working at optimum efficiency? Name those items in this life you can describe equally effectively, irrefutably, to all, from the numbest to the most involved, in the sensory context?
Ultimately, human language is structured on the familiar interrelational subset of joint experience and communal exchange. Language, by definition, is the conveyance of commonly experienced concepts, overlapping experiences. Language that describes only what rattles around in your own head speaks just to that which you know, but which can never be translated to an outsider who has never experienced what you have…and thus, transcends the mundane limitations of “language.”
Language bonds by connection, but language does not involve itself with the absolutely obtuse concepts residing in a sole individual’s mind.
The question I pose then: name those items you can describe in the absence of shared sensory experience.
I can think of others, but upon closer inspection, they are intrinsically contained within the first 2, so they do not warrant attention.
I believe in consciousness, for I am alive. Right?
Is it so simple?
Does life connote Consciousness? Does Consciousness connote biology?
Human consciousness wraps and defines itself and thus is a poor testament to its own existence.
Human consciousness begs to exist, in fact; but does human consciousness speak the language of life, or the language of Man?
Consciousness is implicit to our intellect for there is the intuitive reaction to assume it is all our own but perhaps we need to explore avenues in which consciousness must assume a suprahuman nature. Consciousness may very well be the human expression of a natural law or element that is rendered unique by our “exceeding sentience.” I believe the word “consciousness” manifests itself into a recursive spiral that denies its scientific, objective tenant. A rock’s consciousness is as intricate as the number of its possible cellular contingencies. But it has a “consciousness” but this sounds ludicrous because our human concept of consciousness is redolent of human intelligence and sentience; perhaps, consciousness is not something that should connote awareness in the context we know it. It should connote awareness in the context we ignore.
Do we contrive a new word or reformulate the word we know?
Or it could be that “god” needs to be reformulated as the consciousness we seek to reformulate. “God” is “consciousness” and thus, we are left to our own devices, again.