In message <017501be6a0d$cb8717e0$16a2bfce@proftim>, Tim Rhodes
<proftim@speakeasy.org> writes
>Robin wrote:
>
>>But I'm not talking about metaphor or meaning. I could not
>>agree more strongly that meanings run in parallel, that one
>>event can have any number of them. But we were talking about
>>"experience", weren't we? For me, there's experience, and
>>then there's the interpretation of it. There can be multiple
>>interpretations, but there can be only one stream of
>>consciousness.
>
>Yes, but, Robin, consciousness is only one type of experience. There is
>only one consciousness at any given moment, but their may be many or
>experiences going on within the mind or body at that same moment, all of
>them as real and valid as the stream of consiousness--if not as articulate
>or vociferous.
OK, I don't want to argue with this. Seems like it's largely about semantics -- as usual. I use "experience" as more-or-less synonymous with "consciousness", which is obviously not how you use it. Reed seems to use "consciousness" somewhat as you use "experience". But I don't think there's any substantial disagreement here.
-- Robin