Number of posts per day limits - a suggestion

[AshvinP]

And it's funny how you bring up example of white light differentiating into colors, because that is exactly what Goethe studied in a more spiritual scientific way, so there are definitely answers for how colors manifest in that way.

Oh, please give me that answer. And also the answer to the question about how/why the sense phenomena always follow the Schrodinger equation. Please?

See above. Really, in all honesty and sincerity, the only thing that can help you reorient away from materialistic understanding to this qualitative science is reading PoF carefully and understanding the role of Thinking in providing perceptual content to the world of appearances. I have a sense that if you read what I posted above, you will say, "so... who cares? Goethe made some interesting observations about color, but what does that have to do with anything?" You will only realize the profound implications of this different approach when you get back to the basics of perception and cognition as it manifests in our experience.

[Jim Cross]

Actually the more I think about it I think the real solution to Justin's proposed solution might be stricter moderation so that comments stay on topic.

This thread itself is all over the place but if everything not even slightly related to limiting comments were eliminated the thread would be cut by 80-90%.

If somebody posts on Steiner, then the comments should stay on Steiner or something closely related.

If somebody posts on NDEs, comment should stay on NDEs.

As it is, everything devolves into the same free-for-all.

[Eugene I]

See above. Really, in all honesty and sincerity, the only thing that can help you reorient away from materialistic understanding to this qualitative science is reading PoF carefully and understanding the role of Thinking in providing perceptual content to the world of appearances. I have a sense that if you read what I posted above, you will say, "so... who cares? Goethe made some interesting observations about color, but what does that have to do with anything?" You will only realize the profound implications of this different approach when you get back to the basics of perception and cognition as it manifests in our experience.

No explanation, eh?
So, the profound implication of this different approach is ignoring all the facts and observations of natural science (as "abstractions") simply because this approach cannot explain them at all. It's a typical anti-scientific approach of most quasi-spiritual sects. Something does not fit to our worldview or something we can explain? Deny it as a product of low-level intellect or the ego. Because the worst enemy of all sectarians is rational intellect that exposes all their flaws and lies.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Actually the more I think about it I think the real solution to Justin's proposed solution might be stricter moderation so that comments stay on topic.

This thread itself is all over the place but if everything not even slightly related to limiting comments were eliminated the thread would be cut by 80-90%.

If somebody posts on Steiner, then the comments should stay on Steiner or something closely related.

If somebody posts on NDEs, comment should stay on NDEs.

As it is, everything devolves into the same free-for-all.

Point taken Jim ... strictly speaking, Justin's suggestion should have been posted in the 'suggestions' section, which is were I should have moved it. There is also the so-called 'formal' section where discussion is to remain on topic, which might have been better suited to your Susan Blackmore topic, and which I would enforce more strictly, by simply deleting posts I deem to be off-topic. I may have to rethink how to encourage staying more topic-focused in this section, myself included, but meanwhile I suggest using the sections that are already there for a reason. For starters, I'm going to re-name and re-write the rules for the 'formal' section, in the hope that it will be used more often. And I may insist upon certain new topics being moved there, when deemed appropriate.

[Jim Cross]

Actually the more I think about it I think the real solution to Justin's proposed solution might be stricter moderation so that comments stay on topic.

This thread itself is all over the place but if everything not even slightly related to limiting comments were eliminated the thread would be cut by 80-90%.

If somebody posts on Steiner, then the comments should stay on Steiner or something closely related.

If somebody posts on NDEs, comment should stay on NDEs.

As it is, everything devolves into the same free-for-all.

Point taken Jim ... strictly speaking, Justin's suggestion should have been posted in the 'suggestions' section, which is were I should have moved it. There is also the so-called 'formal' section where discussion is to remain on topic, which might have been better suited to your Susan Blackmore topic, and which I would enforce more strictly, by simply deleting posts I deem to be off-topic. I may have to rethink how to encourage staying more topic-focused in this section, myself included, but meanwhile I suggest using the sections that are already there for a reason. For starters, I'm going to re-name and re-write the rules for the 'formal' section, in the hope that it will be used more often. And I may insist upon certain topics being moved there, when deemed appropriate.

I agree mostly. I'm not sure the Blackmore NDE should be in formal but I do see a number of other posts (mostly by Ashvin) in General that do seem to be more suited to Formal. "Intuitive Idealism vs. Analytic Idealism (Part II): An alternative formulation of idealism" for example.

I can see how this might add to your work considerably; however, after a week or two, people might take the hint and self-police.

[AshvinP]

See above. Really, in all honesty and sincerity, the only thing that can help you reorient away from materialistic understanding to this qualitative science is reading PoF carefully and understanding the role of Thinking in providing perceptual content to the world of appearances. I have a sense that if you read what I posted above, you will say, "so... who cares? Goethe made some interesting observations about color, but what does that have to do with anything?" You will only realize the profound implications of this different approach when you get back to the basics of perception and cognition as it manifests in our experience.

No explanation, eh?
So, the profound implication of this different approach is ignoring all the facts and observations of natural science (as "abstractions") simply because this approach cannot explain them at all. It's a typical anti-scientific approach of most quasi-spiritual sects. Something does not fit to our worldview or something we can explain? Deny it as a product of low-level intellect or the ego. Because the worst enemy of all sectarians is rational intellect that exposes all their flaws and lies.

Sectarians don't answer your questions honestly like we have been doing for months. They avoid answering all questions like you have been doing for months. Let me ask again and see if you ignore them completely again, even though we all know you are reading the thread and will jump on the opportunity to respond to anything else.


Did you try any imaginative exercises Cleric proposed?

Have you ever experienced imaginative consciousness of the spiritual? If so, describe in detail the experience as best you can. Use analogies or whatever if necessary.

Did you read passage on Goethe's color experiments? Did you understand it? Do you think white light is a substance containing all colored light within itself, which are brought out by a prism?

Do you think scientific measurements of 'things' in isolated time-frames reflects back any objectively true knowledge of the noumenal source of those phenomena? If so, what do those measurements tell us?


There isn't any point typing out more questions because I doubt even one will be answered, but let's see...

[AshvinP]

Actually the more I think about it I think the real solution to Justin's proposed solution might be stricter moderation so that comments stay on topic.

This thread itself is all over the place but if everything not even slightly related to limiting comments were eliminated the thread would be cut by 80-90%.

If somebody posts on Steiner, then the comments should stay on Steiner or something closely related.

If somebody posts on NDEs, comment should stay on NDEs.

As it is, everything devolves into the same free-for-all.

Point taken Jim ... strictly speaking, Justin's suggestion should have been posted in the 'suggestions' section, which is were I should have moved it. There is also the so-called 'formal' section where discussion is to remain on topic, which might have been better suited to your Susan Blackmore topic, and which I would enforce more strictly, by simply deleting posts I deem to be off-topic. I may have to rethink how to encourage staying more topic-focused in this section, myself included, but meanwhile I suggest using the sections that are already there for a reason. For starters, I'm going to re-name and re-write the rules for the 'formal' section, in the hope that it will be used more often. And I may insist upon certain topics being moved there, when deemed appropriate.

I agree mostly. I'm not sure the Blackmore NDE should be in formal but I do see a number of other posts (mostly by Ashvin) in General that do seem to be more suited to Formal. "Intuitive Idealism vs. Analytic Idealism (Part II): An alternative formulation of idealism" for example.

I can see how this might add to your work considerably; however, after a week or two, people might take the hint and self-police.

No one is going to post in formal because no one looks at formal. Even I barely click on it anymore, and certainly not on the other sections. I don't have a proposed solution to that, or know if one is necessary,
just pointing it out.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I agree mostly. I'm not sure the Blackmore NDE should be in formal but I do see a number of other posts (mostly by Ashvin) in General that do seem to be more suited to Formal. "Intuitive Idealism vs. Analytic Idealism (Part II): An alternative formulation of idealism" for example.

I can see how this might add to your work considerably; however, after a week or two, people might take the hint and self-police.

Ok, thanks for the useful suggestion ... I have renamed the 'formal' section to 'Topic-specific Argumentation', but I'm open to a better name that may be suggested to me via PM. So it could include more science-focused topics such as your Susan Blackmore topic, as well as essays such as Adur's, or Ashvin's. And as of now this topic will be locked, as I think the original 'suggestion' as been duly noted, and I will continue to address the valid concerns that participants have, in the 'suggestions' section, or by PM please. Those wanting to continue the spin-off discussion that has been going on here, will need to start a new thread, or perhaps go back to Adur's thread, if that seems suitable.

Thanks to all for your cooperation