The Central Topic

[Martin_]

My interpretation of the central topic was: "Let's start with observing our thinking and see what we can say"
We came to the point where we saw that thinking (using small 't' here) isn't fully free. It's operating in something what could be described as a funnel, and the nature/state of this funnel, and in some sense also our thinking's position in this funnel, affects what we think.

That's how far we got, as I remember it.

Disclaimer: I'm purpously using simple words here, in order to not cause any wider associations. (Higher / Lower, etc) In no way whatsoever is my intent to imply any kind of dualism at this point.

[Jim Cross]

I thought the Central Topic was "experience is all".

The Central Topic begins with what is known as given facts and not with immediate speculation about what the supposed world-in-itself is. We start from what is given instead from what we abstractly suppose the world is and then try to retrofit the given to our presuppositions.

Yep. "Experience is all".

[AshvinP]

My interpretation of the central topic was: "Let's start with observing our thinking and see what we can say"
We came to the point where we saw that thinking (using small 't' here) isn't fully free. It's operating in something what could be described as a funnel, and the nature/state of this funnel, and in some sense also our thinking's position in this funnel, affects what we think.

That's how far we got, as I remember it.

Disclaimer: I'm purpously using simple words here, in order to not cause any wider associations. (Higher / Lower, etc) In no way whatsoever is my intent to imply any kind of dualism at this point.

Great Martin! I think that is something to work with going forward, and infinitely better than Jim's understanding TCT as the exact opposite of what it is. You actually mentioned the word "thinking" TCT is all about starting simple and broadening out carefully from there through our own Thinking.

[Jim Cross]

My interpretation of the central topic was: "Let's start with observing our thinking and see what we can say"
We came to the point where we saw that thinking (using small 't' here) isn't fully free. It's operating in something what could be described as a funnel, and the nature/state of this funnel, and in some sense also our thinking's position in this funnel, affects what we think.

That's how far we got, as I remember it.

Disclaimer: I'm purpously using simple words here, in order to not cause any wider associations. (Higher / Lower, etc) In no way whatsoever is my intent to imply any kind of dualism at this point.

Great Martin! I think that is something to work with going forward, and infinitely better than Jim's understanding TCT as the exact opposite of what it is. You actually mentioned the word "thinking" TCT is all about starting simple and broadening out carefully from there through our own Thinking.

Martin,

Thanks that somebody tried to express the Central Topic in some jargon-free manner with straightforward language.

However, this funnel model is an abstraction and theory itself, hence subject to scientific scrutiny, but it doesn't lead us directly to any philosophical conclusions about reality. It is also precisely how neuroscience understands the brain to work. Neuroscience, in fact, can actually measure the trickle of information that reaches the cortical areas of the brain from the senses. Much of the information is preprocessed by sensory neurons and neurons close to the sensory neurons themselves The rest of "reality" is simulated by the other parts of the brain.

"Thinking" (capitalized or not) is a term that lacks precision. It only indicates some generalized mental activity. It is too vague to be of any value and people will have various conceptions of what it means. It could encompass reasoning, problem solving, sensory activity, remembering, imagining., and many other things. If it involves all of the above then again it is too vague to be of use.

[AshvinP]

My interpretation of the central topic was: "Let's start with observing our thinking and see what we can say"
We came to the point where we saw that thinking (using small 't' here) isn't fully free. It's operating in something what could be described as a funnel, and the nature/state of this funnel, and in some sense also our thinking's position in this funnel, affects what we think.

That's how far we got, as I remember it.

Disclaimer: I'm purpously using simple words here, in order to not cause any wider associations. (Higher / Lower, etc) In no way whatsoever is my intent to imply any kind of dualism at this point.

Great Martin! I think that is something to work with going forward, and infinitely better than Jim's understanding TCT as the exact opposite of what it is. You actually mentioned the word "thinking" TCT is all about starting simple and broadening out carefully from there through our own Thinking.

Martin,

Thanks that somebody tried to express the Central Topic in some jargon-free manner with straightforward language.

However, this funnel model is an abstraction and theory itself...

You completely ignored what he wrote - "We came to the point where we saw". Not everyone is making abstract fantasy models just because you are, Jim. It's amazing how projection just takes possession of the mind after thinking is neglected for awhile. It seems to be occurring ever-more frequently and intensely. You refuse to follow the threads of your own Thinking with any effort, saying I will just believe whatever I want to believe about anything and no one can ever convince me otherwise, and then accuse the Word for being "too vague". With that ingrained attitude, no matter how precise the arguments get, they will always be "too vague". But since you already ruled out the possibility of unexamined feelings influencing your thinking, and the possibility of Thinking to bring them into the light of consciousness, you won't ever realize this is occurring within you.

[Jim Cross]

Great Martin! I think that is something to work with going forward, and infinitely better than Jim's understanding TCT as the exact opposite of what it is. You actually mentioned the word "thinking" TCT is all about starting simple and broadening out carefully from there through our own Thinking.

Martin,

Thanks that somebody tried to express the Central Topic in some jargon-free manner with straightforward language.

However, this funnel model is an abstraction and theory itself...

You completely ignored what he wrote - "We came to the point where we saw". Not everyone is making abstract fantasy models just because you are, Jim. It's amazing how projection just takes possession of the mind after thinking is neglected for awhile. It seems to be occurring ever-more frequently and intensely. You refuse to follow the threads of your own Thinking with any effort, saying I will just believe whatever I want to believe about anything and no one can ever convince me otherwise, and then accuse the Word for being "too vague". With that ingrained attitude, no matter how precise the arguments get, they will always be "too vague". But since you already ruled out the possibility of unexamined feelings influencing your thinking, and the possibility of Thinking to bring them into the light of consciousness, you won't ever realize this is occurring within you.

How did I ignore it? Martin brought up the funnel. Maybe Martin can clarify if he meant the funnel as a model or as a literal funnel. Personally I'm not feeling an actual funnel when I think but maybe you do.

[Cleric K]

My interpretation of the central topic was: "Let's start with observing our thinking and see what we can say"
We came to the point where we saw that thinking (using small 't' here) isn't fully free. It's operating in something what could be described as a funnel, and the nature/state of this funnel, and in some sense also our thinking's position in this funnel, affects what we think.

That's how far we got, as I remember it.

Disclaimer: I'm purpously using simple words here, in order to not cause any wider associations. (Higher / Lower, etc) In no way whatsoever is my intent to imply any kind of dualism at this point.

Martin, Thank you!

The fact that you used these simple words speaks to me more than volumes of fancy but completely abstract musings.

You go on to say we could evolve towards a “fluid aggregation phase and live there fully consciously and knowingly”. Assuming that is possible, how would you then communicate unambiguously to those who are stuck at the current stage of evolution? Because you would have moved beyond the knowing-experiencing polarity and whatever you say would appear metaphorical to the less evolved.

Shajan, may this post serve also for a hint about your question.

The fact that Martin chose to use the word 'funnel' (without that word being suggested previously) immediately tells me that he didn't go through these things in some completely abstract and analytical manner but he really tried to attain to living understanding, one which puts into words actual inner experiences and not simply arrangements of empty shells. This was really the goal of the Central Topic - that at least the direction can be grasped in a living way. Whether this direction will be pursued further is another question.

Now if the direction is followed further, when we concentrate our thinking, we'll feel resistance from the currents of vorticity. The currents want to drag our thoughts as leaves on a stream, in the same way they do all the time. This resistance is not something mechanical, it is experienced as direct meaning. If we have some fear about something, say something at work, then when we try to concentrate, this fear will nudge us as if saying "Hey, you need to think about me." Actually this might be the first time we become fully conscious of this fear. It might have been always there but we haven't recognized the true reason for the thoughts that run through our mind.

When this direction is pursued this funnel begins to become richer and richer in meaning. We begin to find there our family, friends, profession, hobbies, interests, political views, religious views, hopes, fears and so on. We really begin to encompass what our inner world is weaved of. All of these are part of our hidden meaningful curvature of the funnel. Then a moment comes when this rich meaning becomes so vivid, so real that it fills our whole consciousness and we realize "This is my life. This is what I am here on Earth and how I got to this point. This is an image of what my thinking, feeling and willing move through all the time, of what shapes my metamorphic flow." In this way we reach in a completely methodological way what otherwise can be glimpsed at in accidental and abnormal ways - the so called panorama of our life, the flashing of our life before our eyes which we can commonly find in NDE reports. Please note that at this stage we're not outside all these factors. We simply reach a point where we can grasp them as a coherent Imaginative panorama of our spiritual journey through this life.

This is just an example of how these things are completely phenomenological and we can describe them, coin words for them, think about them.

The point of TCT was just this. To lead to the point where we can observe our thinking and recognize at least generally how the most varied factors play out in the process. For this we need nothing but our own thinking and a small amount of good will. Whoever reaches this point will also understand that there's nothing to stop us to become more and more conscious of these factors.

Now whether Martin will continue his explorations is altogether different question. This belongs to the domain of the most sacred individual freedom. Not only that we can't force externally anyone to step in that direction but even we ourselves, can never find some 'proof' that we must go. If we make a step because we have some 'proof' that we should make that step, we're not free. We're acting under the compulsion of the 'proof'. To make a step in real freedom is possible only if we Love what we're doing. Not for satisfaction of some desire (desire is also compulsion) but because in this way we realize ourselves entirely out of our own innermost moral core.

[Martin_]

Martin,

Thanks that somebody tried to express the Central Topic in some jargon-free manner with straightforward language.

However, this funnel model is an abstraction and theory itself...

You completely ignored what he wrote - "We came to the point where we saw". Not everyone is making abstract fantasy models just because you are, Jim. It's amazing how projection just takes possession of the mind after thinking is neglected for awhile. It seems to be occurring ever-more frequently and intensely. You refuse to follow the threads of your own Thinking with any effort, saying I will just believe whatever I want to believe about anything and no one can ever convince me otherwise, and then accuse the Word for being "too vague". With that ingrained attitude, no matter how precise the arguments get, they will always be "too vague". But since you already ruled out the possibility of unexamined feelings influencing your thinking, and the possibility of Thinking to bring them into the light of consciousness, you won't ever realize this is occurring within you.

How did I ignore it? Martin brought up the funnel. Maybe Martin can clarify if he meant the funnel as a model or as a literal funnel. Personally I'm not feeling an actual funnel when I think but maybe you do.

Jim. Stop trolling pls. You're a smart guy. act that way.

Edit: and if it turns out that you're not as smart as I think you are: With funnel, I'm referring to cleric's 2nd picture in the first post of this thread. And yes; it's not technically a funnel.

[Cleric K]

How did I ignore it? Martin brought up the funnel. Maybe Martin can clarify if he meant the funnel as a model or as a literal funnel. Personally I'm not feeling an actual funnel when I think but maybe you do.

Actually I was pleasantly surprised that Martin spoke about a funnel. This immediately told me that he has gone into the Central Topic in full seriousness and not simply as a news article about an earthquake on the other side of the planet.

Funnel in this sense already belongs to Imaginative cognition. It's not something that we see visually. It's not a hallucination that we see and begin to speculate about with our thinking. This is a way to put into words what we cognitively experience, in the same way verbal words are a way to express (symbolize) cognitive meaning. When we focus our thinking and begin to observe how it takes shape, it is as if our thoughts are at the center of our consciousness while we begin to sense various cognitive and feeling factors (see my post above) which form a kind of periphery around our centered focus. When we experience this we can imaginatively put it into words and say that our conscious experience resembles a funnel.

Here's a critical point: the moment we liken the experience to a funnel, we really bring an image (or at least the thought of it) before us. But this image is not the cognitive experience itself. It's only an imaginative symbol for it. The true funnel is the thinking gesture that we're performing while meditating, which is modified by the peripheral factors. This modification is meaningful, the whole field of consciousness is meaningful, and condensing the meaning into a symbol precipitates, for example, the image of a funnel. The funnel is not the only possible image. There are many images through which we can express the experience but we certainly can speak of a kind of center and periphery - again - not as visual hallucination but as the 'shape' of our meaningful thinking stance. In proper Imagination the images are expression of the thinking stance. We're simply putting into words, something for which we don't really have proper words but is nevertheless a 'shape' of meaning. This is what really makes true Imaginative cognition completely diametrical to the psychedelic state, where we're overflown with images which the intellect meets as something external to itself and is yet to interpret (actual divination).

[Jim Cross]

How did I ignore it? Martin brought up the funnel. Maybe Martin can clarify if he meant the funnel as a model or as a literal funnel. Personally I'm not feeling an actual funnel when I think but maybe you do.

Actually I was pleasantly surprised that Martin spoke about a funnel. This immediately told me that he has gone into the Central Topic in full seriousness and not simply as a news article about an earthquake on the other side of the planet.

Funnel in this sense already belongs to Imaginative cognition. It's not something that we see visually. It's not a hallucination that we see and begin to speculate about with our thinking. This is a way to put into words what we cognitively experience, in the same way verbal words are a way to express (symbolize) cognitive meaning. When we focus our thinking and begin to observe how it takes shape, it is as if our thoughts are at the center of our consciousness while we begin to sense various cognitive and feeling factors (see my post above) which form a kind of periphery around our centered focus. When we experience this we can imaginatively put it into words and say that our conscious experience resembles a funnel.

Here's a critical point: the moment we liken the experience to a funnel, we really bring an image (or at least the thought of it) before us. But this image is not the cognitive experience itself. It's only an imaginative symbol for it. The true funnel is the thinking gesture that we're performing while meditating, which is modified by the peripheral factors. This modification is meaningful, the whole field of consciousness is meaningful, and condensing the meaning into a symbol precipitates, for example, the image of a funnel. The funnel is not the only possible image. There are many images through which we can express the experience but we certainly can speak of a kind of center and periphery - again - not as visual hallucination but as the 'shape' of our meaningful thinking stance. In proper Imagination the images are expression of the thinking stance. We're simply putting into words, something for which we don't really have proper words but is nevertheless a 'shape' of meaning. This is what really makes true Imaginative cognition completely diametrical to the psychedelic state, where we're overflown with images which the intellect meets as something external to itself and is yet to interpret (actual divination).

I like the funnel model. It's Bergsonian, isn't it? Although Huxley also picks it up in The Doors of Perception when he describes consciousness as a filter.

Makes sense to me. Matches well with neuroscience too.

I'm surprised you didn't bring Bergson or Huxley into the picture. It would have clarified things somewhat.

BTW, all of your descriptions about "thinking" or "Thinking" don't really work for me. Sorry I'm just not sitting around (meditating or not) and doing thinking gestures as a funnel. If it works for you or others, that's fine. It just doesn't work for me.