The Central Topic

[Cleric K]

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.

It's like you stroke out everything I've written above and instead read "yes, the funnel is an intellectual model trying to explain consciousness".

I didn't bring Bergson or anyone else because what is spoken of requires nothing but unprejudiced thinking and the good will to observe it.

The exercises don't work for you because you don't want to experience them. You want to imagine them from the outside. It's similar to gymnastic exercises. There's great difference if we hear a description of certain movements and then perform them with our will, or we simply vaguely think about them and say "Yeah, I understand that, what's the big deal?"

The exercises don't tell anyone to fantasize a funnel. It's all about to observe our own thinking. Think of whatever you want but try to feel what exactly you're innery doing in order to produce the thoughts. Pay attention to the sources of distraction. Pay attention to the feeling which makes you not want to do that exercise. It tells you something "yeah, I understand that exercise. Seeing one's thoughts - big deal. I don't have time to sit and do that." Well, that's the prejudice. In the same way we miss something if we only abstractly imagine a gymnastic exercise instead of setting our body in motion, so there's something we don't really know about ourselves unless we try to investigate it. And this is actually one of the main hindrances for exercises like these. Even thought people have their excuses (I have better things to do) it's really that they feel uneasy about learning something about themselves.

I've given this example before. Most of us know the strange feeling when we first heard our voice on recording. It's usually quite surprising. We usually ask our friends "Do I really sound like that?" to which they say "Of course, what did you think you sound like?". It's very similar when we begin to penetrate the thinking process. We begin to feel uneasy because parts of ourselves begin to be exposed which were previously entirely in the blind spot. And this can never be achieved by just thinking about the exercise and saying "Yeah, I get it, it's no big deal" instead of actually coming to know our thinking voice up close.

[Martin_]

Edit: written without knowledge of Cleric's post above.

Another way to put it: "Funnel" is not a theory. It's a desperate attempt do describe an aspect of a particular experience. More specifically what is experienced when one observes their own thinking.

When I do that, I experience something that could (for lack of better words) be described as a funnel.
When Cleric does, he seems to be experiencing something similar enough for him to get excited when I suggested the term.
When Jim does, he says he doesn't experience any funnel. Ok. Fine. Maybe Jim's thinking is different, maybe Jim is not looking hard enough, or in the wrong place, or maybe what Jim associates with the word funnel, is so different so that when Jim experiences exatly the same thing as what I and Cleric call a funnel, He'd use a differnet word. All these things are possible.

And to me, so far, that is all this thread is about: Finding a common language.

It's a bit like giving directions.
-: You know where the road splits just after the bend?
-: I have no idea what you're talking about
-: There's a funny looking tree there which looks like Michael Jackson doing the moonwalk.
-: oh, yeah! that spot. I know it.

At this point the 2 travellers are thinking about the same thing, and "the road split at the moonwalk tree" can serve as common term/ground for further communication.

[Jim Cross]

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.

It's like you stroke out everything I've written above and instead read "yes, the funnel is an intellectual model trying to explain consciousness".

I didn't bring Bergson or anyone else because what is spoken of requires nothing but unprejudiced thinking and the good will to observe it.

The exercises don't work for you because you don't want to experience them. You want to imagine them from the outside. It's similar to gymnastic exercises. There's great difference if we hear a description of certain movements and then perform them with our will, or we simply vaguely think about them and say "Yeah, I understand that, what's the big deal?"

The exercises don't tell anyone to fantasize a funnel. It's all about to observe our own thinking. Think of whatever you want but try to feel what exactly you're innery doing in order to produce the thoughts. Pay attention to the sources of distraction. Pay attention to the feeling which makes you not want to do that exercise. It tells you something "yeah, I understand that exercise. Seeing one's thoughts - big deal. I don't have time to sit and do that." Well, that's the prejudice. In the same way we miss something if we only abstractly imagine a gymnastic exercise instead of setting our body in motion, so there's something we don't really know about ourselves unless we try to investigate it. And this is actually one of the main hindrances for exercises like these. Even thought people have their excuses (I have better things to do) it's really that they feel uneasy about learning something about themselves.

I've given this example before. Most of us know the strange feeling when we first heard our voice on recording. It's usually quite surprising. We usually ask our friends "Do I really sound like that?" to which they say "Of course, what did you think you sound like?". It's very similar when we begin to penetrate the thinking process. We begin to feel uneasy because parts of ourselves begin to be exposed which were previously entirely in the blind spot. And this can never be achieved by just thinking about the exercise and saying "Yeah, I get it, it's no big deal" instead of actually coming to know our thinking voice up close.

"requires nothing but unprejudiced thinking and the good will to observe it"

So much of your commentary implies that anyone who disagrees is prejudiced as if only you, Cleric, have the acumen to see reality. It also bizarrely seems to think that everyone observing their thinking ought to seeing the same thing as you.

As best I can gather from all your hyphens and analogies is that you are simply suggesting a sort of mindfulness meditation.

That's fine. Been there. Done that. Do that. I don't think it leads me to the same conclusions as it leads you. But then maybe I approach meditation with fewer preconceptions.

[Cleric K]

As best I can gather from all your hyphens and analogies is that you are simply suggesting a sort of mindfulness meditation.

That's fine. Been there. Done that. Do that. I don't think it leads me to the same conclusions as it leads you. But then maybe I approach meditation with fewer preconceptions.

Mindful of thoughts or mindful of thinking?

[AshvinP]

Edit: written without knowledge of Cleric's post above.

Another way to put it: "Funnel" is not a theory. It's a desperate attempt do describe an aspect of a particular experience. More specifically what is experienced when one observes their own thinking.

When I do that, I experience something that could (for lack of better words) be described as a funnel.
When Cleric does, he seems to be experiencing something similar enough for him to get excited when I suggested the term.
When Jim does, he says he doesn't experience any funnel. Ok. Fine. Maybe Jim's thinking is different, maybe Jim is not looking hard enough, or in the wrong place, or maybe what Jim associates with the word funnel, is so different so that when Jim experiences exatly the same thing as what I and Cleric call a funnel, He'd use a differnet word. All these things are possible.

And to me, so far, that is all this thread is about: Finding a common language.

It's a bit like giving directions.
-: You know where the road splits just after the bend?
-: I have no idea what you're talking about
-: There's a funny looking tree there which looks like Michael Jackson doing the moonwalk.
-: oh, yeah! that spot. I know it.

At this point the 2 travellers are thinking about the same thing, and "the road split at the moonwalk tree" can serve as common term/ground for further communication.

Great illustration, Martin

It is pointing to the fact our common universal language is meaning. If one focuses on the outer forms of words in different languages - love, amor, agape, etc. - one may look at them and say, "what in the world are you talking about, I don't recognize that word at all!" It is when we try to make an effort to penetrate through the outer form to the inner meaning, we find we are talking about universal human thoughts, feelings, and desires and the activities which weave them together. Then we have a common language with not only other people, but with ourselves. We can begin relating intellectual concepts together much more easily since we are living with our Thinking in the deeper layers of meaning these concepts share. Without that, we forever remain in the superifical mind container struggling to figure out what in the world everyone is talking about, or what in the world our own intellectual thinking is doing, and inevitably give up on trying to learn the deeper language altogether.

[Jim Cross]

As best I can gather from all your hyphens and analogies is that you are simply suggesting a sort of mindfulness meditation.

That's fine. Been there. Done that. Do that. I don't think it leads me to the same conclusions as it leads you. But then maybe I approach meditation with fewer preconceptions.

Mindful of thoughts or mindful of thinking?

Neither. If you are mindful of anyth(ink)ing you are not mindful.

[Eugene I.]

As best I can gather from all your hyphens and analogies is that you are simply suggesting a sort of mindfulness meditation.

That's fine. Been there. Done that. Do that. I don't think it leads me to the same conclusions as it leads you. But then maybe I approach meditation with fewer preconceptions.

Mindful of thoughts or mindful of thinking?

For any experienced meditator tracing the origination of thoughts and knowing the thinking itself is pretty obvious. But in fact what can be observed is not just thinking but a wide spectrum of conscious actions, phenomena and aspects of conscious activity: appearing of sense perceptions and feelings, thinking manifesting thoughts and imaginations, acts of willing (also involved in thinking but also in any voluntary actions), voluntary movements of the body, and all of that is constantly consciously experienced. I'm curious why in the Steinerian tradition it is all reduced to and called "Thinking"? It seems that "conscious activity" would be a more appropriate term encompassing all of the above. We usually call thinking only the activity of producing and manipulating thoughts and imaginations.

[Shajan624]

Those are different aspects of consciousness. Experiencing can be known, or it may not be known by thinking. The fact that experiencing, thinking, feeling, perceiving and willing are inseparable does not mean that they are equally existential or fundamental so to speak. These are different aspects of consciousness, but these aspects have certain priority relations....

I would stay away from such analysis. This is not being disrespectful or dismissive. What goes on inside our minds are extremely important but mind trying to decipher its own secrets could become an endless loop. How can we trust the mind to examine its contents and produce reliable reports?

So I would place perceiving, willing, thinking, feeling, knowing and every other function of the mind inside a black box. In my view the way to (indirectly) figure out what goes on inside the black box is to study its evolutionary past. I would begin with the history of ‘objective knowing’ because that should be the least controversial mental function. Of course the black box play a crucial role in generating objective knowledge but knowledge, once out of the box, is free of subjective 'contaminants'.

How did we come to possess this black box? What exactly are its contents? How is it able to produce reliable knowledge? Why is the universe comprehensible? All these are deep questions but we should begin in shallow waters before moving on to the deeper end.

[Shajan624]

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.....

I have no problem with almost all of what you write here. “We simply reach a point where we can grasp them as a coherent Imaginative panorama of our spiritual journey through this life”. Fine. My disagreement is only about the possibility of communicating (without leaving space for multiple interpretations) what is so grasped.

[Cleric K]

For any experienced meditator tracing the origination of thoughts and knowing the thinking itself is pretty obvious. But in fact what can be observed is not just thinking but a wide spectrum of conscious actions, phenomena and aspects of conscious activity: appearing of sense perceptions and feelings, thinking manifesting thoughts and imaginations, acts of willing (also involved in thinking but also in any voluntary actions), voluntary movements of the body, and all of that is constantly consciously experienced. I'm curious why in the Steinerian tradition it is all reduced to and called "Thinking"? It seems that "conscious activity" would be a more appropriate term encompassing all of the above. We usually call thinking only the activity of producing and manipulating thoughts and imaginations.

We've gone through this so many times and you're still "curious why" instead of already knowing why  The last time this was explained was only a few posts ago here.

What is so difficult to understand? Imagine a human body which is covered with several bed linens and only a small hole through which a single finger protrudes. Clearly when the body moves, we can see the sheets moving but we don't see the body which causes the movement. The only place where we perceive the actual body is the exposed finger. This is a crude analogy. To make it closer to reality you have to replace body with spirit (which lives in meaning, Idea) and the sheet folds with perceptions. I notice that when you hear 'perceptions' you still think only of sensory perceptions (touch, smell, color, etc.). Let me state it thus: when we speak about perceptions in the sense of PoF, we're referring to anything that can be thought about. If you can think about it - you perceive it. It doesn't matter if it is a color, sound, feeling, thought or inexplicable nebulousness. In this sense even what you call awareness is only a label for the totality of all that which you perceive and can think about. Or stated otherwise - there isn't such a thing which you can experience/perceive but which you can't think about. And this should not be mistaken for reducing the perceptions to thoughts.

Now think about it. If you want to know the body, what is the logical thing to do?

There are several basic positions:
1/ We declare that the body is of completely different nature that can only be modelled (symbolized) through various finger-gestures but never known in its essence (materialism)
2/ We assume that our finger is of the same essential nature as the body lying within the sheets but the finger decides that it can't survive the passage through the hole - it dissolves. Thus there's finger-thinking above the surface, which in the same way as the materialist, deals with finger-gestures abstractly symbolizing things about the unknowable depths. The depth itself can only be experienced as inexplicable aesthetic/mystical feeling. There's no cognition there (Schop-like mysticism).
3/ We assume that the body is of spiritual nature, that it consists of meaningful spiritual activity but say that the sheets are there for a reason and we need to wait for death in order to know our own deeper spiritual nature.
4/ We recognize that we can know the reality of the body by following the spirit in the reverse direction - from the finger, through the hand, to the body.

Now I know that you are taking 3/. This already offsets everything you think, feel and do in a very specific way. You live in a mood that this current state of being is only provisional and can't in itself lead to truth. Thus you speak of feeling, willing, thinking, perceptions and so on but these are only temporary manifestations of something which you've decided that can be approached only after death. From this perspective you ask "Why focus on thinking? Why give special priority to thinking? Everything else is no less of a conscious phenomenon" This can be only answered if you're looking for a way, here and now, not after death, to approach the reality of the spirit-body. If you're not interested then that question is asked in the wrong context. It's like being placed in a submarine and some of the divers speak often about the airlock. You ask "Why so much attention to the airlock. Look around, there are pipes, levers, buttons, engines, batteries, sleeping bunks". The divers say "Of course, we see all that, we use it all the time. But only through the airlock we can go out and do our work in the water."

I guess that's quite clear. If you don't have any interest in knowing the wider environment, it is perfectly clear that the airlock will be no different for you than any other part of the interior.

The airlock symbolizes thinking. And note that there's great difference if we notice simply the existence of the airlock (which would correspond to noticing thoughts just bubbling up in the interior) or we're within the airlock (which would mean that we're experiencing thinking as first-person spiritual activity, actively shaping the thoughts).

So is this understood? Is it clear why thinking is manifestation of the spirit as it enters the interior through the airlock? I was about to write something about time, much connected with Bergson's quote that Ashvin posted but I'll withhold for the moment. If there's understanding of the above and interest, we can look into more concrete details. But if you have no interest then at least we can avoid all the useless talk about airlock-supremacy and the likes.