A shy girl wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 1:58 pmHey Güney, I agree with your beautiful essay, my friend!Güney27 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 10:28 am What is your opinion on the thoughts I shared in the essay?
viewtopic.php?p=22766#p22766
Is there something you would disagree with?
You wrote:
My goal with this text is not to think of further modeling of the world, but rather to deal with the question of what makes these attempts at explanation and how one actually recognizes anything.
— You asked a very important question, my friend. Have never thought of it.
A place made of matter, separate from us, which we perceive?
— No doubt.
Imagine that you are going for a walk at night. During the walk, you notice pulsating lights in the sky that are unfamiliar to you.Now imagine how you react to this perception.
— Yes, I have seen UFOs. Have you?
In order to be able to speak of something at all, our perceptions must be explained by our thinking.
— Agree!
Every statement about the world requires thinking. Thinking is our activity, while perception is something given.
— Yes!
Here we come to an important point in our little investigation. We can recognize that we are not mere observers of a finished world and create mere representations of it in our minds, but rather our own activity and mere perception bring the world into being.
— Really? Should I take your word for it?
If it is now objected that our activity is just a brain function, then we are rejecting our own inner experience for a theoretical explanation that emerges through our inner activity. According to this perspective, our current material world view is nothing more than a story in which we are blind to see the narrator.
— Sounds very deep! I am sorry, but this way beyond my little brain. Too abstract. Güney, could you explain it to me with a simple example from daily life, please?
Güney, one last thing. Why there is nothing about LOVE and pleasure in your essay? Jon says LOVE and pleasure are the meaning of life. Is he wrong?
You wrote:
In phenomenology we should stay in our first-person experience, because everything that doesn't start there, starts on assumptions.Sounds very deep! I am sorry, but this way beyond my little brain. Too abstract. Güney, could you explain it to me with a simple example from daily life, please?
There is in principle no way to know anything other than our first person experience.
If we imagine a world of matter prior to experience, it is still in our first-person experience.
That's why Ashvin wrote:
The 'sensory world' is only a 'world' in so far as it is the shared expression of human souls navigating meaningful relations and condensing those relations along the convolutions of arrows into outer impressions. So the 'sensory world' is what we call the cumulative first-person perspective of all souls who share a certain constellation of arrows that structure their perception. We could call it a community of souls whose conscious experience is 'in focus' at the very tip of intuitive activity that has reflected its whole depth structure into negative images of meaning (colors, sounds, smells, tastes, textures) that stimulate our cognition to seek out its own deeper layers of activity.
To speak even "prior to matter", we need to have certain concepts (meaning) about our perceptions.
This only comes trough thinking.
When we say:" thinking emerges through neurophysiological processes."
We are active in forming these sentence with these certain meaning.
Then we say that this activity is a product of the perception (the brain activity, which already is a perception tought trough) .
What are we doing here?
We say that this is how thinking occurs.
What we are doing is replacing our living activity, with dead thought images.
We still are in our first-person thinking experience, but it is in the so called blind spot.
Maybe Ashvin, Cleric or Federica will go in more detail.