The basics again

[Güney27]

Hello everyone,
I wanted to post a little Essay wich I have written 2 days ago.
It is nothing new to many people in this forum, but I want to share it to get a clearer idea myself.
Maybe it will help somebody unfamiliar with this topic, to understand the direction of this things.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When we look at human actions as expressed in art, science and religion, we should ask ourselves why people carry them out.

What is an essential attribute of man that gave rise to the tremendous scientific and philosophical history of man?
It is his desire for knowledge, for understanding the world, and his place and role in it.

Here I have only said what is already clear to everyone, and yet few people think about it.
Countless thinkers gave us different theories and explanatory models; there were many different attempts and approaches that were intended to make the world more understandable.

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.

Let's start with what needs to be explained, that is the world.
What is the world? What is it we want to explain?
A place made of matter, separate from us, which we perceive?
A dream dreamed by God?
To be free from speculation and premises, we must put aside all our supposed knowledge, our intuition about what the world is and how it works, and stick to the facts of our experience.

So what is the world we want to explain?
It is the totality of our perception, this means all conscious phenomena.
Colors, shapes, sounds, smells, sensations (e.g. feeling heat and cold), emotions, tastes, smells make up the world we know.
To say that this is not the world as it actually is is again a judgment about the world, i.e. an attempt at explanation, a theory, but my aim with this writing is
to go one step deeper.

We have classified the world as the entirety of our conscious content.
Does the world appear to us as something finished? Do we know the world through our perception?
To answer this question a simple example can be given.
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.
What do you do?
One looks for a suitable explanation, a suitable term for the perception, because otherwise it is like a disharmonious tone in the otherwise harmonious symphony of our knowledge.
We have the drive to understand our perceptions, because they do not come as a finished perception, as in our everyday intuition, but only become the world we are used to through our own thought activity.


In order to be able to speak of something at all, our perceptions must be explained by our thinking.
Perception and thinking are the foundation of our journey of knowledge.
In order for any statement about the world to be true, for example that it consists of matter and is separate from us, thoughts about perception must have formed.
Every statement about the world requires thinking. Thinking is our activity, while perception is something given.
But what would perception be without thinking?
A picture full of shapes, colors and other impressions, but with no recognizable “things”.
This would include the fact that these recognizable things are only structured through thinking and come into being with concepts or ideas.

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.



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.

What is this activity that makes the world understandable?
Should we take a deeper look at our own activity, which is the reason we can speak about anything, to study the depth of our being, or should we replace our activity with its produced "products"?
Can we replace the poet with his poems?

[Cleric K]

Hello everyone,
I wanted to post a little Essay wich I have written 2 days ago.

Great work, Guney, I'm very happy for your inspiration. May this little essay be only the beginning of a stream, through which more and more will be revealed to you and others. Writing is really important, even if we write only for ourselves, because it's like in school - we only understand something if we can produce the corresponding thoughts from our own experience.

On the technical side, the part where "we create the world" could be supplemented because there are many ways in which this can be misunderstood, but for such a short essay I think it's OK.

[Federica]

...

Hello Güney,
Thanks for posting your thoughts. I like the metaphor of the pulsating lights in the night sky - it's a really effective but also very simple way to get the idea across, probably more relatable than the newborn baby. And it's a symbol at the same time

[AshvinP]

Hello everyone,
I wanted to post a little Essay wich I have written 2 days ago.
It is nothing new to many people in this forum, but I want to share it to get a clearer idea myself.
Maybe it will help somebody unfamiliar with this topic, to understand the direction of this things.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, this is a fantastic intro essay, Guney. It really taps into the core of intuitive thinking as a spiritual path, which is the ever-expanding recognition of how that intuitive thinking structures and 'makes sense of' the WC. Clearly, your own intuitive orientation to these things is growing.

The following discussion is a very nice complement to your essay, especially the thought-experiment with 'pulsating lights in the sky that are unfamiliar' (if one doesn't want to watch the whole thing, I recommend at least the first 10-15 min). It is quite amazing how these basic principles of our intimate intuitive thinking can lead us into the depths of spiritual reality. Even if we don't follow all the technical details, we can gain a broad yet concrete appreciation for how spiritual science simply elucidates the natural implications of experiencing the exceptional state, where intuitive activity itself becomes the object of observation-thinking. It can even lead us into the depths of the most central events of Earthly evolution, the Christ events. The discussion also helps highlight how, embedded within our intuitive activity in every act of thinking-perception, is not just more 'personal' speculating and opinionating, but dialogues of countless beings that always comprise the meaningful context of our experiences.

[Anthony66]

Hello everyone,
I wanted to post a little Essay wich I have written 2 days ago.
It is nothing new to many people in this forum, but I want to share it to get a clearer idea myself.
Maybe it will help somebody unfamiliar with this topic, to understand the direction of this things.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, this is a fantastic intro essay, Guney. It really taps into the core of intuitive thinking as a spiritual path, which is the ever-expanding recognition of how that intuitive thinking structures and 'makes sense of' the WC. Clearly, your own intuitive orientation to these things is growing.

The following discussion is a very nice complement to your essay, especially the thought-experiment with 'pulsating lights in the sky that are unfamiliar' (if one doesn't want to watch the whole thing, I recommend at least the first 10-15 min). It is quite amazing how these basic principles of our intimate intuitive thinking can lead us into the depths of spiritual reality. Even if we don't follow all the technical details, we can gain a broad yet concrete appreciation for how spiritual science simply elucidates the natural implications of experiencing the exceptional state, where intuitive activity itself becomes the object of observation-thinking. It can even lead us into the depths of the most central events of Earthly evolution, the Christ events. The discussion also helps highlight how, embedded within our intuitive activity in every act of thinking-perception, is not just more 'personal' speculating and opinionating, but dialogues of countless beings that always comprise the meaningful context of our experiences.

Ashvin,

Do you take the two gentlemen in the video to be "reliable guides"?

[AshvinP]

Hello everyone,
I wanted to post a little Essay wich I have written 2 days ago.
It is nothing new to many people in this forum, but I want to share it to get a clearer idea myself.
Maybe it will help somebody unfamiliar with this topic, to understand the direction of this things.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, this is a fantastic intro essay, Guney. It really taps into the core of intuitive thinking as a spiritual path, which is the ever-expanding recognition of how that intuitive thinking structures and 'makes sense of' the WC. Clearly, your own intuitive orientation to these things is growing.

The following discussion is a very nice complement to your essay, especially the thought-experiment with 'pulsating lights in the sky that are unfamiliar' (if one doesn't want to watch the whole thing, I recommend at least the first 10-15 min). It is quite amazing how these basic principles of our intimate intuitive thinking can lead us into the depths of spiritual reality. Even if we don't follow all the technical details, we can gain a broad yet concrete appreciation for how spiritual science simply elucidates the natural implications of experiencing the exceptional state, where intuitive activity itself becomes the object of observation-thinking. It can even lead us into the depths of the most central events of Earthly evolution, the Christ events. The discussion also helps highlight how, embedded within our intuitive activity in every act of thinking-perception, is not just more 'personal' speculating and opinionating, but dialogues of countless beings that always comprise the meaningful context of our experiences.

Ashvin,

Do you take the two gentlemen in the video to be "reliable guides"?

Anthony,

I am not sure about that - I have not evaluated all their work and discussions in any comprehensive way. The only point of sharing the video was because I thought Guney (and perhaps others) would find resonance with how it all naturally unfolds from what he has already discerned intuitively, i.e. that the layers of our intuitive thinking structure the World Content. The most proximate layers are those of our soul-structure - our intellectual opinions, beliefs, habits, our sympathies/antipathies, preferences, inclinations, temperament, etc. This is what we need to confront objectively as we approach the 'guardian' at the threshold. The video speaks to how people, as individuals and collectives, will experience the threshold of the physical-spiritual in widely different ways depending on that soul context.

It is usually missed in our age how the normal sensory spectrum is actually the most unique part of our experience. We generally tend to assume people are perceiving that spectrum the same way we are, but that is because we take for granted the meaningful thinking-context that actually allows for communication and shared understanding. Even still, we are often perceiving meaning in a widely varying ways due to the layers of intuitive activity structuring our thinking-perception. As a somewhat extreme example that nevertheless exemplifies the situation, we could think about the synesthetic with overlapping sensory experience, i.e. they can hear colors or see tones in color. We are all on a gradient of such experiences through spiritual evolution. Some people may simply awaken into such experiences through karmic circumstance, but others can actively cultivate the integration through the portal of thinking concentration.





Or as a more intimate example in this context, you may watch that video and perceive the meaning of 'two delusional quacks who are convinced of all sorts of spiritual woo woo', while I watch it and perceive the meaning of 'two people unfolding the perfectly natural consequences of the realization that our intuitive thinking structures the WC'. As we have discussed often, it is the realization that makes all the difference. Simply holding "intuitive thinking structures the WC" as a floating abstract concept won't really change our perception of meaning. I think the fact that Guney condensed his intuitive thinking into this 'basics' essay shows that realization is dawning on him and therefore he can get meaningful value from moving his thinking through the ideas of such videos, even if the details are not understood right away (and we should have no expectation they will be). The details will naturally begin to make more and more holistic sense as our higher intuitive self incarnates into our conceptual life through the Time-rhythms of spiritual activity.

[Güney27]

Yes, this is a fantastic intro essay, Guney. It really taps into the core of intuitive thinking as a spiritual path, which is the ever-expanding recognition of how that intuitive thinking structures and 'makes sense of' the WC. Clearly, your own intuitive orientation to these things is growing.

The following discussion is a very nice complement to your essay, especially the thought-experiment with 'pulsating lights in the sky that are unfamiliar' (if one doesn't want to watch the whole thing, I recommend at least the first 10-15 min). It is quite amazing how these basic principles of our intimate intuitive thinking can lead us into the depths of spiritual reality. Even if we don't follow all the technical details, we can gain a broad yet concrete appreciation for how spiritual science simply elucidates the natural implications of experiencing the exceptional state, where intuitive activity itself becomes the object of observation-thinking. It can even lead us into the depths of the most central events of Earthly evolution, the Christ events. The discussion also helps highlight how, embedded within our intuitive activity in every act of thinking-perception, is not just more 'personal' speculating and opinionating, but dialogues of countless beings that always comprise the meaningful context of our experiences.

Ashvin,

Do you take the two gentlemen in the video to be "reliable guides"?

Anthony,

I am not sure about that - I have not evaluated all their work and discussions in any comprehensive way. The only point of sharing the video was because I thought Guney (and perhaps others) would find resonance with how it all naturally unfolds from what he has already discerned intuitively, i.e. that the layers of our intuitive thinking structure the World Content. The most proximate layers are those of our soul-structure - our intellectual opinions, beliefs, habits, our sympathies/antipathies, preferences, inclinations, temperament, etc. This is what we need to confront objectively as we approach the 'guardian' at the threshold. The video speaks to how people, as individuals and collectives, will experience the threshold of the physical-spiritual in widely different ways depending on that soul context.

It is usually missed in our age how the normal sensory spectrum is actually the most unique part of our experience. We generally tend to assume people are perceiving that spectrum the same way we are, but that is because we take for granted the meaningful thinking-context that actually allows for communication and shared understanding. Even still, we are often perceiving meaning in a widely varying ways due to the layers of intuitive activity structuring our thinking-perception. As a somewhat extreme example that nevertheless exemplifies the situation, we could think about the synesthetic with overlapping sensory experience, i.e. they can hear colors or see tones in color. We are all on a gradient of such experiences through spiritual evolution. Some people may simply awaken into such experiences through karmic circumstance, but others can actively cultivate the integration through the portal of thinking concentration.





Or as a more intimate example in this context, you may watch that video and perceive the meaning of 'two delusional quacks who are convinced of all sorts of spiritual woo woo', while I watch it and perceive the meaning of 'two people unfolding the perfectly natural consequences of the realization that our intuitive thinking structures the WC'. As we have discussed often, it is the realization that makes all the difference. Simply holding "intuitive thinking structures the WC" as a floating abstract concept won't really change our perception of meaning. I think the fact that Guney condensed his intuitive thinking into this 'basics' essay shows that realization is dawning on him and therefore he can get meaningful value from moving his thinking through the ideas of such videos, even if the details are not understood right away (and we should have no expectation they will be). The details will naturally begin to make more and more holistic sense as our higher intuitive self incarnates into our conceptual life through the Time-rhythms of spiritual activity.

Ashvin,

What do you mean when you say "intuitive thinking structures the WC,,?

Douglas speaks about how the intuitive context we live in, determines the interpretation of the sens perception of UFO phenomena.
This is true.

Steiners epistemological work is very important to grasp, but how do you get from the exceptional state (observation of thinking) to the mystery of the Christ event.

In the martinus thread cleric had written about how one must seek the experience, which is described in spiritual science for themselves.
If we don't do that, we can make antroposophy to an intellectualized theory.

If I try to stay fully in the given of my experience right now I must admit that I can't even speak of other beings that make up my intuitive context, let alone beings that make up the world.
I can reorient my worldview i.e I can understand that every statement about the world is produced by my activity working on perception.
This can help to get out of abstract philosophical models because I understand them as my activity.
I'm now confronted with the mystery of my thinking activity.
What is it?
Why does it make the world intelligible?
Where does it come from?
Why do I tough that instead of that...........


I can be more open to things like astral etheric world etc. but my understanding of the intuitive context we live in don't bring me to the conclusion that they must exist.
Let alone to prove them.

I think on must differentiate between steiners epistemological work and his theosophy.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

What do you mean when you say "intuitive thinking structures the WC,,?

Douglas speaks about how the intuitive context we live in, determines the interpretation of the sens perception of UFO phenomena.
This is true.

Steiners epistemological work is very important to grasp, but how do you get from the exceptional state (observation of thinking) to the mystery of the Christ event.

In the martinus thread cleric had written about how one must seek the experience, which is described in spiritual science for themselves.
If we don't do that, we can make antroposophy to an intellectualized theory.

If I try to stay fully in the given of my experience right now I must admit that I can't even speak of other beings that make up my intuitive context, let alone beings that make up the world.
I can reorient my worldview i.e I can understand that every statement about the world is produced by my activity working on perception.
This can help to get out of abstract philosophical models because I understand them as my activity.
I'm now confronted with the mystery of my thinking activity.
What is it?
Why does it make the world intelligible?
Where does it come from?
Why do I tough that instead of that...........


I can be more open to things like astral etheric world etc. but my understanding of the intuitive context we live in don't bring me to the conclusion that they must exist.
Let alone to prove them.

I think on must differentiate between steiners epistemological work and his theosophy.

Guney,

WC (World Content) = the perceptual content of phenomenal experience. We should remember how expansive this perceptual content is. To quote Cleric from the previous essay: 

So what is at the grounds of our experience? One aspect has already been addressed and can be collectively called perceptions. Here we completely disregard the question “Perceptions of what?”, which immediately suggests a duality of an inner subjective and outer objective world. Of these we have direct experience only of the former. The latter exists for us only as an idea conceived in thinking. It has to be repeated that this is not meant to suggest that our immediate experience is all there is to reality. We’re only looking for a starting point that is free of any assumptions and postulates. Thus we shall focus entirely on our inner experience of color, sound, taste and so on. In addition to the familiar five senses we also include any other conscious phenomena that we can identify – sense of balance, sense of warmth, feelings, pain, pleasure, will, thoughts and so on. Practically anything that can draw our attention and can be thought about is to be considered perception in our context.

...The totality of perceptual phenomena is relatively easy to grasp. Here’s a simple exercise to exemplify this. We can observe the way we move our focus through the forms in our visual field. But we can also try to ‘zoom out’ from any particular form and try to expand our focus and include as much as possible also of our peripheral vision, such that our whole visual field feels like a holistic picture. Now we can try to zoom even further out, while trying to include all other senses in this perceptual panorama – hearing, touch, smell, taste, warmth and so on. Then we can also include our emotional state and finally we can include even the awareness that we’re doing this particular exercise. This is an easy and pleasant exercise and with little practice we’ll become so familiar with this expanded state of attention that we'll be able to move into it in one go, without having to build it up gradually.

So to say "intuitive thinking structures the WC" is practically the equivalent meaning of what you said here - "We have the drive to understand our perceptions, because they do not come as a finished perception, as in our everyday intuition, but only become the world we are used to through our own thought activity."


One reason to stress it is our intuitive thought activity (which embeds inspired, imaginative, intellectual) is so we don't imagine that our conscious mineral-like thoughts are structuring the WC by themselves, although they do play a significant role in what we can attend to within the WC structured by deeper layers of intuitive activity. 

It is important to remember our reasoned thoughts are also part of the WC. We can also make these the objects of our thinking. In that sense, we are not seeking to build theoretical models out of our current thoughts, but rather to mine the deeper layers of meaning within the thoughts we already have. 

For ex., a simple reasoned thought we all have is that this text we perceive is comprised of straight and curvy black lines. Now we can imagine someone who doesn't understand English comes across this text. The chances are actually quite high that, even if this person does not understand the precise meaning of the squiggles, she will recognize it as a meaningful script. She will intuitively sense that it is the manifestation of another intelligence, especially if it is perceived within the context of a forum where ideas are exchanged. 

Now how can we mine deeper meaning from this reasoned thought? If we make it an analogy for all the natural objects and processes of the WC around us, where does that take our thinking? We can explore such questions in an imaginatively fluid way without seeking any rigid theoretical models about the 'nature of reality'. I would actually invite you to ask those questions and share your answers, no matter how simplistic or speculative they may seem. This is the whole point - the exceptional state leads us to perceive, in ever-finer resolution, how the principles of our own intuitive activity are the actual process by which reality is structured and evolves. The etheric, astral, ego, etc. are simply symbols for that experiential reality of layered intuitive activity. 

If we can perceive these things in conceptual thought that is logically coherent and harmonious with our intuitively discerned principles, then they exist! There can be no more doubt of their existence. We don't need to 'prove' them in any other way besides that, because we will never go beyond the first-person perspective of our reasoned experience to say, 'actually, it turns out that experience of the ego doesn't exist'. Again, the 'ego' is not some object we can perceive from the side alongside other objects, but a symbol for the first-person experience of willed thinking. Then it becomes only a matter of discerning in ever-greater resolution how these symbols manifest in our living stream of experience, which of course requires sustained inner development. Everything in spiritual science is the natural unfolding of research into the intuitively discerned principles of how ideation structures perception.
 
On the Christ events, I was thinking in particular about the part of the video where they discuss the temptations of Christ - the doubt, hatred, and fear that he had to overcome in the desert after the baptism. 

1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

5Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 11Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

These are the archetypal temptations we will all go through on the inner path, and that humanity as a whole is going through as it approaches the threshold of the spiritual layers of intuitive activity. We could say they are the temptations to remain unconscious of how intuitive activity structures the WC. Then we are left in a state of selfishness because we feel we are completely alone with our inner life, which we believe is our own monolithic creation, and everything else in the WC is a 'foreign' element to consume, fear, and/or dominate in our thinking, feeling, and willing. The principles of intuitive activity and spiritual evolution can even shine a light on these otherwise enigmatic themes of scripture. It only takes patience, persistence, and good faith for this deeper understanding to incarnate into our intuitive orientation.

[Güney27]

Ashvin,

What do you mean when you say "intuitive thinking structures the WC,,?

Douglas speaks about how the intuitive context we live in, determines the interpretation of the sens perception of UFO phenomena.
This is true.

Steiners epistemological work is very important to grasp, but how do you get from the exceptional state (observation of thinking) to the mystery of the Christ event.

In the martinus thread cleric had written about how one must seek the experience, which is described in spiritual science for themselves.
If we don't do that, we can make antroposophy to an intellectualized theory.

If I try to stay fully in the given of my experience right now I must admit that I can't even speak of other beings that make up my intuitive context, let alone beings that make up the world.
I can reorient my worldview i.e I can understand that every statement about the world is produced by my activity working on perception.
This can help to get out of abstract philosophical models because I understand them as my activity.
I'm now confronted with the mystery of my thinking activity.
What is it?
Why does it make the world intelligible?
Where does it come from?
Why do I tough that instead of that...........


I can be more open to things like astral etheric world etc. but my understanding of the intuitive context we live in don't bring me to the conclusion that they must exist.
Let alone to prove them.

I think on must differentiate between steiners epistemological work and his theosophy.

Guney,

WC (World Content) = the perceptual content of phenomenal experience. We should remember how expansive this perceptual content is. To quote Cleric from the previous essay: 

So what is at the grounds of our experience? One aspect has already been addressed and can be collectively called perceptions. Here we completely disregard the question “Perceptions of what?”, which immediately suggests a duality of an inner subjective and outer objective world. Of these we have direct experience only of the former. The latter exists for us only as an idea conceived in thinking. It has to be repeated that this is not meant to suggest that our immediate experience is all there is to reality. We’re only looking for a starting point that is free of any assumptions and postulates. Thus we shall focus entirely on our inner experience of color, sound, taste and so on. In addition to the familiar five senses we also include any other conscious phenomena that we can identify – sense of balance, sense of warmth, feelings, pain, pleasure, will, thoughts and so on. Practically anything that can draw our attention and can be thought about is to be considered perception in our context.

...The totality of perceptual phenomena is relatively easy to grasp. Here’s a simple exercise to exemplify this. We can observe the way we move our focus through the forms in our visual field. But we can also try to ‘zoom out’ from any particular form and try to expand our focus and include as much as possible also of our peripheral vision, such that our whole visual field feels like a holistic picture. Now we can try to zoom even further out, while trying to include all other senses in this perceptual panorama – hearing, touch, smell, taste, warmth and so on. Then we can also include our emotional state and finally we can include even the awareness that we’re doing this particular exercise. This is an easy and pleasant exercise and with little practice we’ll become so familiar with this expanded state of attention that we'll be able to move into it in one go, without having to build it up gradually.

So to say "intuitive thinking structures the WC" is practically the equivalent meaning of what you said here - "We have the drive to understand our perceptions, because they do not come as a finished perception, as in our everyday intuition, but only become the world we are used to through our own thought activity."


One reason to stress it is our intuitive thought activity (which embeds inspired, imaginative, intellectual) is so we don't imagine that our conscious mineral-like thoughts are structuring the WC by themselves, although they do play a significant role in what we can attend to within the WC structured by deeper layers of intuitive activity. 

It is important to remember our reasoned thoughts are also part of the WC. We can also make these the objects of our thinking. In that sense, we are not seeking to build theoretical models out of our current thoughts, but rather to mine the deeper layers of meaning within the thoughts we already have. 

For ex., a simple reasoned thought we all have is that this text we perceive is comprised of straight and curvy black lines. Now we can imagine someone who doesn't understand English comes across this text. The chances are actually quite high that, even if this person does not understand the precise meaning of the squiggles, she will recognize it as a meaningful script. She will intuitively sense that it is the manifestation of another intelligence, especially if it is perceived within the context of a forum where ideas are exchanged. 

Now how can we mine deeper meaning from this reasoned thought? If we make it an analogy for all the natural objects and processes of the WC around us, where does that take our thinking? We can explore such questions in an imaginatively fluid way without seeking any rigid theoretical models about the 'nature of reality'. I would actually invite you to ask those questions and share your answers, no matter how simplistic or speculative they may seem. This is the whole point - the exceptional state leads us to perceive, in ever-finer resolution, how the principles of our own intuitive activity are the actual process by which reality is structured and evolves. The etheric, astral, ego, etc. are simply symbols for that experiential reality of layered intuitive activity. 

If we can perceive these things in conceptual thought that is logically coherent and harmonious with our intuitively discerned principles, then they exist! There can be no more doubt of their existence. We don't need to 'prove' them in any other way besides that, because we will never go beyond the first-person perspective of our reasoned experience to say, 'actually, it turns out that experience of the ego doesn't exist'. Again, the 'ego' is not some object we can perceive from the side alongside other objects, but a symbol for the first-person experience of willed thinking. Then it becomes only a matter of discerning in ever-greater resolution how these symbols manifest in our living stream of experience, which of course requires sustained inner development. Everything in spiritual science is the natural unfolding of research into the intuitively discerned principles of how ideation structures perception.
 
On the Christ events, I was thinking in particular about the part of the video where they discuss the temptations of Christ - the doubt, hatred, and fear that he had to overcome in the desert after the baptism. 

1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

5Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 11Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

These are the archetypal temptations we will all go through on the inner path, and that humanity as a whole is going through as it approaches the threshold of the spiritual layers of intuitive activity. We could say they are the temptations to remain unconscious of how intuitive activity structures the WC. Then we are left in a state of selfishness because we feel we are completely alone with our inner life, which we believe is our own monolithic creation, and everything else in the WC is a 'foreign' element to consume, fear, and/or dominate in our thinking, feeling, and willing. The principles of intuitive activity and spiritual evolution can even shine a light on these otherwise enigmatic themes of scripture. It only takes patience, persistence, and good faith for this deeper understanding to incarnate into our intuitive orientation.

Yes, thinking in the service of the worldview. It structures our perception. What form does this thinking take?
What does the activity look like that has structured our perception so that we now live in the world we are used to?
How does it differ from how we think in everyday life, for example when we think about objects?


,,It is important to remember that our reasoned thoughts are also part of the WC. We can also make these the subject of our thinking. In this sense, we are not trying to develop theoretical models from our current thoughts, but rather to explore the deeper layers of meaning in the thoughts we already have.

For example, a simple, well-founded thought we all have is that the text we perceive consists of straight and curved black lines. Now we can imagine that someone who does not understand English comes across this text. The chances are actually pretty high that even if that person doesn't understand the exact meaning of the squiggles, they will recognize it as a meaningful script. She will intuitively sense that it is the manifestation of another intelligence, especially when perceived in the context of a forum where ideas are exchanged.

So how can we gain deeper meaning from this well-founded thought? If we draw an analogy from this for all the natural objects and processes of the WC around us, where does that leave us? We can explore such questions in an imaginatively fluid way, without looking for rigid theoretical models about the “nature of reality.” In fact, I would invite you to ask these questions and share your answers, no matter how simple or speculative they may seem. This is the point: the state of emergency leads us to see, in ever finer resolution, how the principles of our own intuitive activity are the very process by which reality is structured and developed. The etheric, the astral, the ego, etc. are simply symbols of this experiential reality of multi-layered intuitive activity."


I don't understand exactly what you want to express with this example.
Are you saying that we should see the world as intentional because of this analogy?

What do you mean when you say that our thinking is what creates reality?
I understand how thought structures our reality, but thinking is not the reason (from a phenomenological perspective) or the cause of my perception.
I try to understand the environment by thinking.

I don't understand exactly what you want to say, I think it's because your intuitive orientation is more pronounced than mine, so I don't understand what you have condensed into text form here.

I realy want to understand what you say here.
Can you explain it again please?

[Güney27]

In the case of the ego everybody can understand it as a symbol, but in the case of etheric body, where is the experiential reality, of the force that structures the physical body, which is part of the WC?