MIND-controlled Flying Saucers

[Jonathan Österman]

The fact that your IP address is from the same exact location as "A shy girl" is not a subjective opinion. Neither is the fact that your footnotes were exactly the same style until recently, linking another post. So now you not only lied but continue to lie to cover up the original lie. It doesn't make me happy to point this out, but since you have no problem wasting everyone else's time for your personal entertainment, I feel it is only fair to make these facts more transparent for others.

Ashwin, as I already made it perfectly clear, as a matter of principle, I do not respond to insinuations masquerading as alleged "facts", like the above, in order to defend my innocence.

" I feel it is only fair to make these facts more transparent for others."

As part of your very spiritual practice, feel free to keep making your subjective "facts" more transparent for others as much as you like, but don't expect me to comment on them anymore, ever again.

Thank you very much for your kind attention, Ashvin.

[Jonathan Österman]

If you want to finally address Cleric's question, which is indeed very important, then feel free. We can start over.

Cleric's question is not the most important question.

It is not even the only very important question.

BTW, I have already addressed this Cleric's question here: viewtopic.php?t=963&start=9

Ashvin, instead of telling me which question to address, start over from yourself and address some real and important philosophical issue, other than endlessly fantasizing about your purely hypothetical and irrelevant pet idea — the PoF Chat-GPT.

Would you?

If you don't want to answer the most important question - philosophical, religious, and scientific - of how we experience our thinking activity, that is understandable. As we have discussed often here, this question leads us into the intimate regions of our soul life that structure our thinking and most people are instinctively repelled by such a prospect. The quandary is that this instinctive reaction doesn't even register consciously, so many other excuses are rationalized and many distractions are sought out. I will admit, your distractions have been some of the most unique and extreme we have encountered so far

Ashvin, whatever happens to be the most important issue to you & Cleric, does not need to be so to everyone else, like for example to Lorenzo, who called your beloved Anthroposophy by the name of Colonoscopo-sophy, or something like that.

Because you, above, conveniently ignored my answer to Cleric's question: viewtopic.php?t=963&start=9 saying that I, allegedly, didn't want to answer it for some idiotic reason that you invented above, I feel it is only fair to make my answer more transparent for others by quoting it as follows:

Cleric : " Can you say few words about what’s your understanding of thinking ? "

My dear spiritual brother Cleric,

sure, I could say few words about what is my understanding of thinking, however, I do think that I do not understand thinking any better than any other thinking person on this forum.

[Federica]

It would be nice if you could add more details to your post.
Then we can have a more meaningful discussion.

To have a more meaningful discussion, it would be nice to first hear from Ashvin, Cleric, and Federica, about the blind spot you mentioned, because I feel that you have a blind spot, Güney.

JÖ,

The blind spot mentioned by Güney - eloquently in my opinion - has been illustrated in more detail in The Central Topic. I have no doubt you are able to consider the ideas illustrated there independent of the author. Here's a short quote that adresses your question directly:

Consider this image:



This is something to which every modern person should have no problem to relate. Within the intellectual state we feel more or less as mind-container and within this container we experience the thoughts, perceptions, essentially - the contents of consciousness. We feel certain singularity within this consciousness which is the reason we can speak of an "I" or ego. Essentially all conscious phenomena are relatable to that singularity. Different people can give different names to that singularity. For some it's simply the human ego, for others its transpersonal One Consciousness but in all cases there's this one container of experience. This is symbolized on the figure as the apex of the cone. It's the vantage point which embraces conscious phenomena. We feel this apex as the top-level observation tower below which everything happens - everything which we're conscious of happens before the eye of consciousness. What's outside this consciousness cone (the thing-in-itself) is another story.

Practically all branches of modern human life utilize this mode of cognition which really consists of ordering thoughts in logical arrangements. Ever since the exploration of propositional logic, formal systems, universal computation (Turing machines, Lambda calculus, etc.) and things like that, the intellect has reached it's grounds so to speak. From this point onwards anything that may be discovered can be immediately shown to be equivalent to some of the axiomatic systems of thinking. For this reason, as far as the logical grounds of the intellect are concerned, the ceiling has been hit, so to speak. From now on it's all about refinement and filtration of the correct intellectual thoughts which supposedly should represent the laws of Nature. The state of philosophy is even more sorry because it is completely lost in abstractions which can hardly be related to anything of practical significance.

Ever since I began writing here I tried to point attention to one thing only - a direction, a degree of freedom, in which our thinking can move into. It can be illustrated thus:



The whole point is that instead of feeling as a top-level authority in the mind and all thought-fragments to be below us (in front our our mind's eye), we can understand our thinking activity to be in the middle and to be embedded within processes in which it flows. I used many different metaphors to speak of the same thing: We can say that there's a wave function of meaning within which our thoughts decohere (QM metaphor). It can be said that there's curvature of meaning within the 'geodesics' of which the thought-fragments flow (GR metaphor). It can be said that there's frequency domain of meaning and space domain of thought-perceptions (Fourier metaphor). All of these have one single goal: to point attention to this cognitive time-flow within which our thoughts are perceived.

[lorenzop]

For example, how do you feel about thinking very clearly the words “I think these words”, where ‘these words’ self-refers to the real time perception of your inner voice as you utter the thoughts. For the time being you can ignore the “I think” part (in the sense of what is the “I”). The important thing is to feel creatively active in the thinking voice. You can try different intonations, you can sing the words. How does this make you feel?

What is your take on that?

I would tend to agree with Jon that Cleric's question is not that important (at least in this forum).
We don't need a spiritual guide to help us find our inner voice - our kindergarten teacher, piano teacher, etc., many people can help with this.
"inner voice" is an expression - not necessarily a thing.
And the thought “I think these words” is like any other thought. It's a thought with a content of a thinker, but it's not the same as a thinker, or does it even mean there is a thinker . . . it's just another thought with the content of being a thinker.

[A shy girl]

Also, the fact that Girl's and your footnotes were exactly the same style until recently, linking another post.

You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Before someone approved my first post, I had had to wait at least 30 minutes. In the meantime, I had been browsing posts on the forum, and had noticed Jon's "signature", as it is called in the user's Control Panel.

You are one very spiritual conspiracy theorist, Ashvin.

Why don't you start new topic: Conspiracy Theories about this Forum.

I feel it is only fair to create this new topic for the forum members to have a place, where they can make their facts more transparent for others.

[AshvinP]

For example, how do you feel about thinking very clearly the words “I think these words”, where ‘these words’ self-refers to the real time perception of your inner voice as you utter the thoughts. For the time being you can ignore the “I think” part (in the sense of what is the “I”). The important thing is to feel creatively active in the thinking voice. You can try different intonations, you can sing the words. How does this make you feel?

What is your take on that?

I would tend to agree with Jon that Cleric's question is not that important (at least in this forum).
We don't need a spiritual guide to help us find our inner voice - our kindergarten teacher, piano teacher, etc., many people can help with this.
"inner voice" is an expression - not necessarily a thing.
And the thought “I think these words” is like any other thought. It's a thought with a content of a thinker, but it's not the same as a thinker, or does it even mean there is a thinker . . . it's just another thought with the content of being a thinker.

Lorenzo,

We know you agree it is unimportant and it has been tried to point out to you why in the most various ways. You are instinctively resisting the experience of your own creative activity. That's why you also ignored Cleric's analogy on the other thread, which simply asked you to choose a letter. Even that minimal amount of introspection into the experience of your own thinking, and what possibly structures it, was resisted. The dream metaphor is used precisely to make clear we are not talking about more content of thinking that is tried on like jeans and socks, but a higher vantage point on the same content we were previously flowing through.

Here's yet another way to approach it. The abstract thoughts we produce and use to build models of reality are like triangle forms - acute, obtuse, equilateral. Each person thinks their own triangle form - such as physicalism, idealism, Advaita, etc. - and says, 'this form gives the most insight into the essential questions of existence, and once I have drawn it, the other triangle forms cannot also be drawn - they are mutually exclusive."








So people draw their forms and then join the forum and start threads about their favorite triangle form, saying "this is the most important philosophical topic to address". Meanwhile, the drawing activity remains in the blind spot. Instead of that approach, we can take the triangle form in our imagination and let each side move in any direction, and move with varying speeds, so that the next moment the sides take, for ex., these positions:





Now we say, "I will not only draw a triangle and let it stay as it is, but I will make certain demands on my imagination. I will think to myself that the sides of the triangle are in continual motion. When they are in motion, then out of the form of the movements there can arise simultaneously a right-angled, or an obtuse-angled triangle, or any other triangle."

So there are two quite different approaches. (1) we draw a triangle and are done with it. We know how it looks and we can rest comfortably in our thoughts, for we have gotten what we want. Now we just start threads so others can see our pretty triangle forms and agree, disagree, share their own triangles, etc. In this approach, the triangle form is basically the ending point of our thinking.

(2) we can also take the triangle form as a starting point and allow each side to move in various directions and at different speeds. In this case, it is not quite so easy; we have to carry out movements in our thought. But in this way, we begin to lay hold of the triangle in its ideal, archetypal form. We keep the thought in continual movement and make it versatile.

Already by making this analogy and exercising our imagination, we have found a starting point that is more intimately real than all the philosophical models over the last 500 years (at least). We have a firm point from which to observe the activity of drawing itself. If one cannot sit still for a few quiet moments and try the exercise above in their imagination, contemplating its meaning, then it should at least be clear that something intimate is being fiercely resisted and one has no idea why.

[AshvinP]

Also, the fact that Girl's and your footnotes were exactly the same style until recently, linking another post.

You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Before someone approved my first post, I had had to wait at least 30 minutes. In the meantime, I had been browsing posts on the forum, and had noticed Jon's "signature", as it is called in the user's Control Panel.

You are one very spiritual conspiracy theorist, Ashvin.

Why don't you start new topic: Conspiracy Theories about this Forum.

I feel it is only fair to create this new topic for the forum members to have a place, where they can make their facts more transparent for others.

Jon, this is your last post in alter mode unless the next one is directed to a substantial issue, such as the one Federica just raised.

[A shy girl]

I would tend to agree with Jon that Cleric's question is not that important (at least in this forum).

Let's be honest. It was just a simple question. We all think, and we all are aware of it. There is no point in over-thinking the thinking. It is a kind of mental masturbation.

Cleric and Ashvin are the most important philosophers on this forum, but mostly to each other only.

[Jonathan Österman]

Jon, this is your last post, unless the next one is directed to a substantial issue, such as the one Federica just raised.

Ashvin, I have just started replying to the very important and substantial issue that Federica just raised. Give me a minute, would you?

[lorenzop]

I would tend to agree with Jon that Cleric's question is not that important (at least in this forum).
We don't need a spiritual guide to help us find our inner voice - our kindergarten teacher, piano teacher, etc., many people can help with this.
"inner voice" is an expression - not necessarily a thing.
And the thought “I think these words” is like any other thought. It's a thought with a content of a thinker, but it's not the same as a thinker, or does it even mean there is a thinker . . . it's just another thought with the content of being a thinker.

Lorenzo,

We know you agree it is unimportant and it has been tried to point out to you why in the most various ways. You are instinctively resisting the experience of your own creative activity. That's why you also ignored Cleric's analogy on the other thread, which simply asked you to choose a letter. Even that minimal amount of introspection into the experience of your own thinking, and what possibly structures it, was resisted. The dream metaphor is used precisely to make clear we are not talking about more content of thinking that is tried on like jeans and socks, but a higher vantage point on the same content we were previously flowing through.

Here's yet another way to approach it. The abstract thoughts we produce and use to build models of reality are like triangle forms - acute, obtuse, equilateral. Each person thinks their own triangle form - such as physicalism, idealism, Advaita, etc. - and says, 'this form gives the most insight into the essential questions of existence, and once I have drawn it, the other triangle forms cannot also be drawn - they are mutually exclusive."








So people draw their forms and then join the forum and start threads about their favorite triangle form, saying "this is the most important philosophical topic to address". Meanwhile, the drawing activity remains in the blind spot. Instead of that approach, we can take the triangle form in our imagination and let each side move in any direction, and move with varying speeds, so that the next moment the sides take, for ex., these positions:





Now we say, "I will not only draw a triangle and let it stay as it is, but I will make certain demands on my imagination. I will think to myself that the sides of the triangle are in continual motion. When they are in motion, then out of the form of the movements there can arise simultaneously a right-angled, or an obtuse-angled triangle, or any other triangle."

So there are two quite different approaches. (1) we draw a triangle and are done with it. We know how it looks and we can rest comfortably in our thoughts, for we have gotten what we want. Now we just start threads so others can see our pretty triangle forms and agree, disagree, share their own triangles, etc. In this approach, the triangle form is basically the ending point of our thinking.

(2) we can also take the triangle form as a starting point and allow each side to move in various directions and at different speeds. In this case, it is not quite so easy; we have to carry out movements in our thought. But in this way, we begin to lay hold of the triangle in its ideal, archetypal form. We keep the thought in continual movement and make it versatile.

Already by making this analogy and exercising our imagination, we have found a starting point that is more intimately real than all the philosophical models over the last 500 years (at least). We have a firm point from which to observe the activity of drawing itself. If one cannot sit still for a few quiet moments and try the exercise above in their imagination, contemplating its meaning, then it should at least be clear that something intimate is being fiercely resisted and one has no idea why.

You and Cleric proceed as if your analogies\drawings\metaphors and phrasing are beyond reproach. Cleric provided a multiple choice question - I didn't get it, I answered him in my own manner, it's not a big deal. Instead of burying me under all these triangles just tell me what you're thinking.