MIND-controlled Flying Saucers

[Güney27]

What is your opinion on the thoughts I shared in the essay?
viewtopic.php?p=22766#p22766
Is there something you would disagree with?

Hey Güney, I agree with your beautiful essay, my friend!

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:

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?

In phenomenology we should stay in our first-person experience, because everything that doesn't start there, starts on assumptions.
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.

[Jonathan Österman]

Wouldn't you say creating another user on the forum who you then use to engage in a pretend dialogue with yourself and others, and to pretend is another perspective on your own views, is a kind of lying? Lazy lies are not very spiritual.

My dear friend Ashvin,

I asked Cleric & you to quote my lies for all to see.

Other than that, you are fully entitled to your own subjective opinion.

I am sorry, but I don't feel any need to defend my innocence.

If it makes you feel happy calling me a "lazy liar" then I am happy, too, my friend.

I understand that, in your spiritual view, it is very spiritual to call innocent people liars, when you lose debate with them.

Ashvin, I suggest that instead of debating my innocence, we debate the following specific issue, which in Cleric's opinion, is very important : viewtopic.php?t=963&start=15

[A shy girl]

Maybe Ashvin, Cleric or Federica will go in more detail.

I hope so, too!

[Jonathan Österman]

And do you know what is absolutely incompatible with spiritual progress? Lying...

My dear friend Cleric,

I forgot to thank you very much for taking your time to think about me, as a person, and about my spiritual mind. Much appreciated!

Speaking of "taking your time", would you, please, also find time to respond to my following specific question, which in your own spiritual opinion, is very important : viewtopic.php?t=963&start=15

[Güney27]

Maybe Ashvin, Cleric or Federica will go in more detail.

I hope so, too!

Is there anything in my response, with which you would disagree?
Is there something you would add to my response?

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

[A shy girl]

We still are in our first-person thinking experience,
but it is in the so called blind spot.

I think you have a blind spot, Güney.
Why there is nothing about positive emotions, LOVE, and pleasure, in your essay? Jon says LOVE and pleasure are the meaning of life. Is he wrong?

[AshvinP]

Wouldn't you say creating another user on the forum who you then use to engage in a pretend dialogue with yourself and others, and to pretend is another perspective on your own views, is a kind of lying? Lazy lies are not very spiritual.

My dear friend Ashvin,

I asked Cleric & you to quote my lies for all to see.

Other than that, you are fully entitled to your own subjective opinion.

I am sorry, but I don't feel any need to defend my innocence.

If it makes you feel happy calling me a "lazy liar" then I am happy, too, my friend.

I understand that, in your spiritual view, it is very spiritual to call innocent people liars, when you lose debate with them.

Ashvin, I suggest that instead of debating my innocence, we debate the following specific issue, which in Cleric's opinion, is very important : viewtopic.php?t=963&start=15

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.

If you want to finally address Cleric's question below, which is indeed very important, then feel free. We can start over. But if you keep abusing the forum for your personal entertainment, then neither you nor your alter will be around much longer.

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?

[A shy girl]

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.

Why is there nothing about positive emotions, LOVE, and pleasure, in your essay? Jon says LOVE and pleasure are the meaning of life. Is he wrong?

Thinking is not everything there is to the meaning of life.
I can feel it deep in my heart.

[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?

[AshvinP]

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 approach 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

If you have other philosophical issues you value, like debating physicalism v. idealism, or exploring Advaita philosophy and spirituality, or flying saucers, you are free to do that as well. You can start your threads and see if anyone else participates (and I will still be merging them together if you create too many in a short time). But if you hijack other people's discussions to impose on them your idiosyncratic tendencies, trying to distract everyone else from the core issues being discussed, whether that is Anthroposophy, meditation, prayer, or anything similar, as you have been doing so far, then we can't allow that to continue. These are fair warnings.