MIND-controlled Flying Saucers

[Jonathan Österman]

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.

SPIRITUAL WORLD :

My dear spiritual sister Federica,

Thank you so very, very much for your long and detailed spiritual explanation. Much appreciated. It was truly Enlightening!

Federica, did you know that an alternative explanation exists, too?

I think that it is spiritually very important that you memorize this alternative explanation, and in order to do so, you must keep reading it on a regular basis. Here it is for you:

THE ONLY TRUE SPIRITUAL EXPLANATION.

[A shy girl]

Ashvin, you and Cleric proceed as if your analogies\drawings\metaphors and phrasing are beyond reproach.

Hey Lorenzo!

Would you like to kindly help me with this, please? viewtopic.php?t=969

[Federica]

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.

My dear spiritual sister Federica,

Thank you so very, very much for your long and detailed spiritual explanation. Much appreciated. It was truly Enlightening!

Federica, did you know that an alternative explanation exists, too?

I think that it is spiritually very important that you memorize this alternative explanation, and in order to do so, you must keep reading it on a regular basis. Here it is for you:

THE ONLY TRUE SPIRITUAL EXPLANATION.

JÖ,

I hope my "long and detailed explanation" didn't come unexpected, since I previously said I wouldn't have much time for the forum during the weekend. Remember?

Now, there is a much more important thing that I have to ask you. Please don't quote me (or others) and then alter the content of the quoted post. Otherwise it's not a quote anymore, agreed? The only acceptable 'alteration' is to highlight part of the text, if you want to comment specifically on that part. Other than that, you can add whatever you like (within the forum guidelines) but please put it in the container of your own first person. I would appreciate if you could rectify the quote in your last post, so it matches what I have really written. Thank you!

[Güney27]

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.

I would say the meaning of life is to follow God's will and be his workers

The central point is evolution, we have to go trough cycles of "schooling" to become worthy (or competent) enough to work with other beings, to fulfill the divine(trinity) will.
So our ideal should be the divine ideal (CHRIST), we should try to be like him.
There the possibility of evil, which gives us freedom and strength to overcome it, and then redeem it out of love.

But the most important thing for me isn't the conceptual understanding of the written, but the living direction to search for the activity, which I have control over and which makes the world intelligible.
These Power (thinking-activity) is where the divine can be found, is still in the blindspot for me, you're right.
But trough Cleric and Steiner I now have a new perspective, which is a firm point to start without assumptions, and where I can
really get rid of that dualistic and materialistic (nihilistic) world-view, without replacing it with other speculation.

I would tend to call my thoughts which I have about these things (which I only beginn to learn right now) christian phenomenology.

I think anthroposophy is really, at its deepest core, the esoteric science to understand christianity.

Thinking is really the only activity which we control.
It is the power of cognition, trough wich we really can understand anything, understand what love is.
Without thinking you wouldn't even ask about what the meaning of love is.

[AshvinP]

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.

I think we would love for the metaphors to be reproached - that would at least show some minimal attempt to understand the perspective from which they are issued and their meaning. But, as it is, there is no attempt to even understand them, let alone reproach them.

What I'm thinking is summed up by Cleric on the other thread:

Surely, when you say "I didn't get it" you don't mean "I don't get it because it is beyond my capacity." Not at all. It's rather "Of course I could understand the analogy if I wanted to. But I don't want to. I choose to see it as some golden calf mind puzzle that doesn't deserve my energy."

I'm also thinking that we are in a dire position when people find zero interest or enthusiasm in observing the course of living experience in the here-and-now. You certainly aren't the only one who avoids it like the plague. But this also keeps people split in their being and, every so often, they are instinctively driven to engage the topic again, as you often do. If the living experience of thinking didn't interest you at a subconscious level, you wouldn't still be sharing your opinions on it from time to time. It reminds me of an old comment by Simon:

There is a sense in which I just don’t know what to think of Cleric’s framing of things. It’s clearly a sophisticated and eloquently argued philosophy, but like Ben and Eugene, it doesn’t really connect with me, with my own search for truth into the experience of self, or in relation to god. None of us see the whole truth, and I feel there must be something there as it’s clearly well thought through, but it’s definitely a different path from the one I’m on.

This is practically how everyone feels when encountering the posts here, especially Cleric's. They know there is something of immense value embedded within the posts, that the metaphors and so forth speak to something essential to our living experience, and do so in surprisingly imaginative ways, but we also sense the effort to progressively uncover that value will stretch our familiar and comfortable beliefs and habits too far from 'neutral' position. Simon at least said this upfront and didn't try to run circles of excuses around us, saying it was all incomprehensible one moment and grade school teachings the next moment. Even the excuses can't remain consistent after a little while.

If it was me, and it was me not too long ago, I would never remain satisfied with such an inner schism between my deepest intuition and the distractive content of my thinking.

[Jonathan Österman]

My dear spiritual sister Federica,

Thank you so very, very much for your long and detailed spiritual explanation. Much appreciated. It was truly Enlightening!

Federica, did you know that an alternative explanation exists, too?

I think that it is spiritually very important that you memorize this alternative explanation, and in order to do so, you must keep reading it on a regular basis. Here it is for you:

THE ONLY TRUE SPIRITUAL EXPLANATION.

JÖ,

I hope my "long and detailed explanation" didn't come unexpected, since I previously said I wouldn't have much time for the forum during the weekend. Remember?

Now, there is a much more important thing that I have to ask you. Please don't quote me (or others) and then alter the content of the quoted post. Otherwise it's not a quote anymore, agreed?

The only acceptable 'alteration' is to highlight part of the text, if you want to comment specifically on that part. Other than that, you can add whatever you like (within the forum guidelines) but please put it in the container of your own first person.

I would appreciate if you could rectify the quote in your last post, so it matches what I have really written. Thank you!

Dear Federica,

AGREED !!!

Please, do accept my sincere apologies. I did not mean any harm. Quite the opposite.

I have just gone to edit my reply to you, to rectify my violation of the rules of this respectable unique scientific forum, as you rightfully requested me to do, and the "window" of time allowed for editing a post after having posted it, has expired.

You told me that you will be away for the weekend, this being the reason why you did not address my very important spiritual question about the nature of self : viewtopic.php?t=963&start=15 , so I would appreciate if you could address it ASAP, please. Thank you, my dear Federica!

[lorenzop]

I think anthroposophy is really, at its deepest core, the esoteric science to understand christianity.

Thinking is really the only activity which we control.
It is the power of cognition, trough wich we really can understand anything, understand what love is.
Without thinking you wouldn't even ask about what the meaning of love is.

I would tend to agree with your first thought. I think anthroposophy is about the heavenly kingdom, and how to understand and live the heavenly kingdom on earth. Christianity doesn't float my boat (not my preference) so not surprising anthroposophy doesn't either.

Re 'Thinking is really the only activity which we control.' . . . not sure if this is true. As Cleric's question from another thread . . . A thought such as 'I choose this thought', or "I chose an apple over an orange" . . . these are thoughts about controlling thought, thoughts about being in control. We might have these thoughts in retrospect . . . can you look inside and find a chooser of thought, or, do you only find thoughts with the content of being in control?

Re Love . . . love is not something we understand . . . we don't need to understand Love just like we don't need to understand how to Be. we live love according to how we are present in the world. If you want to Love more, Be your true nature.

[lorenzop]

Would you like to kindly help me with this, please? viewtopic.php?t=969[/size]

those are images, that's about all I can say

[lorenzop]

I think we would love for the metaphors to be reproached - that would at least show some minimal attempt to understand the perspective from which they are issued and their meaning. But, as it is, there is no attempt to even understand them, let alone reproach them.

As I wrote elsewhere, metaphors and analogies are generally not the main point, but are used to clarify the main point.
Usually one doesn't have to salute the metaphor but address the main point - which I thought I did.
Lucid dreaming is a huge topic on it's own. It's not clear to me why it's essential to the question or why I have to include it in my answer.

[Güney27]

I think anthroposophy is really, at its deepest core, the esoteric science to understand christianity.

Thinking is really the only activity which we control.
It is the power of cognition, trough wich we really can understand anything, understand what love is.
Without thinking you wouldn't even ask about what the meaning of love is.

I would tend to agree with your first thought. I think anthroposophy is about the heavenly kingdom, and how to understand and live the heavenly kingdom on earth. Christianity doesn't float my boat (not my preference) so not surprising anthroposophy doesn't either.

Re 'Thinking is really the only activity which we control.' . . . not sure if this is true. As Cleric's question from another thread . . . A thought such as 'I choose this thought', or "I chose an apple over an orange" . . . these are thoughts about controlling thought, thoughts about being in control. We might have these thoughts in retrospect . . . can you look inside and find a chooser of thought, or, do you only find thoughts with the content of being in control?

Re Love . . . love is not something we understand . . . we don't need to understand Love just like we don't need to understand how to Be. we live love according to how we are present in the world. If you want to Love more, Be your true nature.

Lorenzop,

I would tend to agree with your first thought. I think anthroposophy is about the heavenly kingdom, and how to understand and live the heavenly kingdom on earth. Christianity doesn't float my boat (not my preference) so not surprising anthroposophy doesn't either.

It seems like you try to say that christianity is on the same page with other tradition like hinduism.
I would say that this understanding is very misleading.
We should understand the different traditions not like if there are all different ways to the same goal.
We should understand them in an evolutionary way.
Hinduism was something that a certain group of individuals needed in a particular time frame, because of their constitution, and because of necessity (in order to develop certain qualities).
It served its purpose, but would harm us potentially, if try to go back to these state.
Christianity is different because it came about trough the incarnation of the Logos.
I think Ashvin could explain these in way more detail and clarity then I could.

Re 'Thinking is really the only activity which we control.' . . . not sure if this is true. As Cleric's question from another thread . . . A thought such as 'I choose this thought', or "I chose an apple over an orange" . . . these are thoughts about controlling thought, thoughts about being in control. We might have these thoughts in retrospect . . . can you look inside and find a chooser of thought, or, do you only find thoughts with the content of being in control?

Let me reframe it.
Thinking is the only "thing" for which you can feel yourself, as the active and responsible being, you are the cause of its metamorphosis.
Not in our every day thinking, but in concentration and prayer.
You can observe it yourself.

If we only look at our own experience in a phenomenological way, then we can understand it.

Re Love . . . love is not something we understand . . . we don't need to understand Love just like we don't need to understand how to Be. we live love according to how we are present in the world. If you want to Love more, Be your true nature.

[/quote]
If you say "love is not something we understand", you presuppose that we have the same concept of what love is.
Otherwise we couldn't even talk about love, because we wouldn't now what it is.
Did you ever experienced a new sensation or emotion, for which you couldn't find a concept.
How would you articulate an emotion for which you have no concept, to someone else.
It would be like a hole in your intuitive context.
You probably would think about your emotion in order to fix the hole.