In the case of NDEs ... I have had one.
Objectively I was still alive.
A consciousness that is independent of being-in-the-world is absurd.
I maintain this even after having had this experience.
What I would personally think is that in death or in a NDE, MAYBE, the experience of time becomes in such a way that, when compared to the usual experience of time with others, the experience creates the illusion of the independence of consciousness from corporeality.
The best information about NDEs is with reference to DMT. That is the best reference I can give.

What use of language could determine subsequent thoughts, when it is thought itself that determines the use of language? Thought cloaks itself in language.
If you are considering it the case that a certain concatenation of thinking will designate an outcome regardless of the will of the thinker, which is simply simulated by the thinker, then thought itself is at base deterministic and thus consciousness, what it will think and make of itself based on what it claims to know, is already determined; and therefore there is no freedom?

But what is a natural law or motive, as it relates to human intention?

Dasein is his idea; the being that has being as a question. Dasein has as an existentiele being-in-the-world as well as thrownness, ahead of itself, constituting a totality as an in-itself only as the whole that it would be if it were not in the world anymore, as in... Dead.

What constitutes a 'natural motive'?

My name is Noah too btw.

And in a nutshell, though it is off topic, I see your picture of Heidegger.

So...

What is the meaning of being?

The importance of myth* in public discourse...

There is no importance of 'God' anywhere.

Is God willing to prevent evil but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolvent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able not willing?
Then why call him God?
Epicurus

What about counting? Counting is thought. Knowledge of counting would be consciousness of counting. In order to count there must be a faculty that counts and does not reflect. If one asked the question... One could say "I am counting", but only then, after it was reflected upon, would that counting become counting. Language is representation, not reflection. One can reflect on something and thus have a knowledge in thought of thought or of something that was believed to be without using words or having any reference to language. Fantasies, too...

Why would a knowledge of thought and belief require language?

Thinking about thought and belief requires nothing other than consciousness. Language could be whatever a person defines it to be. Furthermore, language will always say more affectually than what is analytically ascertainable.

What would a knowledge of thought and belief be?

Knowledge of thought and belief... Is that possible?

Knowledge is not dependent on thought... And language is akin to a technology. There is a mechanism of thought for those whom have never learned language. It is not specific... But the specificity of thought has been shown to be nonexistent. Nothing is finite without an infinite reference point.

Origin of truth:

Old English trīewth, trēowth ‘faithfulness, constancy’

That is the definition I am referring to.

I've read your introduction.

What does 'existentially dependent' on 'us' mean? Who is us? Is this idle talk?

Physiological sensations... These things are only metaphorically correlated with the experience of colors, sounds, etc... It might as well be non-sequitur to assert that there is a relationship between the experience of something and the nerve impulse. That gap has never been bridged.

These things must be discovered?
Discovered by whom?
What is it that discovers? Are you sure that that which discovers could ever be represented so to be known?

And there we have the problem of knowledge I have been speaking about.

Money is a means to an endless end, and therefore it is the focal point of 'work' and 'resources' as if work and resources are endless. This is the illusion. And this is not only why money has absolutely no real meaning, only an artificial and synthetic meaning of sign, but why materialism is incapable of giving any existentially significant meaning. Meaning must be created. Nothing is inherently meaningful. Money is given a meaning by those who do not need it for those who need it. It has become more and more invasive as well with the constant production of absolutely meaningless things that attain a meaning by simple association with other things people find meaningful, like fame, popularity or novelty. A great book called Simulacra and Simulation explains this in greater detail.

I have been led to think that one can not know by virtue of knowledge alone... And therefore knowledge has absolutely no primacy over being... Being is unknowable.

"A method of understanding truth," is knowledge. And thus there must be a truth of knowledge. If this truth of knowledge is absolutely incapable of being apprehended (by means of knowledge itself) then what does this imply?
Knowledge is absolutely devoid of meaning?
But what characterizes thought other than meaning?
Is knowledge not limited to thought?
Then how could we even ask the question?
How could we ask the question if there will never be an answer?

It doesn't matter if it has several different uses. I am using it in an easily understandable sense.

I'm not talking about some sort of Truth as in divine...

Ideal of truth.
If something is... A word for instance... A bird... What is the truth of a bird?
Abstraction.
Truth is therefore abstraction?
And therefore knowledge is abstraction?

But it must be something specific, for it is itself something...
Are you saying it is fragmented? Then what would knowledge be then?
Knowledge would be thus nonspecific... And therefore incapable of delivering any specification at all.
Knowledge would be de trop.

Is this the case?

So truth represents nothing specific... But it does in the case of knowledge. For what could be the intentionality of a consciousness of knowledge other than the truth of what would be that knowledge?

...

Knowledge consists of an endeavor to truth. Perhaps I am speaking too generally?
Knowledge seeks truth or to establish truth or to characterize the truth of whatever is the focal point of a knowledge (asking a question about something implies that that something is capable of being questioned and therefore has some type of being). If truth is presupposed then knowledge is presupposed and then what? What does knowledge represent if not truth?
I am asking you. What is Truth? If truth is not; that is, truth is inascertainable or incapable of being apprehended by knowledge then knowledge is completely incapable of giving any actual substantiation or credible account of something. That is the purpose of asking if truth has any being of its own or is completely imaginary or an abstraction.

The word reflects a truth does it not? The Truth of Truth is something. What is it?

If truth is, then what is the 'is'?

How do I do that? I am new to this forum.

Does it have a being of its own? If so, is that being ascertainable? Is it at all? Or does this fall under an ontological argument?

What is truth?

I agree that a materialistic 'worldview' enslaves and is essentially fatalistic.

Very fatalistic you are

The nuclear gun is not in our mouth.
Just because I can go and jump out the window beside me does not mean that I must live my life with reference to not accomplishing that potentiality of my being... This is the root of anxiety; a contemplation of potentialities of my being, especially that which would render my being an in-itself. It is precisely my freedom that allows me to not wallow in an imaginary anxiety.

Actually, philosophy does focus on threats like this. Carl Jung said "Psyche is the great danger... What if the fellows in Moscow get a little antsy? The whole world goes in flames."

There are philosophies that address mass hysteria and life-threatening potentialities.

If logic is a method to knowledge, then logic is subject to what knowledge is subject to, namely an interrogation.
What is logic? A system by which facts are ascertained? What are these facts? But... What is it that logic represents or illustrates? That which eludes a superlative representation? Yes, logic is therefore abstraction.
But this abstraction has its placeholders and aspects of existence can be substituted so to assume a logical intelligibility, but never does logic have anything to do with truth, absolute truth, only a truth that is imaginary.
Knowledge is only as if it were knowledge.

If logic is not about reality... Then it is? Imagination?

The problem here is the binary. Many transgender people say that they are non binary. However, the binary has implications.
If a person says that they ARE NOT a woman, and this characterization of what they are remains within the binary conceptualization of gender, then they are a man.
It is not about feeling like a man as much as it is knowing that one is not what they have been defined by others to be.
Furthermore, what is a man? What is a woman? There, after analyzing, only exists some imaginary abstraction of what a true man or woman would be, so in a sense they recreate what they are, based in an understanding of what they are not. And this is true for everyone. You are what you are not, and you are not what you are (Sartre).

Precisely, by virtue of the understanding of the difference between synthetic and analytic propositions.

Research corporations in the early 1900s in America, specifically 'scrip' or 'company scrip.' A wealthy class can and does oppress lower classes, not by means of money itself, that is absurd... Money is an inanimate being. Oppression comes via time, work and control of resources, which money merely represents.
Have you read Marx?

And yes, I am aware. I personally choose Heidegger's explication of Aletheia to understand truth.

How you use language will not dictate how you think. How you think will dictate how you use language.

mmm
And what is knowledge of something other than the 'truth' of that something? If I say, I see the sky. The sky is blue. The sky contains birds. The sky is mostly nitrogen. If I say all these things, do they not give me some knowledge of that which is the object of it? Wouldn't it be the case that the truth of something is the object of the knowledge of it? If not, then what? Untruth? Relativistic idealism?