Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
K, psychology and the physical brain | moderated by phil K

the image process...

Closed_forum

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 42 in total
Thu, 25 Jun 2009 #1
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti made repeated statements about images people made of him, of each other and of themselves. The latter is the self image. Is it possible that the self image is a separate "I" instead of the one "self" that everyone seems to refer to. This would entail looking at the two hemispheres as each one may contain its own perception of the body because of the unique construction of the two sides of the brain and quite often their different functions. Even if one has no idea about the two sides of the brain, possibly you have experienced the difficulty in seeing the entire process of the mind. If one understands the center, one may only have solved half of the problem.

Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jun 2009 #2
Thumb_mypictr_140x185-5 Stephen Smalley United States 9 posts in this forum Offline

I wonder if that is how it is designed, if it is a law. Our understanding of ourselves through the intellect can never be complete, and all our attempts may take us only half the way of the remaining distance, and so, while we think we are making progress by accumulating knowledge, that knowledge is perfunctory in nature, being partial and fragmentary as it is.

Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jun 2009 #3
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Stephen: Thanks for kicking off my new topic. I have seen this statement about knowledge somewhere else and it seems that people would love to escape from thought. I posted one of the k-ning daily quotes about self knowledge which K was adamant about on my other topic. I will quote here the daily quote from K-ning.

"Very few are aware of their inward changes, setbacks, conflicts and distortions. Even if they are aware they try to push them aside or run away from them. Don't you do it. I don't think you will, but there is a danger of living with your thoughts and feelings too closely. One has to be aware of one's thoughts and feelings, without anxiety, without pressure. The real revolution has taken place in your life, you should be very much aware of your thoughts and feelings?let them come out, don't check them, don't hold them back. Let them pour out, the gentle as well as the violent ones, but be aware of them." (Krishnamurti... unsited text)

I think if we throw out knowledge and especially knowledge of ourselves, we will be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Knowledge is here to stay. One with knowledge of how the brain works might be able to juxtapose knowledge of oneself with that. We have created this world of incredible things with the brains ability to create memory which is knowledge and then become aware of it. Yes as you say.. all knowledge is fragmentary as is all memory, but the problem exists in your other statement...."while we think we are making progress by accumulating knowledge, " It is the illusion of the thinker and I am proposing here the self image that believes knowledge is significant to increase itself and to become something. We not only think we are important as we become more knowledgeable and have more experiences but we feel more important as we accumulate realizations that we have done all these things and attach the experiences to the images we have of ourselves and others. The intellectual of any sort is one who thinks knowing anything is important for himself to be something. And there are two types of knowledge about oneself and that is the word and the other is the picture. Neither one can be anything but fragmentation but you will never ever stop accumulating memory or you would not be mentally stable. The hippocampus aids in this and when damage happens to it from Alzheimers, for instance, things go downhill from there. I am living with this daily and it is an aweful thing to watch happen to someone. Now, with the ending of the "I" and the "self image" you might quit accumulating memory that is connected to the illusionary I and you might be able to quit accumulating memory that is attached to emotion. That is the search I am interested in.

The main question I am asking in this new topic is how does one manage to become aware of the the self image. We are so used to noticing things within the system of left brain thought and the right brain does not have use of language. So becoming aware and then writing something about it might not be something the left brain can do at all. It may just speculate. Awareness here must take on another approach.

Back to Top
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 #4
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

This video goes along with my next post. Its about visualiztion and the image making process called the minds eye.

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=49885926...

This post was last updated by phil K Sat, 27 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 #5
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Well..here goes..wish me luck. If you have watched the video and I hope you have, you will have seen a wealth of information and speculation to get you thinking. There is actually one thing in there that I am going to have to think about in depth and could be used for another topic, but now I just want to go in to the extension of my other topic on science and the "I's."

I think I have stated my observation that the conceptual "I" of the left brain is the illusionary center that exists in consciousness, and it is supported by language with the word "I" and the thinker as center instead of the thinker as thought. In this video, I think we address the observer as the person doing the seeing and even in a blind person, he has an image making system that has created memory from his using the other senses to create the images. I am going to keep this short (lol) by not siteing the video much, but my thoughts are inspired by some of it and, also past and present observation.

What I want to propose and see if I get any takers is that the observer is what we refer to as the person or the image we have of ourselves as the one looking out in to the world. As we see from this study of the brain...perception of the world is totally supported by memory as memory fills in what we are seeing in the moment. Reality is created by the brain internally by using ones own memory to construct the world again and again to be a familiar situation. Has then this ability to create images and visualize things internally become what we did by mistake in developing a picture of ourselves from our outward perception in a mirror lets say and then when we "fill in" the blanks we fill it in with not only our own perceptual picture but with all of our experiences. In other words, when asked who we are, we immediately bring forth examples of what we have in memory that appear to be what we think we are as in "I am a doctor." Now I am asked what have you done and I recount the memories which have emotional content and, therefore, reexperience the events in the moment with their emotional content. But it appears to the observer of the memory if he has a self image which is just another memory stored with emotion that the self image is telling the story. So we actually think since there is a self as in self image and because we can view ourselves having been in the incident we think delusionally that it is us that did all these things. The truth would be that the observer meaning that the memory we are having in the moment of ourself is actually just a memory itself- the observer is the observed. The observer is different from the perceiver which sees things in the moment.

When K says can you see the tree without the thinker and without the observer, he is asking for a monumental task. Attention here has to be focused outwardly only (remember the two men ducking up and down and only 25% of the people noticed it because their attention was somewhere else at the time). Basically, I think what happens that when confronted about who we are, we may have the emotion attached to the self image as it comes up as our illusionary self. Then as we tell our stories, the experience of that emotion appears to interact with the experiences brought up by the actual remembrance of the actual event. So what is the distortion of a brain that believes it exists because it basically remembers in the moment it exists just like it remembers its other emotional experiences? So as you tell a story about yourself and you have an observer which is the self image which is brought up as being you, havent you distorted the whole process because you will bring up the emotion that goes along with the memory of yourself. If you do not view your memory as being centered by this person you have created as the emotional you, what is the quality of your stories about yourself? Arent you then the detached observer of the observed events, therefore, becoming one with the process and all separation is removed from you, the story teller and the person to whom you are telling the story are one in the same and there is only the story being "perceived" in the moment. The same lack of separation would happen in the moment of listening to another person if you had no image of him.

Hope this helps and you dont go nuts thinking about it.

Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jun 2009 #6
Thumb_avatar averil harrison New Zealand 41 posts in this forum Offline

Yes phil I see what you are seeing as an explaination of the inquiry science has had into consciousness as I have read about this theory of how our consciousness works and certainly from a cause and effect point of view appears logical and with perception one can see these facts being filled in from previous recordings that the observer has experienced.

Is there "an detached observer" as you asked or is the observer saying 'yes there is observation that I am the observed and so another fact collected by the observer, or is observation all there is?
Are we questioning whether the observer/psychological time exists at all, or are we looking for scientific validation that Krishnamurti's dialogues are based in facts.
Is an insight different than a direct perception of a fact? We can see the results of Einsteins Theory of Relativity in the technological progress made but I read that very few people understood the whole theory and that the progression of technology has been the understanding of the facts through reasoning and logic the tools of thought. Is this what we do with religion? Or do we ask what is a religious mind?
I have spent some 'time' looking at this over the years, and am just asking the question as it is an enjoyable pursuit that I can pursue.
An approach that I have observed is adding to the content and more things for the observer to play with.
Is there only chronological time ? Krishnamurti in his discussion with Bohm 'The limits of thought'
Krishnamurti:But Sir thought is based on time,
thought is the outcome of time.
Bohm:yes, but does that mean that time exists beyond thought?.If you say
thought is based on time, then time is more fundamental than thought.
Krishnamurti:Yes

Is thought determining a future for itself?
Averil

Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jun 2009 #7
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

First, and if i may break it down...I am not talking about consciousness as of yet because I am not ready to tackle that subject. Not sure if I will every be able to tackle it. Science hasnt gotten it so if we even try to talk about it, we are just coming up with our own speculations. The last video in the series tackles is so we will see but I just made a statement on the time forum which maybe you should read which I think is really valid about all the K statements.

Next...your statements about the observer were great. The problem is that this may have to do with the above discussion. What I observe in my mother as she is losing her ability to remember anything that has happened recently is that she still maintains what I would call an ego. She is nasty as hell, frankly. Before this nastiness was controlled and the brain studies would show how this happens. My speculation is that the left brain is one of the controllers of the ego that blocks the right brain which may house the ego. My speculation is based highly on the fact that alzheimers patients can still sing up to some point. Alzheimers really effects the left brain thought system the most in the beginning. So this is why I have talked about the observer being this process in the right brain that uses the amygdala to put forth its agenda of aggresive behavior. Yes, I am looking for validation of K in brain study but I am looking at what is wrong with me to end the problems and K was nice but if there is, also, something valid in the brain causing all this, isnt it a nice fact for the intellectual left brain to have to help it quit interfering with our therapy if I may use that word. I havent gotten to conditioning yet which will be really good. All I am asking is for people to look at themselves and see if there is a hidden movement in them that is interfering and I am saying.....hey dudes...I think that is your observer and not your thinker. Does that make more sense? And in keeping with K....there is no observer as it is a thought....maybe it is a right brain thought, as in the picture you have of yourself which I call the self image that I keeps popping up and trying to take control.

Quote from your post:

"We can see the results of Einsteins Theory of Relativity in the technological progress made but I read that very few people understood the whole theory and that the progression of technology has been the understanding of the facts through reasoning and logic the tools of thought. Is this what we do with religion? Or do we ask what is a religious mind? I have spent some 'time' looking at this over the years, and am just asking the question as it is an enjoyable pursuit that I can pursue. An approach that I have observed is adding to the content and more things for the observer to play with."

I think it is more a thing to add to the content of the thinker. The observer likes the religious part of it. The observer likes the experiential part of things and all the emotions that go along with it. The observer is our problem not the thinker. The pleasures are more a problem than the pains. The pains cause brain damage but the pleasures cause direction of thought as the little mice press the button to get more dopamine and pleasure to the point of death before eating food.

You ask "is thought determining a future for itself?" I think emotion has its own movement in the brain. It is addictive as it is the drugs of the brain. I dont think thought has much power but is just a process of identification in the brain. Emotion is our culprit. Look at the emotions and look at the silent thinker...the emotional construct of the images in you mind. If you see how you relate to yourself and to others through an emotional reaction to them when you picture them, you will be able to start tearing down the mind and its biggest mistakes. K says that you are the light in to yourself and self knowledge is what we need to pursue. This is so true. In the mirror of relationship which I interpret to be the daily interactions we have, you can see your emotional reactions. In my study of K and in my study of the brain, I realize and see that all the responses that are emotional are reactions in memory and therefore susceptible to conditioning. Now I dont want people to jump on me and say..does this mean you dont want to have emotions? This is what you have to find out....understand the process and then understand K's statements about "choiceless awareness." In awareness, can one have choices in emotion. Let me state..not when there is a thinker or observer!

This post was last updated by phil K Wed, 01 Jul 2009.

Back to Top
Fri, 03 Jul 2009 #8
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Something has been hitting me lately about this right brain interferer. It appears to me from studying these brain functions that most all the thinking processes can be sent after original perception and then identification to the fear system meaning that we can be conditioned to have reactions to almost anything in our environment and to respond with the emotion of fear. I think this is what I am trying to say about the self image and the emotion of the ego response. It appears that someone, let's say, who has a big ego may be protecting much of his experiences by the fear reaction. This shows up when you say something to a person like this and he immediately goes off on you. This is where the image process comes in. I think that even in someone who has little or no ego, that the image process may kick in sometimes where a certain concept is threatened. An example of this would be a person who is not insulted personally, but when you say something about his child, he reacts. I personally am catching things like this all the time. I think simple prejudice uses this system as in people who fear certain races of people or react to someone who is of a different religion, country or even family. In these cases, I think one has to look at not only the fallacy of what you are prejudiced against but at the fallacy of the thing you are protecting. By fallacy, I mean it is all just created in memory and is not a reality.

Fear and pleasure as emotional conditioners to the mind are extremely powerful as they are the primary emotions that keep us animals. I know that I am very aware of both of them and the power they have had to direct my movements and actions for many years and, of course, still do in certain areas. I will admit to having changed in many areas only to reinforce why I stay with K. It doesnt mean I am self realized or anything like that. I really think that is a bunch of crap frankly and those waiting for a wholistic change immediately with some kundalini experience are not really contributing to personal change at least partially and in the moment and then they cannot help move us in to this nebulous future.

Ray Kurzweil in his speech at the new Singularity University this week has said that there is "power in crowdS." I am just looking for the right crowd to hang out with!!!!

Back to Top
Fri, 03 Jul 2009 #9
Thumb_avatar averil harrison New Zealand 41 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Phil,
I observe every day that under the veneer that we call civilization we are nasty and brutish and so I think that what krishnamurti is saying regarding our imaging process is very worthwhile to go into in depth and worth the 'chronological time'.That does mean seeing the facts of our consciousness as they present in our relationships.
The images that are contained in 'my' consciousness are the content and I think that is easily seen if one looks at what arises without the 'past' looking, when my buttons are pushed.

My partial seeing of this was my need to understand why I hated anyone taking me for granted. I watched without judgement the reactions over some time and then could see that my conditioned response as a child was not to have expectations from my somewhat negligent but kind and warm mum, for any direction in how to manoeuvre my way through this world. This I think was where my ability to question authority was born as my mother was not in anyway authoritarian and in some ways this made it difficult to understand why everyone I met seemed to have a direction in life, a goal to be attained.I suspect for me to question being taken for granted was due to not having an image of expectation from my role model so it annoyed me when anyone had that expectation of me.

Krishnamurti spoke to me at a deep level with his 'Truth is a Pathless land' dialogue and gave me a discernment to question the authority that i discovered was within all my experiences as the result of the moving away from the fact of those experiences, to what i thought it could be, should be, wanted and desired rather than the desire that maybe inherent in us to be fully human with the discovery that this entity was the illusion not as Susan Greenfeild says in the video the world out there as this brain like all brains is natures manifestation built the way it is for survival. The complexity of the human brain is indeed amazing and imagine what it could be capable of if we used the whole brain as a survival agent rather than relied on the 'Limits of Thought.'

The fear that I observed in my fathers second wife certainly there long before her mental states collapsed into chaos , I would ponder may have had something to do with the Alzheimers that eventually she died of as it was still manifestly obvious in her until she died and showed often as aggression. Underneath the veneer of civilzation is this fear that would be exposed, as the ability to supress the experiences that are not addressed as facts and go beyond, surface.

My feeling in is that Krishnamurti's description is very accurate on how the human brain is conditioned to respond to experiences,from within a field that is inadequate to get to the actual root of the problem and I do not think that any understanding of how the brain works from the scientific community will help us to deal with what is actually happening and that each one of is challenged to work this out.

I find that this forum is a tool in that work at this time. I hope this is a contribution and not a deflection from addressing this question as i am rushed in my reply as am sharing my computer room with 2 teenagers at the moment as my 18 year old granddaughter is living with me as her parents have moved away and she is studying here in CHCH.
Averil

Back to Top
Sat, 04 Jul 2009 #10
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Averil...I think I really like your admissions here and your statements that we have to do this ourselves. If there is anything that I think we have to get out of K whether he was delusional or not in what he thought is that each person has to figure this out. I think the brain reseach will support this eventually. It is obvious in all the incidents of damaged brains and I mean a literally damaged brain that has had something either traumatic or physical happen to it . Once a person has given up, it is over for him. All addictive processes and all people who have looked at this would say that each individual has to have some intention to change or else it will never...ever happen.

I would say that on these K sites we either have people who want real change in themselves or we have people who are on here for some kind of interenet entertainment or they have an idea that they already know and want to tell everyone else the solution as they see it. If I missed a category, please let me know. I know that I am here for the personal change but I will admit to a potential delusional state that there may be an answer. But I will, also, admit to the fact that I have always had that perspective even when I was probably a small child. Make of that what you want. I will change from that approach when someone gives me the truth and I will listen.

Now in your post you made statements about the buttons that people push and the statements that you saw how your mother conditioned you. I, tonight, will tell you and the world that my damaged brain has been totally because of the buttons my mother created in my mind to condition me to her agenda of controlling me to be what she wanted me to be. I am now back living with a situation I escaped from years ago at 18..a mere 45 years ago...and I see that my demented mother and I mean that acutally as she probably has Alzheimers tries daily to control my every move. And I mean my every move. She uses everything in her powers of pushing my buttons to do that although she is totally deluded in her thinking as she has lost all short term memory power. Now does that free me of my conditioning and buttons she pushes knowing that she is gone mentally. Absolutely not. I am totally stressed out on a daily basis living here and dealing with this. I just cant get it. What the hell is it with our mothers and how they imprint themselves in our mind and then make us do what they want them to do. I know this is in the brain research but no one seems to want to tackle motherhood because it is so sacred. I think it is a terribly conditioned state that allows womankind to pass on the values of culture and reproduction to their offspring.....Ok put me on a cross and execute me.

Back to Top
Sat, 04 Jul 2009 #11
Thumb_-sparkle- kirsten zwijnenburg Netherlands 10 posts in this forum Offline

the mother and the child, is it an identification-process with its complications ? yes looks like it.. but don't ask me what to do about it.

Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jul 2009 #12
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

lol..thanks Kirsten...I was kinda hoping to leave this one up to you guys....try oxytocin which you all have more than we do...I think that is a good start....throw in a little dopamine and top it off with seduction and sex!...I'll leave it there for now or my last prediction will come true!

Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jul 2009 #13
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

I just finished video 4 of the 6 series and hope some will want to watch. This has some of the right brain theories in it as it has Gazzaniga at 37:20 who has been one of the main left/right brain researchers. This tackles the importance of language development to man and is loaded with things to think about.

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-1944549...

I hope this gives some food for left brain thought!....One thing I have always wondered is how K has attacked "thought" so much and lauded right brain states so much. If one really looks at this video, you might really have some questions about this. Don't forget I am still proposing my theory that it is the right brain that causes the image process. Notice that Gazzaniga calls the right brain "rather stupid."

(I am posting this here and on the science and ego blog as some people are reading just there)

Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jul 2009 #14
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

I decided to go ahead and post this video, too, for those who want to look a little more at the brain functions and consciousness.

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-2122728...

This post was last updated by phil K Mon, 06 Jul 2009.

Back to Top
Mon, 06 Jul 2009 #15
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

I may have had a major breakthrough last night in my mother problem which goes right along with this forum as I have seen this in other areas. First, I fortunately had my friend who I have known for many years give me an hour of his busy schedule of making money to discuss something that has been killing me lately. It's nice when your closest of friends can help you out when they aren't too busy!!

Anyway, in our discussion last night I expressed in words the feeling that I have been having of entrapment and imprisonment which was the same emotion I had felt as a child. Of course, the word is not the thing and the emotion is fear as something triggers the amygdala. As we discussed this in depth as in the many concepts that I may have about my mother as authority figure, controller, button pusher, etc, it seemed that these concepts dissipated as we discussed the absurdity of them. This morning as I woke up I was confronted with the image and the image only. This is where I think the right brain comes in. The actual picture of my mother as she walked away from my room was sticking with me for some time. This I think is what was being reviewed by my fear zone each time I had the picture of her so probably combined with the learned concepts, the thought system interpreted her as a fear. The moments of attention that I had to the image as it appeare dissipated the image and there was no reaction. If this goes according to the way it has worked before...there will be a few more of these moments of the image being thrown up for review and attention will realize there is no danger and the process as far as the fear goes will end.

I could have waited to see if it truly is a part of the solution but when I do that, I completely forget what happened as the memory tends to wipe out all memories of the person or the situation very quickly so I wanted to write it down now. If it doesnt work, I will let you know. What I experienced is that it might not all work because there may be some other connections as maybe something may be connected to pleasure instead of fear. Those are tough ones to get rid of because we dont want to give them up. By the way sex in my observation works this same way. Hence, Freud came up with his theories of the oedipus complex for some cases. Now dont go thinking I had that problem because I didnt...lol. Also, the self image works this way too. The hard part of that is to see exactly what the picture image is of the self. Remember, I have speculated it is the thing you see in the mirror. But there may be more to it than that as I also find that some people have images of other people they would like to be which may be used instead of a picture of oneself. Or the brain is so good at this that one might be able to create a picture of the perfect you and that becomes the self image. Certainly the psychologists are working on this as they say you must have a good self image or self esteem and make you say reaffirming things to yourself as to how good you are etc. All of which I think is a bunch of crap because ending the imaging process completely ends the need for that.

I think I am going to rest on this post for a bit because I want people to have a chance to listen to the vids and absorb some of this. I have received some emails saying that people are a little pressed for time.

Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2009 #16
Thumb_avatar averil harrison New Zealand 41 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Phil,
That was interesting to see what is the image you carry, and that we can all discover from your explaination what we have accumulated in our backgrounds due to our conditioning.

I was listening this morning to a man who was damaged by the drug thalilomide and who has directed or produced a documentary called 'none of us are perfect' (I think) and he talked about the devotion and love of his mother who carried him in her arms for his first 5 years and how with that caring he did not, ( my words) have a conditioned response or a synaptic pathway to his hadicap.His reminder was from in the way some people treated him and also his awareness that there was a physical difference but he definetly did not feel handicapped.

I feel that the only way we can get to the root of this conditioning is by observation of how our experiences have been conditioned by the firing of neurones that are wired as pathways (the neurones that fire together wire together) that we are forced to repeat if not negated by an observation without an observer.
This I do not think can be a process of time as we observe that all movement away from what we experience as a fact is the process that conditions.
When we see that all our consciousness is this movement we maybe able to communicate in a different
Our biological need to fill in the world from our previous experiences maybe the process that we have aquired to fill in between experiences to give this entity called self a life seperate to living and our root fear of biological death.
I wonder if we need any movement of thought to record if the chemical and electrical process do it for us; it maybe just a build up of experiences. I may be completely wrong about this thinking so feel free to correct me.

I am concerned that Patricia has been asked to leave for her way of questioning,as I find it particularily helpful to watch my reactions when someone appears to upset me; as an example there was a moment that I felt you were patronising me. I soon asked myself 'what is this 'I' that feels patronised' and saw that it was not you but me that had the problem.
Regards, Averil

Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2009 #17
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks averil..for this response and your sincere desire to question your responses as I will tell you I have been doing this for years. I cant respond to this post as it seems a little confused but that is what K did to everyone in the beginning.

I instead am trying to bring a little more clarity based on science and research of the brain. As I said in the beginning a lot of K is supported by brain research. Patricia was asked to leave for her way of questioning. Style is something Yiming said he had and he is still here but I deleted one of his posts. There was a distinct difference which I posted for eight hours for those who read frequently and erased it because there was not response and banned her. This was my choice based on what I have seen happen on the K ning forums that have no monitoring on individual blogs and fourms.

The story about the boy damaged by thalidomide is a great story of dedication by a mother. There is much goodness in the world but we must address the conditioned states that move us away from the truth and the reality of what is happening and what may happen based on the distorted movements of mans thinking. Please watch the videos when you get a chance.

Back to Top
Thu, 13 Aug 2009 #18
Thumb_stringio mike christani United States 7 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I just had a thought, about the whole "left brain/right brain" thing, and it occured to me that scientists, at least what i've heard, say we only use 10% of the brain now. So just because it's scientific, doesn't mean it's a fact! That is, it may be only typical, common. But it doesn't neeed to be so, at least that's what I think. And besides, the left/right brain are connected of course. So science is taking the common, and calling it fact, whereas it might not be ultimately true at all, just typical.

Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2009 #19
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Mike...I am sure glad someone had a thought about the left/right brain stuff. Thanks for the post.

First, I think scientists have challenged the 10% rule as the more they take MRI's the more they find how much of the brain is being used. I havent heard any new statistics.

Second, the left and right brains are connected by the corpus callosum but it is a small connection and evolutionarily the brains have separated consciousness and this is a present fact from experienctial proof. In fact I am reading The Crucible of Consciousness by Zoltan Torey who is using the left/right brain divisions to show evolutionarily how the present consciousness was formed. It is the first book on consciousness that has made any sense to me.

Now this statement you made intrigued me: "So science is taking the common, and calling it fact, whereas it might not be ultimately true at all, just typical."

You said, "I just had a thought" at the beginning of your statement and this may be the insight in your statement.

Yes "science is taking the common" in that they are working with the common man and they will call this a fact. And certainly it might not be ultimately true as people may change their consciousness since the state of consciousness as it exists today has not always been around, and then they would not be the typical man who uses his brain in a left and right brain fashion but one who discovers how to create a "whole brain." I would pressume this is one that works cooperatively and may over time even rewire itself to function more efficiently than the present left/right brain operates.

Personally, I need a little rewiring because my golf sucks! K told me in the only conversation I ever had with him that he was a minus 2 at golf!

Back to Top
Sun, 23 Aug 2009 #20
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

I am going to try to keep this image thing going as I think it is really the key to figuring out what the self is. I think we will understand the left brain image process as in there is no real self in the left brain consciousness of thinking and language because all of language is certainly a fragment. When one says "I did that." How could that possibly have a reality as that "I" was a fragment in the moment in time stating that there was an illusionary thinker in the moment crediting itself with the statement?

The thing is that in the state of the right brain...there is a self...something that thinks it exists. The primitive self of the right brain brain.."believes" there is a self that has control over things. What is that self? What is the basis behind that self? I will purport that it is the image. the image of oneself and in what I have observed in the majority of cases that is the image of being a man or a woman. Maybe in some small percentage of people there is the case of no self image as male or female but still that person may have the image of himself as being different from another person because of his accomplishments. That one is simple because how could one be better than another because of his accomplishments if accomplishments are just elements of the left brain thought/language process. The biggy is if you think you are a man or a woman? Isn't this image just a thought? Doesn't this then lead to action based on how men and women act within ones own family, culture and society?

This post was last updated by phil K Sun, 23 Aug 2009.

Back to Top
Sun, 23 Aug 2009 #21
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 34 posts in this forum Offline

Sir, may I join in the discussions?

All yor posts are very deep and informative about Right/ Left brain functioning.I have few simple questions related to self image.It will enhance my understanding if you will be kind enough to answer them.

The silence in the mind, when self is not active, is that also divisible in right and left part?The same question arises about attention also.

So far my understanding was that every non technical thought that is arising in the mind is coming from the self and each such thought further strengthens the self image.The background of such thought is an emptiness.If there are two self, then does this emptiness also originate in right and left side separately?

Please do not take any offence but isn't all the information about right and left brain having different self images further strengthning the self? Isn't this information similar to the information a religeous man carries in his mind about his religeon?I am asking this to understand one thing-Will all this information and knowledge not become a hindrance when one takes the journey of dissolving the self?How can one avoid this trap?

My sincere regards.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2009 #22
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir...thanks for your question.

My ideas about left and right brain are technical and so are the explanations on how to get to the moon. Men with selves can make it to the moon with their technical thinking. Religious men can use ideas but I dont find them very technical as such but mostly unproven speculation. Some of my statments are fact about the workings of the brain and some are speculations about the brain. When working in technical areas, a speculation becomes a fact or is thrown away once things are proven differently. The proof of the religious man has always been faith based even when there are so called miracles. The technical part of a miracle is to prove it happened and then leave the reason to be God must have done it.

Since my major change in the early 70's I have seen understanding as a simple process with basis in fact based on the brain. Since brain research is still a mystery, I think it will take years for all of this to be understood. Certainly one with a self might take the information and use it to his advantage like maybe Francis Crick writing a book proving that there is no center in the brain that can be a "thinker." He made money off this. But I am more concerned in ending the selves and one without a self may use the information to help others understand the mechanism of self which one would have to say is a process of brain. If it is not a process of brain, then I am wrong entirely. Certainly any information including information one reads in K becomes useable by the self until the self is ended.

I am just a person right or wrong who has found K to be simple and have scientific basis which is why I formed this forum and stated this in the premise: "I am interested in discussing an extension of K teachings into a more modern realm of brain structure, neurology and a discussion of thought, self image, conditioning, the "I" as center as they may be related to the scientific studies of the brain. I would suggest one has a little knowledge of the left and right brain. Books of interest might be Julian Jaynes's Bicamaral mind. Francis Crick's: Incredible Hypothesis....Tor Norretranders's The User Illusion...Works by Ramachandran and Damasio....and of course, any and all things K has said. I am no expert in any of this and have not read all of the works I have just mentioned. I would prefer that we make clear our definitions of words as we use them and what we consider those words mean. For instance, if we talk about the "ego", we would all agree to what that word might mean and that may take some discussion. "

I understand there are quite a few people who do not adhere to scientific approaches to K both here and on Kning because they have a more spiritual outlook to K along the lines of almost of a religious view. It is actually those views that I think are hiding the self as one can speculate ad infinitum on on things that cannot be found to be fact eventually. Isn't this the religious point of view to "self" Hide it from fact and make it so escoteric that only a guru can tell you what it is or have the ability to end it. I frankly find it easy to understand but very hard to explain without some scientific proof behind it.

Back to Top
Mon, 31 Aug 2009 #23
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

It's very difficult for me to keep this forum going if the original premise is not followed somewhat and that is a scientific..psychological...neurological approach to K is not adhered to somewhat. It seems that no one has come online who has ever looked at it this way. I now have the problem of continuing or just letting this turn in to something archived and maybe come back later or wait until chat rooms are formed. I have three people telling me to continue but not one of them is a poster here..

So I have thought if I am going to continue this, I could just do some fresh research and post according to the things I am finding out. So here is a new one I think. I know I told someone about it but not sure if it was an email or not.

Damasio has studied a guy named David who has had damage to his hippocampus responsible for the formation of short term memory. It is the thing that my mother has had pretty much destroyed by the alzheimers. It is not a pretty picture because people cannot remember much of anything anymore. My mother remembers nothing that has happened yesterday. David cant remember anything that has happen a minute ago let alone yesterday. David also has had damage to his amygdala which is our fear/aggression part of the brain.

Well, Damasio decided to pull a little thing on David and he exposed him to three people whom he labeled good guy, bad guy and mediocre guy. They each would treat David in a certain way according to the parameters set up. Well David was asked to decide who was his friend and he constantly chose the good guy 80% of the time. When asked why he chose that person...he had no clue and when asked who the people were...he had no clue. Now the other thing of significance is that when they would to take him in a room with the bad guy...he would balk and hesitate and not seem to want to go unless he was coaxed in by the tester. When asked why he didnt want to go, he had no clue. Basically David was remembering the people somehow but not with his left brain which seems to have the benefit of using the memory system of the hippocampus more. By the way they chose for the bad guy the best looking of the doctors who was a woman to play the role of the bad guy. They said that David was a person who took to the women but not in this case!

What I see in this is the image process. The fact that we can form images of people based on how we are treated and whether we like them or not. And obviously since the left brain memory cant even tell us why we like someone or dislike someone in this case, there must be a process going on outside of normal consciousness and that is what I call the image process. (by the way the researchers of left/ right brain mention the Nixon case for us older American people where people said there was just something about Nixon we didnt trust but couldnt say what it was). Now I know that my theory about the right brain holding this process is speculative but so far I just cant see anything turning away from this in what I have researched.

Now...to bring this in to a K perspective. How do we not form an image of someone who has treated us badly? Wouldnt one say that this is an issue? Why would I have an image of a "bad" person. By the way David's "bad person" was just boring and not fun to be with. K always said can you not be hurt and can you not form images of people. He said "you have an image of me." Well, of course that image of K was he was a good person. But didnt he not want you to have an image of him but just listen to him and figure out what he had to say.

So how can we possibly find this image process if the left brain has no clue about it and if it is hidden in the deep subconcious as people call it? I think this is a pretty amazing study! Wish someone else would start seeing some of this too.

Back to Top
Mon, 31 Aug 2009 #24
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 34 posts in this forum Offline

Phil Sir, first of all I want to thank you for helping me in having a better understanding of the functioning of my own brain.After reading your post,I decided to 'see' for myself as to what is the role my right/left brain play my day to day life .

What I wanted to know was the type of memory they store.Also which part is better equipped in observing which kind of happenings,incidents of my day to day life.

I will appreciate it very much if you would let me know as to what you think of it all.

Sir, for the first time I made some interesting discoveries.Now I understand that left brain is more active and efficient in observing what eyes are seeing and the ears are hearing.It brings clarity in the functioning of these two sense organs which basically help us in our interaction with the outside world.

As long as the observation was total , that is when the attention was complete , this part was not forming any words and not recording anything.When the attention is gone, then only words came to record the experience.These words were stored in memory and could be recalled at a later time.

So, when I close my eyes and take my attention to left part of my head/brain,the thoughts that I encounter are related to the outside world.The facts and figures of the outside world are there.My activities are stored there in the form of words.What I have made/done with my own hands ,they are stored in this part as images which can be seen with closed eyes as many times as I wish.The words that I heard while interacting with the outside world are also stored in left brain.So, this part is there to help me in becoming a better 'actor' in the field of action.

This is all very difficult to put in print, Sir.Looking at the functioning of my mind
I have been doing for a very long time but understanding all this in the light of the right/left brain thing is new.

I have much more to share but I have to go somewhere now.Kindly let me know what you think about what I have shared.I am quite excited by the whole thing.Your posts have helped me, so dont think of discontinuing this, please.

I will be in touch ASAP.

My sincere regards!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

This post was last updated by Sudhir Sharma Mon, 31 Aug 2009.

Back to Top
Mon, 31 Aug 2009 #25
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Phil,

Interesting post. You say, "obviously since the left brain memory cant even tell us why we like someone or dislike someone in this case, there must be a process going on outside of normal consciousness and that is what I call the image process."

I believe you are saying that the left-brain "thinking" is not hooking up with the right-brain emotions in considering the same subject. That would be why the left-brain can't tell the "reason" for not liking someone. Is this wrong?

The process outside of consciousness will still have to be something inside the brain, perhaps some other location in the brain than would be expected.

Maybe you've already described the image process you refer to, but if you haven't, can you do so? Or refer back to it.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 31 Aug 2009.

Back to Top
Tue, 01 Sep 2009 #26
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks, Max. Your are such a trooper. Always coming in to ask a good question.

quote Max: " I believe you are saying that the left-brain "thinking" is not hooking up with the right-brain emotions in considering the same subject. That would be why the left-brain can't tell the "reason" for not liking someone. Is this wrong?"

No Max, this is exactly the issue. The left brain has no clue what the right brain is doing and why it is reacting the way it does at time and that is the scary thing about this whole consciousness thing. What we have in the studies is the indication of the differences and problems of communication in our own minds. That is what K has said without knowing about the left and right brain because it was not prevalent information in his day. It was just something coming in to the forfront in neurology.

My hole premise is this thing is the left brain's obvious consciousness of language and the observable thought process which people think is something we must eliminate which is absurd and the unobservable "image" process which is an element of the right brain functioning. Obviously, David has thought and memory but cant form new memory. So he has no clue who the people are he is dealing with as a left brain person. So he tells the doctors that he doesnt know why he is making the decisions he is making but guess what...there is something in his brain that is making these decisions and that thing is the right brain which obviously has a memory of its own. The right brain knows who that bad woman is and it decides it doesnt want to deal with her. So memory or not in the left brain there is recognition by another person in side of us who is making decisions that we are not consciously privy to!!! This is happening in us normal people who dont have brain damage. The image is the memory and the emotional response that the right brain brings to this game of consicousness!

Now how do we see this if the one who sees is the left brain in our interpretation of things? Isnt this K's critical question? How do we change if the thing we have to change is not even observable by the left brain thinker? How do I have a change in my emotional right brain response to people, if the thinker cannot even access this process of memory? What is the image process? It's wholistic. The word is not the thing but the image is the whole thing to memory. The image is the hologram of the person we meet. Break it in pieces but we still can recognize the person from a piece of them. K says how can I end the image I have of a person? This is a major task. This is a task beyond all the conversations people are having on these forums.

Back to Top
Tue, 01 Sep 2009 #27
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 34 posts in this forum Offline

phil K wrote:
Now how do we see this if the one who sees is the left brain in our interpretation of things? Isnt this K's critical question? How do we change if the thing we have to change is not even observable by the left brain thinker? How do I have a change in my emotional right brain response to people, if the thinker cannot even access this process of memory?

Sir,I can only speak about myself.My mind is carrying out these functions--1)When the attention is directed outwards(left brain) it is observing the outer world activities.Then it stores whatever it has experienced in the left brain.

2)All my activities with emotional response are recorded in right brain.

3)I have experimented and found that frontal area has the ability to give clarity to observation of both left and right brain.When this is active,no words or images are formed in right or left brain

4)There is another activity of the brain going on.It is the ability to observe without recognition.This originates in the occipital area.Sir, this is the activity of the brain which corelates and brings harmony in the functioning of left and right brain.The thinking part has no access to emotional right brain but observation without recognition has its own intelligence.It is this activity of the brain that dissolves the image with its emotional response.

There is a relationship between the breathing process and movement of attention.this allows us to shift attention from right to left to frontal or occipital area.Once the attention can move freely in the whole of brain(lighting its every part easily and naturally), then image making macchinery becomes ineffective.This is the only practical way to dissove it.Rest all is theory.That is my understanding,Sir.

Regards.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Back to Top
Tue, 01 Sep 2009 #28
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

(I made a huge mistake and missed the good doctors reply three posts ago. I will say that when I went to read his other posts on other sites, I am very happy he has arrived here to post. In reply, to his post about his left and right brain experiments, I will say that I have to agree with all he has said about his left brain observations. I am adding this here two days after writing what now comes below. I am eagerly awaiting an exchange about all this).

This is exactly what I had hoped to hear someday on here. Thank you so much for this response. The experiential is by far the most important thing here.

I have always wondered about the frontal lobes which are not known much about. The observation of the occipital area is very interesting that here is in your experience the observer without recognition. I would ask what do you think about someone like Zoltan Torrey who was blind from birth. I have not read much of his book on consciousness yet "Crucible of Consciousness but one would have to assume that his occiptal lobes work based on the formation of visual images using the other senses. Have you had experience as to whether blind people from birth even have activity in the occipital lobes. If not, how are they able to observe with intelligence?

I have so many questions here but dont want to go fast. I certainly hope others will read this and ask questions. I do have one new question though and that is what is your experience with Libet's half second delay? Something about it just not seem right to me as it seems more of a self conscious state and some kind of conflict between the two brains operating simaltaneously but not correctly on the same project. Or is it just a phony state of consciousness not necessary at all leading to an illusion in thinking there is a thinker?

Also, you said there is a relationship with the breathing practice that allows the shifting of attention. This I have not experienced and would be interested in your expanding on this. If this is too many questions, just take what you want and run with it. Thanks

This post was last updated by phil K Wed, 02 Sep 2009.

Back to Top
Sat, 05 Sep 2009 #29
Thumb_avatar averil harrison New Zealand 41 posts in this forum Offline

Phil, I have just finished Zoltan Toveys book 'Out of Darkness' (i think or Out of Blindness) his memoir written after the Crucible of Consciousness, and have returned it to the library so cannot check whether the title is correct or the spelling of his name. Zoltan became blind at the age of 22 after an accident with acid at a factory he was working at after arriving from Hungary in the 50's (I think) and this accident made the decision for him to follow his deep interest from childhood about consciousness. This fact of him becoming blind later in life rather than born blind maybe important in your inquiry.

He said that The Crucible of Consciousness appered to answer all questions of the conciousness problem but I wonder why it is not a works that is often referred to as an answer?

I am trying to find The Crucible of Consciousness to read more of his theory.

I am just following the inquiry at the moment as want to just listen to the information and see whether the question speaks to me without challenging anyone else.

Averil

Back to Top
Sat, 05 Sep 2009 #30
Thumb_avatar averil harrison New Zealand 41 posts in this forum Offline

I forgot to mention that visulisation of all that he had stored as memory up until that time coupled with imagination was his approach even though the advice was not to do that,it has allowed him to function almost like a person with sight.

Averil

Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 42 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)