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

science, the I and ego,

Closed_forum

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 124 in total
Tue, 09 Jun 2009 #1
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

"I personally am just wondering what would happen if science were to discover what the mind really is and how the "I" really is an illusion and how the "ego" is nothing more than thought and emotion getting it all wrong in a state of misperception of the truth."

(this topical sentence was cut and pasted from a quote I made on a post in the first topic but this topic will include discussion of the self image, also)

This post was last updated by phil K Thu, 11 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Tue, 09 Jun 2009 #2
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

[I am moving a few posts from another topic to this topic. Those quotes will be started with the name of the original poster.]

Post by Max Green.

I'm wondering, Phil, if we should wait for science. Why don't we take this and look into it for ourselves, here in this forum.

Back to Top
Tue, 09 Jun 2009 #3
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Post by Phil King:

Well, Max...I did say "wonder" which you might be interested to know is only a word we have in english. A linguist told me this one month ago at a dentist office.

Absolutely, we dont want to wait for science because maybe we can figure it out ourselves. Where do you want to start. When you signed up for the forum you had a question about the "I" but I dont remember it. I have a couple of ideas about it as related to the brain. I use ego differently from "I" as I see the ego to be more of a holistic picture we have of ourselves. The "I" to me appears to be a word that went wrong i.e. we used it so much in its many forms...I, me, mine, myself and then you, yours, yourself etc that we have become to believe in its existence as representing ourselves. The ego is our self image kind of like the thing we see in the mirror whom we dress up and comb our hair and go out and find sexual partners..etc.

So go ahead. Ask away. We may have to go slowly til we get some more who want to sign up too.

Back to Top
Tue, 09 Jun 2009 #4
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Post by Kirsten Zwijnenburg:

max greene wrote: " I'm wondering, Phil, if we should wait for science. Why don't we take this and look into it for ourselves, here in this forum."

hi phil, max and bobmichael, this sentence made me want to join this forum, yes.. let's not wait for the science that is too much involved in governemental purposes, depending on finances and manipulated by all sorts of agenda's.. we can do our own research.. science finds out by experimenting, so yes why don't we start with it for ourselves, here, let's be our own subject of investigation, we have ourselves always at hand, at any given time, ready to explore.

Back to Top
Tue, 09 Jun 2009 #5
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

phil King
Mon, 08 Jun 2009, 7:59pm

Ok...let's start with "I." I am afraid though I wont be able to leave the physical brain out of it because there might two "I's" This is one of the reasons I brought this forum up. I have seen lots of discussions of the I and K was pretty incessant about it.

So here goes. The left brain is the holder of the word 'I" in 95% of people as it exists in language. The ability to access language and use it seems to be a distinction of the human animal and certainly is one of the reasons for our progress. As language increases, the ability to communicate increases. As words increase, let us say the mind grows. Now my example of the word "wonder" is a perfect example. If english is the only language with the word wonder, then the people who speak english are the only people who wonder. Now its a chicken or egg thing though. Maybe someone is wondering in another language but he doesnt know how to describe what he is doing yet until his language or he invents the word for it and passes it on. The latter is the way language has expanded. ONce the word is invented then people can pass on the ability to do the thing as children learn a language by observing and figuring out what the people are doing. So the left brains ability to create and use language has brought us a long way. I know many foreign friends who say they cant communicate with their families as well back home in their original language because they dont have the words.

Now can we say that the "I" and all the words that go along with it are parts of thinking linearly, left brainly. And then it is used for communication. But here we have to think that the word is not the thing i.e. the linear, singular representation of something in the mind is certainly not the thing itself as in the word "tree." My thought of tree is not the tree. It is just the expression used for communication and for me to create a picture of a tree (the picture is not linear nor of language) when someone else says meet me by the big tree.

So looking at it this way if we might, what does the word "I" represent. We know that the word tree can represent a category as in I love trees and it can represent a specific tree as in the oak tree in the backyard. So what exactly does the word "I" represent to our consciousness of language? "

Back to Top
Tue, 09 Jun 2009 #6
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

max greene
Mon, 08 Jun 2009, 9:41pm

"My thought of tree is not the tree. It is just the expression used for communication and for me to create a picture of a tree (the picture is not linear nor of language) when someone else says meet me by the big tree."

Hi, Phil. Let's stop for a minute in our discussion of the "I" and say, re the above, that certainly the thought is not the tree. Agreed. But why is thought necessary when looking at a tree--or when looking at anything? Why isn't there just looking without the thought process? Thought is memory obviously, because one simply can't think of anything that he has never come into contact with, in one way or another. If one uses memory at the time he is trying see something, he will certainly be coloring or distorting what he is trying to see.

So I guess it amounts to this: Is it possible to look at a tree without thinking?

Back to Top
Tue, 09 Jun 2009 #7
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

phil King
Mon, 08 Jun 2009, 10:09pm

Max. The state of seeing a tree without any thought or action from conscious memory is possible and farily easy. In fact, if you were going to draw the tree, you have to do this because the right brain draws and the left brain shuts off. Try seeing the tree without any recognition of the tree whatsoever. You see one can see a tree nonverbally but not necessarily without a state of emotion that comes from recognition that it is a type of tree you like and you respond emotionally.

If one can watch things without any movement of verbal memory, then you discover the most about yourself because you begin to see your conditioned emotions. That, however, gets to the discussion of the ego which involves pictures.

So it boils down to can one look at a tree in a state of complete silence?

Back to Top
Tue, 09 Jun 2009 #8
Thumb_-sparkle- kirsten zwijnenburg Netherlands 10 posts in this forum Offline

phil King wrote:
So it boils down to can one look at a tree in a state of complete silence?

maybe we can start with watching the upcoming thoughts when looking at a tree ?

Back to Top
Tue, 09 Jun 2009 #9
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

yes exactly, Kirsten. One cannot watch the tree without thought with the intention of thought wanting to watch the tree without thought! And I wouldnt suggest doing it with a tree at all because as someone said "the poor tree," we have used it up so much on K sites.

It's not that the tree is viewed in complete silence but that it is named and the mischief of those thoughts and this gets to the type of thoughts and emotions.

Back to Top
Tue, 09 Jun 2009 #10
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Phil,

Are you aware of this silence when you look at the tree?

I've got one other question: "You see one can see a tree nonverbally but not necessarily without a state of emotion . . ." Could you expand on this a bit?

max

This post was last updated by max greene Tue, 09 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Tue, 09 Jun 2009 #11
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Bob..to answer your first question...by definition I dont think you can be aware of the silence of the mind as that would mean the mind is aware which would end the silence. But the state of awareness is probably that time of actual silence. It is a terrible "Koan", and seems to be such an esoteric statement from a mortal, but this is how I interpret what K is saying.

Second question: It is very easy to look at a tree without thinking. For some people who talk alot like me and who think alot like me and who are very left brain like me, it is a lot more difficult and I do not take walks in nature and practice it, and I have lots of things I am having to do all the time so at most moments in my life if you asked me, I might be thinking about something else other than the thing that is happening right in front of me like the story of K putting the butter on his bread when the woman asked him what profound thought he was having at that very moment. But the nonverbal state where the reading, thinking, naming part of me is quiet. I can actually draw now in that state. By the way marijuana is a right brain drug and shuts down the left brain. Not recommending that but just telling you of its existance.

Ok. Now the really hard part and that is when you are observing something without verbal thought, you can still be looking at it with right brain memory as in comparing the thing to something else in your memory i.e. that is a pretty tree compared to the one sitting next to it and in this state you may experience an emotion of excitement over the beauty of the tree and you may be depressed over the ugliness of the adjacent tree. These emotions are conditioned emotions and would not be experiencing the object in total silence. Lets take kids eating ice cream. They see chocolate and vanilla and are asked to make a choice. That choice can be random and not from memory or it can be a right brain dislike (an emotion) of vanilla lets say and a remembrance of how good (an emotion) chocolate tastes. It would take memory to make such a selection. I hope this helps and others agree with these statements from their own experience. You see I make all this stuff up in the moment by looking at my own memory and how it operates. I dont necessarily mean though that I like chocolate over vanilla (well, would put chocolate syrup on the vanilla if it were there)!

Anyway, the purpose of all of this is to understand the workings of the mind at which time one can look at the truth of what the I and ego are.

This post was last updated by phil K Tue, 09 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Tue, 09 Jun 2009 #12
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Phil

It seems to me that emotion is thinking. If you are looking at something non-verbally but still feel emotion as you look at it, I feel you are thinking about it--and therefore not really seeing it but instead seeing something else, conjured up by your emotion.

Come to think of it (a poor expression, in this context) is it possible to have a non-verbal emotion? Hate, for example--what is it if you don't name it?

But let's get on with the "I," what it is and where it came from, etc.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Tue, 09 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Wed, 10 Jun 2009 #13
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Ok but tomorrow. Im tired but just one thing about emotion. I dont think we can call an emotion thinking and this is very important. It is a result of thinking and memory and it may be a memory itself but I think usually it is happening new in the moment. Neurology says that emotions are internal productions as opposed to our perceptions of the five senses of things which is perceiving things externally. Once there is an emotion in response to something external it might become a memory in response to the same event again but I think it takes the thought of the event as in identifying it and comparing it to something else in memory that causes the reexpeeriencing of the emotion as if it were the original event. See if this makes any sense to you and I'll get back to this and the I tomorrow. One other thing emotion is over time because it is experienced as a reality in feeling. When a thought is gone in the fleet of the moment but we respond in emotion...that feeling continues until the body goes back to homeostasis. I will try to give examples if you want tomorrow.

Back to Top
Wed, 10 Jun 2009 #14
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Well, its a beautiful day here with no wind which only happens about every three weeks here so maybe we can raise some wind to blow the "I" out of the consciousness. Actually it is just a bunch of wind anyway and maybe we can see if science or at least one scientist hasn't already shown it doesnt exist; therefore, it is an illusion as K has said. I see there is another forum working on the "I" and it is certainly Krishnamurti 101 but maybe a little bit of redefining it might help. Let me try a definition of the "I" as I see it. You know anyone reading that statement who has just started this K 101 class might think the professor is nuts. "Here this guy is gonna tell me I am an illusion and he just refered to himself as 'I.' You think we should just get up and walk out of this guys class right now?" I should have done this in college in a class by a Phd in math professor who told us day one that not only had he written the math book we were going to use but he had invented the math itself that was inside it! I left the semester totally confused on how I could pass a class that made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The "I" as in the word is a left brain memory which memory is accessed by the left brain during speech for reference to the individual speaking. It has many forms in many languages and is a sound made during speech which is interpreted as a word by people who speak a similar language who then know the individual being referred to. i.e. a person says. I hit him. I am hitting him and I will hit him. The word "I" here refers to the same individual who appears to be acting in time because of the verbs..hit, hitting and will hit. The truth is that the "I" here is exactly the same and has no reality whatsoever except in reference to the individual. Unfortunately, with the development of verbs and the ability of the body to attach emotion to words (sounds go directly to the emotional zone of the brain), the I has taken on significance beyond the actual fact. But after the child learns what the sound is related to, he must now internalize the sound into the word. He is not told that the word is not the thing. The "I" is not you as there is absolutely nothing in the brain or physical structure that contains the "I." Reference: The Incredible Hypothesis" by Francis Crick. Crick has here attempted to show that there is no neurology or brain structure that could possibly be the center of all thinking. There is no "I."

A little bit more reinforcement by this is, if you look at yourself and your memory without thought, then there is no word "I" as you aren't thinking. Once left brain speech thought begins and we call this thinking for whatever reason it begins, it will begin to reference "I." These references in thinking or in speaking are refering to the same being but an illusion is created in the moment that the word "I" exists separate of the being. But the thinker is a thought and the observer is the observed when it comes to thought. All thought is the same. let me say non matter. One cannot create oneself in language or memory. One cannot go beyond the physical self by thinking that it is beyond itself. This would be total illusion.

The illusion is furthered in the individual by several things. Probably the biggest reason is that everyone around you lives in the same illusion and is building houses, buying boats, fishing poles and buckets all based on the lake they think that is there but it is really a mirage. Two, the reality to itself of the "I" probably came into being when the first person pounded on his chest and said "me." This might have been his first word, we will never know but up until then he just had an ego meaning that the right brain was in control. (actually, I might even defer to Julian Jaynes here for those who are familiar with him). So next, when the "me" as in the word wanted to spread communication skills, he needed verbs to spread his importance to others as in "me" hit, will hit and is hitting. The verbs created psychological time as in past, present and future giving quite a bit of significance to the word "I" which now believes that the word is the thing and the thing is the body which is full of feeling and emotion like the self preservation instinct which will protect the body. So now that the illusion has occurred such that the word appears as real as the body, the self preservative instinct will kick in to protect thought as much as it does to protect the body. As an aside, this is probably the cause of all internal conflict and certainly of external conflict.

Now the biggest question that I see so much with the K discussions is does thought have to come to an end for the "I" to end. Well, if the thought these people are talking about (left brain speech zone thinking) came to an end and it does when people have damages to their left brains and in advanced cases of alzheimers or they have their left brains removed, these people still can sing all the songs they ever knew! And these people still have egos. It's not thought ending but the ending of the illusion by self investigation in to ones own "I" as in the verbal "I" as center. Also, it is needed to see the illusion of time in the fact that thought appears to act in time in the psychological sense. There is no yesterday, today or tomorrow. Those are concepts of the left brain. Smoke a little pot, not suggested, I never inhaled, and see what happens to time.

Clearly, the personal prounouns are used constantly as identification but cannot stand alone as being oneself. If someone asks me a question as to what I did yesterday, I must picture a memory of yesterday which is a thought in itself but a different quality of thought and then I must say I did this or that. Certainly, I am in the room now speaking to that person and that is all they get. No amount of my personal feeling and emotion that might come up in explaining what happened yesterday can convince that person that I exist any more than I do right now. There is no past, there is no future and the present is gone in a fleeting moment leading to a new me every second. Any illusion I might have of a significance of me as a continuity will just lead to my deluding others to think the same about me and about themselves. This illusion and subsequent delusional behavior may have had a purpose in the past in our evolution but it is totally destructive today as it creates a society that is separated by minds that create spaces filled with beliefs that we are different somehow. The difference is, of course, in thought's definition of that difference only.

Back to Top
Wed, 10 Jun 2009 #15
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Phil,

I told you I wasn't much of a technician. I spent 45 minutes carefully responding to points in the above and then hit something and erased it all. So here is a very abbreviated version of what I had written.

You mentioned early on in your last post that maybe a wind could blow the "I" out of the consciousness. I've had a sneaking feeling that just maybe the "I" is identical to, the same as, consciousness. Perhaps they are one and the same.

You wrote some good stuff. I might mention a couple of things.

As you said, there isn't any psychological time. But K remarked somewhere, speaking of time, that there is sequence. That would be physical sequence, I'm sure.

Glad Crick was able to show that there isn't any "I."

And you pointed out that the psychological "I" is as much protected as the physical "I,"
and how this leads to internal and external conflict. Couldn't agree more.

I'm really irritated that I lost all that I had written. But I'm just not going to go back.

You mentioned the past, present, and future. I will try to reconstruct what I had written on this. As you said, there isn't any past or future and the present is fleeting. I would say, like very fleeting. Scientists have gotten it down to nano-seconds (or smaller?) and they are still working on it. I'm saying there is something beyond time, and I call it the Now.
There has to be a "now," or a Now, otherwise there could not be a past. Beyond time, I say, because this "now," or Now, has to be the same Now throughout the universe, not the slightest wavering lapse. As an aside, true creation can take place only in the Now, simply because it is impossible to create in the past. Can we ever catch up to, i.e. understand, this ultimate present through the mechanism of experimentation and thought? I don't think so, since experimenting and thought are tools, built by and for the past--analyzing and remembering what has already been created.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 11 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Thu, 11 Jun 2009 #16
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

I am so identifying with your problem of poof and I sent you a private email about it. I have done the same things several time and you lose your energy to sin the moment. I really will miss your spontaneous response.

To all others... I suggest you write your creative long responses on word or word perfect and then cut and paste You can also if you get something deleted here or on word perfect immediately press ctrl and the letter Z at the same time and that reconstructs what has been lost on here and on word perfect but word perfect will not poof the whole thing away. In fact I just had it happen with writing this. One sentence was highlighted and then poofed away but I pressed control Z and got it back

I agree with all you commented on above and thank you for your comments, Max. I dont think though that all of consciousness can be equated with the "I". The I is a word in the left brain consciousness just like all other words. It is not you nor is it a tree. It is a word and you cant be a word. I have always objected to those that take the K statement that the content of consciousness is consciousness and then they think they are the content of their consciousness. One person on K ning even took a statement where K told someone..."you are the content of your consciousness" and they took that to mean literally that they were the content of their consciousness. That would mean you are the sum total of your thoughts which would be horrendus, That would mean you would get better as you had more experiences and created more memory. Horrid!

Its late and I am headed to bed but thought I would just throw something in here. I wish you disagreed more with what I said cause it would create more material. Are you ready to attack the self image now, or do we need to pursue the "I" more.

Read your last paragraph again and still dont quite understand it but I would say that science and the brain have a lot to go to comprehend the present. I mean sound travels at a speed and so does light so if you are standing closer to something than I am your are experiencing it before me and if we look at the things we are getting on the Hubble telescope that happened a trillion light years ago, it is almost incomprehensible to the present mind. Mind boggling. I dont think I am that smart to even think about it.

This post was last updated by phil K Thu, 11 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Thu, 11 Jun 2009 #17
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Check this article out about what scientists are investigating about intelligence. Now I know why I cant understand a thing about physics. I just need a little genetic engineering.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17280-spe...

This post was last updated by phil K Thu, 11 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Thu, 11 Jun 2009 #18
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Phil,

You have enough in your posting that begins, "Well, it's a beautiful day . . . " (I have a Safari browser, and for some reason it covers up the posting date) to get us going, and then some, in our discussion on this subject of the "I." Why don't we use that posting as a basis for our discussion?

So let's take this, "There is no past, there is no future and the present is gone in a fleeting moment leading to a new me every second."

What I was saying in my last post, the last paragraph, is that so long as there is even a second, or fraction thereof--no matter how small--it's not going to be a new you. There can't be a new you, because the new fraction implies either a preceding fraction, in which case that preceding fraction is the new you, or zero, in which case you didn't exist at all, so far as time is concerned.

I'm saying that the zero, where the me, the "I," doesn't exist in time is a condition we can call the Now, a condition beyond time. There obviously has to be this Now because we exist! We couldn't have been, can't be, "created" in the past--nothing can be created in the past--and all of time is the past. And I mean all of it.

The implication in all of this is tremendous. It implies that "we," as a conscious "we," will never experience living in the present. As a "we," we cannot. Anything already created can't go back, and consciousness is old. But we are living physical organisms, and the act of living, by definition, has to mean the present. And we ARE living in the present because cells are constantly coming into being, cells are dying and being replaced. The "coming into being" and the "replacing" just have to be in the Now, because they couldn't have come from the past.

Is it possible to fully be in the creative present, the Now? What happens to the "I"?

max

Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jun 2009 #19
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

I think what you say here Max is not something that thought can deal with or touch but we can only explain over and over. Being in the creative present would be the body without the memory operating at all. Yes of course we are in the creative present all the time because we are living. But so are the rocks wouldnt you say? I think some of this is an area of physics understanding and I said I cant even get through Hawkins simple book and I have a masters in mathematics!

So here is something about the brain: A man named Libet whose studies have been confirmed by other scientists found that consciousness as we experience is after the fact by half a second or more. I just got this recently from Nortranders book Use Illusion which is excellent but havent found the time to read it and about ten other books I have sitting around. What this means is Libet found that the brain was firing an action like moving the finger before consciousness was aware of it by half a second. So the question doesnt become can we live in the creative moment, I think, but can we become aware of this fact and either end the present illusionary consciousness that is a half second late but thinks it even exists and we call that the "I", the self, and the self image and throw in a little ego for emotion or is there some purpose for this consciousness in the state of humanness that has brought us to this level of progress. This might be what so many people want to end when they ask "do we need to end thought?" Now would we say that this state of consciousness is not living in the present? I dont think so because as you have said, we live in the presen andt we have no other choice and even though the consciousness itself lives in an illusion, it is living in the moment. Where it exists no man knows. The entire process of perception is not a reality as our reconstruction by the brain of an object is just our perception of it and then shut your eyes and the imagery one creates of the object doesnt even use the same area of the brain that made the image from the eyes anyway so the visual imagery we make is even yet another distortion and all of that stuff going on is happening in the moment. And then what happens, in comes the consciousness of memory trying to interpret all of this a half second later. What a mess. Its just enough now to break the illusionary process down and end the 'I" as illusion to itself.

So to answer your question as I understand it and I may not understand it, you are living in the creative present even if that creative present is experiencing thought/memory. The memory has been created again. The problem is who is thinking that he created it..."me"...No that is not right. Memory cannot create memory. It only accesses memory from left or right brain storage methods like putting things in drawers and then going back and finding they are there in the same order. (memory though is not that orderly). The problem is the word "I" being in between the socks in the drawer every fifth sock. SAy it enough times and then get a feeling when you say it and it begins to take credit. If one drops that illusion and that connection, is the "I" really a problem or just a fleeting statement in the nanosecond of existence. But.. and this is a big but....you have to end the feeling because it goes on in to the next second or even half minute or minute until the body can go back to homeostasis. And afterall, the animal exists to end bad emotion and to create good emotion as it is hard wired to do that. Man, however, has in his illusion created a state of thinking there is some transcendance of al this in to some kind of god like state, but unfortuantely even that transcendence through drugs or just ordinary mind states is still experiencing within the body as the brain will be seen to fire in all cases. In fact, we have a god zone in the frontal lobe. Now again we go in to something that may be beyond like the notion of spirit and spirituality etc. which science may specualte about and religious teachers say they know about and try to tell us about it but thought will never touch this state unless maybe thought is that state since we dont have a clue what thought is. Wouldnt that be funny if we find out that thought is spirituality and here everybody has been trying to end it?

Oh well, this seems like a lot of rambling, but the question is so difficult and vast that this is all I could come up with right now at 5 am.

Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jun 2009 #20
Thumb_-sparkle- kirsten zwijnenburg Netherlands 10 posts in this forum Offline

the body moves by itself and "I" am interpreting it all just one moment after.
but what is it then which decided how to move, what to do etc..
and.. thoughts are part of the body too, so thoughts pop up all the time,
and "I" am giving meaning to those thoughts just one moment after also ?
yes the god zone in the frontlobe, there it is, the seat of "I", megalomania.

Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jun 2009 #21
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Phil,

There are a lot of questions in all of this, wouldn't you say"

It appears that the thought of the "I" is just that--a single thought in the left side of the brain. What is not clear to me is what is meant by the "Ego," apparently a right-side phenomenon. (Correct me if I am off base on any of this.)

I have questions as to the origin of the Ego and the mechanics associated with the I/Ego: Since the "I" is just a thought, a construct, it cannot create the Ego. The Ego has to be created by the organism itself, as only a living being is capable of creation. I understand that the emotions are tied to the Ego (did the organism create the Ego as a vehicle for the emotions, or are the emotions the Ego itself?). It takes an entity to feel an emotion, and that entity has to be the psychological "I,"--the organism doesn't feel emotion: it either sees or doesn't see, hears or doesn't hear, hurts or doesn't hurt. So the emotions refer back to the psychological "I," and are linked to it. They are a package. Now here's the question: If the psychological "I" is just a phony and not needed, just an illusion we have created, what shall we do about the emotions linked only to this illusionary "I"? It would appear that there is no need for emotions, either.

max

Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jun 2009 #22
Thumb_avatar Remove Please Netherlands 9 posts in this forum Offline

phil King wrote:
"I personally am just wondering what would happen if science were to discover what the mind really is and how the "I" really is an illusion and how the "ego" is nothing more than thought and emotion getting it all wrong in a state of misperception of the truth."

Why do you think your body (Reptilian brain and Mamal brain) cares? Who Cares. Your body is in control, its doing great, the only problem is that sometimes those angels in the Cortex brain are whispering non-sense(ry) information...about truth, wisdom, love, ego and about illusions...how do you think your body should respond?

Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jun 2009 #23
Thumb_avatar Remove Please Netherlands 9 posts in this forum Offline

phil King wrote:
This illusion and subsequent delusional behavior may have had a purpose in the past in our evolution but it is totally destructive today as it creates a society that is separated by minds that create spaces filled with beliefs that we are different somehow. The difference is, of course, in thought's definition of that difference only.

Why did "K" called himself "The Speaker" ...

Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jun 2009 #24
Thumb_avatar Remove Please Netherlands 9 posts in this forum Offline

kirsten zwijnenburg wrote:
yes the god zone in the frontlobe, there it is, the seat of "I", megalomania.

Megalomaniak :)

Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jun 2009 #25
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Kirsten,

"thoughts are part of the body too, so thoughts pop up all the time, and "I" am giving meaning to those thoughts."

I've wondered about this a bit. It would seem that the brain, in thinking, would emit some type of energy, something similar to a radio emitting radio waves. I'm not a physicist, but radio waves must be material--photons, zenophons, or something. If I can be shown that radio waves are material, then I'm going to say, with just a little extension, spinning, stringing, that thought waves are material also. And if thinking is material, the psychological "I" has some basis in materiality. This, of course, doesn't mean this "I" has any necessary function. It is still only a construct.

max

Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jun 2009 #26
Thumb_avatar Remove Please Netherlands 9 posts in this forum Offline

Leave the I and the EGO...

Lets focus on Jiddu Krishnamurti and the Speaker. :)

Who and above all What is Jiddu Krishnamurti?
Who and above all What is the Speaker?

A verb?

Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jun 2009 #27
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Jonathan,

I've always been a bit suspicious of the word, "focus." I've played a little chess in my life. Years ago one of the best chess players in the world said that the game didn't require concentration so much as it required attention.

max

Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jun 2009 #28
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

I really am too tired to post much tonight...but a couple of quick comments...Kirsten I want to address this comment you made after I had brought up the Libet half second thing..."thoughts are part of the body too, so thoughts pop up all the time, and "I" am giving meaning to those thoughts just one moment after also ? " You see I think the Libet studies really have a great input to the issue of thought if these thoughts that pop up are superfluous statements of fact after the fact as I am going to move my finger after we have the premonitory urge to do so. I am struggling with the Libet stuff right now.

Max, you post that started with "There are a lot of questions in all of this, wouldn't you say" 8 posts ago has so much good stuff in it and it starts the facing of the "what is the ego" which I have been wanting to address. You last sentence in that post has to be examined as if the ego is nothing but psychologically created emotion.....then what has this to say about all of the psychologically created emotion.

Jonathan...welcome. K used the word I in personal conversation, but he was quite aware of the public having images of him and he was so brutal to the word I, he probably felt that addressing himself as the speaker would be a way of avoiding the controversy. I think one of the things people may have missed too, though is his saying that he is not speaking as a teacher to his audience...as someone who knows telling someone who doesnt know and that he was doing this at the same time trying to find out "together" what is going on even though he had talked all the time about the same things. K seemed to be able to create a newness about the same old topic. This would, also, be a reason for being a speaker and not an "I" in the moment.

Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jun 2009 #29
Thumb_deleted_user_med daniel moru Ireland 5 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

hello, fisrt language is french so..!!
anyway, EGO means "me" in latin, can we say that ego is my experiences, stored somewhere in the brain, a bit more ok !!
my father got a brain stroke , just after his memory was altered, alone he would not have survived, like : could not eat,organise all the material aspects of life, go back home, would not recognise anyone, did not care about politic,trade union and organised religions he was deeply involved in, and so on..
so far I see this self process as a kind of computer central unit, with its memory, analysing capacities, and this duality inner process going on all the time like yes/no.as a conclusion, rejecting or accepting.
For myself I have seen ( thanks the dreams!) this constant projection in some future of ideas, plan,desire for some "experiences" not only in the field of body surviving like organising food and shelter, health ..but mainly projecting some ideal futur , escaping from something..tomorow I will be happy, I will be K..for exemple !!
A scientist is looking at something through a microscope , the scientist beeing the man who knows according to what he learnt , trying to understand something through his knowledge and the tool which is the microscope.
If we come back to the computer comparison, the" I " analysing would be just a tool, a mean like the bird knows how to build a nest and find food, of course the brain/tool/program of a human beeing is much more sophisticated but merely it s the same idea..well ,possibly..
as a mean to survive the ego/tool , is using the memory of some experience to analyse over and coming to this simple conclusion: yes or no!, using personal experiences from the past, and shaping everything according to its own ..."conclusions", like my conclusions against your conclusions.
Building a house, you need to make choices to do it, do we need the same tool in every aspects of life, like the " living together" ,like "let s us watch the question of death , our own death of course, and also the death of friends ,children and so on ?? This Ego located somewhere in the brain ,fonctionning from what he learnt in the past, those memories accumulated beeing the "I", beeing afraid of not having total security, physiological ( matter) and psychological ( ideas), can this "Fear" deal with life?
and many more endless questions ...as they say in ireland where I live: all the best!

lost in tragedy...

Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jun 2009 #30
Thumb_avatar Remove Please Netherlands 9 posts in this forum Offline

phil King wrote:
Jonathan...welcome. K used the word I in personal conversation, but he was quite aware of the public having images of him and he was so brutal to the word I, he probably felt that addressing himself as the speaker would be a way of avoiding the controversy. I think one of the things people may have missed too, though is his saying that he is not speaking as a teacher to his audience...as someone who knows telling someone who doesnt know and that he was doing this at the same time trying to find out "together" what is going on even though he had talked all the time about the same things. K seemed to be able to create a newness about the same old topic. This would, also, be a reason for being a speaker and not an "I" in the moment.

Thats not my point Phil. My point is that Jiddu was a human too. This means, he is in the same boat as we. The use of a third person aka "The Speaker" and not the "I" is very suspicious to me. It has to do with identification. I accept the notion thet the "I" is a construct. I wonder if Jiddu was an individual or a dividual. A Social Organism or a Biological Organism.

When you put both together as a whole, the social organism and the biological organism, what do you get? a Human? us Humans.

Why nullify the "I" it's not the "I" that has self-assertive properties.The "I" has self-integrative properties, it want to belong to something, a group, an idea, something bigger, a loved one, and all the rest of it. The the biological organism is self-assertive when stressed...maybe I am missing the mark here...

Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 124 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.)