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

science, the I and ego,

Closed_forum

Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 124 in total
Wed, 17 Jun 2009 #61
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

I just went to K ning and read K's quote for the day and I think that what we are talking about here is totally in the spirit of the self-knowledge and investigating thought-feeling. Specifically K says, "Through self-awareness and in the clarity of self-knowledge, there comes right thinking." I think this is exactly what we are doing on all these forums, of which our forum just is adding some more knowledge. I would say that everyone has to investigate himself to find out if the knowledge purported here is true for him or her.

"Only right thinking can free our thought-feeling from ignorance and sorrow. Right thinking is not the result of time but of becoming intensely aware in the present of all conditioning, which prevents clarity and understanding. The realization of that which is immortal, deathless, does not lie along the path of self-continuity, nor is it in its opposite. In the opposites there is conflict but not truth. Through self-awareness and in the clarity of self-knowledge, there comes right thinking. The capacity to realize truth is with us. In cultivating right thinking, which comes with self-knowledge, thought-feeling unfolds into the real, the timeless.? What is necessary is to go beyond our narrow beliefs and formulations, our cravings and hopes, to experience that which is deathless and timeless." (daily quote on K ning site...no reference I think).

This post was last updated by phil K Wed, 17 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jun 2009 #62
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

"The truth is that you do not exist at all. Existence is an illusion of thought and only important to thought. When someone tells you that they exist outside of thought or memory please introduce them to an alzheimers patient who has lost varying amounts of brain function. Psychological time is just the illusion that left brain thought creates as yesterday, today, and tomorrow."

If we do not exist as physical organisms with brain/minds, there is not the slightest point to any of this discussion.

". . . K has had so much problems in getting people to understand change . . ."

Change, creativity has to be now--it can't be in the past. All of our thinking is of the past--it is memory. Change cannot involve thought--possibly it cannot involve the working of the brain, I don't know. Change is now--and what is this "now"? This is what humanity has not come to grips with, and what K didn't get across.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Wed, 17 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #63
Thumb_avatar averil harrison New Zealand 41 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks Phil and Max for bearing with me.
I have looked at the movement within and having reread your posts have realised that my conclusions into left and right brain have been based on others beliefs and not an inquiry into selfknowledge.

Will get back to you later on this as have a couple of people arriving soon for more inquiry.
Averil

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #64
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Max...there is nothing in my statement that has anything to do with physical existence. How could I put so much faith in the physical structure of the brain if I didnt think we existed physically.

Averil...I am blown away by your statement and thanks for it. Yes that is all this is...a search in self knowledge and how can we throw out the physical facts about how the brain works..That is like throwing out a doctors solution to how you can take a drug that will help you get well.

So its late and I have a lot to say but not tonight. We only have three of us commenting but that is two more than one. Glad to have you guys and lets go after this. Please, challenge me ...challenge yourself.....ask me questions ..look at what you think and what your reactions are and bring them up here.....I am open to change daily and I will investigate and go in to anything in the moment to find out....If we dont do this..who will. Phil

This post was last updated by phil K Thu, 18 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #65
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 6 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Phil and others,

I don't wish to be left alone so I'm butting in. Though it's been hard for my brain (both left and right!) to follow most of what you were discussing, it wants to take part in your discussions because it knows the words I, ego, consciousness etc..

I have no way of contributing to the scientific aspect of your dialogues. But still I have question. If it's relevant please share. My question is: Does silence have any role in our dialogues? What happens to the brain when there's silence?

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #66
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Ramesh, Welcome and glad to have anyone. Max actually made the same statement about the brain as you did so it doesnt matter because he has been the mainstay of this forum. I am just bringing up my experience with the physical brain because it has become important in my following of K since I ran in to the left/right brain studies in the late 70's. I actually went once to Ojai and taught about 15 people "drawing on the right side of the brain," all of whom were connected with the school and/or foundation activities and didnt get much interest back then in my ideas, but thought maybe if I brought it up on a forum, it would strike some interest in people. I am planning to stick with it for as long as people are interested.

Here is what I will comment on about silence and leave it up to others. I think when K is talking about silence, he is talking about left brain thought being quiet and not busy defining things and thinking in words. K seemed to think that there was lack of attention when one was carrying on conversations. He gave many examples of how people he saw would miss something that happened around them because they were so deeply involved in some conversation. Very early in this forum, Max asked some questions about this which we addressed. You might want to go back and read that. We came to the conclusion that the right brain, also, thinks but in a different way and we wondered about how that silence comes about when the right brain does not operate too.The purpose of silence of the mind is up to the individual. I would not put much value on it as thought would be putting value on it and then want a method to reach that state. I think it is better to reach it from understanding, which then places its own value on it. If awareness and a quiet mind at times becomes of value to the organism for some reason, then a meditative state is reached without effort. I think the organism only comes to that awareness when it thoroughly understands itself. This understanding encompasses a lot as in the mind, the brain, the "I", self image, ego and emotions. If there is internal conflict caused by our own thinking and the misuse of the brain by invalid memory trying to attack internal emotions, then there can be no silence, and in fact, there is activity that moves us in the state of action to violence in all its forms towards the outside world.

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #67
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

I have confused Ramesh's poor left and right brains and gave Kirsten headaches, and in person over the years have put many friends to sleep when I am talking. I guess I am no K, who seemed to awaken people with his talks. In my own defense or let me say the defense of the things I am talking about, I would ask why what is being said especially if you dont know me and none of you do is the mind fighting these statements? Obviously, it could be that what I am saying is just foolish and has no truth to it whatsoever. But it could be that something inside you is fighting the information. Maybe the ego is being brought to the forfront and about to be exposed to itself and just doesn't like the conversation because it fears destruction; its own end or death. Maybe one shys away from hearing a truth that might end a pleasure lets say. We know that for an addiction to end, for example, the addict himself must want to change. I think those of you who have read K for years have experienced this moving away of certain parts of K that you cant understand or that stress you. Stress is fear and that chemical causes us to avoid situations where we might stress if we have the luxury to do that. If you stress at your job and cant find a more pleasant job, then your only choice is to face the stress and end it or you will slowly but surely make yourself sick over years and die younger than you should. If you change jobs and love your new job, that is great but in this case you may never face your problem of why you stressed at the other job and you may find you are limited by choosing avoidance of situations your whole life instead of facing the "stress" head on.

Now, since I have created this mess of stress for everyone following this blog, let me move it along a bit. The ego and its emotional states of defense, fight or flight which uses the entire fear system is, I think, created by a self image. What this means is that we may look in the mirror and create an image of ourselves that actually becomes us. As we go through life, the experiences we have are then remembered with a center of either the left brain "I" which tends to remember things in a clear linear order and also things are remembered in pictures as we look at someone and create the physical image of them. It is this part of picture imaging that I think the right brain is mostly in control of and being this "silent partner" it is the hardest thing to observe is going on. Pictures appear to be more real to us as they hold so much more quality in them of a person. Just try to describe someone without making a visual picture of them. You really can only do that in person. Now if we throw K in here, he warned people of the image that they have made of him and that they have of themselves and he said you cant listen to him if you have an image of him. The reason for this is that one is constantly comparing himself with the other person if he lives in a state of emotion attached to his own image. Ego then I would define as a state of emotion attached to ones own image he has of himself. This is why the individual defends himself against others or attacks others who appear to be different from them. And, of course, the ego can envy someone else whom he admires because he thinks that person has a better image than he does. Society then becomes this representation of people who are in constant state of competition to better themselves, create self esteem, and to join a society that is observed to be better than theirs or to destroy societies that appear to be worse.

I think I will leave it here because I can almost feel the pain I am causing with my statements as people read this.

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #68
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 6 posts in this forum Offline

phil King wrote:
I think I will leave it here because I can almost feel the pain I am causing with my statements as people read this.

Phil, You make me laugh too. Don't be so hard on yourself. You have not caused any stress to me. I have voluntarily come to discuss. Pl go on.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #69
Thumb_-sparkle- kirsten zwijnenburg Netherlands 10 posts in this forum Offline

no go on phil :) it is good to be challenged, and you asked for challenges also.. this did make me wonder 'who will be challenged' ? is my left brain asking for intellectual puzzles to be occupied with ? entertainment ? or.. is it the right brain asking for a clearer picture out of curiosity into its own existence.. each answer to that comes from the left brain for sure ? so can i just ignore those.. better said, negate them.. negate the interpreting explanations from the limited and linear thinking self-sustaining brain-construct afterwards..

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #70
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Here is an excerpt from previous correspondence of mine. I thought it might be pertinent to our discussion here:

"Is it possible that there is a mechanism that merges the two into a single concept of an "I"? For my part, I invariably see myself, psychologically, as a single "I." It is always "me" thinking, or "me" seeing. I never think of a "we" thinking or of a "we" seeing. How about you? Psychologically, isn't there only one of you? It doesn't matter, mechanically, how the brain is split up into various functions: the organism has set up a single controlling psychological "I."

I might add that now that I am aware that there are two "I's" attending my physical organism, and supposedly I am now aware of this, why am I still aware of only one psychological "I" when I look at myself? Is the left brain simply refusing to accept the right brain? Are they arguing?

If there are indeed two, one will eventually dominate, come to the fore, and take over. That will be the psychological "I."

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 18 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #71
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Kirsten...that is a good question. I think it is the left brain asking these questions. Obviously, most things we do on the computer are of interest to the left brain since it is reading and writing which is almost exclusively left brain. Plus, I am not sure how much the right brain likes being indoors doing this. Also, I am not sure how much the right brain can read..I think it can read and understand nouns since they are objects. It can understand verbal instructions but I am not sure about its abilities in the understanding of verbal concepts and abstractions given to it. I am rereading the left/right brain book by Springer which keeps getting updated and just had a recent release which is the one I am reading. If we are right about this as being a project by the left brain to understand at least it gets the controlling left brain to understand the validity of another part of its body. I mean at worst, the left brain can let the right brain have some of its interests so that they can work together as a whole better. My hope is that once the illusions are ended by both brains and conditionings are relatively solved....the brains do work as a whole and there is no longer internal conflict which creates our external conflict. This brain does not experience the separation from others as it no longer experiences that same separation in itself. At that time, there should be a cooperation between individuals that can get us out of this mess. Certainly, the person who has a whole brain function would stop conditioning others and being a part of the problem. K certainly reached that state. Unfortunately, no one else has completely, but the progress by having K to read and our trying to work in a state of cooperation and dialogue has to be contributing to some change in us. I am certainly not a person operating entirely as a whole yet but I can tell you things are a hell of a lot better than they were when I started this process. I doubt that anyone on this site or K ning cannot say the same thing too, no matter what the depth of that change is.

Well, Max...I read and responded to Kirsten before reading your post so I wouldn't be distorted by it. To answer one question about me and two "I's"...I will say that my first realization about K was a total transformation of the left brain "I." The realization of no center was a devastation to my consciousness and very being. The separation between me and others which had been created by thought ended immediately. I dont want to go deeply in to me and reveal more than this because what happened to me may be delusional and has nothing to do with anyone else. All I want to add is that I started to realize shortly afterwards that I still had reactions which I now know are conditionings. And I, also, stopped reading K and had no desire to be around him which I could have done if I wanted. I began teaching things very differently and suddenly I ran upon the left/right brain research which hit me almost as hard as K. It was there that I found the ego and the other self which we are talking about. K was able to attack both as he was a very right brain person in the first place. For us left brainers who totally have the left living in the illusion of its control of everything, there has been an absolute denial of another ability in the body that there is a perception going on by something else in us. Now I do think that the left brain "I" is backed by a very strong self protective instinct and that this has to be destroyed and it appears this is where you are in this process. I have, however, seen someone who has destroyed the illusional center but has a huge ego. I am not going to tell you I have all this figured out yet and that's why I started this forum to work on this.

So Max...here goes. You said..."I might add that now that I am aware that there are two "I's" attending my physical organism, and supposedly I am now aware of this, why am I still aware of only one psychological "I" when I look at myself? Is the left brain simply refusing to accept the right brain? Are they arguing?"

Yes....there is an argument because everyone is fighting here and I am confusing the whole thing for you with the left and the right brain but that is good. The more confused you get the better you have a chance to figure it out. You see the left brain process is used to figuring things out and putting tidy little bows on it. The truth is that things are the way they are and we dont have anything to do with it. We exist as humans but we do not exist as thoughts. Thoughts just make things happen. Those things happen orderly if we have created thought that is not emotionally generated. The "I" is emotionally generated. We are beings that are putting order in our own physical drama of reactions to nature. We have feelings and responses to things in nature all the time. When thought creates the emotions from distorting experience then we are in a video of our own making. What causes this process is an illusionary psychological "I" you keep mentioning. When you look at yourself, you are still looking at yourself either in the mirror and identifying with that or you are looking at the thoughts you have or the memories you have and in the moment creating new thought saying that the last thought you just had was generated by you which you call "I" or "me." This is just not really what is happening. I dont know if explaining to someone who is doing this is worth telling him because he just incorporates that information in to the thinker...saying oh yeah I get that. So what are you to do? The only hope is for you to keep at it because you have no choice now....you are too deep in to it. And luckily you have me to ask questions of and I will continue to confuse you to death with statements that seemingly make only sense to me. This sounds funny but I am not kidding. One thing we have developed is extreme curiosity and incessant obsessive compulsion to figure things out until we get it or just give up. The latter has been the choice of almost all people who have been confronted with K. I am too obsessive compulsive to have given up and still haven't.

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #72
Thumb_avatar averil harrison New Zealand 41 posts in this forum Offline

Our home enquiry has been into a statement of David Bohms.Something that he observed that Krishnamurti and others had said 'that the mind dies to thought and not that thought dies'.This had challenged me on a previous reading and something's stay stuck in my brain like the left and right brain inquiry challenged me.This generally concretizes into a thought that gives me security as a belief or may be a challenge that niggles away until it is
enquired into.
It maybe that the unconscious senses the fact and holds it and that the conscious mind wants to reject it as its security is in the known not facts.
I could see that statement would be a challenge for us as we were getting stuck over the weeks with one of our group adamantly sticking to his own experience that 'when thought stops then anything said after this would have to be intellectual and what was the point of inquiry anyway when all that was required was seeing.i.e. that thought stops when observed without an observer.

It seemed to me that if we could explore deeper, that we may reveal how unconsciously this process continues and that thought stopping was just that,thought stopping and not the silence that Krishnamurti was pointing too, in his 'Mind dies to thought'.That thought may then observe an error in its actual process that is not obvious when we talk about something but maybe revealed when inquired into without the past knowledge influencing a subtle goal to be achieved.

An inquiry seems to allow an order to occur in the experiencing of actual facts, and my past experiences explained, cause me to become more chaotic even though my belief is that it gives 'me' and therefore 'my' brain security. I have wondered if the brain looks for security/control in the mistaken belief that this is the order that I intuitis required for a healthy brain.

Looking into the right/left brain functions one could perhaps say that the right brain is the unconscious that reveals our hidden emotional attachment to our experiences and when revealation of anger as a fact is seen as the observer is the observed this may result in thinking one is seeing thought as a whole, and we stop or stall there .Is it only the thought that is seen in the left brain through the slowing down of activity and that actually we are still not at the root,as the image of the self are the past thoughts that are still intact in the right brain as emotion.That a deeper inquiry which includes the watching of the whole movement of thought is what escapes
us and is necessary.

My question is 'if the exploration of the self is only partial as it appears to be then what is stopping an enqiry that is complete? Is that a wrong question? Averil

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #73
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Averil....this last post is really good with lots of K stuff in it and, also, brain stuff. It has been my observation that so much of what K has said can be intellectualized by thought and I mean left brain thinking. We can take words and phrases and statements out of K and then go over them in this intellectual way trying to understand him. This I think is the wrong approach entirely as the only thing of importance is observation in ourselves and that is the only inquiry. The very intellectualization of K statements creates K as a person which is also a mistake. We are the people with the problems. Yes, thought stopping is just thought stopping. I can observe when left brain thought stops because verbal memory processes stop. At this point, there is no I in the left brain because the I is quiet. When the I pops back up and says, "wow, I just realized that I wasnt thinking so I must have been meditating. Now the I says, "that is what I want to do because it was so peaceful not to think because I wasnt havent any stress, maybe I should end thought?" Need I go on about this? What a mess that statement is. Who was doing that observing when thought was silent? When the process of thinking comes up like this, it is putting way to much value in its abilities. Now here is the bottom line about this left/right function. I dont even know if left brain thinking can recognize if the right brain is thinking and it is possible that it cant even recognize if its own side of the brain is thinking at a subconscious level. When people are sitting around talking about thought and thinking, they are just talking about left brain verbal thinking and somehow think that is all their is and if somehow that ends, all will be well because there would be an end to stress and conflict.

Now what I observe is that the mind needs to die not to thought which might mean to someone that it stops thinking but the mind which contains the "I" and the mind which can access incorrect conditioned emotions needs to die to the process of "I" and "self image" or ego if we want to use those two as synonymous. Now if I may copy and paste your post a little out of order, I think you say it better than I could:

Averil: "Looking into the right/left brain functions one could perhaps say that the right brain is the unconscious that reveals our hidden emotional attachment to our experiences and when revealation of anger as a fact is seen as the observer is the observed this may result in thinking one is seeing thought as a whole, and we stop or stall there .Is it only the thought that is seen in the left brain through the slowing down of activity and that actually we are still not at the root,as the image of the self are the past thoughts that are still intact in the right brain as emotion.That a deeper inquiry which includes the watching of the whole movement of thought is what escapes us and is necessary."

Averil: "I have wondered if the brain looks for security/control in the mistaken belief that this is the order that I intuitis required for a healthy brain"

Phil: The function of the brain is always to go back to homeostasis even if it means that we have created the imbalances ourself by our delusional, conditioned thinking.

Averil: "My question is 'if the exploration of the self is only partial as it appears to be then what is stopping an enqiry that is complete?"

Phil: Lack of self knowledge and belief leads always to partial understanding. Once one believes anything, its over until you are hit with a hammer and someone points out you are wrong. If one stays in the state of inquiry, then even the stuff we are doing here about the brain will change as more information comes out and as we observe something new that was hidden below our last piece of delusional thinking we just tossed out.

I have said my knowledge and speculations are limited and I just throw up the brain because I just dont know how to go on with K without understanding the organ that holds and accesses the mess we are in. Here is a series of videos on the internet that I was just sent yesterday from a K ning friend. I have only listened to the first one but plan to listen to all of them and all my brain books have arrived now and I am reading when I can. I will post the other set after I have viewed the first one of it.

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-8085968...

This post was last updated by phil K Fri, 19 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #74
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 6 posts in this forum Offline

averil harrison wrote:
what is stopping an enqiry that is complete? Is that a wrong question?

averil, When joy and happiness is missing in our lives, enquiry becomes incomplete. I won't know joy if I don't acknowledge my fears, and my vulnerable spots. We will truly enquire, truly live only when we throb each moment with uncertainties of life and our own frailties.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #75
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Well....here we go....perfect time after Ramesh's comment to post this video in the series.This one is about the emotions and I am thinking about starting a new topic about conditioning and fear but I want this topic to stay with the "I." These videos are old and you have to realize that new stuff has come up like oxytocin is not the love chemical which the woman even specualted about. The love chemical is dopamine and I cant find the article on it but it may be even the same scientist who discovered it Rebecca Turner. Also, I have to say that we can't think that there is just one thing in the bring or on one side of the brain that makes the thing work. The brain has many things that put it together, but finding a central source and understanding a process as being created in thought certainly cant hurt out understanding can it? That's why we are talking on this forum and not one of the many others taking different approaches.

By the way, please listen to this video not as inevitable reality but as the chemicals and the situations being conditioned states. If you do that, we might be able to branch off a subtopic going in to fear as condtioning. Anything that goes through the cortex's is subject to conditioning i.e. anything that takes identification using memory and must go through the cortexes. Notice the damage to the hippocampus in the vietnam vet. This shows how trauma can damage the brain. I will just state that my biggest theory is that fear is our main conditioning brain response.

I think I should state here my view of all the brain information and the people who present it. Needless to say, all the people who have compiled the research have ego's and I find they present their cases in a situation as that this is the way it is and there is nothing you can do about it. With the emotions in particular, there is a looking at them as inevitable and desireable and it seems to me that these brain scientists probably think you should just go to a trained psychologists who will help you make your conditionings work. There appears to be a lot of "belief" by these people in the reality of the individuals memory and in societies as being inevitable and we just study them. I read everything with the spirit of Krishanmurti behind it. These people who do these studies and develop this information are not authorities personally. They receive awards and do wonderful things, but it is their information they find that I am interested in and nothing else. I recently read an excellent book "YOur Money, Your Brain" by Martin Zweig who did all the brain studies and sited many studies of people and what happens in the brain when you invest. He then took all the things that happen and saw them as inevitable and gave his advice on how to invest to avoid the pitfalls. At no time did he mention the processes as possibly being conditioned and therefore subject to ending. In fact, I have not heard the word conditioned used by anyone so far except Pavlov. If you have anything, please send it to me. I am sure there have been brief statements but I mean someone who has approached his entire research into conditioning in the mind.

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-3050727...

Thanks to everyone for continuing with the spirit of this investigation. Phil

This post was last updated by phil K Fri, 19 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #76
Thumb_monkey_chinese slakki zi United States 2 posts in this forum Offline

I am new to this web site and it is quite impressive. I have read the whole of this thread and find this topic extremely interesting. However, my own background is deeply intellectual, experiential, and highly inter-disciplinary, and therefore I am having a tough time following this thread.

Firstly, words are being used freely one way here and one way there without regard to their actual definition. For example, ego is purely a psychological term, and is being used to describe something never intended. Today the word ego is used loosely across many disciplines. This makes it hard to communicate rationally. Words are only words but they need to be defined with precision and consistency, or this becomes a waste of valuable time for some. (Yes, I live in both places 100%)

Secondly, statements are being made as fact but the sources are not being cited to a degree which would allow others to investigate further. For example, with the field of biology uncovering new insights and discarding old theories daily, it is easy to get trapped into old science. NOT that biological confirmation of Self is necessary for experiencing Ks truth directly. On the contrary ...

And thirdly, it could just be me, and I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I sense quite a bit of egoistic, intellectual game playing in this thread. The logic and examples used could often be much shorter and clearer IMO. Ks teachings aren't all that complicated and shouldn't take that much verbage to explain conceptually. Some posts seem written to impress rather than to enlighten. At least to me personally. After "inquiring" for 52 years, I have learned how to identify patterns of gobbledegook.

I am aware that this thread could and does affect others differently. This is simply my reaction.

I am extremely busy with ALL of LIFE which prevents me from spending great lengths of time on any one forum on the web. BUT this is a wonderful site with passionate people, and I feel you do a great service representing Jiddu Krishnamurti and providing open discussions of his teachings.

If I may I will continue to post when I can.

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #77
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

I think we see that the psychological "I" (or "I's) is/are an illusion. The "I" is a construct. So since they are illusions anyway, it would seem to me that there is little point in discussing whether there are one or more of them. The imporant thing is that we fully realize, clearly see and understand, that these thought constructs are illusions and that there is no other "I" than the physical organism. We go on from there.

Are you saying, Phil, that that our problems, which are the problems of humanity, are caused not by the image of the "I" or "I's" but rather by the actual mechanics of the brain?

max

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #78
Thumb_monkey_chinese slakki zi United States 2 posts in this forum Offline

I watched

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-8085968916226888271

from your posts so I'm posting this in return

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival

Dryer and much, much longer BUT possibly more scientifically accurate.

Cheers!

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #79
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Slakki: I thank you for joining our discussion and I think you will be of value. I think words are very important and I have been the one defining them as this is my forum. I do not think K used ego correctly either nor do I think he really went in to it as thoroughly as I would like to but pretty much I am not concerned about ego and am just defining it as the feeling supporting the self image. The general public thinks of ego and a person with an ego as someone representing himself very strongly and to me that is the feeling part of the self image and that is the definition I am using. I would be glad to have you redefine it clearly and I will change to the clinical definition and then redefine the feeling I am talking about.

Secondly, I personally just dont have time to look up and document my statements as many are from my memory of books I have read years ago. I just think we should read the statements as in the spirit of what is being said and not turn this in to something that we are going to publish. I devote so much time to this and so do others that we just cant document all the statements. If something doesnt fit to someone in his observation of himself, then he should just say that.

I am afraid after ages of doing this I do not see any of the things you say in the post with the people in the posts definitely including me that come from egoistic postings. I have not nor do I post anything to impress anyone about anything. For gods sake this is the internet and no one knows anyone. What good would that do but to build ones own belief system of which I personally have none. I have seen much in-fighting on other forums and have contributed to several on other forums and this is the best group of inquirers I have seen.

Now as far as verbage....I am at fault for that and admit that and am astounded when others have said things simpler. I unfortuantely, think like this and I am sure I bore the hell out of people, I agree K is simple and I will gladly bow to anyone and let anyone else talk who states its simpler but right now I have to answer the questions that come up the best and the only way I can as I created the forum. If you think, I am responding from ego, then you are totally, mistakenly wrong and no one and I mean no one who knows me in person would agree with that analysis of me. But they would all agree that I talk too much.

Please, please stay with this when you have time and post directly when you want to criticize what someone says and how they say it.

I am really, really happy that you have posted more videos because those are so old someone sent me. I cant get to them til tomorrow because I have been receiving tons more in my email box. I, also, have ten books to read and I am not a reader. I am just winging it here and doing the best I can and have stated at least three times my knowledge is limited. But just let me say one thing in my defense, nearly 30 years ago, I found the brain reason for stuttering and presented it to the national stuttering project and it had to do with the brain. They thought I was nuts but one of my best friends called me a little over a year ago who is a stutterer and he said...my god phil have you read business week? They came up with the cause of stuttering and it is exactly what you said. I was almost 30 years ahead of the discovery. Now you may think that is an egoish statement but I see it as a statement of fact and one of the facts is that a complete novice was able to come up with a solution that took science over 25 years to discover and all that novice had as his background is a mind that has been freed somewhat from K plus a little reading about the brain. Now I hope no one comes to my door and worships me or listens to me because I had one solution to something years ago because as we know most scientists had only one great discovery.

Max.....I will agree with you that there is only one "I" if that helps. My repeated statement is, though, that there is a self image too, which acts from using the same principals of self protection as the "I" you are talking about does. This self image is represented completely differently in the consciousness and possibly in the right brain. The two of these illusions meld in a person into one thing until there is a realization of one of them. I have just said the left brain "I" construct is easier to see as it can be destroyed by its own system of thinking. The other is nearly impossible to see and in my observation is the reason K said no one had changed because he had never seen a person without a self image.

And to your second point: "Are you saying, Phil, that that our problems, which are the problems of humanity, are caused not by the image of the "I" or "I's" but rather by the actual mechanics of the brain?" Absolutely, Max, no...unequivocably no. What I am investigating is how the mechanics of the brain have been taken over by thought and misused to create the illusions, and I am saying that society has become a cancer and has taken these mechanics and created itself as more important than mankind itself. How can the illusions of thought have done this to us?

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #80
Thumb_avatar averil harrison New Zealand 41 posts in this forum Offline

Ramesh G wrote:

averil harrison wrote:
what is stopping an enqiry that is complete? Is that a wrong question?

averil, When joy and happiness is missing in our lives, enquiry becomes incomplete. I won't know joy if I don't acknowledge my fears, and my vulnerable spots. We will truly enquire, truly live only when we throb each moment with uncertainties of life and our own frailties.


Hi Ramesh G,
I love the process of enquiry as it requires that we live with uncertainty and that exposes our frailties. When I am looking for joy and happiness explainations are sorrow and incomplete. The enquiry is not complete thats all.
Averil

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #81
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

slakki zi wrote:
I am new to this web site and it is quite impressive. I have read the whole of this thread and find this topic extremely interesting. However, my own background is deeply intellectual, experiential, and highly inter-disciplinary, and therefore I am having a tough time following this thread.

I have just suffered through the 1 hour 48 minutes of your first video and I totally agree with your above statement....lol....loosen up, dude, and look at what is going on in your brain. I promise to watch the rest of it as an intellectual endeavor but these guys are not going to convince anyone because they all could have said what you have said about themselves and they are just creating the opposites. Religion is not even worth the argument once the brain has ended all of its problems! No disagreement with them that religion has to be ended but these guys arent going to do it. I am eager to see what Ramachandran says cause I saw him in the audience. PHIl

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #82
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 35 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."

Science, or the scientific method, originates in the belief in the metaphysical duality and the thought of the 'thinker'. But, prior to the thought of the 'thinker', there is the 'movement' of self-reflection which creates the duality of the 'self'/'not self', which is the origin of every other duality, as well as conflict and violence. Then, the function of thought is to perpetuate and intensify the duality originating in self-reflection.

To me, then, the 'mind' appears to have the same function in the science of consciousness as the "ether" once had in physics or "phlogiston" once had in chemistry. It exists as merely a thought or a theory, the origin of which is the propagation by thought of the original duality created by the 'movement' of self-reflection which creates the self.

It is simply and categorically beyond the frame of reference of science and the scientific method to question the existence of either the 'mind' or the 'thinker' or the metaphysical duality, since the belief in the existence of such things is as necessary for science as is the belief in the existence of God is for religion.

In other words, science cannot ever find that the 'mind' is merely an illusion. Rather, all of its investigations can only result in a determination of the characteristics of that 'mind'. To find out that the 'mind' is an illusion, one must instantaneously step completely outside of the frame of reference of both the 'movement' of self-reflection and the thought of the 'thinker' or the 'mind' by observing both the 'movement' of self-reflection and thought itself.

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #83
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Oh no its Michael Cecil...hi Michael...I'm going to let others comment on your statements as I have already stated what I think on K ning. If anyone can figure out his self reflection, let me know except it may be the half second thingy.

I would prefer though that if this were to become a discussion it be started as its own topic so I will let it go only for a couple of comments and then have to separate it. Maybe Michael, you should just add a subtopic and call it something like Science cant find any of the problems. If this is just a statement of fact, though, it doesnt need discussion and those of us with the delusion that it can will just go on posting here.

This post was last updated by phil K Sat, 20 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #84
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 35 posts in this forum Offline

phil King wrote:
I would prefer though that if this were to become a discussion it be started as its own topic so I will let it go only for a couple of comments and then have to separate it.

Maybe this won't be needed. I am discussing this under a sub-topic Consciousness, under the topic the Sacred.

Nevertheless, even ignoring the whole self-reflection "thingy", I guess I would still have to question your use of the word 'mind'.

If the existence of the 'mind' is not questioned by the scientific method because its existence is assumed to be an a priori, how would it be possible for science to determine that it is an illusion?

The "ether" was threatened, if not disproved, by the Michelson-Morley experiment, whereas "phlogiston" was disproved by Lavoisier.

Don't know that there is an experiment which could demonstrate that the 'mind' does not exist. After all, what would it be that would devise such an experiment?

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #85
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Mike,

A good use of the term "mind" would be as a catch-all for anything that might have to do with the brain--for instance, is thought material, or is there some yet undiscovered sixth "sense" for "seeing" into subjects with the brain.

To cover my own a. . .ankles, I like to use the term brain/mind.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sat, 20 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #86
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Phil,

I have a couple of comments here.

You say, "The other [the Ego] is nearly impossible to see and in my observation is the reason K said no one had changed . . ." I would ask, what makes the Ego so difficult to see? It would appear that following up on this question is the key to that "freedom" everyone talks about, while incidentally it is the key to saving the world. Once humanity is free from the "I" or "I's," he will be seeing and thinking without personal motive.

"What I am investigating is how the mechanics of the brain have been taken over by thought and misused to create illusions . . . " The mechanics can't have been taken over by thought, as thought is a passive construct. The brain itself has to take the action to create the illusions. The brain has either been damaged or conditioned and so it is not seeing and thinking straight. (This is a little picky, I'll admit.)

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sat, 20 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #87
Thumb_avatar averil harrison New Zealand 41 posts in this forum Offline

I would agree that any investgation by science into what is mind stated by Michael is an investgation by thought but i assumed that at this stage of our inquiry we are looking at what we can discern of the brain through observation of the process that occurs in our scull. At this point are we seeing that the mind is working as a conditioned response to thought? The brain is what and all we know.Hence no point in meditating partially on its content as 'my' anger, greed is the continuance of the me seperate to its content.
Krishnamurti's and Bohm's dialogue into 'Mind dying to thought ' is the inquiry into how thought dominates and do we want see that negation is the only approach not the positive statements of science?
Averil

Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 #88
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Max...thanks this question or group of them which go right to the heart of this forum. The brain is designed to bring the body into a mode of homeostatsis and to avoid danger and to pursue things in the reproductive process. The brain in the base of where most of the information comes in before it goes to the higher brain for interpretation has very few instinctual processes. Damasio has said page 131 of "Descartes Error" that the brain can respond to certain circumstances without the recognition of an object. Recognition would mean when thought/ memory is involved. He, however, feels that these are very few things like maybe size as in large animals, large span as in flying objects or type of motion as in reptilian movement or certain sounds like a growl and also in body state as in pain felt during a heart attack. He is speculating about all animals here and not necessarily man and in these cases the amygdala may respond before recognition. The amygdala can then respond in fear triggering our fight or flight system. We, also, saw in one of the videos I posted that there are basically six emotions Happiness, sadness, disgust, surprise, anger and fear. The video then showed the two states of disgust and fear which had been studied. The disgust response was seen obviously as not being instinctual as the two year old had no such thing until he learned disgust. Any learning can be conditioned. I am not using learning to equal conditioning but to be Pavlov's conditioning. In the area of fear, we saw the amygdala sending the events to the back of the brain where there would be a response by the brain to say if the danger is real or comes from a memory. If the response comes from memory, it can be conditioned. IN the 20% of vietnam vets who become obsessive about old memories it showed that the one man had damage to his brain specifically the hippocampus which is the part of the brain that forms memories. It is damaged in Alzheimers too. These people it is speculated no longer send the information to the back of the brain to distinguish that what they are experiencing when they remember an event is a memory of the event but they reexperience the event in the moment as happening right then.

Now we have one other system and that is the reproductive system and I will post a video at the end of this by Helen Fisher which gives a brief synopsis about this. The reproductive system has three separate parts to it....the actual sex act and the system of pursuit to get that....the dopamine response of euphoria in relationship and the oxytocin response of attachment. Now that you have brought up the statement I made about the ego..I will say that the " nearly impossible" comes about from the fact the ego which is the outgrowth of the self image is involved in the sexual system and the attendant dopamine, oxytocin responses. All of this goes through the cortexes I would say and therefore, subject to conditioning. So the brain is not at fault here but thought. Thoughts misinterpretations of what memory is because thought has taken on emotion to support its own reality. It appears to thought that it thinks...that is an illusion....it appears to thought that it exists as in has a self...that is an illusion...it appears to thought that it has choice in all these process which is fallacious. By appears to thought, I am not assigning power to thought but mean that there are thoughts stored in the memory that are memories of thought itself. I want to have sex with Mary. I am in love with Mary. Mary is my wife. All of these are thoughts/memories in the verbal world that define states that may be conditioned which cause memories to happen from past events. I remember where Mary's house is so I go there to have sex with her, love her and marry her. Are you going there to reach homeostatsis after you got excited from the thought of Mary which stimulated the sexual system, the dopamine system and the fact that you have become attached to the thought of her? Oh yes, the self image of you going there is probably the reason that all of this happens in the frist place. It is highly possible that you want to have sex with yourself, create dopamine of thoughts of yourself in relationship and are attached to your own self image. What is the difference to the mind of one thought from another. What's the difference between Phil and Mary if both are in memory? In other words, does the mind know the difference between the real thing and memorex? Enough for now...good luck..

Here is Helen Fishers video. It is very incomplete as to what her books present but give you an idea of some facts she has about the system. She has two books one of which I read years ago..."the anatomy of love" which is excellent and I just ordered the new one which covers the brain things she is mentioning here. I dont care that much for her presentation here but I just want the facts..mam...

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/helen_fisher...

Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 #89
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 35 posts in this forum Offline

phil King wrote:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/helen_fisher...

All of this is pleasure which consists of maintaining the continuity of time by thought. (But, to me, this pleasure is intensely oppressive. Some 2 minutes into the video I found myself questioning "When will this torture ever end?")

This is a way of describing the contents of the 'self' by thought while ignoring the 'form' or the 'container' of the 'self'.

(The intention here is not to interfere at all with the discussion of the 'contents' of consciousness, but merely to contextualize that discussion as not pertaining to the 'container' itself. That's all.)

Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 #90
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Mike,

(The intention here is not to interfere at all with the discussion of the 'contents' of consciousness, but merely to contextualize that discussion as not pertaining to the 'container' itself. That's all.)



The container is the physical organism with its brain/mind. Maybe we can put it like this: The brain creates thoughts, whether distorted or not by damage or conditioning, and these thoughts can be reinforced by other thoughts. But the actor behind it all is the brain.

The question is, can the brain free itself from thinking and thought? Thought and thinking are necessary, mechanically, but why must we be incessantly mucking about with the past? How are we to free ourselves of this? Is there a "way," or would that be just another thought system?

max

Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 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.)