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

science, the I and ego,

Closed_forum

Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 124 in total
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 #91
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Dont worry..if they dont come up with the drugs to stop the increase in plaque in the brain soon and if we keep on living and being saved by medicine, we will all experience freedom from memory/thought eventually.

Thought is past by definition but it may act in the present to cause action to bring the organism in to homeostatsis. It is when thought is run by the emotions created in its own system that all runs amuck. Can we learn to end the emotions created in the thought system and live with the emotions caused in the present or can we choose the emotions created in the thought system we wish to experience such as sex. Obvioiusly, we cant do this until the illusions are dropped because we keep buying houses on the lake, boats to ride in and fishing poles to catch fish in the lake that is not there; therefore, we are reacting to emotions we have no control over and by control I mean awareness of.

Max's last question: "How are we to free ourselves of this? Is there a "way," or would that be just another thought system?"

I think Max, the way is not to add a system in thought but the way is the self knowledge of the illusion and I started this brain forum because it has helped me in this understanding beyond belief. Conditioning can drop away when the brain catches its mistake....I would compare it to Pavlov's dog seeing itself salivating while looking at the scientist who was ringing the bell and then thinking...."How dumb am I for salivating over hearing a bell....Where's the food?"

This post was last updated by phil K Sun, 21 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 #92
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 35 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
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?

I don't see the container of consciousness as being the brain or the physical organism at all. The 'container' of consciousness is the 'space' created by self-reflection, the 'space' in which the 'self' or the 'mind' or the 'thinker' exists, the 'space' which separates my 'mind' from your 'mind'. Without that self-reflection, there is no 'space'.

It is possible to separate oneself from this instantaneously by simply standing outside of the 'movement' of self-reflection altogether and observing how that 'movement' gives rise to the 'form' or 'container' of consciousness--that is, the 'self' or the 'mind'--in the first place.

Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 #93
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Mike,

"It is possible to separate oneself from this instantaneously by simply standing outside of the 'movement' of self-reflection altogether and observing how that 'movement' gives rise to the 'form' or 'container' of consciousness--that is, the 'self' or the 'mind'--in the first place."

Who is it that will be standing outside? If it is anyone other than the physical organism . . .

max

Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 #94
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 35 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Who is it that will be standing outside? If it is anyone other than the physical organism . . .

I doubt that you will like the answer (I've already been through this several times in other contexts); but the answer is that there is no "who".

There is no "I", no "you", no "he", no "she" yet because self-reflection has not yet occurred. It is a what. It is a consciousness in which differentiation has not yet occurred into any individual consciousnesses originating in self-reflection. It is the same consciousness which Krishnamurti says is capable of observing thought (and which I say is capable of observing the 'movement' of self-reflection in the first place; although this also needs further clarification). And, as previously suggested, it is a kind of consciousness which is realized as permeating the entire physical reality once the belief in the thought of the metaphysical duality has been set aside as the prism through which that reality is (mis)perceived.

Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jun 2009 #95
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

I'm sorry, Mike, but all I'm aware of is a me, a Self, inside a physical body. What you're talking about, somebody's got to show me.

max

Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jun 2009 #96
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Well...welcome back from nawnaw land, Max...I went round and round on this with him and got nowhere...Michael I have to ask you to please take your discussion to your site and let us continue with our search. I know you have all the answers but you may, also, be one of the people who are trying to disrupt the people on K and the K sites. I will delete anymore comments.

Those of you who can follow Michael, please go to his discussion which is:

"I am discussing this under a sub-topic Consciousness, under the topic the Sacred."

Thanks but I have watched too many topics destroyed on K ning by getting way away from the original premise as people come in with their own agendas.
[Michael responded four posts later and I want to put it here and delete his post so the forum will go back to its flow. I want to thank Michael for his cooperation]

Michael Cecil
Mon, 22 Jun 2009, 8:04am

My deepest apologies, Phil.

As I said, I had no intention of disrupting your discussion in the first place; and I suggested that people follow my discussion on another topic.

I wish you well in your discussion. We just have different interests.

I certainly have no ill-will for you for deleting my comments.

Good luck in your efforts.

(You can also delete this response if you want, of course.)

Michael Cecil

This post was last updated by phil K Mon, 22 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jun 2009 #97
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Max....we might want to take this to the state of conditioned emotions since we havent gotten very far with the self image. I'm, also, waiting for our new member to post on the topic he started. He seems to have quite a bit more knowledge than I do in the brain area. I wish I could just stop and do a couple of months of research. As it is I am surrounded with books and vids to watch to add to my knowledge.

Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jun 2009 #98
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

So back to our topic of thought and emotion or maybe we could say thought vs. emotion. Thought appears to be memory as different from perception. Perception is the physical animal's state of recreating in the brain an immediate response to the environment. This perception is formed differently by each of the senses. The response to this perception is then a response from the brain or in reflexes from the spinal column. The brain responses can be from the lower brain or I think they call it the old brain...reptilian brain or limbic system which is responsible for a lot of emotional responses as the amygdala or anger and fear center is a part of that. The site system is by far the most complex of these systms of the senses and also the one that leads possibly to the most distortion and that would probably be due to the complexity and how much of the brain is used in reconstructing in the brain the sense of sight. Once a perception has gone through the sensory organs and reaches the upper brain..newer brain, I guess people call it you are in the cortexes which are responsible for identification or recognition and then interpretation of the things that are being sensed. It is here that memory is used as in learned memory not genetic biological memory. It is here that conditioning happens and that illusions happen. It is here that the mischief gets going. It is here in the cortexes that messages are sent out for action and that are sent out to the emotional system that creates chemical reactions and then when those actions happen perception steps back in to perceive the new person's actions that have been created by the cortexes and by memory thereby forming new memory. It is here that right or wrong living is formed. It is here the various "I's" are created.

Now memory seems to be a very clear thing to people who have read K. It is not seeing in the moment or original perception as in observing the tree without thought, but memory is a response of something that has been experienced already.

What is emotion? Is it also a memory?

Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jun 2009 #99
Thumb_stringio mike christani United States 7 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

"What is emotion? Is it also a memory"?

I think to start with obvious things,we do label very quickly, when we're aware of a feeling. If we had a feeling, and didn't label it at all..? The feeling would be what it is, not tinged by the word....And Active- not a memory. Like the saying "you can' step into the same river twice." The feeling is different than the word, the label. I don't think it's memory. But the label is....

Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jun 2009 #100
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Mike...I think this is a great statement and I would like others to answer what they think too. I think you are right on with the labeling and that is right up K's alley. What happens when there then is the perception of the feeling that you have not labeled as fear then? Have you ever seen what happens before the emotion?

Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jun 2009 #101
Thumb_stringio mike christani United States 7 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

This is what I've been experimenting with lately...will get back to you..;)

Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jun 2009 #102
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Along with "What is emotion?" don't we ask, "What does emotion apply to?" Does it apply to the physical organism or to the psychological "I"? One or the other has to sense the emotion.

(A little correction here. The psychological "I," being a construct, can't "sense" anything. It would be the physical organism sensing, but applying the emotion to the psychological "I' that it thinks of as itself.)

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 22 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Tue, 23 Jun 2009 #103
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Mike...I am glad to hear that because I think it is one of the biggest keys to find what happens before emotion while in an aware state.

Max....I am not sure what the word apply means when refering to emotion as in "What does emotion apply to?" Emotion appears to me to follow something. It seems to be in sequence to events. It is the physical organ sensing an emotion because we call it a feeling which is experiential not as memory but as bodily just as are the senses experienced. The emotions though seem to have purposes in the self preservation or sexual processes or I guess in the general well being of the organism maybe as in happiness. I think it takes some real investigation to see where the psychological "I" is involved in the process. One thing though, when there is in memory an illusion of any kind of center self image, I or ego or whatever word you use, thought cannot work correctly because the actions in thought and the connections to emotions are then helping to sustain the illusion.

This is getting important that the mind goes slowly hear to investigate...I hope I dont make mistakes in words so this remains clear. I am a little tired tonight and this doesnt seem that sharp to me.

Back to Top
Tue, 23 Jun 2009 #104
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

"The emotions though seem to have purposes in the self preservation or sexual processes or I guess in the general well being of the organism maybe as in happiness."

As I've said, I can't see why the physical organism would develop an emotional capacity. Emotions are not needed for self-preservation--they actually hinder the reflexive, instinctual responses. Emotions are not needed for food, security and--perhaps questionably--sex in the animal world.

That's what I meant by "apply," a poor word for the occasion, I guess. If emotions don't really apply to the physical--and it appears to me that they should not, logically--then they must apply to the phantom "I," and are therefore dispensable along with the "I" itself.

max

Back to Top
Tue, 23 Jun 2009 #105
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks Max..I think I see what you mean now. Let me explain it so I can get it straight in my dense mind. You are saying that in the body function as a human animal, emotions dont seem to have applications that help survival and may even interfere with it. I guess this would mean if I see a snake and I have the emotion of fear and it is not a dangerous snake that would be the wrong application of the emotion. Wow!!!...Now I like that word. That seems so true and a good explanation of it.

Let's take this further...Would then, if I see a snake and its a rattlesnake, then the emotion of fear would be a right application at the time? Also, could emotion be applied consciously to that event? hmmm....Well, to answer my own first question, if I had learned that a rattlesnake is not dangerous if you handle it correctly, then I would not need the application of fear and I could just stay a safe distance. If I had stepped on the rattlesnake and it bit me...I wouldnt want to apply fear either because you are not supposed to run and make the venom circulate in your system but that is learned only if you have information about rattlesnakes and that information is a higher brain function which other animals dont have. So again emotion would not be the right application to that event. So it doesnt seem that the emotion should be applied ever in that case. And for some reason, I dont think we have conscious control over emotion anyway. It seems to apply itself in some other way. Let me take an example from K's life that I read somewhere that he talked about. Well two examples. One is the tiger story where he reached to pet a tiger that I think was outside the car and people stopped him. They all responded in fear and K didnt. K later said that he didnt think the tiger would have bothered him and the tiger might not have bothered him as animals respond to fear. I dont know if you have heard but they did a study of rapist who said that they do not attack women who dont seem to be fearful and pick on women who seem fearful for their victims.

The other story is K was at Yellowstone national park and encountered a Grizzly on a trail. He stood motionless and watched the bear. The bear saw him. K said he had no reaction in the moment...the same as the tiger, I would say. The bear went away and K went back to the lodge. He said in the lodge he thought about the incident and began to shake all over as in fact he became fearful then. I have always wondered if it were here where he came up with his thought breeds fear statement.

Looking at these incidents then I see where you come up with your statement:

"I guess. If emotions don't really apply to the physical--and it appears to me that they should not, logically--then they must apply to the phantom "I," and are therefore dispensable along with the "I" itself."
max

I think if we look at the way the brain operates. It is also, safe to say that since all except the base genetic fears are created by the cortex since all the information goes to the cortex and therefore fear at least in the logical animal has no place. Now, I will add something to your statement from above because of personal experience. Yes fear applies to the "phantom I" and I would say if it is dispensed with that fear of death ends, but and this is a big but.....all fear is not ended. Conditioning is not that simple. It has taken thousands of years to develop the conditioned human mind in the various cultures using the various emotions...fear, sex, dopamine...attachment..etc and the mere illusionary "I" is just a piece of it. It is just one simple mistake. Just as an example, most people are directly afraid of snakes as objects. And most people are afraid of being insulted or criticized which is a conceptualization. So I would say this whole thing layers on. I may be afraid of a snake and therefore think that the "I" or "me" is going to die which is my fear of death but I have a direct fear of snakes as learned in culture or from experience. If I end the "I," I am no longer afraid of dying and that fear goes away but I may still fear snakes. The same goes with conceptualizations. YOu insult me you insult my "I" but if the "I" dies you may still fear "insults" or "criticism" as we are taught that is a bad thing. Be nice to people. Dont insult them. Dont say bad things..etc etc.

This is a great start and I think we nailed it here, but our work is only just beginning. Yes Krishnamurti is simple but tedious.

This post was last updated by phil K Tue, 23 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Tue, 23 Jun 2009 #106
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Hey, Phil!

We're going to start losing people with this involved and long material. Maybe we should keep it down to just a little over Twitter size. "Brevity is the soul of wit."

So here's what I say: If you take the time to get emotional when a truck is coming at you head-on, you're a dead man. (estimate this at about 105 key strokes.)

Psychological conditioning is easy to get rid of: you just recognize it for what it is. (estimate this at about 85 key strokes.)

max

Back to Top
Tue, 23 Jun 2009 #107
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Max...I have experienced the twitter type communications which are great for chatrooms but when one has only limited times of the day to work on this then a couple of twitters a day just wont work. I have seen and had those kind of criticisms on K ning and what happens in the twitter style approach is people are just passing through and try to be clever and are not really trying to search their mind. I am truly spending lots of time during periods of time that i have which is about three times a day where I am not disturbed. In those times, I am very seriously working on my mind when I do this and my mind does not work in twitters...lol. Its slow and tedious as it is looking at its operation. I think if people leave this forum because of that and I notice we have over a 1000 views and that not just the three or four of us who are posting coming here, then we will just have to give up. I dont mind what anyone else does and I am just as happy to have a quicky statement as a long one. If it is long then, I am just as interested as my set aside time can be for me or for someone else. If people do not have time to read anyones statements and take them seriously, then this is just another form of internet entertainment.

I have thought about the truck coming before. Thought works quickly in response to danger. We protect the child from trucks until he can understand the size of the truck. The chinese, however, do not use the word "no" like we do I have heard; they instead pick the child up and remove him from danger. My parents spanked me when I went in to the street because that was supposed to resemble the truck hitting me. I perceived it even then as them hitting me. Now do we really react emotionally when the truck is coming at us before reaction or do we react and then get psychologically emotional? I am afraid this is not something I am going outside and try to observe!!!! It's funny though that you bring this up today because I remembered an instant while dreaming this morning where I had stepped into the path of an oncoming bus that I didnt now was coming and I stepped back on the curb and the bus arrived a split second or two later. In my dream, I stood there longer and I woke up with a shudder from a reaction in fear. Very strange you brought this up today.

I wish pyschological conditioning was as easy to get rid of as you said. If so I wouldnt be so stressed living at home and taking care of my parents. If you have the answer to that, please post it....lol.

Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jun 2009 #108
Thumb_avatar averil harrison New Zealand 41 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Phil and Max,

I am still here but have been watching and listening to our brains ruminate.
Flight and fight are the instincts for physical survival and all animals

have this emotional response (not sure what emotion means in the animal without language but something that occurs in the limbic brain with chemical and electrical replications to imprint memory within cells;emotion maybe energy in motion?) a requirement for the fight and flight mechanism for physical survival.
When I directly observe the human brains responses to our senses and biological needs as a higher primate with language, I see that being able to ruminate in thought over the seperate sensations that I experience seperates me from the basic fight flight mechanism, although if I have no time to think I just act in a survival mode with instincts.
Language is a double edged sword allowing the human to not only plan ahead for its physical survival with food, shelter etc. but also memory/thought allows a storing of past experiences through attachment to that experience as an idea. The word is not the thing.I want more of that experience and the experience is not seen as a fact(something happening now).Psychological time is the error that we continue ad infinitum.
I have found the discussion on what causes the seperation of the thought and emotional responses helpful in understanding what science is discovering about the mechanism of the brains ability to replicate but have to remind this process that is occurring in the brain as thought, that the scientific facts are not the same as the facts that occur within relationship and that create the endless conflict that we as a species may not survive.One is about what happens in the limitations of the physical field and maybe processed by the intellect; Krishnamurti is pointing to facts that are limiting us to be 'Wholly human'and these facts are not accessible in that field and have to be negated as the illusion they are that we all buy into to keep the ego/self a reality.
Averil

Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jun 2009 #109
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Averil..glad to see you are still around...Max has me scaring everyone off so its good to know the two of you are left. Well, there really have only been a couple more who posted and I was glad to scare off a couple of them anyway...lol.

I think your statement is nicely thought out and I read these things very carefully and more than once to understand them. In doing this statements I dont understand or that appear incorrect pop out to me. Could you please explain what you mean by "Psychological time is the error that we continue ad infinitum." This term "psychological time" is used so much and I even use it, but for the life of me, I just cant get it but in brief moments when I use it maybe, but when others use it, I just dont get it at all. So I am thinking I may even use it from memory instead of understanding. Thanks

Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jun 2009 #110
Thumb_avatar averil harrison New Zealand 41 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Phil,

I understand psychological time as the movement away from the actual experience that I am having now.I read your text and I respond to the question now and if I start questioning 'what does he mean by that', that is something that the intellect and logic could resolve.
An experience is stayed with and it is 'what is' but my belief in a self as a permanent entity seperate from you, I see as a fact, and that experience is a problem that provokes emotional responses in the entity with its belief's in continuous conflict within itself, seeing you as the other self who upsets me.The fact that the thinker is the thought alludes me.The problem is psychological time. This I think is why inquiry is the only way to look at what Krishnamurti is saying otherwise I am continually talking 'about' myself' and the security of thought overwhelms the need for order in the brain.
Averil

Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jun 2009 #111
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Averil....oh my...that is why I questioned your statement....when I was reading what you said..all made sense but that statement and that statement...pyschological time didnt fit...it obviously came from some intellectual interpretation of K....your last statement here comes from a different person who wrote that other post...nothing you said in this last statement came from the same awareness as you had earlier....the self that wrote this last statement is frustrated and living in a state of self which you have stated...in this you are separate from me as you create the difference in your own mind because of the emotional responses that you may be experiencing now and it is emotion that separates us and the minds interpretation of the object it is viewing at the time of emotion.

Tonight I observe a completely different Averil than the one who has posted the other comments. It seems forced and a response you had to make because I asked a question, yet it was absolutely honest in the representation of what you are experiencing right now. I am glad I dont post during one of my problems I am having with my parents and just offer this as an observation.

Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jun 2009 #112
Thumb_avatar averil harrison New Zealand 41 posts in this forum Offline

Yes you caught me out! That statement came from me thinking it out. It was as you said a problem that I wanted to solve. Averil

Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jun 2009 #113
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

We dont have any questions on the table right now and I would like to get on with one of the main statements that I have under the forum description: self image. I am very interested in K's statements about images. He repeatedly brought up that people had images of him and images of themselves. I have reread the subtopic I started here which was put together from something that happened on the first subtopic about Bohm and K and I think I should open a new topic later today directly addressing the image process. We can go on here with anything that has already been brought up as others wish. I will work on another subject for the subtopic and post it soon.

Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jun 2009 #114
Thumb_-sparkle- kirsten zwijnenburg Netherlands 10 posts in this forum Offline

hi phil, i'm still around, and have been reading, but these days i've a lot of things to do and that is good, because now i can let all the knowledge sink in, feel it through, experiment, incorporate, observe and explore.. thankyou for going into the brain and it's complex, the left and the right, the interactions, the various aspects involved.. it is revealing a lot, it makes the workings of the mind somehow a littlebit more transparent, but i have to let it sink, to prevent it from a mere floating on the surface.. and i think you should remember that it may be the case for more participants in this forum, so please don't get too impatient :)

Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jun 2009 #115
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks for showing up again. It's good to know you are still reading and I think your approach is correct. If something seems correct but not understandable, I take it with me until I give up or it hits me. Physics I give up on. The brain, I keep working on. I am concerned over some of the stuff I say that is my speculation and maybe sometimes I say it not knowing that it is my speculation because I have investigated it and found it to be true. So certainly, we need to bring up things that dont seem correct.

The most important thing you have said here is your picking up on my impatience. As a teacher I had incredible patience as I always thought if the people dont understand it, its because I am not explaining it right, and I have the patience to do that in talking about K issues. I could talk ad infinitum about these things and apparently do...lol. My problem is something is spilling over from my personal life to here. I am having problems with my patience with my mother and her mental state and our relationship. I have been working on it and it is improving but the conditionings I have here are very layered and are hard to get through. The websites are helping me immensely as I express the things looking in to myself, and I apologize for any appearance of impatience. It is not intended to apply here with anyone or anything. Thanks for pointing it out.

Back to Top
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 #116
Thumb_avatar Aura APL Mexico 1 post in this forum Offline

Hi Phil, Kirsten, Averil, Max.

Thanks all of you for your very interesting dialogue. Its a pleasant experience for me to ?listen? to some people (K-interested people) talking about things that have intrigued me for a long time. What I can say is that I have been following this topic almost every day since its beginnings, and I find it very interesting and motivating, I mean, to turn on the computer and see whats going on, is something that I want to do when I get home. Its like? talking with old friends.

For some reasons I have not felt the urge to participate. One could be just that I am a slow person. The rhythm of the topic is, by far, faster than mine. I need, as some of you, that the words go deep. Look at them, understand them, considerate them, examine if they have something to do with my life. And (even worse), in that process, sometimes, the need to understand just? blurred? lol. So, I am not able to get back to the topic and say something. What could I say!? Maybe I need no more.

I know that the topic have its own rhythm, and maybe it will finish or will change before I post even one more post ?or not. But, I have to say that I am ok with that, being a quiet listener? In the meanwhile, I can follow it, be grateful with it (I mean, with you), learn from you. And, of course, if I feel that I have something to say, I will do it.

(Sometimes I think I am not the only one with this kind of approach to the topic. It has many views).

Well? too much for today. (Sorry for my mistakes, English is not my mother tongue). Warm regards. Aura.

Back to Top
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 #117
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks Aura for you comments about the forum. I have thought that people were reading as I noticed all the "views." It would be nice if anyone else who doesnt like to post lets me know via email that they are reading and still interested. I think I am going to switch my comments over to the image topic I started here. I just posted a video I think is of interest and I am going to write something on it today. I think this process is an individual's process and search in to his own mind and I appreciate anyone who posts who is doing that. I have been astounded by the posts on this forum by others. Because this is a process of my looking at my brain, I absolutely dont mind posting without response. Response is nice especially if I make a mistake, am unclear or when someone suddenly sees something in themselves. I have also, seen some posts where people repeat something that someone else says but in their own words which is a great way to understand yourself. Innumerable repetition is there in the K teachings but he was always starting over new and relooking at it otherwise it would have come entirely from the memory and intellect being just a story.

I think when the mind wakes up and takes on something as if it were new, there is always a little insight that comes along with memory that is already there. The difference I think in the scientist going to the moon who does this and K is the direction of the search. What we search here is what goes on inside and science's search is what goes on outside. The problem with inward search is the limitation that the various "I"s put on us. With the misunderstanding that we are our thoughts and images...we only are given the former thoughts and images to search through like when you have a library of cd's. The "I's" not liking change just watches old cd's in its library and when it goes for new cd's (experiences), it just compares the old cd's with the new before it decides to buy! It never likes the ones that are not already similar and make its library bigger and better according to those likes. Use this analogy and think about memory as the cd's you have stored. This is a topic in itself probably.

If anyone reading this topic finds something in it, they want to comment on, please feel free to keep this going.

Back to Top
Wed, 01 Jul 2009 #118
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Ok ...its pretty obvious that this topic has switched over to the "image process topic" ...I am closing this topic for discussion and ask that all go to image process and post there.....thanks for all you posts...its a shame that this dies because there is a lot of stuff here as preliminary to where we are going...so anyone who is new here...I would say it would be good to go slowly throught this before you move on...thanks phil

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

Back to Top
Thu, 02 Jul 2009 #119
Thumb_avatar Jack Odin United States 1 post in this forum Offline

Hello everyone; very interesting discussion. I have researched, and given much thought to this subject for many years, therefore, I hope I may offer some insight into this Topic.

First, we need to ask ourselves this question; Who Am I? If one truly explores the answer they will surely discover that they are a collection of ?I?s? or ?I?Am?s? and that each I is a personality of the Whole Physical Being or (Ego). Each I has a role to play in this Life and that is why the I?s exists.

Let?s look at our I?s (all Humans share many similar I?s)

I am a Boy (Girl)
I am a Son ( Daughter)
I am a Student
I am a Boyfriend (Girlfriend)
I am a Worker
I am Boss
I am a Professional (Doctor, Lawyer, Teacher)
I am a Husband (Wife)
Etc, etc??

And so we go about experiencing life in the I?s we were born with, and the I?s we have chosen.

One more factor that is important in this discussion, we all need to agree that The Brain is not The Mind and The Mind is not The Brain.
The Brain is the Hardware, The Mind is The Software and Contains the Operating System.
Thoughts are The IOs or the Electronic means by which Hardware and Software communicate.

Open to Discussion ...

Truth is in The Moment

Back to Top
Fri, 03 Jul 2009 #120
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

boy....welcome...i am really liking your statements here as I have observed the various "I's" you talk about.. I have a friend who has understood the left brain center as I call it but he keeps refering to many selves that exists in him. It has been the reason I have thought about the right brain image process which I am talking about now on the other topic. I think these "I's" are individual self images and must be accessed by the right brain...pure and absolute theory but it brings up the truth that we have images of ourselves no matter what side of the brain is responsible for it.

I agree about your statements of mind and brain. I am trying to stay a little bit more with brain function now and seeing how the mind interprets things going on in the brain illusionally and then proceeds to delusion from that. You are welcome to turn this in to a discussion of consciousness if you have experience with it but I would like you to open that as a separate topic. I have not thought a lot about that yet. I am struggling right now with the half second delay of Nortranders book which is the Libet studies. I played better golf today because of somewhat of a release to my right brain and am plannning to play everyday now this summer to work on this.

Welcome, again and take off in any discussion area you want to. It is nice to have new blood. like the analogy of hardware and software...but I have not thought about this much so I bow to your posting your thoughts on this and other areas you have been looking at. I really need some others who have seen what I saw years ago about K and the brain to get involved and this may take some time for them to show up. PHil

Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 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.)