Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

For the thinker only thinkers exist


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 79 in total
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 #31
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1273 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini: “The thinker can only see other thinkers around it.”

Mina: Your response made it clear that I responded only from my experience on your personal sentence: “ I cannot see anything else”. In focusing on the above sentence and the given information that you will inquire the statement freely , without knowing and doing it seriously. A whole different approach is needed. We cannot refer to what is already written in this forum or anywhere else of what or who the thinker is and what or if he is seeing something or nothing around “IT”.

There was a guy who once said that: “ the answer lies within the question” and also "the speaker is not important but what he is saying is" we both know that this was Krishnamurti.

If putting that statement to the test:
We have to establish what we are talking about.

What is the thinker? Is that someone who’s is thinking or someone who’s is thinking that he’s thinking or someone who is searching in his harddrive/brain or memory for similarities?
The same for “can only see” there is this question of “ can only” which seem to be an limitation and this contradict with free and fress. And “see” is in it’s semantic form static not vibrant and could not describe something which is movement.
And last but not least: What about “ IT” ? Do you mean the Truth, or mine truth or your truth or our truth or something totally different, but different from what?
And also “around” seems to point to something apart from a center.
At thus far we did not touched the statement in itself, so it cannot be polluted with our presuppositions whe’re only examine the question with the tools we gathered in the past.

If it’s clear what the components of the statement and its compounds are there is this mysterious seeing is coming in action we are seeing something is missing.

Than memory add something in like: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Still this doesn’t polluted the statement or the inquiry does it? When seeing the whole the parts disappear they are still there somewhere but not as parts.
So there isn’t an “I” seeing a thinker or “IT” or something around. This seeing is not your or mine seeing “ it’s seeing.”

It is not a necessity that all the components are in the right mood or position.
Sometimes a question can’t be answered in words. You have to tell a story around it.

For example this Koan Krishnamurti once referred to :
“ How sounds the applause of an one armed man ?”

When I pondered this over I built a story around it, like this:

There was a great Zenmaster who every day give for one hour answers to peoples questions.
But once a month he put one question to the gathered people. Thousands of people came to him and one day he asked them: “How sounds the applause of an one armed man ?”
The first 5 minutes a lot of answers came but on every answer he knocked his head “NO.”
The people fear to answer anymore became very, very quit for the rest of the hour, all were waiting till the end, curious for his answer.
At the end of the hour the Zenmaster stood op and apologized to his audience by saying: “ Thank you for answering my question, I didn’t realized so many people already knew the answer.”

By rereading it I realized that that was what Krishnamurti was doing.
Giving us food for thinking, investigating by the questions and we are all longing for answers.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 #32
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Mina Martini: “The thinker can only see other thinkers around it.”

I think she meant: if you have an image about yourself, you're bound to relate to others through images as well.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 #33
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi Seth wrote (post 27):
The brain does not create any illusions since it cannot as it is a machine a mechanical / biological robot.

Yes the brain is mechanical. The brain has developed immense complexity and capacity over millions of years of evolution, and over this time it has developed the ability to store images (create memory). A further development has been the ability to compare memory to memory, and to evaluate between memories. This ability we call "thinking."

It is through thinking, which is thought and thinker, that illusion comes about. All thinking is illusory. The reality is the brain itself, together with awareness. Nothing more is required in this world.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Tue, 17 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 #34
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
It is through thinking, which is thought and thinker, that illusion comes about. All thinking is illusory. The reality is the brain itself,
together with awareness. Nothing more is required in this world.

What is the illusion? If the illusion is that of a thinker without thinker being present, how would it create misery? The thinker being a reader of thought reads what thought is and decides to take action accordingly for the benefit of the body. Why there be misery or conflict if the reading is of a fact or even of false appearance of a fact ... of what thought or thinking is depicting... of what previous images say? If there is a rope lying on the road in darkness, the thought concludes it is a snake, it is not fault of the thinking but of the darkness...... darkness that is ignorance in which it couldn't comprehend where the light switch is.

If your proposal is to obliterate thought as such it will be akin to throwing the baby out with the wash water. For the thought to behave sanely light is required so that the rope is seen as a rope & not as a snake. Thus to finish thought for good is not a prerequisite but light.

What is that light? That light is seeing thought has its limits. When thought stops; seeing whatever it does leads to turmoil, intelligence comes into operation that sees thought is limited. After the seeing thought does not go in the areas where it has no use of. It is not obliterated then but remains only for a limited purpose, like you and me having conversation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 #35
Thumb_stringio Natarajan S India 289 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
Why there be misery or conflict if the reading is of a fact or even of false appearance of a fact

Good point Ravi, reality, though unknowable, needs to be abstracted in thought for the purpose of communication. In attention, thinking is not a problem, as I see.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 #36
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

'I think she meant: if you have an image about yourself, you're bound to relate to others through images as well.'

mina: Yes, this was meant.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 #37
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Wim,

Wim: A whole different approach is needed. We cannot refer to what is already written in this forum or anywhere else of what or who the thinker is and what or if he is seeing something or nothing around “IT”.

Mina: Yes. I was not referring personally to anything that has been written or said anywhere, it was an insight that brought those words. Now, the fundamental problem is always how to share with others the 'place' where words have come from, the unknown, (which is the different approach really in essence) instead of thought looking at the words only and reacting the them, so only continuing thought. The questions that followed the insight were trying to invite people to this different approach, to looking together, only looking.

P.S The 'it' was a pronoun referring to the thinker itself, if that remained unclear.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Wed, 18 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 #38
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Wim,

There is a lot in your reply, let me focus for on this for now:

Wim:And last but not least: What about “ IT” ? Do you mean the Truth, or mine truth or your truth or our truth or something totally different, but different from what?

Mina: 'The thinker can only see thinkers around it.' -The statement means that thought can only see/experience thought and not anything that is beyond itself, beyond the known.

It means that the obserever is the observed. Only images of what is true can exist in thought. Also, the image of their being 'my truth' and 'your truth', or 'me' and 'you' as psychologically separate, is what the thinker is and creates.

Wim:And also “around” seems to point to something apart from a center.

Mina: Yes, the 'around' means 'the observed'. It is the illusion that what is experienced to be around the center, is separate from it. The 'around' are the images of that which the thinker thinks that it observing as if independent of the watcher, whereas it is really in contact with its own images of others or other things. The thinker IS the creation of 'the other' as psychologically separate from itself.

Wim:At thus far we did not touched the statement in itself, so it cannot be polluted with our presuppositions whe’re only examine the question with the tools we gathered in the past.

Mina: Yes, looking without knowing, that is what 'the different approach' is. Thank you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 #39
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi Seth wrote (post 34):
If your proposal is to obliterate thought as such it will be akin to throwing the baby out with the wash water.

No, the intention is not to do away with thinking, or to obliterate thinking. The proposal is to understand what thinking is, and what thinking does.

So, what is thinking? It is the use of memory to compare, evaluate, judge, choose. All thinking, all thinking, is confined to memory and the known -- we cannot think of what we do not remember and know. Memory and the known is our record of the past. When we apply memory (the non-existent past) to the present, we mold the present to fit memory and the known, i.e., to fit a non-existent past.

The natural way is to be aware of the present, to be aware of memory, and to use memory through awareness, not through thinking. Awareness is sensing and seeing, which is not at all the same as the brain's process of thinking.

There is always a thinker, an "I," with thinking. With awareness, there is only awareness itself. It is just as with the observer is the observed: there is no separate observer.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Wed, 18 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 #40
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Max Greene wrote:
It is through thinking, which is thought and thinker, that illusion comes about. All thinking is illusory.

Ravi Seth wrote:
What is the illusion?

Thinking is the attempt to reconstruct the past, modified, perhaps, but nevertheless a reconstruction. Even in tying a shoelace, the attempt is to tie the lace just as in the past, and in no other way.

But the past is non-existent. So with thinking, the attempt is made to tie the lace as it was tied in a non-existent past -- for the benefit of an imaginary thinker. Isn't this illusion?

The alternative is to be aware that the lace needs tying, and to use memory through awareness.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Wed, 18 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 #41
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
So with thinking, the attempt is made to tie the lace as it was tied in a non-existent past -- for the benefit of an imaginary thinker. Isn't this illusion?

Only illusion if your initial supposition is correct, which it is not. For example, in eating soup - do you attempt to eat it exactly as in the past? Is your thought geared towards repeating a past event? No at all. Yet, you may recall your mother advising you that tipping the plate towards you will result in spillage.

"Which side of the plate should I tip, Auntie?"

"It depends which side you wish to spill the soup, my dear."

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 #42
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
For example, in eating soup - do you attempt to eat it exactly as in the past?

Yes, you do if you attempt to eat the soup only by thinking about it. Thinking deals exclusively with what is known -- the memory of what is past. It is only with awareness that the present can be seen for what it is and the proper action, not reaction, taken. It is only with awareness that the present can become the known and be committed to memory.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Wed, 18 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 #43
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1273 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini, “A morning cloud told me all this. :-)” (another forum)

I didn’t realize that I was talking aloud in my “I”cloud ;) I only hope I did’t block the sunshine.

In talking metaphorical about the statement in this forum we also may avoid knowledge and is speaking metaphorical about Truth not also a metaphor for: “ I don’t know, I don’t have the whole picture completely? ”
This is another completely different approach to what’s going around in this and the other forums.

So right here is a very short story:

I was sitting on my database looking over the river of reality. In the sky where little “I”clouds driving by.
The light of the sun enlightens a laboratory floating on the water, where avatars were investigating one piece of a picture.
“CECI N'EST PAS UNE PIPE “ ( MARGRITTE).
So they concluded, based on their knowledge thus far, that the whole picture was not about a pipe. A lot of wires from the picture were driving on the water and bricks out of their wall (nice song by the way) of believers with knowledge came out of nowhere ( or is it Knowhere?) with pieces of their fingerprint of who they really are disappearing in the river of reality.
Somewhere in my database was the answer but the index was broken and all the pieces of evidence were spread all over the place. Bit by bit I offered them the remains of the content of my database for as far I could reach them. I had a vague understanding of the picture because of it’s universally shining from all their pieces like a holographic picture. (David Bohm). As soon as I took a dive into the river all the parts combined with the database showed in a flash the whole picture to all the people and avatars who were looking, even to the “I”clouds who didn’t had no idea at all about the investigation and at the same time all of those looking were surprised and transformed in the same flash.
For the not looking avatars and people all stayed the same.
At the end or beginning there was only Truth displaying itself in those looking and no one can ever hold it. It’s non material !!!

Is it now real to say that for the thinker/thought those who were looking stay on beleavers or people with knowledge not seeing there transformation ?
They don't disappaer do they?

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Wed, 18 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 #44
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1273 posts in this forum Offline

Wim: “I didn’t realize that I was talking aloud in my “I”cloud ;)
I only hope I did’t block the sunshine.”

Sorry, too much “I” in the heavenly sphere there.

Mina: Can we look into it, together, to see together whether it holds water or not?
Wim: Oh Dear, oh Dear, There’s a hole in my pocket ;)

It’s a never ending story, you know,
so we have to be very careful not too much influence from the real world.

If IT’s still a land without any path , it’s limitless then IT has no boundaries ,
so even in the metaphorical language Truth has its ground.

It is assumed that One picture can tell us more than thousands of words.
A film is a construction of countless pictures and one Life is so much more than countless movies, and there are, has been and will be countless lives.

We cann’t put all that is in one story, can we?

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 #45
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Yes, you do if you attempt to eat the soup only by thinking about it.

One of my favorite moments, when eating out, is to ask for the dessert menu. I carefully read each item, taking time to savour every taste. When the waiter finally asks, "Would you like to order a dessert," I simply answer, "No thanks, they were all delicious."

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 #46
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
One of my favorite moments, when eating out, is to ask for the dessert menu. I carefully read each item, taking time to savour every taste. When the waiter finally asks, "Would you like to order a dessert," I simply answer, "No thanks, they were all delicious."

That reminds me of Thoreau, speculating on each plain, each vista and hill, contemplating building a home there, its aspects and beauty. Meanwhile he builds his little shack on Walden pond to "truely live".

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 #47
Thumb_stringio Natarajan S India 289 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
When the waiter finally asks, "Would you like to order a dessert," I simply answer, "No thanks, they were all delicious."

The world as it appears to us is made up exclusively of sensorial impressions and their combinations, and is therefore determined and limited by the form and range of the organs of perception. Whatever we experience of a world external to ourselves is nothing but the release by external impulses of something that is in ourselves. We do not perceive an object external to ourselves but something in ourselves which has been called up by impulses from that object and which presumably corresponds to it- colours, sounds, smell and sensations are in us, and by projecting them onto to the unknowable world around us, we built it up like mosaic from elements in ourselves.(J Moskvitin)

Response AS memory and Response TO memory are the possibilities.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 #48
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Natarajan S wrote:
The world as it appears to us is made up exclusively of sensorial impressions and their combinations, and is therefore determined and limited by the form and range of the organs of perception.

This is the heart of the matter.

Is awareness a sensorial impression? Awareness can be only now, at the present moment, and the present moment is timeless and immeasurable. On the other hand, sensing through the mechanical senses of the body is sequential and so measurable by time -- "caught in time."

The timeless present is before existence, and all of the known, all of the universe, is existence. This is not just a metaphysical concept.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 #49
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Is awareness a sensorial impression? Awareness can be only now, at the present moment, and the present moment is timeless and immeasurable. On the other hand, sensing through the mechanical senses of the body is sequential and so measurable by time -- "caught in time."

The timeless present is before existence, and all of the known, all of the universe, is existence. This is not just a metaphysical concept.

Max, I'm glad you brought in 'the timeless present', as opposed to "Awareness can only be now, at the present moment".

Awareness can be at many different levels, from casually watching tv, to looking someone in the eye.

Can we use the word 'attention'? Attention out of time, effortless, lucid, awake? Then the 'timeless present' moves with existence-not before it- but inseparable?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 #50
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

I don't see that there are levels to awareness. Either there is awareness or there is not awareness. As they say, you cannot be just a little bit pregnant.

The point is, is sensorial impression the end of the matter? I don't see that it is. Awareness appears to be something else. Sensorial impression is the known, whereas awareness is unknowable -- awareness does not accumulate through sequence and it is only of the present moment.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 20 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 #51
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
I don't see that there are levels to awareness. Either there is awareness or there is not awareness. As they say, you cannot be just a little bit pregnant.

Oh, no. There are tons of levels of awareness. You can watch tv to the exclusion of everything else. Most people it seems have a low level of awareness. You see them walking the sidewalks, alone, eyes down, or talking to a companion not paying attention to anything else around them. They are aware partially, in a limited sense.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 #52
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
awareness is unknowable -- awareness does not accumulate through sequence and it is only of the present moment.

I think you are thinking of meditation, Max, am I wrong?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 #53
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3146 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
The point is, is sensorial impression the end of the matter? I don't see that it is. Awareness appears to be something else.

When I love my child or my neighbor or friend, obviously there's more involved than sensory impressions.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 #54
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

The senses are a part of love, but when thinking and thought enter the picture, we have desire.

But is sensing, sensorial impression, the end of the matter, as post 47 is saying? I see it as true that all that we know, or can know, is sensory. We are bound by our senses. But the present is before sequence and the known.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 20 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 #55
Thumb_stringio Natarajan S India 289 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Is awareness a sensorial impression? Awareness can be only now, at the present moment, and the present moment is timeless and immeasurable.

The post 47 states that in observation there is only the observer. Taking an opposite position by saying the in observation there is only the observed is also fallacious, as I see. Awareness is when the observer is the observed, i.e. Awareness unites and also separates the observer/observed for the manifestation of responsibility (which is a result of insight/transformation) as action.

max greene wrote:
whereas awareness is unknowable

I see it differently, reality is the unknowable, it includes both the known and the unknown.

max greene wrote:
But the present is before sequence and the known.

Yes, but present as reality consists of both the known and the unknown,as I see.

The point I am trying to make is that awareness and brain cannot be separated from each other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 #56
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Natarajan S wrote:
Taking an opposite position by saying the in observation there is only the observed is also fallacious, as I see.

Would you say in true observation there is only the observed? When one looks at a tree, or a mountain, you cannot see it if the observer cast his veil between observation.

Likewise, in observing the 'inner', the observer with all his knowledge, prejudice, beliefs and so on prevent the observation of what really is taking place, in observing, say, envy, or desire. The observer condemns or justifies what it sees, supresses and so on according to his conditioning.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 #57
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Natarajan S wrote:
"The world as it appears to us" . . . Response AS memory and Response TO memory are the possibilities.

Yes, the whole activity of mind is built upon sensory information. You bring up response, 'to' or 'as' memory. If the mind is constructed of sensory information, what is that which is 'responding?'

I'll ask the question in another way. Within this mind, which is the history of all experience and response, where is the respondent? And 'what' is putting the question?

Whether the response is 'to' memory' or 'as' memory, if the mind is the history of all previous interactions, then response is always 'as' memory, even when it is 'to' memory. Memory is still responding 'to' itself. So what are we trying to discern when distinguishing the 'as' movement from the 'to' movement?

"Response to memory": Doesn't this mean that conscious attention has been brought to the movement of memory? Then the response of the mind (being itself 'memory') contains qualitatively greater self-reflection than when memory is being employed unconsciously.

Usually we are totally unaware (it does not enter consciousness) that memory is involved in any response. The sentence I form now is predicated on the previous one, yet I am unaware of that and truly believe I am "in the moment."

The mind fools itself into thinking it acts freshly, newly, to the extent it is unaware and ignorant of the fact of its own underpinnings. It believes there is an independent 'respondent' living in the now. We see this here on Knet, especially among the most "enlightened" participants.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 #58
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Usually we are totally unaware (it does not enter consciousness) that memory is involved in any response. The sentence I form now is predicated on the previous one, yet I am unaware of that and truly believe I am "in the moment."

The mind fools itself into thinking it acts freshly, newly, to the extent it is unaware and ignorant of the fact of its own underpinnings. It believes there is an independent 'respondent' living in the now. We see this here on Knet, especially among the most "enlightened" participants.

I've been watching this too. For example, to a question here, one searches memory, often as in "What does K say about this?", or, from our own experiences in the past, however deep they may have been.

There is a respondant living in the now, all of us. It is just that the "now" is loaded with memory. We can write off the top of our heads, or let the question sink deeply at different times, often depending on the question. If the challenge is deep, the mind pauses, letting it sink in. If it's shallow, a superficial answer comes quickly. It seems to work like that.

So what is the question? "We are unaware that memory is involved in any response/The mind fools itself into thinking it acts freshly, newly"

I think we do certainly search memory for an adequate response, that is obvious. But that there is no newness, freshness, living in the now? Ha, I am searching the banks of memory for that one-

This post was last updated by mike c (account deleted) Fri, 20 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 #59
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

mike c wrote:
I think we do certainly search memory for an adequate response, that is obvious. But that there is no newness, freshness, living in the now? Ha, I am searching the banks of memory for that one-

Sorry (and no offense meant, Mike) but you didn't get it. Maybe my confused post. But I'm not talking about "searching the memory banks." That is done consciously, or describes a conscious process. I am saying the action of memory is largely unconscious. One has no awareness that any kind of search is ongoing OR (more importantly) has taken place.

Thinking is a slow process. It is a conscious process. When you are 'thinking' about something, you are conscious of it. The very word or verb "thinking" describes a conscious process. It implies a deliberate focusing of attention, deliberation.

But thought/memory is largely an unconscious process. We are not aware of it. It is not 'self-reflective.' When you are reflecting on your own processes (which is thinking, which is 'trawling the memory banks') it is a deliberative process involving selection, choice and so on. It is a linear, 'rational' process and as such, it is drawn-out, it takes time, it is slow. Thought, at the level of the unconscious, is much faster, so fast in comparison with 'thinking' (deliberation) that to the conscious mind it appears 'instantaneous.' That is to say, the results of unconscious process appear to come from nowhere or 'elsewhere.'

Thought is based upon association. Associative contacts are maintained or regained at such speeds that it really appears no process of thought is involved at all. One simply knows something or else the memory appears, wham!

Searching, thinking, deliberating, all describe linear processes of thinking - a quite different function. Yes, quite different. I mean to emphasise this. Unconscious processes are non-linear, irrational, associative, non-temporal. But it is still thought. 'Intuition' may describe (in this particular aspect) the sudden intrusion of non-linear processes into the much slower, linear deliberations.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 #60
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
When you are reflecting on your own processes (which is thinking, which is 'trawling the memory banks') it is a deliberative process involving selection, choice and so on. It is a linear, 'rational' process and as such, it is drawn-out, it takes time, it is slow. Thought, at the level of the unconscious, is much faster, so fast in comparison with 'thinking' (deliberation) that to the conscious mind it appears 'instantaneous.' That is to say, the results of unconscious process appear to come from nowhere or 'elsewhere.'

That's interesting. Usually we think the opposite, that the unconscious is the slow, patient, abiding slow change that alters us daily (or nightly) with the dim digestions of experience. You are saying the opposite, that the unconscious is faster than conscious thought.

That could imply that the faster you think the more 'unconscious' comes out. Lawrence Durrell (again) wrote his Quartet at the rate of about 4 weeks per book, and they are astonishing. 4 weeks!

I wonder what you think of contemplation though, or (and i hate to use the word) 'meditation'? The mind is quietened, stilled. Awareness is greater. I'm just fishing around. Is the unconscious then brought in line with the conscious?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 79 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.)