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

How many people understand Krishnamurti?

This topic is locked.


Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 243 in total
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #151
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 428 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If I imagine being without self-centered thought...

To imagine is to think, yes?

What you say after that makes total sense. But what good is imagining or envisioning it? Must it not be looked into for real and not just imagined?

Isn't it a trick of our brains to want to try to get a handle on something the brain cannot get a handle on?

I don't mean to criticize you in any way. I'm just saying that if it really is possible, thinking about isn't enough, yes?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #152
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 67 posts in this forum Offline

idiot: I am not hiding behind K. I am presenting a K quote as part of the discussion. You said that it is not possible to end selfishness. K says the opposite. I have never said that none of this stuff works. I have said that taking a simplistic, formulaic approach to K won't work and results in self-deception.

I have no idea what works and doesn’t work. I am therefore free to find out what actually happens when I enquire into it. K says it is possible and therefore we are in danger of already starting out with abstract hopes and ideas about what to do. Instead, I am starting very simply, that’s all, with me and you, as two friends, as a husband and wife, as a father and son, as any two human beings.

I am a selfish human being: I want the best life possible for myself first. In order even to enquire with you I need a safe home, a supply of food and a period of time to take our leisure over this. It is a basic selfish urge to protect the body and the general sanity of the mind; the particular sanity we can come to later. So, first of all, to be selfish is intelligent and sane. Otherwise, we are never going to meet one another, converse, discuss, look at the further complexities as they arise.

Far from offering or seeking a simplistic or formulaic approach – which are two of the key trademarks of thought – this may take us the rest of our lives to get right. It is not about whether any of this stuff works. Where it is true, it works, and where it is false, and we see the falseness of it, it also works. But there is no stuff to apply. There are a lot of words to read and a lot of concepts to grapple with, if you want to go that way. Personally, I don’t. I am selfish; I am supremely selfish; I want it to work from the very first step. And the only ‘it’ is you and me; that is what it means when self-centred activity has come to an end: it has a verifiable result in relationship. There won’t be a trace of conflict between us. And I am willing to stick at it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #153
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 67 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette: Can't the fact that I am selfish be an abstraction, just as much as selfishness can be?

Madam, test it and find out! Are those wars an abstraction? Are those stabbings an abstraction? But you would rather protect your own self-image as someone who has no trace of selfishness within them than just admit a very simple thing about yourself. I am not being personal; it is not just you doing this. We are terrified of having ourselves crumble into dust.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Tue, 21 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #154
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1301 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I'm just saying that if it really is possible, thinking about isn't enough, yes?

Yes I hear what you're saying but the reason I wrote about 'imagining' what it would be like to be 'self-less' is because I'm not 'self-less'! The question was "what is self to you?". There can be a 'seeing', a realization of what the self is, its danger, its divisiveness, etc but it has to be communicated by 'thought/thinking' in words. (by the self?) And regarding whether it is "possible" to go beyond the self remains to be seen, doesn't it? I do see that thought is the 'known' and being always the known, it can never discover the 'unknown'. It can only bring the unknown into the known. It can 'imagine' how things might be if it were 'enlightened' but it can never touch the truth of enlightenment, being as it is the past. Does that sound right? It's true that they are just 'words'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #155
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 428 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
I have no idea what works and doesn’t work. I am therefore free to find out what actually happens when I enquire into it.

Okay. But for someone with no idea, you're awfully adamant about staying with being selfish. That's some "no idea."

Most everyone agrees that we need to take care of basic necessities: food, clothing, a dwelling. K acknowledges these needs and seems to imply that tending to them is practical. Perhaps there are people, like ascetic gurus in India, that don't even look after basic needs and are fed and clothed by disciples. In a way, K was fed and clothed, quite handsomely, wasn't he?

Is looking after basic necessities selfish?

But most people want more. They want comfort, they want a degree of luxury, they want a degree of entertainment. To get their desires, they may have no qualms about competing, that is exerting some level of ruthlessness.

So what is selfishness? Is it wanting more? Is selfishness even involved in acquiring basic necessities?

You can stay with being selfish. But to do so, isn't there a level of violence? Doesn't my concern for myself blind me to the needs of others? Don't I grab what I want for myself, unconcerned with how it may take away from others? Is it of no concern when I live in my luxury mansion and others starve on the streets?

When I watch my selfishness, when I see the harm it does in relationship, that very awareness brings to the forefront the question of whether it is possible for selfishness to end. We have become insensitive to the violence that selfishness is. Therefore we can contentedly remain in it, oblivious to its cruelty.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 21 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #156
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1301 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
We have become insensitive to the violence that selfishness is. Therefore we can contentedly remain in it, oblivious to its cruelty.

I think it is obvious how de-sensitized we are to the suffering of others...Also with greed, it seems like an addiction of the brain similar to physical addictions to alcohol, tobacco, drugs...the search for security? More 'things' mean greater security. More attachments give a false feeling of being not alone, of not being 'empty', of being 'connected'...in the same way that drugs can give a feeling of 'well-being'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 21 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #157
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 67 posts in this forum Offline

idiot: Okay. But for someone with no idea, you're awfully adamant about staying with being selfish. That's some "no idea."

But it’s a fact, not an idea. The idea that most of us harbour deep inside ourselves is, ‘Yes, if I had all the opportunities in life, I would be a wonderful human being.’ Or, on a much simpler level, we might say, ‘Well, I can’t love everyone in this world but at least I really love my wife’, or whoever else it is – next week it may be a new wife. We are full of these crazy ideas about ourselves. But, the fact is clear: I am selfish.

You can stay with being selfish. But to do so, isn't there a level of violence? Doesn't my concern for myself blind me to the needs of others?

Sir, it is already making me blind. Probably I have been blind from six or seven years old, whenever this whole rotten mess of self-centred activity started to grow within me. First you have to do it, not speculate about it. Of course there is violence; that is the whole point. You see, sir, it is very interesting if you watch it carefully. At six or seven, probably, hopefully, I had all the physical security I needed; that wasn’t then an issue. But all around any child are people who are themselves deeply insecure and they are the ones teaching me how to live, showing me the right ways to behave, what to question and what not to question and all the rest of it. And what is the dirtiest trick they all play on their children: ‘Don’t be selfish. Love your neighbour. Treat others as you want them to treat you,’ and on and on. There is the real violence, sir. That’s the start of it. So I have inherited all that.

Then, as I grow a little older, I soon see that these silly slogans don’t work. But instead of dropping slogans altogether, I invent new ones of my own, read a lot of books, consult better brains, anything to provide me with a little security through the rest of my life, either pessimistic or optimistic. So the violence carries on. You know all this, sir, don’t you?

So there is not just a superficial level of violence: violence runs very deep to the core of my psychological system. I will do anything to protect this central image. So I have to stay not only with the fact that I am selfish, I now have to stay with the fact that I am violent. Do you see the difficulty, sir? This is why most people won't even touch this kind of thing. Just to say to another person, 'I am selfish,' is already like death; and now you want me to say, 'I am violent' too. I am quickly going to find a better dialogue!

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Tue, 21 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #158
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 428 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
one cannot find sentience if one were confined to the four-dimensional.

Why not? Continuing from the viewpoint of the skeptical scientist, I ask: Why can't reality, whether it consists of 4 or 10 or however many dimensions physicists determine exist, account for electrical and bio-chemical processes in the physical brain that give rise to consciousness, perception, sentience?

Most scientists think that in fact is the case, and Occam's Razor demands the excision of the extraneous.

Of course, we don't understand how consciousness happens. But neuroscience is learning more and more. Research will continue to be done with what we can learn from physical reality.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 21 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #159
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 428 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
'I am selfish,' is already like death; and now you want me to say, 'I am violent' too.

If we are really staying with selfishness, watching it in action, we must see its violence in relationship, yes?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #160
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1207 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Peter Kesting wrote:

one cannot find sentience if one were confined to the four-dimensional.

Why not? Continuing from the viewpoint of the skeptical scientist, I ask: Why can't reality, whether it consists of 4 or 10 or however many dimensions physicists determine exist, account for electrical and bio-chemical processes in the physical brain that give rise to consciousness, perception, sentience?

Most scientists think that in fact is the case, and Occam's Razor demands the excision of the extraneous.

Can one detect mind.... is it itself measurable? (K I believe talked about the immeasurable) Is it itself discoverable without ones being in that mind?

I'm asking the question, not trying to convince anyone.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 21 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #161
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1207 posts in this forum Offline

It occurs here just now, that it may be that anything that is measurable by that itself cannot be mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #162
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1207 posts in this forum Offline

By recourse to the notion that life might be a simulation, all of science can be questioned.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #163
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 428 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Can one detect mind.... is it itself measurable?

Scientists theorize that the mind, that is the ability to think, feel, perceive, etc., is an emergent property of the physical brain. They certainly do not yet understand the details. It is an ongoing investigation.

Why do we need to bring in the "immeasurable?" K referred to the "immeasurable" and it may or may not exist. If it does, we may or may not have any idea what it means. In fact, if it is as K says, idea cannot touch it.

Even if the immeasurable is, and even if it is the same as the "light" you discussed above, why is it in any way needed for consciousness to happen in a physical brain? Why can't that consciousness just be a bunch of electrical and chemical activity in a physical brain?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 21 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #164
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5294 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
I wouldn't say not related because truth has a one direction relation to thought , because a truth human's thoughts are very different to ours, to me That's why we interpretated K.'s words but not living them.

To be honest with you Wim I don't really understand your above response to my stating that thought has no relationship to truth. You may have accidently left out a word or two. And then too, there are so many different conversations going on on this thread right now it's probably not the best time to get deeply into something. If you're interested we can start another thread.

Thought is not related to truth because thought is of time. I don't know what truth is, as K used it or any other "truth", but it is not of time. K discussed this at some length many times. One example can be found at: First Public Talk at Saanen, 1975, "On Nature and the Environment". He explains why he categorically states that reality, thought, has no relationship with truth.

I think it is important to be clear on this lack of relationship between the two.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #165
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

Reading all comments what do we learn? If we all decide to be selfish and not selfless we cannot think rationally and sanely. We end up trying to discredit each other as we have been doing mostly here. Is that our conditioning to be an American or Canadian or Russian or a Muslim and discredit each other all the time. Is not the extension of selfishness nationalism and racism?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #166
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1207 posts in this forum Offline

Hello idiot,

I wasn't talking about some big immeasurable, Krishnamurti's immeasurable perhaps. But just about the small immeasurable, that is here in this one. But if it"s immeasurable I guess you couldn't call it small.

For what might be something that might be a big immeasurable see the last bit of my #170.

My friend says that I am a scientist, but science is limited.

We can talk more about any of this if you like

Science is materialistic but matter is without nowness, or meaning, or qualia or inteligence. A machine... a computer doesn't see the redness of red. It only measures the frequency. Matter ticks along state after state without the whole thing having any meaning. If I ask a scientist what is the now. He/She has no answer There is only state one followed by state two followed by state three...but what is this now? There is no answer in just science... in matter . Intelligence, not machine intelligence, intelligence involves seeing. A computer can be "aware" of the lines on the pavement but it isn't aware.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Thu, 23 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Aug 2018 #167
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 67 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B: Reading all comments what do we learn? If we all decide to be selfish and not selfless we cannot think rationally and sanely.

Sir, with respect, you are not listening to what I am saying. Human beings don't decide to be selfish. The fact is we are selfish. It is only by facing this fact about ourselves that anything happens. But we don't face it, apparently. Instead we say, 'I'll decide to be selfless.' You cannot decide to be selfless. That is the most selfish choice of all. It is still all about you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Aug 2018 #168
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 67 posts in this forum Offline

idiot: If we are really staying with selfishness, watching it in action, we must see its violence in relationship, yes?

First of all, are we both of us saying that we are selfish and violent? I am saying it. For me, it is a solid fact, not some abstract nonsense that I can later wash away. I am stuck with it for the rest of my life. This is not about transforming selfishness and violence into something ethereal and harmless.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Aug 2018 #169
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1207 posts in this forum Offline

*Idiot wrote: "How are you going to connect up the two? Let's call them absolute and relative. How could the relative look within and connect with the absolute?" *

K and Bohm talked about "Truth and Actuality" Worth reading.

It may be like the connection between time and space. These were always seen as separate, independent, until Einstein discovered that they are one, not separate. He was able to show just how they are connected.

As seen here:

There is a one-dimensional field, a line. From that field, confined to that field, one cannot discover anything of the two-dimensional. Things like curves and angles, or the idea of a picture are not there. Those things, are completely foreign, unthinkable. It works like this each step one takes up dimensions. Going from the two to the three dimensional there can now exist knots. These cannot be thought about, could not be imagined if one were confined to the two-dimensional. Going from the three to the four-dimensional, what is new is time. Again an unthinkable if one were confined to only the three dimensional.

There are relationships that exist between things in each field. In the one dimensional...Arithmetic. In the two dimensional....Geometry. In three dimensions.... Topology. In the fourth dimensional field, time/space. The relationship... the mathematics, as it were, of that space is all of Science...determinism. What there is that is the unthinkable if one were confined to the four-dimensional is sentience. Science has no clue when it comes to dealing with the hard problem of consciousness. As this one sees it, one can project that one could not discover sentience if one were confined to only time/space.In the four dimensional One would know nothing about an actual five-dimensional "space". Well, we experience the now. We see that we see. We are not so confined.

""Truth" (K) cannot be touched, cannot be accessed from there (here), from the material, by thought, by matter. It only goes one way. That other can touch, can move things, in the four-dimensional...in matter. One can see that it does that in the brain. I don't see that action anywhere else. It can be seen here though that there is that contact in that we can talk about this...these maters...about sentience. This Seeing "sees" that there is this seeing....that there is sentience. Could a completely mechanical thing talk about something it cannot even imagine?

Interestingly, one can consider a possible next higher dimension. It would have in it what would be as far beyond sentience as time is beyond the merely three-dimensional...as far beyond sentience as sentience is beyond time/space. We could know absolutely nothing about that..

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 22 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Aug 2018 #170
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Human beings don't decide to be selfish. The fact is we are selfish.

Is that so? You say all humans are selfish. Are you not justifying selfishness? As Dan said be selfish and take the consequences of it with its isolation and conflicts. You have to negate yourself not justify it by saying all humans are selfish. The word human implies compassion and friendship . It all comes to your choice be selfish and take the isolation that follows or abandon the self-occupation with its anxiety and fear all together. To live with fear is to decay. It is up to you.

This post was last updated by Myself Wrote Wed, 22 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Aug 2018 #171
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 475 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But it seems to me that the 'reason' there is the 'self', selfishness, (apart from physical survival)....

IS self necessary for physical survival? It seems to me that the organism has the natural intelligence and capacity to perceive a danger or threat to its survival. And doesn’t the very perception of danger act rightly, whether or not I survive? Isn’t the action that comes of perceiving danger the action of intelligence, not the action of self? Self can be clever but, as I see it, it cannot act intelligently. The action of self is fueled by self-interest, ambition, the desire to be or to become this and that, and so on, isn't it?

We see the chaos, division, hate, conflict engendered by self. There is no compassion in self-interest. Self, being motivated by self-interest, is divisive and conflictual - my self-interest fighting against your self-interest, my desire against your desire, my motive against your motive.

It is not intelligence which is selfish, greedy, pretending, polluting, exploiting, deceiving, destroying, brutalizing, and so on. It's not intelligence which wants to be right, who wants to win, no matter the harm it causes. Isn't all that the action of self?

Intelligence is not engendered by self-interest, fear, desire, selfish motive, ambition, etc., as I see it. Therefore intelligence is vulnerable, not defensive, not aggressive. Intelligence and compassion are intertwined, inseparable. It seems so to me, but maybe it's not.

Dan McDermott wrote:
.... is because it is more 'interesting' and 'entertaining' to be able to move away from 'what is' into the activity of thought with memory and projection. The self/brain, it seems, craves stimulation

Where does the desire to be entertained or stimulated originate? Isn’t it at least in part and maybe totally an effort to escape fear - not of physical danger but fear of being ridiculed, of being a failure, of being unloved, of being inferior, of being a a nobody, and so on. And can such fear be eradicated through entertainment?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 23 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Aug 2018 #172
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

The Brain needs security to function correctly. Not finding security in the real world . The Brain finds security in a fictitious world in which the self is the most important. Success is worshiped in this fictitious world because it gives importance to the self.
Now ,if the Brain sees the fictitiousness of the self then it will abandon or drop it naturally.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Aug 2018 #173
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 67 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B: Are you not justifying selfishness? ... It all comes to your choice: be selfish and take the isolation that follows or abandon the self-occupation with its anxiety and fear altogether. To live with fear is to decay. It is up to you.

How do you abandon self-occupation? You can't. It is a ridiculous thing to propose. You as an individual cannot do a thing. Far from living with fear and finding out about it, you are attempting to run away from it through an intellectual device. Fear is not decay. By living with it you find this out. Fear is the centre of yourself, so whatever move you make fear goes with you. Fear is thought and time. It is fear that says, 'Abandon self-occupation.' It is fear that says, 'Don't be selfish,' echoing the pointless message of society since time immemorial.

I am not justifying selfishness or anything else. I am selfish, violent, fearful. That is me. That is also you. But while you prefer to think of yourself as something more divine we remain far apart and our problems go on.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sat, 25 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Aug 2018 #174
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 475 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
The Brain needs security to function correctly. Not finding security in the real world . The Brain finds security in a fictitious world in which the self is the most important. Success is worshiped in this fictitious world because it gives importance to the self.

I also see it that the brain needs security to function, that in the moment of danger - armed intruders, fire, earthquake, flood, rabid dogs, and so on - the brain is immediately and effortlessly fully attentive, alert, vigilant, aware. That is, in that moment, there is no self at all, is there? This state of complete attention, interest, alertness, vigilance, awareness, is normally called fear but isn’t it in fact the action of intelligence --- which is not the cleverness of thought? This means that where there is danger, the brain has dropped the self and intelligence functions. Self-interest is of no use in facing actual danger. On the contrary.

Isn’t it after danger has passed that the self concerns itself with security, both physical and psychological? The self looks to the danger which has passed and plans for future security, demands security. But the fact remains that there is no security in “the real world”.

Goodman B wrote:
Now ,if the Brain sees the fictitiousness of the self then it will abandon or drop it naturally.

Yes, I see that. The perception of the illusory nature of self is the action which ends self naturally, effortlessly. And isn’t there such perception where there is attention, alertness, interest, awareness, vigilance for self-induced concerns and preoccupations? And isn't there such attention when the mind fully faces or acknowledges its own discontent - not turning away, not escaping through pleasure, occupations, explanations, seeking answers, but simply staying with it? In the light of attention, understanding can flower. Is it so?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 23 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Aug 2018 #175
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1301 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
IS self necessary for physical survival? It seems to me that the organism has the natural intelligence and capacity to perceive a danger or threat to its survival. And doesn’t the very perception of danger act rightly, whether or not I survive? Isn’t the action that comes of perceiving danger the action of intelligence, not the action of self? Self can be clever but, as I see it, it cannot act intelligently. The action of self is fueled by self-interest, ambition, the desire to be or to become this and that, and so on, isn't it?

I agree with that, the reason I mentioned "physical survival" was that we inherited territoriality from from our animal ancestors. And in that there is a primitive sense of 'me and mine'. I chase the predator away from 'my' cave, camp, house. I chase the male away from 'my' wife. I protect 'my' children, 'my' food supply, etc. But that doesn't rise to level of 'self' that we are now. It's interesting to think about... it has become more and more complicated as societies, civilizations arose. Our 'attachments' went from the physical, concrete, for survival but now there is also psychological attachment to the abstract.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Aug 2018 #176
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 475 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

I see what you mean. It may be that territoriality and sexual possessiveness are part of our animal inheritance. Apes are territorial and so is man, that is evident. Apes are sexually possessive (aren't they?), so is man. I’m not convinced that man is that way because of our animal inheritance but, in any case, I do understand what you’re saying.

Coincidentally, I’ve also been thinking about our prehistoric ancestor. While observing the inner movement of consciousness, the thought arose that the homo sapiens of today is biologically the same creature as ancient homo sapiens, the caveman, or the Anatomically Modern Human, Cro-Magnon man, Adam-and-Eve of Genesis - whatever name we may give to prehistoric homo sapiens. Of course prehistoric man's brain was not burdened with today's vast accumulation of knowledge, ideas, traditions, technologies, conclusions, beliefs, information, and so on. The stream of prehistoric consciousness was not as vast or complex as it is today.

For this reason, many if not most of the preoccupations and issues facing modern man were not issues and preoccupations for prehistoric homo sapiens. There were no political parties in the cave or simple prehistoric dwelling, no class distinctions, no racism; no desire for fame, mansions, fancy clothes, electronic gadgets and conveniences, no professional sports, no bars or professional entertainers, no Saturday night out with the boys or girls; no Church with a canon and dogma; there was no income inequality; no issues of access to education, climate change, pollution, species extinction, overpopulation, boredom, no nuclear and chemical weapons, no global village, etc. etc. Life was not as complex or fragmented. Perhaps for that reason, the mind was not in the habit of being CONSTANTLY occupied or preoccupied. I don't know. I could be mistaken.

Humanity's ancient legends tell us that - in spite of the relative simplicity of life back then - the mind of early man was nonetheless psychologically divided. There was a psychological self, psychological fear, self-interest, self-centredness, selfishness. In the Abrahamic legends relating to prehistory for example, “Cain” killed “Abel”, “Adam” and “Eve” willfully ate the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil, "Noah's" contemporaries were self-centered, debauched and brutal, “Jacob” desired his brother’s birthright, and so on. This to me points to psychological division in the prehistoric mind.

To me, this shines a light on my own psychological processes. I may be wrong. It may be irrelevant, but that’s how I see it.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 02 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Aug 2018 #177
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
I am not justifying selfishness or anything else. I am selfish, violent, fearful. That is me. That is also you. But while you prefer to think of yourself as something more divine we remain far apart and our problems go on.

.

I may be selfish even more than you are but I don't justify it as you do . Selfishness surely is divisive and denies love and cooperation. If that is what you want then be selfish and continue the justification of your-self . I think that you will get nowhere with a selfish altitude what so ever.(I am not being personal in these matters at all.)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Aug 2018 #178
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 67 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B: I may be selfish even more than you are but I don't justify it as you do. Selfishness surely is divisive and denies love and cooperation. If that is what you want then be selfish and continue the justification of yourself. I think that you will get nowhere with a selfish attitude whatsoever. (I am not being personal in these matters at all.)

Sir, I am selfish. I am not justifying it. I am not doing anything with it. I am starting with a fact, that's all. You are now halfway, saying, 'I may be selfish,' but you are still hesitant about it. It is not about a selfish attitude or a non-selfish attitude - they are both just attitudes, poses, masks. I am selfish, which is just the bare fact. Now, can we look at this fact together? Or are you only interested in idealistic statements?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Aug 2018 #179
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Wrote United States 647 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
I am starting with a fact, that's all.

Is selfishness a fact or is it an image ? An image is never a fact . It is an abstraction. We can only investigate into a fact. As soon as you look or investigate into an image it is already wiped out.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Aug 2018 #180
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 67 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B: Is selfishness a fact or is it an image? An image is never a fact. It is an abstraction. We can only investigate into a fact. As soon as you look or investigate into an image it is already wiped out.

I am not talking about selfishness. I am starting much closer: I am selfish. Whatever I do from a self-centred perspective, I am going to get hurt or I am going to hurt another. That's all. That's the starting point.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 243 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.)