Krishnamurti : "Dead people with a moving body".

Krishnamurti: Marriage is a personal prostitution.

More opiniuns from Krishnamurti is yet to come.

Krishnamurti:Nationalism is glorified tribalism.

So far every time Jack has opened his mouth the ego exposes itself in an offensive way. Because the nature of the ego is rubbish. We can tolerate that because of k.

"In the United States, almost half of adults (46.4 percent) will experience a mental illness during their lifetime. 5 percent of adults (18 or older) experience a mental illness in any one year, equivalent to 43.8 million people.Feb 6, "2019
Mental Health First Aid › 2019/02
5 Surprising Mental Health Statistics - Mental Health First Aid

This post was last updated by One Self Sat, 21 Sep 2019.

To me a person who over reacts to things is a mentally ill person. For examples like what Jack constantly does. He condemns first then sets about insulting. One can see that in this forum every single day. Condemnation followed by insults and delusions.

I am by no mean attacking Jack . I am explaining what he does every day in here.

If anybody is interested I am willing to share what I know about condemnation and how destructive it is because first it separates itself from the thing that it condemns and by that separation it creates conflict.

con·demn (k?n-d?m?)
tr.v. con·demned, con·demn·ing, con·demns
1. To express strong disapproval of: condemned the needless waste of food. See Synonyms at criticize.
2. To pronounce judgment against; sentence: condemned the felons to prison.
3. To judge or declare to be unfit for use or consumption, usually by official order: condemn an old building.

jamie f wrote:
Hmmmmmmmm....now, that has a familiar ring to it......

Do you doubt that K dealt with what is and not with what should be? He didn't point out what you should be but what you are. Understanding what you are without wanting to strive to become something else. That is realistic, not idealistic.

But Jamie, if you prefer to believe that K was idealistic that doesn't change anything for me. Many people on here don't have a clue what K was pointing out. There is a great deal of what he said that I don't understand either.

jamie f wrote:
I think it is an intriguing possibility.

I sometimes remain silent in the face of chaos but I'm not sure how effective it is. I have an acquaintance who has some mental health issues. He's not a friend but friends of mine know him. He picks fights with people for no reason. He seems to take offence at the most innocuous comment. Sometimes his friends will say something to him which I think is good as he may not realise that he is being unreasonable but as I don't know him too well I tend to remain silent. Perhaps a kind word is all that I can contribute to this man but usually I just remain silent when he starts arguing and insulting others for no apparent reason. Jamie, were you suggesting silence could do much more than this in the face of chaos?

jamie f wrote:
Wikipedia says: "Objective idealism is an idealistic metaphysics that postulates that there is in an important sense only one perceiver, and that this perceiver is one with that which is perceived".

So what? What does this have to do with K? "Objective idealism" is an idea, an ideal that, as you say, has been postulated. To postulate means:

to ask, demand, or claim.
to claim or assume the existence or truth of, especially as a basis for reasoning or arguing.
to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.

Did K postulate? Did he assume? Or did K only speak of what he knew personally to be a fact? Obviously, as he himself confirmed many times, he spoke of what he new to be real. Of what he knew to be a fact.

I decided to respond to your post #81 because of the smug way, ie; Hmmmmmmmmm and Wellll, you chose too express yourself. Hopefully we can refrain from that in the future.

Apparently we don't even agree on the meaning of the word "idealist" which is clearly defined in the dictionary. I think that nobody likes anybody else in here and yet write to each other! I don't write to any body in here because it is petty and insignificant to write to people that you don't even know what they look like . They maybe criminals. I write to oneself and if anybody doesn't like it (like jack) I careless. Because he is nonexistent in my life.

One Self wrote:
I am by no mean attacking Jack.

Of course not. Nobody is ever attacked here. It's as peaceful as an Irish pub.

"Sow the seed of freedom, which is to awaken intelligence; for with that intelligence you can tackle all the problems of life." Krishnamurti

This post was last updated by Ken D Sun, 22 Sep 2019.

jamie f wrote:
You use the word 'smug'. I prefer 'ruminative'.

First of all the word "ruminative" is not a word that Dictionary.Com recognizes. But I understand what you were trying to say; you were trying to chew on something , think it over, etc. But your thinking was obviously in error. Please let me explain.

Consider this: You gave an example of some person or organization having an idealistic view of something K had pointed out. And you assumed that K was somehow idealistic because some one or some organization expressed an idealistic view of something he had pointed out.

It may have been idealistic for the "objective idealists" or it may be that way for you and me but it doesn't follow that it was that way for K. Meaning we may perceive things idealistically but that doesn't mean K did. Do you understand the simple logic involved here and your rather gross error in logic? That error being that if someone else sees something K pointed out as idealistic then K must have seen it idealistically.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 22 Sep 2019.

There are numerous ways to define idealism. Here are two of them

1.The practice of forming or pursuing ideals, especially unrealistically. "the idealism of youth"

Similar:
utopianism
wishful thinking
romanticism
fantasizing
quixotism
daydreaming
impracticability

Opposite:
realism
cynicism
defeatism

2 Any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind.

"Sow the seed of freedom, which is to awaken intelligence; for with that intelligence you can tackle all the problems of life." Krishnamurti

This post was last updated by Ken D Sun, 22 Sep 2019.

Ken D wrote:
One Self wrote:

I am by no mean attacking Jack.

Of course not. Nobody is ever attacked here. It's as peaceful as an Irish pub.

Do you think that the vulgar jack pine is worth attacking. He is as low as possibly anybody can get. He keeps sending me private obscene messages. What a psychopath indeed he is. His wife must be crazy to live with him.

jamie f wrote:
There is a bug in the system which posts multiple messages when you are posting from your smartphone.

Yes it does it by itself. I will look over my comments so that they are not repeated. Have good day.

jamie f wrote:
There is no error of logic here. I am simply pointing out that you say:

I beg to differ. There was an error in your logic. The example you cited about some group which had a name in part that included idealized has, indeed, an idealized view of K's pointing out that the thinker is the thought. Just because they have an idealized idea of this and that also we may have an idealized view of this doesn't mean that K did.

jamie f wrote:
However, it isn't obvious at all because when you apply certain criteria, Krishnamurti can be described as an idealist.

What criteria? Your opinion? Someone else's opinion? K himself made it clear time after time that what he pointed out was a fact that he lived. Not a possibility, a dream, a future goal. But a fact now, in real time.

jamie f wrote:
And how Krishnamurti did or did not see things, neither of us are qualified to guess at as he himself made it clear we would never know.

But this is exactly what you are doing, Jamie. You think you are qualified to say that K was an idealist. And please share how, exactly, K made it clear we would never know how he saw things. He spent a life-time telling us exactly how he saw things.

jamie f wrote:
There is a bug in the system which posts multiple messages when you are posting from your smartphone

Glad I don't use one.

"Sow the seed of freedom, which is to awaken intelligence; for with that intelligence you can tackle all the problems of life." Krishnamurti

jamie f wrote:
It's a perfect match for K! Lol!!

It is time to realize that k is gone himself but things that he has questioned as " Is not family with it's property one of the causes of war?" are alive.

jamie f wrote:
Don't be silly. You can't differ with a definition. That in itself is a gross error of logic.

You know we started out discussing K not being an idealist. Something that is obvious. And you have gone off on these tangents that, frankly, make no sense. K, himself, often pointed out that thought was time. Thought is limited. Thought and the thinker are one. For K, obviously, there was no time, no thought. So there can be no idealism or any other invention of thought. Can you understand that?

And what do you mean you can't differ with a definition? Are you on drugs? Of course you can differ with a definition. Maybe the definition is wrong. Definition is the product of thought.

Jamie, frankly, you're talking gibberish. I have better things to do. Believe what you want. You will anyway.

jamie f wrote:
Of course it is ridiculous to label Krishnamurti as an idealist. But that is because labels themselves are ridiculous.

Now you're changing your tune. And no the above is not why. It's because idealism is a product of thought. K didn't make images of himself and others as we all do. Images are thought. You do understand that much don't you?

So where there is no thought, as in K's case, then there is no idealism. And what you apparently failed is simple reason and understanding.

Jack Pine wrote:
Images are thought. You do understand that much don't you?

Jamie is playing with you:)

One Self wrote:
Apparently we don't even agree on the meaning of the word "idealist" which is clearly defined in the dictionary. I think that nobody likes anybody else in here and yet write to each other! I don't write to any body in here because it is petty and insignificant to write to people that you don't even know what they look like . They maybe criminals. I write to oneself and if anybody doesn't like it (like jack) I careless. Because he is nonexistent in my life.

Below is what the vulgar Jack Pine sent me on a private message just two days ago.

From: Jack Pine
Subject: What is wrong with you? To: One Self
Date: 09/22/2019 at 04:32 PM
ReplyDelete
You wrote: I don't write to any body in here because it is petty and insignificant to write to people that you don't even know what they look like . They maybe criminals. I write to oneself and if anybody doesn't like it (like jack) I careless. Because he is nonexistent in my life.

My response.
I have an idea you egotistical prick. Why don't you go fuck yourself and stop posting here. Everyone thinks your a lunatic anyway.

Messages
Site development: Made by DNA
© Krishnamurti Information Network 1998 - 2010

One wonders if this person is mentally ill or he is just a vulgar,an exploiter!

Hi Jamie, I was reading Wholeness of Life for the second or third time when I came across this relevant paragraph:

K: And as a human being, what am I to do? Because I personally have no image about this. I really mean I have no ideal--none of these images. I have none. And I say to myself what can I do--when everybody around me is building images and so destroying this lovely earth where we are meant to live happily in human relationship and look at the heavens and be happy about it. So what is the right action for a man who has an image? Or is there no right action?

This is from WHOLENESS OF LIFE, the hard back cover edition published 1979. Page 96, Dialogue V. This is the book with Dr Bohm, and Dr Shainberg. The latter acting as the unsuspecting comic relief in the dialogues.

Transformation is not an end or an ideal to achieve.