Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

What can thought do?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 167 in total
Fri, 13 May 2016 #31
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
If one take thoughts too serious they are the master,
but if one use it seriously one accept its limits.

But still in your words there is a separation of a "one" from one's thoughts. I cannot see that there is an entity separate from thought. Thought has created ideas of entities, but it is still thought at work.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
Related to awareness, thought can choose, label, describe, like or dislike, evaluate, psychologically speaking. And of course it can act, build, invent, destroy. It can create elaborate theories or poetic leaps; try to nurture, care, be generous, hate and so on.

I would agree that thought can and does do those things, but what do you mean, Mike, by starting "related to awareness"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #33
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 650 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
but what do you mean, Mike, by starting "related to awareness"?

I was outside on the grass behind my apartment ( a big complex), and was just looking at everything, and trying to see relating to such awareness, what thought can do. I could choose to look at a brick wall, or a tree, label as "grass" or describe as "green", like or dislike the buildings etc, evaluate how they were build, how long before they'd have to mow the lawn...

If one is just simply "aware", watching, listening... quiet, not thinking of the future as desire and so on, planning- if one is not active in those things, but passive, there doesn't seem like thought really can do much besides those things I listed above. Maybe they're fundamental, and everything else is borne from them...?

*and comparing

mike

This post was last updated by m christani Fri, 13 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #34
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

There are many reseachers working on artificial intelligence who are attempting to build computers and computer programs that will imitate human thought. They think this can be accomplished. That it is in effect just manipulating numbers. They wonder why there is consciousness at all. Some even deny there is such a thing, that there is only the appearance of consciousness (Daniel Dennent is one). Others think of consciousness as an epiphenomona, something completely not nessesary. That it doesn't do anything, it is just riding along. They believe that if consciousness were not there the brain would be still able to do everything it is doing. Human beings are material things and could function perfectly well unconsciously. In this view a machine can, thought can, do all of it. Thought is only computation in an electro chemical mechanism. In this view thought does everything ....in the dark.

As this one sees it thought can and does do everything in the dark. But there is also "light in there" or it may be that thought is in darkness... in this"light". And this"light" can see and can influence what goes on in thought. Thought cannot see that it is functioning only as mechanism effectively a movement in darkness. It is able to think it is the "light". To take it that by itself without anything more it is able to function as the "light".

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 13 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #35
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

It only goes one way: Thought which is matter cannot contact, cannot have conection to, cannot explain what is beyond thought, beyond the material. But this "light" timelessness, nowness, has access to, can touch, can impact, influence things happening in the lesser field of matter, cause and effect, time, determinism.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 13 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #36
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 650 posts in this forum Offline

How is this practically, I wonder. Is there an Intelligence we typically do not have access to? To see what thought is doing is itself an insight.

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #37
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

The we is identification, it has attributes, and as identified it is mechanism. Insight comes out of, is the operation of the "light" which has no attributes. "We" are that "light" not differentiated as this one and that one, the same everywhere, the same one.

No authority here, just what seems to be.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 13 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #38
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 650 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
The we is identification, it has attributes, and as identified it is mechanism. Insight comes out of, is the operation of the "light" which has no attributes. "We" are that "light" not differentiated as this one and that one, the same everywhere, the same one.

Is this an idea or a real experience? To "see" thought, perhaps it may be the unconscious, perhaps it was something always there but you just realize it...Are we asking What is insight? -Carefully...

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #39
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 804 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But still in your words there is a separation of a "one" from one's thoughts. I cannot see that there is an entity separate from thought. Thought has created ideas of entities, but it is still thought at work.

Yes that's the difficulty with any description, for me it seems clear by the pointing out that it is the same unit with different roles to play in different situations, a kind of cameleon for every situation a different color but still te same entity.

In my member statement I stated:
" The whole universal as we know it is movement of energy on different levels, scales and densities ..... "
This energy is also active within us but every density..., scale..... and level... has its own order.

atomic radiation is both natural and accidental present in our atmosphere and affects our biological system, whether human, animal, and in our habitat ...

awareness is everywhere but is blocked by different ways of being ... egoism is also an energy ... as possessiveness etc..etc ...

Death is present at certain levels, but not on some levels.

We can not prove that, but it seems very plausible?

Since we can not experience certain things, that's still no proof of their nonexistent.

So if we assume a thought: "Everything that is perceived is a thought structure!" Remains a thought that can be incorrect or inaccurate, but in any case incomplete because it is a thought.

even that thought is another thought and so it will be an endless chain of thoughts. Can be proven that we are different this endless chain ????

that is my model of the universe and it is a working model so I do not take it too seriously and keep it open for new insights and it's helping me to orientate.

And I know it's not true.!!!

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #40
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

All of the field of matter is continuous. This body, the air here this room, the world outside, all of the electro magnetic fields, whatever is between "us", space, all in contact, continuous.

Then there is sentience which is the same here as there. One.

So there is only these two. This is, it seems, a duality. The only duality. But it all must actually be one. "We" just don"t see exactly how that is. But two hundred years ago "we" had the same feeling about time and space, seeing these as completely seperate, clearly a duality.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 13 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #41
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 650 posts in this forum Offline

Surely, I think even scientists say everything is ultimately energy, and must be at different levels-I had little waking up this morning, more now and so on.

Wim said: awareness is everywhere but is blocked by different ways of being ... egoism is also an energy ... as possessiveness etc..etc ...

I like that; it sounds right...

But... :"So if we assume a thought: "Everything that is perceived is a thought structure!" Remains a thought that can be incorrect or inaccurate, but in any case incomplete because it is a thought."

I wonder. Perception and a thought structure seem at odds, very different.

Wim said:even that thought is another thought and so it will be an endless chain of thoughts. Can be proven that we are different this endless chain ????

Is there ever even a momentary break? This seems crucial.

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #42
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

First see the two parts. Every thing that is matter, every aspect of matter is conditioned. (Matter/energy, the material). It is what conditioning is, all conditioning.

There is something else. Something that is not material. This is seen.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 13 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #43
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 650 posts in this forum Offline

Peter, I'm not saying I disagree, but let's put it in a real-life format-

Say, thought- a material process, matter. Electro/chemical, reactive... and so on. Conditioned.

What is the something else in terms of the human being?

mike

This post was last updated by m christani Fri, 13 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #44
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

How these are one, the details...(are there details?). will take a new different kind of Einstein.

For something (two "things")to be seperate they must never have nor ever will they come to be in contact. For the one the other in fact does not exist.

There is no division.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #45
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 650 posts in this forum Offline

There is no division, perhaps where one is the other is not. But at the same time, it is at least theorized the other always is..?

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #46
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

Mike, " how these are something else"

corrected "what is the something else"

Can you see that there is this "light" that isn't light that is there in you?

Naming it means nothing. It cannot be conveyed by words. It can only be seen within. I cannot see if it is really there in you and you cannot see if it is here in me.

There are things that are of it: nowness, meaning,living awareness, living intelligence, extension even if only in the brain case, qualia... which is the redness of red but also everything that comes in thru senses (it appears that the brain is only nerves and electro chemical impulses... there there is no red, there no sound, no actual seeing, feeling, there.) Everything as experiencing is qualia.

i say living awareness and such because a robot (which we can understand compleatly) can be "aware" of it's surroundings. They are drivimg cars.

There is no now in science also no meaning.

Well that's enough.

I hope you are not a robot

:)

With affection only,

Peter

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 13 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #47
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
They wonder why there is consciousness at all. Some even deny there is such a thing, that there is only the appearance of consciousness (Daniel Dennent is one). Others think of consciousness as an epiphenomona, something completely not nessisary. That it doesn't do anything, it is just riding along. They believe that if consciousness were not there the brain would be still able to do everything it is doing

So they are postulating a cosmos completely without meaning

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #48
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
Is there ever even a momentary break? This seems crucial

Yes, there is a break, a space between thoughts. And yes, it is crucial.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #49
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

"No meaning"

Yes! Science sees everything as mechanism.

Of course that works in its field in the four dimensional: time/space, matter, cause and effect. Limited to that it works wonderfully. We can make a hydrogen bomb.

This last was not said completely choicelessly. I can hear K saying that. Would, could, did K say it, or something like it, that way? Or is it right to have a preference here?

We actually need to be choicelessly aware of this fact.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 13 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #50
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
i say living awareness and such because a robot (which we can understand compleatley) can be "aware" of it's surroundings. They are drivimg cars.

I am pondering on this meaning given to awareness. It seems to imply any mechanical response of matter to matter can be called awareness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #51
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

"Awareness"

When a rock roling down hill hits another rock?

Not a chalenge, just a question.

May be awarenes is there in even subatomic interactions. The universe seems to "know" where everything is all of the time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #52
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

I didn't quite understand #45.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 13 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #53
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 650 posts in this forum Offline

There's a question: "What is awareness".

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #54
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

I must go.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #55
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2519 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
"No meaning"

Yes! Science sees everything as mechanism.

Of course that works in its field in the four dimensional: time/space, matter, cause and effect.

Thought is of that "mechanism". Life, awareness, love is outside that field, otherwise there is no freedom....we're as good as robots. Parroting our politicians, our priests, gurus, parents, teachers, who are all doing the same.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 13 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #56
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

Tom: "Thought is of that "mechanism"

Yes sir.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #57
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

But there is this other... the seer that has no attributes... empty of anything identifing it. "We" are that ...only that...not person... only now, nowness itself, no past.

If there is a seeing of that, there can be an observation free of comparison, critism, ego...an observation of what is called person, an observation of that, of the not self. And the seeing from there will, without any doer, be the doing.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 13 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #58
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 650 posts in this forum Offline

I'm still not certain there's not a subtle 'being' in such observation, Peter. K once said, "I am like the wind" (A Vision of the Sacred).

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 May 2016 #59
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2519 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
I'm still not certain there's not a subtle 'being' in such observation,

If there's an observation free of comparison, criticism, judgment, ego, then it's an observation free of 'me', isn't it? Maybe it's best not to speculate, but to deal with facts....'what is'....the bias of the observer...the comparison, judgment, concluding, experience, knowledge, etc. .

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #60
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
But there is this other... the seer that has no attributes... empty of anything identifing it. "We" are that ...only that...not person... only now, nowness itself, no past.

If there is a seeing of that, there can be an observation free of comparison, critism, ego...an observation of what is called person, an observation of that, of the not self. And the seeing from there will, without any doer, be the doing.

m christani wrote:
I'm still not certain there's not a subtle 'being' in such observation,

We have to be careful here. ..

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 167 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.)