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

Conflict in Relationship


Displaying posts 61 - 89 of 89 in total
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 #61
Thumb_open-uri20160915-28720-dqd7er-0 hans heiler New Zealand 12 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This seems highly relevant to your post. The lack of understanding of relationship causes conflict.

What do you say?

Well , i wonder how we could ever understand this whole movement.
Cleverness hasnt helped us very much.
How could we approach this intelligently.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 #62
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
I don't know if it is best to start a new thread for this.

I've taken your suggestion and started a new thread ...

Hope other members will join us in this serious dialog and that they do not content themselves just to listen (which, on the other hand, is quite legitimate)

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 #63
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Hi Tom,

Thanks for keeping us informed. Looking forward to seeing you back.

+1

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 #64
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
because after that problem there is another problem and another and therefore it has no end, which means that we never have time to explore deeply ......the nature of the problem.

And the true nature of the problem is always us, is it not? I am the essence of the problem. Do not mean this is a personal sense.

But when the world looks for solutions to the never-ending problems, it ignores that fact that WE are the problem. It always looks outside of ourselves for solutions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 #65
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

A thought-autonomous entity that feels it is divided from everything, and not depending in anything to exist as such?

I have never considered this second point. Very interesting. Yes, the self does contain the assumption that its existence is not dependent on anything. Which is really similar to the first point, it feels it is separate from everything.

But how can anything exist that is separate from everything else? That makes no sense.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 #66
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

hans heiler wrote:
How could we approach this intelligently.

Can you say what you mean by "approach", Hans?

And given that mind is UNintelligent - I think we can assume that, looking at its actions - is it possible for it to act intelligently?

Can we say that the recognition of the mind's unintelligence is the beginning of intelligence acting?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 #67
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

re: #22

Clive Elwell wrote:
Now is this 'unity' of hate (we will continue to use that example, and maybe expand later) simply the result of thousands of years of conditioning that has linked the two together, or does the connection go deeper than that? Condemnation is part of hate, you suggest. Do you mean it is an extension of hate? Is it the continuation of hate in a different guise?

I don’t mean that condemnation is a continuation or variation of hate.

The very division between the “hate I feel” and self-condemnation is an illusory division, isn’t it? If there is in fact (as I see it) no actual “me”, no actual fear, idiosyncrasy, weakness or hate which exists as separate actual “things”, there can be no link or connection between them.

So it’s not that there’s a unity between all the said components. There are no actual components, only the psychological process which puts together the illusion of the various components or parts. As I see it more or less.

For example, if I hate someone or I hate a particular idiosyncrasy or weakness or fear of mine, that perspective of mine is based purely on illusory divisions. The "me", the idiosyncrasy, the self-condemnation, the hate, etc., are not physical, palpable, independent “things”. Although hate, fear, condemnation ARE accompanied by observable physical movements of hormones, brain matter, nerves, guts, etc., the hate, condemnation, the "me", etc. themselves are not constant observable “things” that remain stable, constant and separate over time the way a table does. When I’m in a completely different mood 10 minutes later, when I’m laughing or loving, where are fear, hate, condemnation, self, etc.?

The “me” or the “you” which I condemn is not the living physical organism. The “me” and “you” which makes me suffer and which I condemn is the image or idea of me and you and comparison which the opposite idea, the idea of what “should be”.

The table on the other hand still exists no matter what my mood or psychological condition, whether I’m suffering or happy, the table is still standing there. It has continuity, stability, physical dimensions and characteristics which are constant over time. The table is a thing which is actually separate from me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 #68
Thumb_open-uri20160915-28720-dqd7er-0 hans heiler New Zealand 12 posts in this forum Offline

All Conflict is within the field of Relationship isnt it?
Relationship here means interaction .
In our daily life Thought reacts accordingly to the individual conditioning .
Conditioning seems always be linked to some sort of Emotion. A strong Emotional response like Fear creates a strong conditional reflex.
The same for pleasure of course but maybe not as strong.

These reflexes seem to get constantly triggered and are usually not seen as a reaction to something but rather affect perception in a way that is very distorting.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 #69
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
But how can anything exist that is separate from everything else? That makes no sense.

Yes, it can not ... Buddha first said 'there's suffering', and then said 'there's a cause for that suffering, and that cause is ignorance', the ignorance of our believe in a totally separated, autonomous self not depending on anything else but on itself.

If i turn my eyes to Syria, for example, i see Syrians escaping from war, i see politicians attached to their power, i see religious fanatics, i see Russia and US trying to intervene in the conflict, and if i'm a little bit sensible maybe i will see even human beings under all those labels ...

But for some reason, i'm unable to see THE human being

It seems i'm not able to see them not divided from me ... I can feel sorrow for them, compassion (in fact just pity, compassion being related to non-division), i can cry in front of my TV for them, i can feel the need to do something about, but i still talk about politicians, countries, economical interests, refugees, and so on ... Even if i'm able to open the doors of my house to them, i'm divided not being capable to unite my misery to that of theirs, seeing that both miseries have never been separated.

And it is the same for them, when they look at west.

But let's suppose that we end the conflict ... Would we have done away with the division? ... One only has to look at inter-religious dialogue to answer this question ... They try to listen one each other with respect, but even if they all talk about 'love one each other' and they all agree that at the root of all religion is that love for one each other, they still see Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, etc. each one of them remaining attached to their particular beliefs ...

So, this is a mirror where each one of us can see oneself reflected ... We may try to help Syrians (just to continue with our example), but we still remain Spanish, French, German, Americans, etc ... And not only that, we remain also Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc ... And through all that we try to solve THE human conflict ...

Now, do we see that a real solution is impossible from that division? ... Obviously not, otherwise we would not continue our trying to bring peace to this world through it ... Do we see how divided we are from the person we want to bring some help? ... Obviously not, otherwise we would see that we also need help, the same help we try to offer the other ...

And before trying to argue about that, saying that "We don't need the same help that the Syrian person that has been forced to leave his/her country", stop for a while and observe how divided you are from yourself and from that 'poor' Syrian you want to help ... Perhaps then one will see that all those divisions are merely created, non-existent ... That, as you say Clive, our believe that we are self-existent, totally independent from anything else is a nonsense ... Perhaps then, the beginning of change will be a fact, but not now (unfortunately).

And as we are in a Krishnamurti forum, i would like to end with a quote from him:

When I went to Europe for the first time (1911) ... I walked about the streets, watching the faces of people who perhaps watched me with even greater interest. I went to theatres. I saw how people amused themselves trying to forget their unhappiness, thinking that they were solving their problems by drugging their hearts and minds with superficial excitement. I saw people with political, social or religious power, and yet they did not have that one essential thing in their lives, which is happiness ... I saw people who desired to serve going into those quarters where the poor and the degraded live. They desired to help but were themselves helpless. How can you cure another of disease if you are yourself a victim of that disease?

Let's see ...

This post was last updated by Juan E. (account deleted) Sun, 25 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 #70
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The very division between the “hate I feel” and self-condemnation is an illusory division, isn’t it? If there is in fact (as I see it) no actual “me”, no actual fear, idiosyncrasy, weakness or hate which exists as separate actual “things”, there can be no link or connection between them.

This (your whole post) is very interesting Huguette, and I am not sure if I grasp what you are saying or not.

That there is no actual me I completely accept. But you are saying that there is no actual fear, and presumably all the movements of the mind. You admit there is a physical manifestation, in the body, of fear and all these things, Yet you say the things themselves do not exist.......

Of course all these movements are impermanent, but I don't think this is what you are getting at. Everything is impermanent in this Universe. The table you mention is impermanent (we could call it relatively permanent) but you say it exists. We know actually the table is mostly empty space and consists of elementary particles, but you say "it exists".

Likewise, the brain cells exist. The electro-chemical signals in the brain cells, which are presumably at the root of fear, actually exist, but you say fear does not exist. Or rather you say it does not exist as a separate thing ..... ok, I see that. Does anything exist as a separate thing?

Huguette . wrote:
So it’s not that there’s a unity between all the said components. There are no actual components, only the psychological process which puts together the illusion of the various components or parts.

Ok, I think I see this.

Huguette . wrote:
The “me” or the “you” which I condemn is not the living physical organism. The “me” and “you” which makes me suffer and which I condemn is the image or idea of me and you and comparison which the opposite idea, the idea of what “should be”.

Yes, the whole caboodle is a lot of images created by thought/feelings. Although there are definite sensations which accompany these images, no? The sensation of hate, the sensation of affection .....

I have lost track of how this realtes to the original thread. The first post you made, Huguette, was :

Isn’t the very condemnation separating
itself from the thing being condemned
(let’s say “hate”), and IS it separate
from hate? Isn’t the condemnation
itself part of the process which puts
the “me” together? Condemnation is
separating itself from hate but it is
PART OF hate.

And hate too has “separated itself”
from the person being hated as well as
from the hater (me). I AM the hate, I
AM the condemnation, I AM the reactive
process. Without that chain reaction,
there is no me, is there?

That divisive process, that turmoil,
is what enters into relationship and
determines the quality of
relationship. Can that whole process
be observed?

Are you asking, Huguette, if the division that thought creates, can end? The division into apparently different 'things'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 #71
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
So, this is a mirror where each one of us can see oneself reflected ... We may try to help Syrians (just to continue with our example), but we still remain Spanish, French, German, Americans, etc ... And not only that, we remain also Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc ... And through all that we try to solve THE human conflict ...

I doubt if there is anyone on the forum who actually does this, Juan. I may be wrong. But yes, probably if any of us started to live together, physically, it would not be long before conflicts developed. Why?

If fact we can see on the main discussion forum that conflicts develop even without living together, they just arise in the verbal interactions. Why? I would say they fundamentally arise from ideas. Ideas divide, they are separative.

So we are back to my earlier statement that conflict is always basically between thought and thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 #72
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

hans heiler wrote:
All Conflict is within the field of Relationship isnt it?
Relationship here means interaction .

Ok, let us accept your working definition of relationship as being interaction Contact.

Is it only with human beings that relationship inevitably brings about conflict? One can say the stars, the galaxies, the planets are in constant, continuous relationship, through various intrinsic forces which science calls gravitation, electro-magnetic, and the like They seem to continually adjust to each other, without what might be called conflict.

When we look at living things, it becomes more complex. The very drive to continue existing does result in competition, probably even among bacteria. Plants seem to compete for light and nutrients ..... and so on on the whole I would say there is a sort of conflict among all living things, over the necessities of life. Perhaps others would not agree? And more and more it is being discovered that there is also a high degree of cooperation, even between different species.

But human beings have taken conflict to new heights. It is not principally psychological in origin. It is based on images, ideas. Concepts of the self. And that becomes very complex indeed.

Can conflict end? That seems to be the basic question. It is certainly an imperative one, because if it doesn't it is pretty certain that we are going to destroy ourselves, and perhaps most of life on Earth. So this is what the new thread is examining.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 #73
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Again, the JKOnline daily quote is highly relevant to this inquiry:

Changing your relationship

To live is to be related. So I have got to understand it and I have got to change it. I have to find out how to bring about a radical change in my relationship, because, after all, that produces wars; that is what is happening in this country between the Pakistanis and the Hindus, between the Muslim and the Hindu, between the Arab and the Jew. So there is no way out through the temple, through the mosque, through Christian churches, through discussing Vedanta, this and that and the other different systems. There is no way out unless you, as a human being, radically change your relationship. Now the problem arises: How am I to change, not abstractly, the relationship that is now based on self-centred pursuits and pleasures? - Krishnamurti, The Collected Works vol XVI pp 34-35

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Sep 2016 #74
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

re: #70

Clive,

There are 2 parts to emotion (fear, anger, etc.) so to speak. There is the physiological aspect and the psychological narrative, aren't there?

Physical processes are set in motion by a trigger. These processes can be observed and measured independently either through scientific instruments or visually. The physiological aspect of fear (or whatever) is fact. The biological organs and systems involved - heart, hormones, guts, nerves, blood circulation, breathing, sweat, etc. - are not imagined or remembered, they are not belief, opinion or ideal. The condition or functioning of these organs and systems varies from moment to moment, but the organs and systems themselves are constant.

However, the narrative “explaining” fear - being based on memory, belief, image, idea, desire, psychological time, etc. - is not an independently verifiable THING. No independent observation can be made - either visually or through instruments - of the image or narrative of “the fear”.

This psychological process of explaining - the mistreatments, the ideals, the beliefs, the conceits, the desires, the contradictions, the accomplishments and failures, the hopes and dreams, the hates, the beliefs, and so on - is actually the process which puts together the whole of self, isn’t it? Is there self outside of all the explanations, memories, beliefs, etc.? All of that IS “me”.

If I hate you because you wronged me, isn't that based on the ideal: the belief that you are not supposed to wrong me? I hold on to the grudge because of the ideal. Whether or not you mistreat me again, I cling to the past. So the ideal and the emotion go hand in hand, as I see it, they are not separate from each other and they are not separate from "me".

If I'm ashamed of myself for something I have done, or if I condemn others for their brutality, isn't the ideal already in place, responsible for my condemnation?

What good purpose does it serve to cling to the past, whether good or bad? What good purpose do ideals serve? If I cling to the past (i.e. I AM THE PAST), then I cannot directly relate to the living moment, then I see life "through a glass darkly".

So do you think that ideals and conflict go hand in hand? Is conflict the reason we have ideals? Are ideals the reason we have conflict? Can there be ideals WITHOUT conflict?

I'm NOT saying it’s OK for anyone to brutalize or mistreat another. But, in the face of mistreatment, is there a different kind of action that can be taken, a different approach, than to react with violence? An action or approach which is not driven by the past?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 #75
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
However, the narrative “explaining” fear - being based on memory, belief, image, idea, desire, psychological time, etc. - is not an independently verifiable THING. No independent observation can be made - either visually or through instruments - of the image or narrative of “the fear”.

I am not sure what you mean by “independent” here. One can be aware of fear psychologically, surely, independently of the physical reactions? And on can observe the process that brought fear into being - - thought creating an image , involving the self, in the future. An image that involves some sort of threat, pain, diminution of the self-image

Huguette . wrote:
This psychological process of explaining - the mistreatments, the ideals, the beliefs, the conceits, the desires, the contradictions, the accomplishments and failures, the hopes and dreams, the hates, the beliefs, and so on - is actually the process which puts together the whole of self, isn’t it? Is there self outside of all the explanations, memories, beliefs, etc.? All of that IS “me”.

Yes, I would go along with that. The self has no separate existence apart from these things. It IS these things.

Huguette . wrote:
So do you think that ideals and conflict go hand in hand? Is conflict the reason we have ideals? Are ideals the reason we have conflict? Can there be ideals WITHOUT conflict?

I want to watch this a while in myself. I see conflict implies some reaction to what it. Such a reaction is intrinsically imaginary, yes, it is an ideal. Something should not be as it is, it should be some other way.

This may be a wrong jump, but does this mean that an absence of conflict means an acceptance of all that is? But I know that 'acceptance' is a difficult word.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 #76
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

re: #75

Huguette . wrote:
However, the narrative “explaining” fear - being based on memory, belief, image, idea, desire, psychological time, etc. - is not an independently verifiable THING. No independent observation can be made - either visually or through instruments - of the image or narrative of “the fear”.

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am not sure what you mean by “independent” here. One can be aware of fear psychologically, surely, independently of the physical reactions? And on can observe the process that brought fear into being - - thought creating an image , involving the self, in the future. An image that involves some sort of threat, pain, diminution of the self-image

Just as we are educated to think that self is a THING separate and independent from thought, we are educated to think that hate, anger, jealousy, belief, desire, time, pleasure, etc., are THINGS which are separate and independent from “me” and from each other. No?

I’m saying that the fear (or any other emotion) is NOT made into a separate and independent THING by mere virtue of the narrative or explanation over time that thought puts together --- it is not separate and independent from “me”, it is not separate and independent from the explanation, it is not separate and independent from any of the fragments that make up the self.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 #77
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

re: #75

Huguette . wrote:
So do you think that ideals and conflict go hand in hand? Is conflict the reason we have ideals? Are ideals the reason we have conflict? Can there be ideals WITHOUT conflict?

Clive Elwell wrote:
I want to watch this a while in myself. I see conflict implies some reaction to what it. Such a reaction is intrinsically imaginary, yes, it is an ideal. Something should not be as it is, it should be some other way.

I think that this question of “ideals” relates to the quote provided by Juan in “K’s sutras on life” (also often quoted by Jean Gatti elsewhere). For convenience, here is the quote again:

I’ve no problem because I don’t mind what happens ... I don’t mind if I fail
or succeed, I don’t mind if I have money or not -- I don’t want money, but I
need food and clothes and shelter, and if somebody gives me, it’s all right,
if somebody doesn’t, I live where I am ... I have no problem, because I
don’t demand anything from anybody or from life.

From Ojai 2nd Public Talk, 3rd April 1977

If I live by ideals, then I MUST mind what happens and conflict MUST be inevitable, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 #78
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
- it is not separate and independent from “me”, it is not separate and independent from the explanation, it is not separate and independent from any of the fragments that make up the self.

Ok, that is clear, Huguette. thanks. All these concepts of separate things are merely images.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 #79
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

If I live by ideals, then I MUST mind what happens and conflict MUST be inevitable, no?

I am trying to grasp, to imagine, what it means to live by ideals. A state where 'what should be' is of supreme importance, and 'what actually is' becomes insignificant. But what what should be does not actually exist – somehow it must be created, brought into existence – which implies by my effort. Yes, that must be a struggle, probably a struggle without end. So there has to be conflict.

What do you think K meant by “I live where I am”?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 #80
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
What do you think K meant by “I live where I am”?

To me it does not imply inaction, if that is what you're asking.

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Sep 2016 #81
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
To me it does not imply inaction, if that is what you're asking.

Is he merely saying that he would cease to travel. Or is he talking more figuratively?

Sorry, I don't know why I should ask the opinion of others, seems this is falling into the trap of speculation, as Juan mentioned.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Oct 2016 #82
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

The following excerpt is taken from a new(I think) K book called “The World Within - You Are the Story of Humanity” It is similar to the “Commentaries on Living” series, except that it is written in indirect, rather than direct, speech.

I am sure that we are all familiar with K's “Relationship is the mirror in which we can see ourselves”, but this excerpt goes a step further.

Relationship is inevitably painful, which is shown in our every day existence. If in relationship there is no tension, it ceases to be relationship and merely becomes a comfortable sleep-state, an opiate;which most people want and prefer. Conflict is between this craving for comfort and the factual, between illusion and actuality. If you recognize the illusion then you can, by putting it aside, give your attention to the understanding of relationship. But if you seek security in relationship, it becomes an investment in comfort, in illusion; and the greatness of relationship is its very insecurity. By seeking security in relationship you are hindering its function, which brings its own peculiar actions and misfortunes.

Surely, the function of relationship is to reveal the state of one's whole being. Relationship is a process of self-revelation, of self-knowledge. This self-revelation is painful, demanding constant adjustment, pliability of thought-emotion. It is a painful struggle, with periods of enlightened peace.
But most of us avoid or put aside the tension in relationship, preferring the ease and comfort of satisfying dependency, an unchallenged security, a safe anchorage. Then family and other relationships become a refuge, the refuge of the thoughtless.

When insecurity creeps into dependency, as it inevitably does, then that particular relationship is cast aside and a new one taken on in the hope of finding lasting security; but there is no security in relationship, and dependency only breeds fear. Without understanding the process of security and fear, relationship becomes a binding hindrance, a way of ignorance. Then all existence is struggle and pain, and there is no way out of it save in right thinking, which comes through self-knowledge.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Oct 2016 #83
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

I have been pondering over the above excerpt, which puts relationship in quite a different light from the usual, where one has some ideal of harmony in relationship.

The heading of the chapter, taken from a phrase K used, is:

The greatness of relationship is its very insecurity

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Oct 2016 #84
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

i am still reflecting on the excerpt above. I shared it with a friend, and this is what she said:

The question asked certainly seems true for a relationship between man and woman. The thought that insecurity can enrich relationship is intriguing...of course one can see quite spontaneously how this can be true.. but it means that one needs to inquire deeply into what it means to be insecure ...if it is the opposite of feeling secure or something else altogether. And to do that seems to demand that one be completely aware and attentive to every movement that seeks security.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Mar 2017 #85
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

In this very fundamental issue of conflict, it came to me that why people live in conflict is that there are deep channels of conflict worn into the brain, into the common human consicous.

Similarly there are deep channels of suffering worn into the brain.

What does it take not to slip into these channels? Is it possible?

To quote from the post above:

"And to do that seems to demand that one be completely aware and attentive to every movement that seeks security."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 #86
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

This on conflict, from the 13 year old son of a friend:

We were talking about conflict and he said that he has observed that most conflict comes from a difference in ideas and opinions. And what surprises him is that people get into conflicts over that Over something that is not even real. Only psychological. That he feels when children have a fight over a toy...even that is more real. At least it is a physical object.

But ideas are just fluff.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 #87
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

He continued:

He felt most things don't matter.. if one was to pause and look at it.. the words he used were "if one sees the big picture". Most things we worry about don't really matter.

And then he said that we need to learn to think logically.

His mother says he wasn't repeating words he has read or ideas he has heard.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 #88
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Did you speak directly to him or was your friend/mother who told you what he said? ...

I did not speak directly with him, this was reported to me

Juan E wrote:
And if you talked directly to him, have you tried to go together into that a fight over a toy is not only physical but psychological too, as unreal as can be those fights from the adults he observes?

There was an initial response in me to go further into these observations with him, including to widen the context. And yet before I did, it came to me that it is better to let things come to him, naturally.

Juan E wrote:
This may be conditioning their whole life in the sense that such logic may be dangerous too ...

He is not involved in the virtual electronic world much. He prefers to be with nature. But anyway, I got the impression by "logical" he meant putting aside what is false.

Juan E wrote:
For example? ... Because that statement could mean also an escape from those things that "don't matter" ...

I have inquired into this statement, awaiting a reply.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Mar 2017 #89
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Where is the problem in talking about anything with a 13 years old child if there is love in that talking?

I don't know. I am not aware of any problem.

May i ask you about your fear of maybe not being natural with him? …

Wondering why you are bringing in the word “fear”. It played no part in things.

I have a chinese book (translated into english) somewhere that in one of its pages someone says that this world would be better if we had killed any prophet or enlightened being at the very moment they were going to talk to the world about what they had discovered ... That it would have been thousand times better to let things come naturally to any human being ... Do you think the same then?

I don't tend to operate according to precepts, conclusions. What took place, took place, there and then, I have no wish to generalise. I cannot say if I would act the same way tomorrow.

Is our fear to fully open our hearts which prevents this world to be a better place then?

I am sure this plays a part.

Juan, you asked earlier about his statement that "things don't matter".

His mother said he was trying to articulate something, although not very clearly – something about the nature of conflict being petty and inconsequential in the light of the bigger picture …. of life. That most things that seem important in the immediate don't really matter in the course of life.

Incidently, this same child, was looking at a time line of the world. It had marked the five previous great mass extinctions of life. And he said, pointing to the present time, “Now there will be a line here. A big line”. He was just matter of fact.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 89 of 89 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.)