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

Anger (or What does it mean investigate?) ...


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 37 in total
Sat, 24 Jun 2017 #1
Thumb_stringio Juan E Spain 14 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I have decided to start a new thread making a verbatim copy of the last three post in Mina's thread "A question to Olive to be shared with all..." as they not belong there never more and because i find that the discussion is worth to have its own thread.

(allow me some time to copy the posts)

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E (account deleted) Sun, 25 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Jun 2017 #2
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2216 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Juan E wrote:

you investigate the cause or causes of the anger. This might take a lot of time....years.
Why this has to be so? ...
It's because the use of the word 'investigation'?

Do you think it can be done instantly....or in a day? K investigated in his talks, the causes of conflict....and anger is a kind of conflict....for many years, yet how many of us are free of conflict from listening to all those talks and doing years of investigating? He used to say himself, 'you've been coming to these talks for years, why aren't you free of violence?' (paraphrasing) Even those of us who do this investigation for years are still struggling with conflicts of one sort or another....or am I mistaken?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Jun 2017 #3
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Tom: you investigate the cause or causes of the anger. This might take a lot of time....years.

Juan: Why this has to be so? ...
It's because the use of the word 'investigation'?

Yes I think that's it. 'Investigation' seems to imply time, collecting 'evidence', coming to conclusions.etc. That is 'analysis' and that is not the same as 'learning', seeing oneself, for that no time is necessary. Much more 'difficult' in a way because it is not what we are used to. We are used to getting a reward for our 'investigation', a conclusion... In 'self-knowledge' that doesn't (or shouldn't) apply, there is no 'getting to' something, no end?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Jun 2017 #4
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Could we investigate in which way that initial 'motive' can (or can not) be 'transformed' (i'm using just the word not implying the act of the will) in "'meditation' and without any goal to 'become'"?

I think it's a mistake and I've mentioned this to Tom, to insist on some kind of 'pure' motive before one takes on the task of 'learning' about oneself. The deeper you go into this the more the motives behind your actions become seen, make themselves visible. It's a very elaborate structure that keeps our ego 'buttressed' and in place. It is (can be) very 'destabilizing' to probe it...so, fine if one wants to experiment with it in the 'street', I think a 'safer' situation to try out how 'deep' one is willing to go is best done in private.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Jun 2017 #5
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2216 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Why once seen do we continue investigating as if we had not seen it completely? ... Is it because we try to negate what we've seen because we don't like it? ... Is it because we thing that there's still something more to be investigated? .

We think there's still more to investigate because anger continues to arise....and the feeling of conflict....in spite of much investigation and insight into the causes.

Juan E wrote:
Why we don't allow that initial seeing to see further by itself?

This action of allowing is not clear. 'Anger arises...then what?' you asked. Why is it still arising if we've investigated for years? Obviously there is something missing in our investigation. So we can move on to your last question. What does it mean to investigate?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Jun 2017 #6
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Why once seen do we continue investigating as if we had not seen it completely? ... Is it because we try to negate what we've seen because we don't like it?

Two things: we may not have seen it completely and yes I think that deeply we cannot face what we really are. The violence, the fear, the pettiness, the 'bluster', hypocrisy ,etc. although we admit to them intellectually, it would be 'shattering' to see them clearly as being what we are. But that I think is the role of 'true' meditation, to allow whatever is there to surface without any judgement, comparison.

And I would add, at this point it has nothing to do with K. or any one else. The 'responsibility' to do this is all one's own. To discover the 'right approach'. What I find in myself is that certain situations in the past that would 'trigger' say 'anger', jealousy, fear, no longer do so. I can't say all situations...how could one know? but definitely as a result of having seen the attachments behind the arising of certain emotions the 'explosive' energy that was there, now isn't. You could say that before, there was this explosion waiting to happen, that has now been replaced (defused?) by 'intelligence'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 24 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Jun 2017 #7
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
So let me ask, is that investigation in fact an escape from what we see of ourselves and therefore the reason why anger (and so on) is still arising no matter the years we've spend trying to investigate anger and all the rest?

In a way the K. 'thing' is an 'escape' isn't it? We came looking for answers, enlightenment, whatever and he more than others we 'tried' seemed to be the 'real' thing. And I think I thought his message would come through like a process of 'osmosis', going to his talks, reading, watching his videos...what I didn't understand, was the 'work' that had (and has) to be done. Maybe I still don't but that is beside the point. His comment regarding the people around him, that they hadn't the foggiest idea what he was talking about is a good caution to not become too sure of yourself in this realm. Important to realize also in all of this that it isn't being 'done' for one's own 'salvation' which he has said is 'silly' and I agree.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 24 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Jun 2017 #8
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2216 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
in that investigation anger continues there. That investigation only serves to convince oneself that one is doing something about it, but it's not true".

I think that may be a fair observation. You asked Juan, "What does it mean investigate?" Perhaps now we should ask your sister that same question. Anyone else want to comment? What does it mean investigate?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 25 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Jun 2017 #9
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
the reason why anger (and so on) is still arising no matter the years we've spend trying to investigate anger and all the rest?

Not meaning to be facetious but if I continuously hit myself in the head with a hammer, eventually I may want to 'investigate' the reason for my headaches. The headaches will go on 'for years' unless I realize that the reason behind my headache is the 'hammer' and what is needed, is for me to stop hitting myself in the head with it. True? So remove the 'cause' of the headaches, which is the hammer, and the headaches will go away....In the case of 'anger, jealousy, remove the cause of their arising and they 'go away'. It's 'lawful' as in 'when it rains the streets get wet'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 24 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Jun 2017 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2216 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
In the case of 'anger, jealousy, remove the cause of their arising and they 'go away'

And the cause is in 'me', right? No how do I remove a part of me? One part trying to remove another part hasn't worked st all. "I shouldn't be angry", etc.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Jun 2017 #11
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Dan McDermott wrote:

In the case of 'anger, jealousy, remove the cause of their arising and they 'go away'

Tom: And the cause is in 'me', right? Now how do I remove a part of me? One part trying to remove another part hasn't worked st all. "I shouldn't be angry", etc.

Hi Tom

Forget about "removal" if I may say. We're not doing 'surgery' here. Our 'attachment', our 'dependancy' is what we need to see clearly. And when it is seen and 'negated' the 'effects' of it will disappear. Is there any other way?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Jun 2017 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2216 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Hi Tom

Forget about "removal" if I may say. We're not doing 'surgery' here.

Hi Dan,

But did't you ask about removal in your post?

Dan McDermott wrote:

In the case of 'anger, jealousy, remove the cause of their arising and they 'go away'

T: forgive me, but I'm getting lost here. The cause of the anger and jealousy, etc. is in 'me'. So as you said in your last message, this needs to be 'seen'/understood... the effort to remove is only producing further conflict. According to k, this 'seeing' is effortless. Yet most of us are still stuck with conflict of one sort of another. Why doesn't this 'effortless' seeing free us from the causes? If it's effortless, then I don't have to do a THING! right? Is it because we're always making an effort to DO SOMETHING about the conflict that we never 'see'/understand?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 25 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Jun 2017 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2216 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
What is it that failed the very first day i saw that the hammer was the only cause, that made me think that this was not enough and that it needed a further investigation that lasted my whole life full of headaches despite such investigation?.

First of all, if the pain/conflict returns it means I have NOT seen the cause. If I see/understand that fire burns I won't keep sticking my hand in the fire, right? If I see that the hammer is the cause of my pain, I'll not hit myself with it again....ever. Now I'm saying that if the conflict...ANGER...fear, etc., returns, the simple fact is that I have NOT seen that the "the hammer was the only cause". If I had, it would not return. You may disagree if you like, but that's my understanding of the situation. I simply have not seen ALL the causes....totally down to the very root.... if the anger returns. I've only seen part/s of the situation. My understanding is partial....not whole....not complete.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 25 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Jun 2017 #14
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2216 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Why doesn't this 'effortless' seeing free us from the causes?
Quite simple ... because there's a constant reaction in 'me' before that seeing, either by rejecting or accepting what is seen about 'me' .

I judge the anger as wrong or bad, for instance. Is that what you're saying? Therefore there is NO seeing(understanding)...just reacting.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Jun 2017 #15
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
In the case of 'anger, jealousy, remove the cause of their arising and they 'go away'

If I see the cause of something destructive in me that I had not seen or understood before, but see that it is 'mis-guided' or based on an unquestioned belief say, the seeing of it 'negates' it doesn't it. Seeing brings the 'intelligence' where before there was 'ignorance' and it fades away, it loses its energy, it is seen as false. So I would say and certainly could be wrong that our anger etc. persists because we have not discovered the underlying trigger for that destructive 'emotion' arising. The 'underlying' factor I see is generally speaking the 'I' process and specifically the 'I's attachments and beliefs. Take 'jealousy', we've all had a taste of that...my wife, girlfriend say finds someone to be more attractive than me (hard to believe but..),and I go into a rage or a funk etc., why? If I truly cared for her, my only concern would be her happiness and well-being whether it was with me or someone else. But I don't feel that way and here's where I see the 'trigger':, my 'dependance' on her, my 'possessiveness' towards her. If it can be seen clearly that those are the factors that create jealousy (and I don't want to be jealous because it can be a deadly emotion) then I don't have to try to 'control' my jealous fits but just 'remove' ('let go' through seeing) my 'dependance' and possessiveness' that inevitably bring it on. So this is 'effortless', this 'seeing' or 'letting go', but at the same time it calls for a tremendous energy (of non-action, non-movement?) which we may or may not have.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 25 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Jun 2017 #16
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2216 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
I'm saying that there's seeing, otherwise there will be no reaction ... in that reaction seeing is stopped ... and when seeing is stopped effort begins either in one direction or in the other.

Well, there's 'seeing' in the sense that I perceive that I'm angry, but there's no 'seeing' in the sense K uses the word when he means 'understanding'....seeing the cause. I have simply NOT seen/understood all the causes of the anger if it continues to arise. This kind of understanding is much more difficult complex, than the simple seeing that the hammer is causing my head pain. Seeing the causes of anger is much different than seeing that fire burns or that the hammer is the cause of my headache.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Jun 2017 #17
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2216 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
This reaction is very easy to observe in any of the K's seminars, in which there are few participants, some of them being even with certain verbal violence ...

One can see clearly oneself there in any of those reactions if it's able not to stop the seeing with another reaction.

I think we're using the word 'seeing' differently. K uses it to mean understanding. If I can 'see' deeply the cause of my anger or violence the anger will end. He means that in looking at...observing...the anger that one can understand the causes. In observation the unconscious background, which is the cause of the anger, is revealed. Well, this may sound confusing, and I apologize if it does, as I wrote it quickly. Have to leave for work soon.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Jun 2017 #18
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
This kind of understanding is much more difficult complex,

It is very complex. Because even when the 'underlying' cause is identified, the 'letting go' implies someone who is doing this 'letting go'. And that brings us to the one who is doing the 'holding on'! The 'I',the 'me', the 'self', ego, the 'center'...and to the 'I' this 'letting go' is 'dangerous'. I have always been 'attached'. I have always been 'possessive'. I have always 'needed' someone, etc. I do not know what it would be like to not be those things and that is frightening. That is the 'unknown' and that is frightening. So it is 'fear' that maintains the status quo. 'Fear' that maintains and continues the 'I', 'me', mine...(with all its connections and subterfuge)

From the QOTD:

"This "I" process, about which I have spoken, can be to you but a theory. To discern its actuality you must experience it. To experience this, you must consider it critically, analyze it and experiment with it. The intelligent comprehension of it will alone bring about right action."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 25 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Jun 2017 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Why doesn't this 'effortless' seeing free us from the causes? If it's effortless, then I don't have to do a THING! right? Is it because we're always making an effort to DO SOMETHING about the conflict that we never 'see'/understand?

I have been reading this dialogue with interest without feeling any need to participate. Or rather I AM participating, in living it all, but without any need to post.

But the above from Tom caught my attention ........ I think this is exactly right, Tom. Firstly right that "effortless" DOES mean not doing a thing. Which means what exactly?

And secondly, yes, this doing something about it, this thought B, this reaction ..... arises so quickly, almost instantaneously, almost by instinct. It is a very very deep conditioned response of the mind. Is it tied up with the movement to become? Which I have been seeing of late as the very essence of the self.

So one naturally asks: can this "doing" cease? Can thought stop reacting to itself? And thought A somehow not be opposed by a thought B? Are these reasonable questions?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 26 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Jun 2017 #20
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2216 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:

Firstly right that "effortless" DOES mean not doing a thing.
'Effortles' DOES NOT mean 'not doing a thing' but 'doing a thing without effort', which is something completly different ...

I think Clive means that I don't make any effort to solve my problem...Don't make effort in relationship to fear, anger, violence, etc. The word 'effort' is the key here. Any effort of 'me' vs the problem creates further problems....further conflict, as I am not separate from the problem. And I do NOTHING when it's realized that I am not separate from the fear. How can fear act upon fear?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 26 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

This is not a reply to posts above, but it comes that "doing" (ie the reaction of thought to itsef) is thought's substitute for action.

Can thought 'act'? I feel it can not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
'Effortles' DOES NOT mean 'not doing a thing' but 'doing a thing without effort', which is something completly different ...

But Juan, it seems to me that when thought tries to "do" something (let's stick to psychologically) that automatically implies effort. No? It does something - really that means TRIES to do something - to try to change what is. Do you follow me?

Juan E wrote:
It does not eliminate action,

Sorry, what does not eliminate action? Not following this.

Juan E wrote:
Here you have an example of 'effort' and 'effortless' ... as you can see in both cases there's a doing, only that in a different way

"Effortless" seems to imply that we enjoy doing what we are doing.Effort implies resistance - that our heart is not in what we are doing.It's not an effort to eat one's dinner when one is hungry!

But actually I think I was talking about psychological effort

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
'Effortles' DOES NOT mean 'not doing a thing' but 'doing a thing without effort', which is something completly different ...

But Juan, it seems to me that when thought tries to "do" something (let's stick to psychologically) that automatically implies effort. No? It does something - really that means TRIES to do something - to try to change what is. Do you follow me?

Juan E wrote:
It does not eliminate action,

Sorry, what does not eliminate action? Not following this.

Juan E wrote:
Here you have an example of 'effort' and 'effortless' ... as you can see in both cases there's a doing, only that in a different way

"Effortless" seems to imply that we enjoy doing what we are doing.Effort implies resistance - that our heart is not in what we are doing.It's not an effort to eat one's dinner when one is hungry!

But actually I think I was talking about psychological effort

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Now, does that "not having to do a thing" imply inaction?

I think it is simpler if we use the phrase "not doing anything" rather than "inaction". "Inaction" implies that no action is taking place/has taken place. But this very "not doing" may in itself BE action.

Let us remember that by "not doing anything" I meant originally the absence of a thought B reacting to thought A

Juan E wrote:
what does it mean then "effortless action"?

isn't seeing that effortless action?

Juan E wrote:
Can a human mind conditioned to do everything with effort, do an "effortless action" without effort?

This is one of those questions where the only possible answer IS actually doing it - or rather living it.

Juan E wrote:
In which way such conditioned human mind will come into contact with an "effortless action"?

I would think only when effort - which implies conflict - has ceased

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
What is 'action'?

Action seems to imply that some definite change has taken place - either physically or mentally.

When thought B tries to act on thought A, does that produce change?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #26
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2216 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Have we penetrated its full implication under any situation, or we have simply accepted that in one sense that effort must be seen/condemned as wrong or as wate of energy, while in the other such effort is worthy and not such a waste of energy? ...

What do we Actually understand by 'effort', etc.? ...

Can we keep to the issue of 'psychological' effort, as Clive has suggested? Here in the psyche there is a problem...a conflict...of some sort. Do I need to make an effort to solve it...to understan...my anger...or make an effort to simply observe it? What do we mean by effort in this context? Don't we mean, to struggle with the problem...and this struggle is taking place in thought? As Clive and I discussed previously, thought B tries to overcome thought A. It's 'me'(my thoughts, ideals, principles) vs. the anger or jealousy, or whatever the case may be. I hate being angry....condemning it...judging myself as 'wrong' for being angry. So then what? I make an effort to get rid of it, or I take the more intelligent path and make an effort to understand it. What does this 'more intelligent' path entail? Thinking about it? Making an effort to observe it free from condemnation or justification while part of me is subtly condemning it in spite of not wanting to do so? All that is an effort in time. I will think about the anger and analyze it, or I will make an effort to observe it.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 27 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #27
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 561 posts in this forum Offline

42:

Juan E wrote:
Would you equate that so called 'energy' to 'effort'? ... If not, why not? ... Or in other words, why do we label that so-called 'energy' as 'effort' when there's [positive] action, and 'effortless' when there's non-action? ... What does really mean "Non-action requires far more action than the so-called positive [action]."? ... Is it related to some kind of effort too or not at all?

So, if you let me, i would like to ask to everyone here: do we actually know what is the actual meaning of words like 'effort', 'effortless', or 'energy' that we may be using in this discussion? ... Have we penetrated its full implication under any situation, or we have simply accepted that in one sense that effort must be seen/condemned as wrong or as wate of energy, while in the other such effort is worthy and not such a waste of energy? ...

What do we Actually understand by 'effort', etc.? ... Not what we have heard and accepted from K, but our own understanding/observation of the actual meaning of the word without any external influence?

I see a baby alone in the middle of the street. What do I do? Do I stop to think about it? Do I stand paralyzed with fear - for myself if I run to grab him, or for the baby if I don't? Run to grab him or push him to safety without thinking about it?

No matter what, in talking about it, looking into it, we condemn and praise nothing do we? We neither condemn or praise being paralyzed by fear, or being either conceited or humble about having saved him. Is there psychological effort in being paralyzed by fear, or not? Is there psychological effort in rushing to save the baby, or not?

What is complete action which leaves no residue? Doesn't fear leave a residue, a mark? Doesn't the action in which there is no thought or time, doesn't that action leave NO residue?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #28
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2216 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Can a human mind conditioned to do everything with effort, do an "effortless action" without effort?
In which way such conditioned human mind will come into contact with an "effortless action"?

I almost missed this question, Juan, with all the messages today. Maybe someone else can start the ball rolling, or perhaps you yourself, as I'm at a loss at the moment how to answer. Busy day ahead, but I will try to return to your question later. My immediate response after reading the above was to say that it seems he can only come to it effortlessly. But I need to consider it further.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #29
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 703 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I almost missed this question, Juan, with all the messages today.
Maybe someone else can start the ball rolling, or perhaps you yourself,
as I'm at a loss at the moment how to answer. Busy day ahead,
but I will try to return to your question later.
My immediate response after reading the above was to say that it seems he can only come to it effortlessly.
But I need to consider it further.

Hi Tom,

Is your mind hacked by your thoughts. ;-)

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 #30
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2216 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Is your mind hacked by your thoughts. ;-)

Interesting metaphor, Wim. Of course I use thought a whole lot at work and doing things around the house, but I think you mean something else by 'hacked'....something other than using thought to cook dinner. In the thread title Juan asked, 'What does it mean to investigate?' I suspect that thought will be necessary here too. We're you commenting on my last sentence, "I need to consider it further."? Consider meaning to think about.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 27 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 37 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.)