Clive wrote

I am that analyser, that definer, that describer, that critic. I am the judger, the condemner, the justifier, the suggester. And the the changer, the controller, desirer, perceiver, the measurer. I am the admirer, the approver, the categoriser, the decider, the undecider, the finaliser.

At least I, as the thinker thought keeps putting together, am thought's attempt to do those things.

Curious that it never seems to learn that it can't fundamentally change itself.

Continuing with my mail above. I was describing the phenomena that I am sure we are all familiar with, or at least a facet of it. A phenomena that is at work throughout the day, it hardly ever seems to let up. And the more one is aware of it, the more intense it seems – but also the more futile and illusory it seems. That thought, in the guise, of the thinker, keeps trying to interfere with thought.
I know we talk about it so much, ad nauseum some might say. But really I don't know anything that seems more important in the movement to understand the mind. The thinker always comes in as if it was necessary, essential. It has to have its say. It has to “be in charge”. Although in fact it is not in charge at all. But perhaps thought created the thinker in an attempt to be have an entity in charge. And perhaps that being in charge does have meaning, is necessary, in day to day living, in the material world. Would people go along with this?

Although thought may have created the thinker for a very practical purpose and although it may have made sense in that area, it must have entered, or even created, the psychological area. And there for thousands or even millions of years, the thinker has been trying to solve the problem of thought. It does not seem likely that it will succeed! And the problem itselfin fact to what extent is this trying of the thinker ******? Is there a psychological problem apart from this thinker/thought duality? I was reading in K yesterday that fear is not a problem in itself. It is thought trying to solve fear as if it was a problem that is the problem (not an exact quote).

It is clear that “I” cannot solve this problem of thinker/thought duality – obviously such an attempt is exactly the continuation of the phenomena. “I” am this thinker.

Sign in to recommend