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

What is experience?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 87 in total
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Peter, you have often talked of qualia. Is qualia the absence of experience? Is it perception when there is no experience? I have been thinking reflecting on just what is experience and I am drawn to the conclusion that experience must involve recognition. Without recognition there is no experience, is there? Recognition means incorporating an observation, a reaction, into the framework of what is in the mind already, no?

This leaves one to the disturbing conclusion that there is no such thing as a new experience. What do you say? What do others say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #2
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 572 posts in this forum Offline

About this word qualia,

Taking matter to be real...

Scientists have explored the material world. In this exploration there have been things we seem to understand, a little in some fields, and a lot in others. They...humans...we... have explored things at scales from the ultra microscopic to what seems to be the whole of space. If there is anything beyond the edge no light from it will ever reach us. Science has to be given due credit.

The biologists say there are something like eighty billion nerve cells in the human brain. We know essentially how these nerves work. There is an imbalance of charge on the surface of the nerve produced by molecular pumps and when that imbalance is disrupted at a receptor on the nerve cell that disruption spreads along the nerve fiber. There are transmitter molecules released to the next cell and the pumps restore the ionic imbalance in the first cell.

We know how the cells in the retina work. A photon strikes one of the cells there and a signal starts in a nerve traveling into the brain. Light of various frequencies affect different cells. In the brain there is no light at all. There are no colors. It is completely dark,blackness only.

So how is it that we see red or any other color? The actual thing being seen, as it is being seen, the seeing of it, is called qualia. This can be expanded to include any and everything experienced including shapes, edges, objects, anger, envy, fear, thought... everything that is being experienced as it is being experienced, all of it is not explainable.

There is a book, (I haven't read it) I think it's titled What it's like to be a bat . What we are talking about is what it's like. For any thing that there is a what it's like...That is sentience.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 29 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Could you please elaborate on that (with an example if possible)? Recognition of what?

Yesterday I went for a walk along the river here. Sitting on a bench, I observed a cormorant land on the water. He soon transferred to a dead branch of a fallen tree, out of the flow of the water. Then he spread his wings to dry, in the manner of his kind. And from time to time he preened his feathers. Eventually he was joined by another cormorant, lower down the branch.

Now what I describe above is obviously an experience, no. The series of observations has become an experience in my mind. What has made it so?

Surely recognition has at least played a part in that experience forming. Even the words I use, river, cormorant, branch, spread .... they imply recognition of what what was seen. Which means fitting into the framework of what is already known, through those words.

So the experience is formed, which becomes memory - is that one process, or two? And so I am able to describe the experience to you. It seems to me without the recognition process, no experience would be formed, no memory laid now. What would that mean? Does it not imply a process of EXPERIENCING, without recognition, which is entirely different from experience.

Incidently, I am asking myself if there was an experience of the bird without words - and of course there was - I have mental pictures of the scene.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jan 2018 #4
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 605 posts in this forum Offline

#4:

Clive Elwell wrote:
Does it not imply a process of EXPERIENCING, without recognition, which is entirely different from experience.

I think so, Clive.

Experience, as you say, is based on memory. And that memory-based process - recognizing, assembling, recording, registering the "components" of the experience - is not to be confused with the actual, living, experiencing of it. As the brain is automatically doing its thing - recognizing, assembling, recording and registering - there is also experiencing going on. The mechanical process of putting together the experience is not the actual, living, experiencing. The experiencing is the beauty, the sorrow, the love, the depression - whatever it is - that is felt in the fleeting moment that is now, isn’t it? The memory of the beauty etc. is part of the experience that is registered. The experience remains and the experiencing of that is gone.

Similarly, during a walk, the brain is doing its thing - measuring strides, calculating where the foot should go down, balancing the body, the arms, etc. but that job performance by the brain does not intrude into or detract from the experiencing of the walk.

There is beauty in the process of experience, I think. There is no need to denigrate or dismiss it. It can’t be wilfully dismissed anyway nor is there any reason to dismiss or denigrate it, it seems to me. It does need to be observed and understood for what it is. That process is not the whole of the human being, nor the essence of the whole, unfragmented human being; it is not the key to unlocking understanding. It IS a crucial part of being human.

The problem that arises with experience, I think, is where it is given authority and where it is valued beyond its proper place. And the “entity” which gives it that authority and value is the very process which assembles the experience and which assembles self, isn’t it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jan 2018 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It can’t be wilfully dismissed anyway nor is there any reason to dismiss or denigrate it, it seems to me. It does need to be observed and understood for what it is.

I think that is so, Huguette. But one observes that experience (closely akin to sensation) is deliberately sought out. It has become the measure of people's lives. It is deemed to insert meaning into one's life.

Why is this? Why has the accumulation of experience become so all important? Is it precisely because we have lost touch with experiencing itself? Is it because we feel there is only meaning in the things that can be accumulated?

In the same way we are much more concerned with 'what we have understood' rather than the process of understanding from moment to moment, are we not?

Good to see you posting again, by the way, Huguette.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 Jan 2018 #6
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 605 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

As I see it, it's part of the supremacy or authority given to thought by thought - thought which includes self, consciousness, knowledge, the intellect. It is ignorance, lack of self-understanding. Is that it? Is it something else?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 Jan 2018 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

As I see it, the self must have food. What does it feed on? Is it not identification? And are not identification and experience practically synonymous?

Experience, having been laid down in memory, reappears as the self does it not? A fragment of the many fragments which make up the self, As it reappears under the guise of the thinker, that experience has become a hammer. Hammer with which to hit other fragments, other experiences. And so …. all the conflict which plagues the mind.

Is this how you see it?

The self can never be static. It can never be secure. It has to keep moving forward just to continue to exist. Although in a sense the self IS static in that it never changes its basic form, basic movement - which is the movement of identification.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 01 Feb 2018 #8
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
As I see it, the self must have food. What does it feed on? Is it not identification? And are not identification and experience practically synonymous?

We identify with our pleasures and fears. Our experience is made up of that. And our whole life is centered around the continuation of those pleasurable experiences and avoidance of emotional pain. Does this seem right?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Feb 2018 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
We identify with our pleasures and fears. Our experience is made up of that.

Pleasurable and unpleasurable seem to be tags that we put on every experience. Which means what? - that the self compulsively labels them according to how it perceives them, imagines them, enlarging or diminishing itself. Is that an indication of the fundamental insecurity of the self?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Feb 2018 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Pleasurable and unpleasurable seem to be tags that we put on every experience. Which means what? -

It's not just the tag....it's our whole experience of living. I practice and practice to become a better golfer or skier....eagerly anticipating my weekend golf game with my friends. I talk endlessly about my favorite football team. I feel overjoyed if they win the superbowl....sad and morose if they don't even make the playoffs. We collect movies, dvds, music/cd's, books, art...vintage wine...jewelry...designer clothes....all to ensure continued pleasure in the future.

Is that an indication of the fundamental insecurity of the self?

It seems to be so, yes.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 02 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Feb 2018 #11
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
What's the next reasoning?

Are we having a debate here? I was speaking above about the attachment to pleasure. I'm sure one can enjoy a game of golf without attachment ...without identifying with one's skill...without attachment to results or success. But the fact is most of us DO get very attached to our favorite sport or TV show or rock band. We DO identify....with our favorite team or rock band or movie star. Now please don't go and tell us that K liked to watch adventure movies and wear expensive clothes, though he did ;)

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 02 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Feb 2018 #12
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 605 posts in this forum Offline

#8:

Clive Elwell wrote:
As I see it, the self must have food. What does it feed on? Is it not identification? And are not identification and experience practically synonymous?

Experience, having been laid down in memory, reappears as the self does it not? A fragment of the many fragments which make up the self, As it reappears under the guise of the thinker, that experience has become a hammer. Hammer with which to hit other fragments, other experiences. And so …. all the conflict which plagues the mind.

Is this how you see it?

The self can never be static. It can never be secure. It has to keep moving forward just to continue to exist. Although in a sense the self IS static in that it never changes its basic form, basic movement - which is the movement of identification.

Clive,

Does the “self” have to have food? Is it possible to “starve” the self? If only! :o)

The food you’re talking about - identification - IS thought. And experience IS thought, isn’t it? Self IS thought. So this food IS the self, and the self IS the food, isn't it? - if that makes any sense.

I turn on the furnace and it produces heat in the house. When the furnace is not turned on, there’s no heat produced. Heat is not somehow standing by waiting to be turned on, just as self is not standing by waiting to be fed. When the “switch” is not turned on, there's no heat. Where there's no thought, there's no self. Is it so?

I don’t see experience as a distinct “problem”, separate from the thinker and thought, separate from observer and observed, lover and love, judge and judgment, and so on.

From yesterday’s (I think it was yesterday) QOTD:

The thinker is the thought. They are not separate, they are a joint phenomenon and not separate processes.

Experience also is not a problem or process separate from thought, is it? Isn’t the “joint phenomenon” of thinker and thought the same process as experiencer and experience, observer and observed? Isn’t the experiencer the experience, just as the thinker is the thought and the observer is the observed?

I might have misunderstood what you were saying .... and more!

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 03 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Does the “self” have to have food? Is it possible to “starve” the self? If only! :o)

Clive:Well, it is only an analogy to talk that way, but it seems to me there must be some input, some energy, some process that keeps the self going. And perhaps the self can be starved – not by any act of will, obviously, but by negation. By an ongoing awareness of the falseness of the self. By DE-identification, if there issuch a word.

The food you’re talking about - identification - IS thought.

Clive: I would rather say that identification is a process IN thought. Does the distinction have any significance?

And experience IS thought, isn’t it?

Clive: It is memory. What is the relationship between memory and thought? Memory reacts to a challenge, and that reaction is thought, is that it? Can we say thought is memory acting in the present?

Self IS thought.

Clive: yes.

So this food IS the self, and the self IS the food, isn't it? - if that makes any sense.
I turn on the furnace and it produces heat in the house. When the furnace is not turned on, there’s no heat produced. Heat is not somehow standing by waiting to be turned on, just as self is not standing by waiting to be fed. When the “switch” is not turned on, there's no heat. Where there's no thought, there's no self. Is it so?

Clive: The self is thought, thought is a particular guise, thought acting as if it had a centre.

I don’t see experience as a distinct “problem”, separate from the thinker and thought, separate from observer and observed, lover and love, judge and judgment, and so on.
From yesterday’s (I think it was yesterday) QOTD:
The thinker is the thought. They are not separate, they are a joint phenomenon and not separate processes.
Experience also is not a problem or process separate from thought, is it? Isn’t the “joint phenomenon” of thinker and thought the same process as experiencer and experience, observer and observed? Isn’t the experiencer the experience, just as the thinker is the thought and the observer is the observed?

Clive: I could answer “yes, of course”, but such an answer would be from memory only. Experience, in fact. And at the moment the mind doesn't seem to have the energy to look afresh at the issue.

I might have misunderstood what you were saying .... and more!

Clive: On the other hand I might have been wrong.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #14
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 605 posts in this forum Offline

#16:

The food you’re talking about - identification - IS thought.


Clive: I would rather say that identification is a process IN thought. Does the distinction have any significance?

I’m just wondering, is there any thought that is not a process in thought? Whether it is a random thought, a belief, an idea, an opinion, an exposé, an obsession, etc., or whether it is thinking - which also includes reasoning (sane or not), comparison, measure, interpretation, extrapolation, and so on - isn’t thought the outcome of a cerebral process? “Thought” refers both to the outcome and to the process, doesn’t it? Or can we say that the outcome is part of the whole process?


And experience IS thought, isn’t it?


Clive: It is memory. What is the relationship between memory and thought? Memory reacts to a challenge, and that reaction is thought, is that it? Can we say thought is memory acting in the present?

Isn’t memory itself part of the whole thought process? There can’t be thought without memory, can there? Just as perhaps “a” thought is the outcome of the whole process, can we say that memory is the starting point of the thought process?


Clive: The self is thought, thought is a particular guise, thought acting as if it had a centre.

Yes, that’s the thought we’re talking about, trying to understand - self, the centre, thought separating itself from itself.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 04 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #15
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Huguette . wrote:

Is it possible to “starve” the self?

Yes, question everything you consider as your "experience of life" without trying to transform that 'self', and there you go!

Not sure how that questioning will starve the 'me', Juan. Questioning all the cravings and attachments? How will questioning end my desire to smoke (I don't, btw....just as an example)? Or my alcoholism (again, as an example)? Or my attachment to my sports teams which I discuss endlessly at the bar with my friends in order to escape the boredom and dullness of my every day existence?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #16
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

I was simply asking, Juan, 'questioning in what manner?" when I want to smoke or drink? What manner of questioning? Is this an intellectual questioning or something else?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #17
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 605 posts in this forum Offline

#21:

Tom Paine wrote:
What manner of questioning? Is this an intellectual questioning or something else?

Tom, I think that it IS crucial to observe the questioning itself, to be aware of even a shadow of motive, effort, desire, hope, attachment, etc., involved in questioning. As long as there is a direction, an aim, a goal, there's no true questioning, as far as I understand it. Where there IS a direction, the outline of the answer has already been formed, hasn’t it? To observe questioning is not separate from awareness. Awareness doesn't "take a break" during questioning.

Questioning, to me, must not contain even the ghost of "the" answer, no element of an answer. Otherwise, it is not truly questioning, is it? After all, to question MEANS that one does NOT know, doesn’t it?

And in the context of understanding self, consciousness, sorrow, pleasure, love, hate, etc., questioning means that no textbook answer, no affirmative answer, CAN be formulated as it is in other fields such as science, art, etc.

So as I question, I must observe myself to understand my questioning, and also I must observe myself as I formulate answers. Nothing can be taken for granted, can it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 04 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #18
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
C'mon Tom, we all know in which manner we have to question

Not at all, Juan. But Huguette just gave a very good answer to my question, while you continue to give a lecture as if you're above it all somehow. Well I will part company with you here, as when I express my view/s or ask a question, you respond by giving a lecture like the professor(arrogant?) to the students. I'm not interested in continuing in that manner.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 04 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #19
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Tom, I think that it IS crucial to observe the questioning itself, to be aware of even a shadow of motive, effort, desire, hope, attachment, etc., involved in questioning. As long as there is a direction, an aim, a goal, there's no true questioning, as far as I understand it. Where there IS a direction, the outline of the answer has already been formed, hasn’t it? To observe questioning is not separate from awareness. Awareness doesn't "take a break" during questioning.

This is a very thorough reply, Huguette. Thanks. I want to question my smoking or drinking habit because it brings pain. I do have a motive or goal...the goal to understand this self destructive behavior. I want to come back to this interesting topic later when I can give your reply the attention it deserves. Right now I'm in the noisy lounge at the supermarket having a snack before I begin our grocery shopping. I hope to come back to this later.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
“Thought” refers both to the outcome and to the process, doesn’t it? Or can we say that the outcome is part of the whole process?

What exactly do you mean by "process" here, Huguette? Purely psychological (ie put together by thought) or does it include all the material process, the cerebral process, the activity of the brain cells.

Actually, I am not sure by what you mean by "outcome", also. Sorry to be slow on the uptake!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
. simply because we have already drawn a conclusion of what would imply any 'try'

Yes, this is an important point. I have often observed people draw a conclusion about what change would mean, and this blocks further investigation. Even though such conclusion is pure speculation.

An example of taking psycholoigcal knowledge to be real, absolute, true.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
C'mon Tom, we all know in which manner we have to question,

It seems a reasonable question to me, to enquire into what exactly questioning means, what form it is taking, is it verbal, purely intellectual, does it have passion behind it ....... etc.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I hope to come back to this later.

Please do so, Tom.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #24
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

I hope to come back to this later.

Please do so, Tom.

I just wrote a fairly long reply and then I lost it. The browser tab just closed itself...poof! and it was gone. This tablet of mine can be very frustrating! I will have to start all over again later or tomorrow. I hate touch screens, but due to back problems/pain I'm often forced to use my tablet for browsing and typing.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #25
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Sorry for whatever i have said that could made you feel bad somewhat ... i will not 'disturb' you anymore

The only thing that disturbed me Juan, was the feeling that I was wasting my time, and my free time us in short supply as it is. And please don't let this reply disturb YOU. There are no hard feelings on this end.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I just wrote a fairly long reply and then I lost it. The browser tab just closed itself...poof! and it was gone.

I know the feeling. But why not compose in a word processor first, which automatically saves text?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #27
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 605 posts in this forum Offline

#27:

Huguette . wrote:

“Thought” refers both to the outcome and to the process, doesn’t it? Or can we say that the outcome is part of the whole process?

Clive Elwell wrote:

What exactly do you mean by "process" here, Huguette? Purely psychological (ie put together by thought) or does it include all the material process, the cerebral process, the activity of the brain cells.

Actually, I am not sure by what you mean by "outcome", also.

A process is a series of actions or steps that accomplish a specific end, isn’t it more or less? The process of making cheese, sewing a dress, walking or talking, solving a mathematical problem, performing any job or task involves more than a simple single act or motion. The end result of the process may be seen as a single action, but it’s more complicated than - or involves more than - the perceived outcome. Without thinking too much about it, it seems to me that, in contrast, something like “falling” is not a process, or any one of the steps or actions IN a process is not itself a process (but it can be).

As I see it, “thought” refers to the process of thinking which involves physical cerebral movements, electrical impulses, hormonal activity. I don’t precisely know how it works. It also involves (starts with?) memory, and reasoning, comparing, extrapolating, language, and so on - each of which is also a process. It seems to me.

“Thought” is also the end result of the process, the outcome which has been formed by the whole process, for example any of the many many thoughts we all express here. So I meant, isn't the end result of a process also part of the process? For example, cheese is the outcome and part of the process of cheese-making.

To bring it back to what we had been talking about. You had said that “identification is a process IN thought. Does the distinction have any significance?” So I do see the distinction as significant in the context of self feeding itself on identification. Identification IS thought, thought is self, self is thought, thought is identification, thought is experience, experience is thought - and round and round. Therefore, I don’t see self as feeding on identification - it is all thought, the material process as well as the end result of the process which is the individual thoughts.

Is my meaning clearer .... or muddier? Just to be clear about one thing - clear or muddy - I realize it’s not necessarily right.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 05 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #28
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 605 posts in this forum Offline

#26:

Tom Paine wrote:
I want to question my smoking or drinking habit because it brings pain. I do have a motive or goal...the goal to understand this self destructive behavior.

Tom, I'll go on if you don't mind.

Doesn’t habit include ALL my responses to life’s challenges, including but not limited to smoking, drinking, eating, gambling, etc.? Someone annoys me and I habitually respond with anger, repression, condescension, analysis and intellectualization, insult, mockery, and so on. Aren’t all the habits and habitual responses prompted by fear? Fear of emptiness, ineptitude, inadequacy, powerlessness, failure, and so on. Aren’t they a means to somehow soothe and comfort me, to make me feel better, show me in a better light? Is this so?

I’m wondering what questioning “without direction” actually means. If I question my habit because it brings me pain, doesn’t that give the enquiry a direction right from the start? But how can I NOT have such a direction? After all, it’s natural to want to end one’s suffering, and I’m not saying it isn’t. Who wants to suffer?

I have been educated to believe that I can overcome habit through desire and willpower. Now I see that habit can’t be overcome as long as there’s fear. It can be replaced by a new habit or a new habitual response but the fear remains. (I might be wrong about all of this.) Doesn’t this understanding change my attitude or relationship to habit? Doesn’t understanding the root and process of habit and self mean that I no longer question habit in the same way? I see that fighting a habit only engenders endless conflict, which is also painful. Rather than fight the habit, can't I just observe it, observe the pain, learn about it? If the desire to be free of it arises, I can observe that too. I also see the power of conditioning and propaganda working within me. So all I can do is observe all these movements, being aware of any attempt to exploit any understanding which flowers. Where there are such attempts to exploit, observation and understanding end, don’t they? Observation and understanding are not conditioned. There’s freedom in understanding one’s condition, the workings of one’s mind, isn’t there? There's a bit of light in the darkness.

Can seeing that fear is the root of habit (if it is so) not be used as the basis for further conclusion and direction? Because any such further conclusion and direction is also the outcome of fear, is also a habitual response, isn’t it? So I no longer search for a solution to pain, not because it is a new tactic, a new ruse, a new method, but because I understand the significance of searching, desiring, seeking. I dunno.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #29
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Aren’t all the habits and habitual responses prompted by fear? Fear of emptiness, ineptitude, inadequacy, powerlessness, failure, and so on. Aren’t they a means to somehow soothe and comfort me, to make me feel better, show me in a better light? Is this so?

Habits, as I see it, are an escape from some inner conflict. So to understand the habit we must understand the underlying conflict. So we've moved away from questioning why we smoke or over eat to looking at our feelings of conflict and friction. If we're exploited at work or in a relationship, the normal response/action would be to leave. To find another job or leave the relationship. The conflict comes about when we feel we cannot leave. So one part of me is saying, "Go!" and another part is saying, "Stay, and try to make the best of it." This causes pain. I over eat or drink a couple of beers because it's a pleasureable escape from the pain. But the pain returns.....and the process is repeated until I find that i have a drinking problem. But it's always a conflict in relationship.....with my employer....with my work load or schedule..with my spouse or significant other....my child....or inner conflict within myself...two fragments of 'me' in conflict....,the 'I should' vs the 'I shouldn't'. Inner conflict comes about when I have ideals. I should be a good provider....I should be a hard worker. I shouldn't be lazy. I shouldn't be tired or angry. When I cant live up to my ideals I feel inner conflict. 'I'm not good enough'. I was raised to be a good Christian, but I lust after my neighbors wife, for example. Or I get easily angered when I 'should' be loving and kind. So fear, yes, and conflict, are the basis of my habits. Anything else?

Can seeing that fear is the root of habit (if it is so) not be used as the basis for further conclusion and direction? Because any such further conclusion and direction is also the outcome of fear, is also a habitual response, isn’t it? So I no longer search for a solution to pain, not because it is a new tactic, a new ruse, a new method, but because I understand the significance of searching, desiring, seeking. I dunno.

Yes...good point...never realized that before. Another attempt to escape or achieve. So we alway return to unknowing....just observing the movement of life NOW. Anything else is habit. The whole movement of one habitual response or thought pattern after another. There's obviously no freedom there.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 05 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #30
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

I just wrote a fairly long reply and then I lost it. The browser tab just closed itself...poof! and it was gone.

I know the feeling. But why not compose in a word processor first, which automatically saves text?

I discovered a simpler solution. As I'm typing my message I simply hit 'select all' in the message box and then 'copy'. If the browser tab closes I can simply return to the post in a new tab and hit 'paste' in the reply box. That way my message is saved in the 'clipboard' for pasting into a new message box.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 87 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.)