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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 391 - 420 of 470 in total
Fri, 29 Mar 2019 #391
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4900 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Wouldn't the words that Stamp said K. told to him be of value to her:

I don’t feel that they would be. I might be wrong, but this is my feeling. I don't think they would be meaningful, I don't think she would see them as relevant.

Also, I cannot say that these words are true for me. I don’t feel that I am unadorned naked awareness. And I will not pass on to anyone else what I don’t actually perceive to be true myself.

Another point, when we discussed these words before, I discovered that they cannot be authenticated as K’s actual words.

Clive: Bringing the issue much closer to home, it is so profound, so radical, to see that “I am the problem”, the origin of all “my” problems, the poison, as K puts it. If we truly see this, then we see there is absolutely no action we can take to deal with the problem, no? Does all effort then stop? And if not, why not?

Dan: All our lives we have met our psychological problems with effort, haven't we? An effort of suppression, of substitution, of distraction.

Yes, this reaction seems to be part of our deepest condition. And yet it is easily seen though. I AM the problem, the problem is not separate from me, so how I can I attempt to solve the problem?

Did we accept problems as being inevitable, that they come and go as the normal course of being alive...? Never really questioning that 'inevitability'? Then along comes K. in this case and says he has no psychological problems, they don't exist for him. Then we look into our 'problems' and try to not 'escape' from them in any form, just be with them and we begin to realize that 'we' are the cause of our own problems and collectively the problems of all humanity! And any action on my part to do anything about it only continues it, changing one 'pattern' for another but never being startled by this truth that the problem is 'me'.

Perhaps it is that a lifetime of avoiding things that create psychological discomfort has brought about this "numbness"?

Perhaps that is part of the problem, yes. And perhaps it is this overwhelming emphasis on the intellect, that has been conditioned into us since we were born.

Returning to the K quote that you put up:

Similarly, when you realize that the thinker himself is ignorance you are not startled by it: you pass on to other things.

We pass on to other things because that is the nature of thought, isn’t it? Thought by its very nature is short-lived, it is ever restless. I think K used to ask “can you stay with a feeling?”, yet this seems contrary to the nature of the mind. Can you “stay with a feeling”, Dan? And if so, is it a matter of effort?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Mar 2019 #392
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1160 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can you “stay with a feeling”, Dan? And if so, is it a matter of effort?

If it is a matter of "effort", who is making the effort and why? Is it to 'get' something, to get somewhere?...There is a disturbance psychologically and the conditioned response to that disturbance is to quiet it. There are a million 'methods' that are brought into play to accomplish that and "staying with" the feeling/disturbance can become another one. But as you've pointed out, any movement in relation to the disturbance for whatever reason, only continues the process in another form. It strengthens the conditioning. That's pretty clear. It is only the 'I' that acts (that arises?) to meet the disturbance, isn't it? But is 'awareness' possible? Awareness (naked, unadorned, choiceless?) that only sees what is there but has no 'mind' to change/suppress/substitute/etc. but along with intelligence understands that to change it is to continue it and to 'do' nothing allows it to dissipate, or dissolve?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Mar 2019 #393
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4900 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
That's pretty clear.

Yes

Dan McDermott wrote:
But is 'awareness' possible?

That is the question, certainly. naked, unadorned, choiceless, as you say, and also without direction. Not trying to achieve anything, even trying to achieve that state of awareness. Of course thought tries to answer this question, in all sorts of subtle ways, but thought is not awareness, is it. The awareness of this brings about, does it not?, an immediacy, an urgency, which is the negation of the "numbness" of which we were talking.

But it almost seems that the 'natural state' of the mind is lack of awareness, inattention. Which I relate to the pursuit of the self to continue itself. And it can only continue (or rather have the illusion of continuity) through thought.

Would you say that thought and awareness are simply antithetic, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Mar 2019 #394
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1160 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Would you say that thought and awareness are simply antithetic, Dan?

Yes in the sense that one is always in the present and the other in the past... but not if intelligence/awareness is present to thought...then as K and D.B. discussed, when intelligence is present thought can run "parallel" to it...it ceases to be ignorant of what it is doing? Like when it becomes 'aware' how divisive organized belief is, it will have nothing more to do with it...or nationalism.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 30 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Mar 2019 #395
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4900 posts in this forum Offline

I have been reading Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order", at least the first three chapters of it. I have tried to tackle this book several times in the past, without much understanding, but this time I can certainly relate to much of what he has to say. He talks of Intelligence in the same vein as you do, Dan. I will post the quote later, as I do not have much time at the moment.

What I want to do first is post the following excerpt, the second paragraph of chapter 3:

I regard the essence of the notion of process as given by the statement: Not only is everything changing, but all is flux. That is to say, 'what is' is the process of becoming itself, while all objects, events, conditions, structures, etc, are forms that can be abstracted from this process.

Can anyone help with the understanding of the words in bold?

And another question comes now, is there any difference between saying:

All is flux

and

All is IN flux?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 Mar 2019 #396
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1160 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
, 'what is' is the process of becoming itself,

Nothing has permanence. Everything comes and goes. Our senses 'abstract' things from the 'flux'. This for us gives things a sense of relative permanence. Things for us have a 'duration' in time that is totally subjective. That is our reality. Are there different 'scales of time ' in the universe? Probably. But as humans, we consciously can 'partake'....unless 'we' stay stuck to the 'I process'. (?)

The 'I' is forever sorrow because it has made an image of 'freedom'. It is an image made up of time, a future when 'it' could be realized somehow...but freedom is not an image and freedom has no limit, no time.
We see the trap but "numbness" to the truth keeps us falling back into it?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 31 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 Mar 2019 #397
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1160 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
and also without direction. (from #393)

And that may be the most important Clive.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 Mar 2019 #398
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4900 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Nothing has permanence. Everything comes and goes. Our senses 'abstract' things from the 'flux'. This for us gives things a sense of relative permanence. Things for us have a 'duration' in time that is totally subjective. That is our reality.

More and more I feel that I have a feel for the fact nothing has permanence,continuity. And clearly thought invented the self to try to give itself permanence, continuity. To see that all is flux is not a theory, not an idea, it permeates one's life. There is a sense nothing really IS, is in the sense having duration.

But still I feel something may be eluding me in the words:

'what is' is the process of becoming itself.

Can you have another shot at it, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 Mar 2019 #399
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4900 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

Clive: Would you say that thought and awareness are simply antithetic, Dan?

Dan: Yes in the sense that one is always in the present and the other in the past... but not if intelligence/awareness is present to thought...then as K and D.B. discussed, when intelligence is present thought can run "parallel" to it...it ceases to be ignorant of what it is doing? Like when it becomes 'aware' how divisive organized belief is, it will have nothing more to do with it...or nationalism.

In the book "Wholeness and the implicate order", firstly Bohm denies that intelligence could be a movement of conditioning
(https://thepsionblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/22/david-bohm-on-intelligence/)

Then he says:

What, then, is the relationship of intelligence to thought? Briefly, one can say that when brain/thought functions on its own, it is mechanical and not intelligent, because it imposes its own generally irrelevant and unsuitable order drawn from memory. Thought is, however, capable of responding, not only from memory but also to the unconditioned perception of intelligence that can see, in each case, whether or not a particular line of thought is relevant and fitting.

One may perhaps usefully consider here the image of a radio receiver. When the output of the receiver ‘feeds back’ into the input, the receiver operates on its own, to produce mainly irrelevant and meaningless noise, but when it is sensitive to the signal on the radio wave, its own order of inner movement of electric currents (transformed into sound waves) is parallel to the order in the signal and thus the receiver serves to bring a meaningful order originating beyond the level of its own structure into movements on the level of its own structure. One might then suggest that in intelligent perception, the brain and nervous system respond directly to an order in the universe…“

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2019 #400
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1160 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
D.B: 'what is' is the process of becoming itself.

Clive: Can you have another shot at it, Dan?

Sure, why not? Everything that you touch, see, feel, smell, hear, etc. is coming into existence, in that moment?....Uh, I have no idea what he means,... unless it's what I said.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 01 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2019 #401
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1160 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
DB: One may perhaps usefully consider here the image of a radio receiver. When the output of the receiver ‘feeds back’ into the input, the receiver operates on its own, to produce mainly irrelevant and meaningless noise, but when it is sensitive to the signal on the radio wave, its own order of inner movement of electric currents (transformed into sound waves) is parallel to the order in the signal and thus the receiver serves to bring a meaningful order originating beyond the level of its own structure into movements on the level of its own structure. One might then suggest that in intelligent perception, the brain and nervous system respond directly to an order in the universe…“

D.B:... in intelligent perception, the brain and nervous system respond directly to an order in the universe…“

Dan: And without that "intelligent perception" we are 'tuned out' of that universal "order".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 01 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2019 #402
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4900 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Sure, why not? Everything that you touch, see, feel, smell, hear, etc. is coming into existence, in that moment?....Uh, I have no idea what he means,... unless it's what I said.

Thanks Dan.

I have penetrated, I think, into the question that I asked. Interestingly, I feel it was the very sharing of the question (not only here on the forum) that brought about this penetration. Also interestingly, I see that the penetration is an example of K’s “The answer lies in the question, not apart from the question”.

So David Bohm said: “What is' is the process of becoming itself”. In not understanding this, I see I was mislead by the word ‘becoming’. In fact I was conditioned not only by the common usage of the word, but also K’s usage – I took the word to mean becoming SOMETHING. The pursuit of an image.

But Bohm, I think I now see is referring to a PROCESS of becoming. There is no “thing” involved in this process. That is the significance of ‘process'. Can we say that it is a verb that has no subject or object? This is basically what the first three chapters of the Bohm’s book are about.

Have I understood the significance of process, or have I understood only the words? The implication of understanding seems to be that there is no self as a entity, only a process of thought which appears to create an entity.

This involves deep meditation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2019 #403
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4900 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Sure, why not? Everything that you touch, see, feel, smell, hear, etc. is coming into existence, in that moment?....Uh, I have no idea what he means,... unless it's what I said.

And what about going OUT of existence, in that moment?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Apr 2019 #404
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1160 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And what about going out of existence, in that moment?

This is actually too speculative (deep?) Clive, for me. What has interested me of late though is the way that Thought creates 'worry'. Something that we are all afflicted with. How does thought take a challenge: physical pain, monetary shortages, someone close going through problems, threat of exposure,etc., etc. and create the state in us that we describe as 'worry'? How does thought move from the challenge as something to simply be 'handled'(or not), resolved in one way or another (or not) to affecting the 'emotions' so that now there is this state we call 'worry' and 'dread'? Why? What is that process in myself? Why does it become a psychological 'problem'? Have you ever or anyone ever looked into this? Surely this is one of the 'poisons' that we all live with.

And as this is 'All One Inquiry' it seems worthwhile to explore how these emotions come about in myself. Worry, Dread, all have to do with 'thought' don't they? Self-centered thought asks: "what is going to happen to me if such and such takes place?" Psychological 'time' is a factor. Without a 'future' to consider, can 'worry' find a place? Is 'worry' simply "negative imagining" as it has been called? Does 'escaping' from negative thoughts, resistance to them, does that reaction create (is) the state itself that we recognize as fear, dread, worry?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 02 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Apr 2019 #405
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2457 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
This is actually too speculative (deep?) Clive, for me. What has interested me of late though is the way that Thought creates 'worry'. Something that we are all afflicted with. How does thought take a challenge: physical pain, monetary shortages, someone close going through problems, threat of exposure,etc., etc. and create the state in us that we describe as 'worry'?

Experience? Stored in the brain...memory, isn't it? This is what responds when there is a challenge. So our response is totally conditioned. Is there any other way to respond? Probably not, unless we are totally aware of the process of memory/experience as it acts in our daily living. Of course the reverse side of worry and fear is pleasure and all of our attachments which are based upon experience/memory....attachment to our music collection, our films, our favorite foods and wines, our sports team, etc. Most of us base our lives upon pleasure and fulfillment. Been looking into this a lot lately. Will return later, time permitting.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 02 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Apr 2019 #406
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1160 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
This is what responds when there is a challenge. So our response is totally conditioned. Is there any other way to respond? Probably not, unless we are totally aware of the process of memory/experience as it acts in our daily living.

Yes I agree we are conditioned to react with worry and dread etc. But when we find ourselves in that state of disturbance and discomfort, we react by wanting it to stop, to stop 'worrying'...that's also conditioned in us, right? To escape, substitute, change etc. But K. is saying something different: don't 'separate' yourself from it, it's what you are, don't 'move' away from it, don't 'name' it.etc. That's my question, is the moving away, thought's resistance to the image that thought itself has served up i.e., is that the disturbance itself? If there is no resistance, does the disturbance die down like the ripples from a rock dropped in water. By thought's continued elaboration of images on what the 'dreaded' future will be, does that just keep roiling the water? Is that the process?

Is the 'water' ever calm or is there always (except maybe in deep sleep without dreams) this 'under current' of anxiety?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 02 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Apr 2019 #407
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2457 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: That's my question, is the moving away, thought's resistance to the image that thought itself has served up i.e., is that the disturbance itself

IDK....isn’t fear itself a disturbance? Or anger? Of course my anger at you may be due to you not conforming to my expectation....or to my image of you. If you call me an idiot, I’m resisting the image of being an idiot, perhaps. Is that what you’re getting at? All emotional disturbance is related to images of what should or should not be?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Apr 2019 #408
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4900 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
. What has interested me of late though is the way that Thought creates 'worry'. Something that we are all afflicted with. How does thought take a challenge: physical pain, monetary shortages, someone close going through problems, threat of exposure,etc., etc. and create the state in us that we describe as 'worry'?

I am writing this before I read further post below, deliberately.

Actually, I have been asking a similar question to myself quite a lot. I put it this way:

How does one respond to so-called negative thoughts and feelings? Things that society, and hence, through conditioning, myself, condemn as undesirable, unacceptable? Or are uncomfortable, disturbing. After all, these things make up the bulk of our consciousness. They are THERE, whether we like it not. Things like anger, violence, depression, fear, annoyance, irritation, impatience, intolerance, prejudice …… How do we respond to these these?

The generally accepted way is we respond with an ideal of the opposite, don’t we? And somehow try to work towards this ideal, this positive image, through effort, suppression, resistance, pretense, etc. This does not seem to work. It may produce an appearance that is socially accepted, that is respectable, but it does not do away with the original issue. Such an approach obviously creates conflict in oneself – conflict being related to the “worry” that you brought up, Dan.

So I think we would be agreed on this forum that the idealistic approach is not solution at all, in fact it exacerbates the problem. So what do we do?

What came to me is that the very question is false. And so should not be attempted to answer it. Any attempt is thought, in the guise of the controller, the self, is the attempt of thought, and as we have often said, thought is the problem, not the solution. That is, any attempt that I make to solve a (psychological) problem is the WRONG attempt. It is merely a reaction to the problem.

I guess this would generally be seen as a radical statement, but I hold to it, for now.

It is no use drawing a conclusion from this observation, and trying to apply it – that is, saying to oneself something like “I should not attempt to solve the problem”; that is obviously more of the same. The futility of thought trying to solve the problem – as in trying to stop worrying – must be seen in the moment of reaction. It is the seeing that brings the change.

Sorry Dan, I see I have not replied to your basic question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Apr 2019 #409
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1160 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
.isn’t fear itself a disturbance? Or anger?

I would say sure.

Tom Paine wrote:
If you call me an idiot, I’m resisting the image of being an idiot, perhaps. Is that what you’re getting at? All emotional disturbance is related to images of what should or should not be?

Yes the images are there for sure and when they get threatened in any way there is 'suffering'... and 'I' am really a "bundle" of these images, like and dislike, worry and dread, etc. So as long as 'I' am intact, (the I process) there has to be suffering. As well as pleasure. But not 'freedom'. Because 'I' am limited...so why can't the whole 'package' just be let go to drift away? As K. says it's "poison". Can it be seen clearly in me, what is 'holding on'? Not the word, but the 'energy'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Apr 2019 #410
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4900 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
All emotional disturbance is related to images of what should or should not be?

What exactly is "emotional disturbance"? Does it mean that I can't carry on in my habitual patterns of behaviour? That I can't get what I want? Is it that the mind has been conditioned to regards some emotions as "disturbance" and others as pleasant?

When K said "I don't mind what happens", did that indicate he felt no "emotional disturbance"? But surely it is important to feels things deeply? Otherwise we are in this state of "numbness" that we recently talked of, are we not? But worry seems to be in a different category than straight forward feelings. It is a result of thought (the self) chewing things over, imaging threats, and how those treats might affect the mind/body. Seems to me as long as the self operates, there will be worry. Over big things or petty things.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Apr 2019 #411
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1160 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
When K said "I don't mind what happens", did that indicate he felt no "emotional disturbance"?

I don't think so from reading his analogy with a calm 'pond': into which a pebble is dropped... the disturbance, i.e. ripples, simply dissipated , they don't continue...

Clive Elwell wrote:
But surely it is important to feel things deeply? Otherwise we are in this state of "numbness" that we recently talked of, are we not?

Not sure here what you mean by "feeling things deeply", that's what the 'self' does isn't it, feels things deeply, agonizes, and then, has a conditioned reaction to that 'disturbance'? The "numbness" as I understand it is that we are too numb to realize that we are the 'self', the "poison".

Clive Elwell wrote:
But worry seems to be in a different category than straight forward feelings.

What do you see as "straight forward feelings" Clive? How do they differ from the feeling of dread, of anxiety, of fear, of loneliness, etc.?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 03 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Apr 2019 #412
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1160 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Seems to me as long as the self operates, there will be worry. Over big things or petty things.

That was my question that I tried to state before: What is the "numbness" involved that keeps me from realizing that I am the 'self'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Apr 2019 #413
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4900 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
What is the "numbness" involved that keeps me from realizing that I am the 'self'?

Is it the intellect? Thinking about things. So the past is always operating, and there can be no realizing in the past.

Recommend

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Apr 2019 #414
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2457 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: Because 'I' am limited...so why can't the whole 'package' just be let go to drift away? As K. says it's "poison".

K may realize it’s poison, but unless we ourselves see that as a fact there will be no letting go. I think many...or most... of us see this fact in small ways....or see it partially. But there’s not the seeing you describe above, that ‘I AM the self’. Back to my iPad today so participating is kind of difficult. Yesterday I had my Windows laptop out, and not only was typing much easier (I have to resort to one fingered typing on my iPad), but copying and pasting and multi quoting is possible on a Windows computer, but not on an iOS device. I use my iPad almost exclusively lately due to back pain. Kinfonet is still not iOS friendly sorry to say. Today I can’t seem to quote at all. I select some text and hit ‘quote’, and get a message that ‘no text was selected’. This happens a LOT. Multi quoting or even multi copying and pasting is out of the question with iOS devices.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Apr 2019 #415
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2457 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Dan McDermott wrote:

What is the "numbness" involved that keeps me from realizing that I am the 'self'?

Clive: Is it the intellect? Thinking about things.

The “numbness involved” is the self!

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Apr 2019 #416
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1160 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The “numbness involved” is the self!

Maybe it's just 'unthinkable' for Thought to think that it's actually only, always, talking to itself!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Apr 2019 #417
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2457 posts in this forum Offline

D: Maybe it's just 'unthinkable' for Thought to think that it's actually only, always, talking to itself!

T: plus there’s the incredible addition to pleasure....and fear, of course....fear which causes the self to want to be in control.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Apr 2019 #418
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4900 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I use my iPad almost exclusively lately due to back pain.

Sorry to hear of your difficulties, Tom, including the back pain. Is there some "speech to text" software that could help with your composing? I see apps on 'play store', and in fact the function is built into my phone.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Apr 2019 #419
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4900 posts in this forum Offline

Dan wrote:
Because 'I' am limited...so why can't the whole 'package' just be let go to drift away? As K. says it's "poison".

This is a big and complex question. Not saying we shouldn't tackle it.

More fundamentally - but I will quote directly from David Bohm:

“...Fragmentation is continually being brought about by the almost universal habit of taking the content of our thought for ‘a description of the world as it is’.

Or we could say, in this habit, our thought is regarded as in direct correspondence with objective reality”.

I don’t know if I am over-simplifying his words to render them thus: “Thought thinks that it is true”. So if thought - I am referring to the thought that is happening NOW - thinks it is true, why should it let go, why should it "drift away"?

I quote from Bohm again:

“Our theories are to be regarded primarily as ways of looking at the world as a whole, rather than ‘absolutely true knowledge of how things are’”

I should add that Bohm is using the word ‘theory’ in a wider sense that is usual. It is a way of looking, and NOT a form of knowledge.

So can we cease to regard thought as “a true copy of reality as it is”? Or rather can thought cease to regard itself in this way? It seems to me this is the real revolution of the mind.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 03 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Apr 2019 #420
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2457 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Sorry to hear of your difficulties, Tom, including the back pain. Is there some "speech to text" software that could help with your composing?

Was thinking the same about speech recognition apps. Yes, perhaps my tablet can do that. Won't help with quoting but would solve the one finger typing issue. The back pain is relatively mild, thanks. I'm being careful so it remains mild. Bending over my laptop keyboard and typing aggravates the issue unfortunately.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 391 - 420 of 470 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.)