Clive Elwell wrote:
Would you say more, Dan?

This little exchange got me for some reason:

Bohm: To reach the unconscious you have to have an action which doesn't directly appeal to the conscious.
Krishnamurti: Yes. That is affection, that is love. When you talk to my waking consciousness, it is hard, clever, subtle, brittle. And you penetrate that, say, all right, keep your own beastly little stuff, and you penetrate it with your look, with your affection, with all the feeling you have. That operates, not anything else.

Dan McDermott wrote:
This little exchange got me for some reason:

Perhaps it touched your unconscious mind. No, I won't say "your" unconscious mind, "the" unconscious mind.

Yes, it is remarkable. Perhaps we all have some sense that affection penetrates the defenses of the conscious mind.

Tom Paine wrote:
Aren't ideals and religious and political beliefs and divisions a fact for man? This is the 'me' in action.

I can only really give the same answer as before. Yes, it is a fact that the human mind is seeped in ideals, in beliefs and ideologies of various kinds. Mind is divided from mind, that is a fact. Why does the mind act this way? Basically, because it is seeking security, no? But security is not a fact, is it? Non-security is a fact. So the mind behaves as it does based on non-fact, not fact.

Tom Paine wrote:
It is the fact of the ‘me’ that leads to all the violence and insanity, isn’t it?

No, it is the illusion of the me that is so destructive. A world based on fact might be a very different place.

President Trump whom you mention, he does not operate from fact does he? As far as I can see, he operates based on the denial and distortion of fact.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

It is the fact of the ‘me’ that leads to all the violence and insanity, isn’t it?

No, it is the illusion of the me that is so destructive. A world based on fact might be a very different place.

Ah, I see now where you are misunderstanding how I'm using the word 'me'. I understand the 'me' to be greed, ambition, belief, ideals, inner conflict, violence, etc. The 'me' is all that...and those attributes of consciousness are a fact for man. I get that you're implying that there is no 'me' who owns all those attributes...no 'me' who is being greedy or angry, but only greed or anger itself. I would agree there. But the 'me' I'm referring to IS the greed, anger, beliefs, ideals, etc.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 02 Dec 2018.

Found this on the general forum, Clive. It's what I was calling the 'me'....what K calls the 'self':

" You know what I mean by the self? By that, I mean the idea, the memory, the conclusion, the experience, the various forms of namable and unnamable intentions, the conscious endeavor to be or not to be, the accumulated memory of the unconscious, the racial, the group, the individual, the clan, and the whole of it all, whether it is projected outwardly in action, or projected spiritually as virtue; the striving after all this is the self. In it is included the competition, the desire to be. The whole process of that, is the self;

The Book of Life, February 6, HarperSanFrancisco, 1995

Let it Be

Ursula K. Le Guin on suffering

It exists… It’s real. I can call it a misunderstanding, but I can’t pretend that it doesn’t exist, or will ever cease to exist. Suffering is the condition on which we live. And when it comes, you know it. You know it as the truth. Of course it’s right to cure diseases, to prevent hunger and injustice, as the social organism does. But no society can change the nature of existence. We can’t prevent suffering. This pain and that pain, yes, but not Pain. A society can only relieve social suffering, unnecessary suffering. The rest remains. The root, the reality. All of us here are going to know grief; if we live fifty years, we’ll have known pain for fifty years… And yet, I wonder if it isn’t all a misunderstanding — this grasping after happiness, this fear of pain… If instead of fearing it and running from it, one could… get through it, go beyond it. There is something beyond it. It’s the self that suffers, and there’s a place where the self—ceases. I don’t know how to say it. But I believe that the reality — the truth that I recognize in suffering as I don’t in comfort and happiness — that the reality of pain is not pain. If you can get through it. If you can endure it all the way.

Tom Paine wrote:
I understand the 'me' to be greed, ambition, belief, ideals, inner conflict, violence, etc. The 'me' is all that...and those attributes of consciousness are a fact for man. I get that you're implying that there is no 'me' who owns all those attributes...no 'me' who is being greedy or angry, but only greed or anger itself. I would agree there. But the 'me' I'm referring to IS the greed, anger, beliefs, ideals, etc.

i would prefer to say that the me is the idea, the illusion, BEHIND all these attributes of consciousness.

Clive Elwell wrote:
But the 'me' I'm referring to IS the greed, anger, beliefs, ideals, etc.
i would prefer to say that the me is the idea, the illusion, BEHIND all these attributes of consciousness.

So, in your view, Clive, the self is only an image...the ‘me’ image? But there are other ideas and illusions in consciousness, right? What about hatred and anti-Semitism? What about political ideals? Religious beliefs? Is the self image responsible for racism....hatred? What about the pleasurable images that I build my life around? My attachment to all those? And my desires, my ambition to be a great artist or actor? You’re saying that the illusion of a separate ‘me’ is at the core of that and all of what I was referring to as the ‘me’? I’m not sure I’d agree. What about all the other ideas and ideals in consciousness? There is the fact that I have an image of my wife or child or neighbor....if in fact I do. As I see it, the me/self is the totality of our day to day consciousness including our emotions and reactions and actions. This might be a good topic for a new thread. Perhaps I will start one, time permitting. Here’s the QOTD from K. It might apply to what we’ve been discussing: “The mind is essentially limited and whatever it creates is of itself. Its gods, its values, its objectives and activities are narrow and measurable, and so it cannot understand that which is not of itself - the immeasurable.“ Ojai, 1946

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 03 Dec 2018.

When I turn to Kinfonet this morning, I find there are two challenges waiting for me, one from Peter and another from Tom. If my starting point to the challenges is what I said yesterday, if I feel I have to somehow defend something that was stated yesterday – well, that gets nowhere, does it? That is not inquiry, that is stagnation. Today is a new day – actually, it actually is a new day, and its newness demands that I look at things afresh.

I am not trying to wriggle out of what was said :-)

This is what came sometime after reading the mails:

“Is there hate without the entity who hates?”

Is there fear, psychologically, if there is no experiencer of that fear? Is there pleasure without any entity to feel that pleasure? Is there anti-semitism if there is no one who has that feeling, that reaction? Are there beliefs if there is no one, nothing, to hold on to belief? And so on. I suggest tentatively that there is not, and so, seen in this light, the answer to Tom’s question is yes, the illusion of a separate self IS at the core of all the movements of the mind.

Tom Paine wrote:
So, in your view, Clive, the self is only an image...the ‘me’ image?

I don’t want to have a view, which implies sticking to some conclusion. I want to inquire into what is true, and I see that in order to do that, I have to continually discard all my viewpoints of yesterday. Discard all the time really.

Is the self only an image? you ask, Tom. Well, when “I” look for it, I see no sign of anything actual. I do not see any entity, anything permanent, anything of substance, that might be called the self. I only see thought creating things, creating the idea of a self, projecting the concept of a self-entity.

Tom Paine wrote:
There is the fact that I have an image of my wife or child or neighbor....if in fact I do

Yes, there are many such images, - but what is behind their creation? It is the ME that has such images, is it not? If there was no me to have images of others, could such images exist?

Tom Paine wrote:
As I see it, the me/self is the totality of our day to day consciousness including our emotions and reactions and actions.

I have problems with the word “totality”. Whether or not K uses the word, I do not see any totality in the mind. I only see fragments. And the ‘entity’ that does the looking is another fragment. But do please start a thread.

Tom Paine wrote:

As I see it, the me/self is the totality of our day to day consciousness including our emotions and reactions and actions.

Clive: I have problems with the word “totality”. Whether or not K uses the word, I do not see any totality in the mind. I only see fragments.

Tom: Right....I’m speaking of the totality of the fragments as the totality of our daily consciousness. As long as the observer is a fragment he will see fragments. Perhaps you have to be outside it(self) to to understand what self is.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 04 Dec 2018.

Tom Paine wrote:

So, in your view, Clive, the self is only an image...the ‘me’ image?

Clive: I don’t want to have a view, which implies sticking to some conclusion.

Tom: I only meant, ‘according to your understanding’ by ‘in your view’.

Let it Be

Tom Paine wrote:
.I’m speaking of the totality of the fragments

So what, to you, is this totality, Tom? Just how do the fragments come together to make a total, a whole? Perhaps it doesn't work that way, but how is this totality perceived?

Here is Krishnamurti with rather a new take on sorrow. From talk 4 in Madras, 3 December 1961:

The ending of sorrow is the denial of authority. It is only the dull mind that is a sorrowful mind, not the sensitive mind. It is only the mind that has accumulated knowledge and is held by it, that has sorrow - not the sensitive mind, not the enquiring mind, not the mind that is questioning, asking. Such a mind is not asking for a reply, is not questioning to find out, but it puts the question, because it is a marvellous thing to put the question without seeking an answer, because the question then becomes unravelled, it begins to open the doors and windows of your own mind. and so, through this questioning, watching, listening, your mind becomes extraordinarily sensitive. Therefore, such a mind is capable of affection and that affection has its own integrity. And such affection, such integrity, has the catholicity to bring about a new mind. Not ideas, not theories, not listening to innumerable talks and reading innumerable books and repeating endless phrases, but only these two, affection without motive and integrity, bring about a new mind. Then you will know for yourself what is a new mind. You know there is a difference between the mind and the brain is that the brain is essentially sensuous. It has been built up through the centuries, educated and conditioned. It is the storehouse of memory. And this brain controls all our thoughts, shapes our thinking; and every thought shapes the brain to function in a particular way. If you notice a scientist, an engineer, a specialist or a technician, you find that when he has been trained, year after year, for a particular groove endlessly, he may become an excellent mechanic, a marvellous technician. But his mind, the totality of his mind, is very little, because he has not investigated the whole question of the mind. To him, the little thing - the specialized life - is everything. Its response answers to every demand of the immediate. So our brain becomes all-important. It has its own importance; but to go beyond the brain, it is necessary to have a brain that is highly sensitive and quiet, not asleep, not drugged by all the mechanical things.

Yesterday I met with an acquaintance whom I had not seen for some months. I have been watching how his life develops for some years now. When I first met him he had a certain passion of enquiry, but that faded when he married, as I thought it would.

At first everything seemed to go well for him. He was successful at work, in IT. He enjoyed being married, the centre of his life was there, and he had two children whom he appreciated greatly. He started playing the stock market, and was so successful he talked of making a good living that way. He frequently returned, with his family, to his native country, and a couple of years ago bought land and arranged for a house to be built.

As I say I watched his life, with, I must admit, the expectation that things would start to go wrong. They did. He became more and more discontented at work, with the false face he felt his colleagues always showed. But his plans to earn a living on stocks and shares fell through, I believe he lost a considerable sum of money. Back in his native countries the person he had entrusted with his house-building somehow failed him, or cheated him, I’m not sure, although he was an old friend.

Why do I write all this on the forum? I do so because I am asking why. Why do things always seem to go wrong? Why does what is initially full of promise always wither? Why does sorrow always creep in under the door? You may think I am generalising too much, but such is my observation of life. Love ends, relationships fail, become full of bitterness. Why is this the pattern of existence? It is so predictable. I strongly suspect when his children start to attend school, great problems will develop in that area of his life also, as the children – lovely children they are now, too - become influenced by their peers, when they become part of that whole reality of modern day education/condition and ‘growing up’, and the family looses its hold on them.

Why is this the human situation? Is thought at the root of the problem? Is it that the self contaminates, corrupts, whatever it touches, whatever it comes near even? Is whatever it tries to achieve doomed to frustration? Looking at the world, it certainly seems that way.

What do others have to say?

Tom Paine wrote:

.I’m speaking of the totality of the fragments

Clive: So what, to you, is this totality, Tom? Just how do the fragments come together to make a total, a whole?

Tom: They don’t make a whole ...consciousness is just a collection of fragments and the interaction of fragments. But it’s not a whole. What I call ‘I’ is a fragment created by the other fragments. it may in fact seem that the fragments come together to make a whole which I call myself. But that myself is also a fragment ...not a whole.

Let it Be

Clive Elwell wrote:

Why is this the human situation? Is thought at the root of the problem? Is it that the self contaminates, corrupts, whatever it touches, whatever it comes near even? Is whatever it tries to achieve doomed to frustration? Looking at the world, it certainly seems that way.

Clive

I think that it has something to do with something Boem said to K. in one of their talks: we took the wrong road because we could. The animals don't have those options...the possibility of thought, of reflection, on why we are here, where we are going...It may be absolutely necessary to come to this awareness of our own "loneliness", fear, despair etc. without pushing it away, but to see it in a whole different way. We have run from it forever.

Also it occurs to me, and this gets to the question, we have been able up to a point to construct a physical situation for ourselves to get by, some lavishly, some with next to nothing. And that ingenuity in the physical world has passed into the psychological. We have sought to create an 'order' there with a self-centered image. Maybe the 'trouble' starts right there. The 'construction' of the 'self' has to be defended. It has to be 'enhanced'. It has to be protected and it can never be totally because it is completely artificial.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 05 Dec 2018.

Dan McDermott wrote:
We have sought to create an 'order' there with a self-centered image. Maybe the 'trouble' starts right there. The 'construction' of the 'self' has to be defended. It has to be 'enhanced'. It has to be protected and it can never be totally because it is completely artificial.

Who is the ‘we’ but the image? Images simply happen due to our faculty of memory. And the images create pleasure and fear. K. said, and I can only paraphrase, that the desire for more of the pleasurable image/s is the beginning of the self. It’s these pleasurable memories which ‘we’ protect and want to prolong and continue. Is that it? It all begins in thought, that’s for certain. It’s not clear what you mean in the last sentence, Dan, by ‘never be totally’. It is totally false, that much is clear. Anything false can’t be anything at all. It doesn’t exist other than in image/thought/memory/consciousness. It is the center of consciousness....I think K called it the ‘false center’. Consciousness itself, as we know it, is the self, according to Bernadette Roberts (‘What is Self)...an interesting though difficult book. Out of print I think, but it used to be available online as a pdf, I think. Today’s QOTD is very relevant here, so I’ll share it:

Ojai, California | 7th Talk in the Oak Grove 17th May, 1936

“Life is every moment in a state of being born, arising, coming into being. In this arising, coming into being, in this itself there is no continuity, nothing that can be identified as permanent. Life is in constant movement, action; each moment of this action has never been before, and will never be again. But each new moment forms a continuity of movement.

Now, consciousness forms its own continuity as an individuality, through the action of ignorance, and clings, with desperate craving, to this identification. What is that something to which each one clings, hoping that it may be immortal, or that it may conceal the permanent, or that beyond it may lie the eternal?

This something that each one clings to is the consciousness of individuality. This consciousness is composed of many layers of memories, which come into being, or remain present, where there is ignorance, craving, want. Craving, want, tendency in any form, must create conflict between itself and that which provokes it, that is, the object of want; this conflict between craving and the object craved appears in consciousness as individuality. So it is this friction, really, that seeks to perpetuate itself. What we intensely desire to have continue is nothing but this friction, this tension between the various forms of craving and their provoking agents. This friction, this tension, is that consciousness which sustains individuality.”

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 05 Dec 2018.

Tom Paine wrote:
They don’t make a whole ...consciousness is just a collection of fragments and the interaction of fragments. But it’s not a whole. What I call ‘I’ is a fragment created by the other fragments. it may in fact seem that the fragments come together to make a whole which I call myself. But that myself is also a fragment ...not a whole.

I would go along with the above. Thought is fragmented, that is a fact. So I don't understand how one can talk of the "totality", as when you write:

"I’m speaking of the totality of the fragments".

And in #71 you wrote:
"As I see it, the me/self is the totality of our day to day consciousness including our emotions and reactions and actions"

Is this totality a fact or a concept? If it is a concept then it is another fragment, is it not?

Sorry if I am pushing this too hard, Tom, but perhaps I am missing something, or have a misconception.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Sorry if I am pushing this too hard, Tom, but perhaps I am missing something, or have a misconception.

No need for an apology, Clive. I was struggling to express something that was seen and understood to be true/fact. I'm sorry that my words weren't clear. Words/thought struggle to explain a perception that is outside the realm of words/thought....that is a totally different dimension.

Let it Be

Dan McDermott wrote:
I think that it has something to do with something Boem said to K. in one of their talks: we took the wrong road because we could.

This is intriguing. Are you able to place the words, Dan?

[cut]

Also it occurs to me, and this gets to the question, we have been able up to a point to construct a physical situation for ourselves to get by, some lavishly, some with next to nothing. And that ingenuity in the physical world has passed into the psychological. We have sought to create an 'order' there with a self-centered image. Maybe the 'trouble' starts right there. The 'construction' of the 'self' has to be defended. It has to be 'enhanced'. It has to be protected and it can never be totally because it is completely artificial.

I am sure what you say about the impossibility of defending the self is true, Dan, but I'm not sure that it addresses my question. We have tremendous technical ability, but we are unable to use that ability to bring about security, both personally and globally - quite the reverse. At times I feel that life is "deliberately" acting to frustrate all such movement. No matter how careful one is, frustration is lying in wait for us. Of course "how careful one is" indicates the action of the self.

Perhaps the answer lies in the quote Tom has put up, beginning:

“Life is every moment in a state of being born, arising, coming into being. In this arising, coming into being, in this itself there is no continuity, nothing that can be identified as permanent. Life is in constant movement, action; each moment of this action has never been before, and will never be again".

Dan McDermott wrote:
I think that it has something to do with something Boem said to K. in one of their talks: we took the wrong road because we could.

This is intriguing. Are you able to place the words, Dan?

[cut]

Also it occurs to me, and this gets to the question, we have been able up to a point to construct a physical situation for ourselves to get by, some lavishly, some with next to nothing. And that ingenuity in the physical world has passed into the psychological. We have sought to create an 'order' there with a self-centered image. Maybe the 'trouble' starts right there. The 'construction' of the 'self' has to be defended. It has to be 'enhanced'. It has to be protected and it can never be totally because it is completely artificial.

I am sure what you say about the impossibility of defending the self is true, Dan, but I'm not sure that it addresses my question. We have tremendous technical ability, but we are unable to use that ability to bring about security, both personally and globally - quite the reverse. At times I feel that life is "deliberately" acting to frustrate all such movement. No matter how careful one is, frustration is lying in wait for us. Of course "how careful one is" indicates the action of the self.

Perhaps the answer lies in the quote Tom has put up, beginning:

“Life is every moment in a state of being born, arising, coming into being. In this arising, coming into being, in this itself there is no continuity, nothing that can be identified as permanent. Life is in constant movement, action; each moment of this action has never been before, and will never be again".

Clive Elwell wrote:
And in #71 you wrote:
"As I see it, the me/self is the totality of our day to day consciousness including our emotions and reactions and actions"

Is this totality a fact or a concept? If it is a concept then it is another fragment, is it not?

I'll give it another try. The me is consciousness....all of it....every movement in consciousness....of consciousness. This is how Bernadette Roberts put it, and I have been seeing the same. By the 'totality of consciousness', I meant, ALL of it.
Have to finish up dinner. May return to this topic later.

Let it Be

Tom Paine wrote:
By the 'totality of consciousness', I meant, ALL of it.

Does that mean every movement of the fragments, one by one?

Clive Elwell wrote:
Dan McDermott wrote:

I think that it has something to do with something Boem said to K. in one of their talks: we took the wrong road because we could.

Clive: This is intriguing. Are you able to place the words, Dan?

Sorry I can't. The way I took it though is that the animals here have their courses pretty well set through instinct, but we with our more complex brains, we were 'free' to take a 'wrong turn'. And because we could, we did.

Clive Elwell wrote:
No matter how careful one is, frustration is lying in wait for us. Of course "how careful one is" indicates the action of the self.

That is what I was getting at, that the self-image, the 'me' is an artificial construction created for protection. Physical protection is necessary of course, but is psychological protection necessary (or was that just a 'wrong turning')? The 'self' gets hurt and it ('I') suffers. So isn't the presence of this self-image, the root of conflict and suffering (not to mention pleasure)? Isn't it the constant buttressing of this artificial center in us (our 'individuality') through its cravings and wants, that divides us in the ways we are all divided?

When I say to myself, "I don't want to die", isn't that 'I' the very 'entity' that must be 'died to' every day?

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

By the 'totality of consciousness', I meant, ALL of it.

Does that mean every movement of the fragments, one by one?

Each movement and every movement...ALL movement(psychological) other than in practical matters.

Let it Be

Dan McDermott wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:

No matter how careful one is, frustration is lying in wait for us. Of course "how careful one is" indicates the action of the self.

That is what I was getting at, that the self-image, the 'me' is an artificial construction created for protection. Physical protection is necessary of course, but is psychological protection necessary (or was that just a 'wrong turning')? The 'self' gets hurt and it ('I') suffers.

Yes, to the part above in bold. The self by its very nature creates conflict and frustration (it IS conflict?), I think. Isn't our pursuit of pleasure an escape from this conflict....and doesn't it lead to more of the same frustration and conflict? Not only 'within' but also conflict externally in the world. This last part is obvious of course with just a glance at the daily news. Some people seem to create a little 'bubble' that they live in that gives the illusion of happiness and security....perhaps they are very wealthy and have a successful career and a relatively happy family. But as you point out Clive, it almost always ends in tragedy and/or suffering....loneliness, depression, business failure, kids who are alienated from the parents and have suffering of their own, and divorce (which is all too prevalent). I'm thinking of the young man I knew who lived for sports....was a tremendous success in high school, gaining great accolades and status and pleasure. He was a 'star' athlete, with all that word represents in American culture. He had great dreams to be a college star as well, but was injured in his first season and was cut from the team. I think he must have suffered very badly, since his whole world was centered around his athletic pursuits. So this kind of thing is waiting for us all when we live in pursuit of such goals. I had my own suffering that was a result of my pursuit of a successful career in music, and when younger, a career in art. Of course one can participate in sports or music for the sheer joy of it. Then there is no attachment with its inevitable suffering. If success comes, it comes, if not there's no issue.

From Clive in #82:
We have tremendous technical ability, but we are unable to use that ability to bring about security, both personally and globally - quite the reverse. At times I feel that life is "deliberately" acting to frustrate all such movement. No matter how careful one is, frustration is lying in wait for us.

Yes, to the first sentence. Because we are not interested in simple physical security. We want the continuity of our pleasure and our psychological security, which makes physical security impossible. We see how the rich and powerful even in ancient times grabbed all the physical resources of the society for themselves...for their pleasure and security....and the poor were made to suffer, either as slaves or serfs/peasants, toiling on the land owned by the rich ruling classes. We might discuss this 'psychological security' further at some time, as it's an important point, I think.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 06 Dec 2018.

Ah, I see Dev is coming to our aide again with a very pertinent QOTD: from Ojai in 1945:

K. "We need a certain security to live; we need food, clothes and shelter, without which existence is not possible. It would be a comparatively simple matter to organize and distribute effectively if we were satisfied with our daily fundamental needs only. Then there would be no individual, no national assertiveness, competitive expansion and ruthlessness; there would be no need for separate sovereign governments; there would be no wars if we were wholly satisfied with our daily needs. But we are not."

Let it Be

Clive Elwell wrote:
At times I feel that life is "deliberately" acting to frustrate all such movement. No matter how careful one is, frustration is lying in wait for us.

There is another possible way to put it, although it may sound fanciful. That life will always provide us with the challenges we need. How am I using the word "need"? To keep us awake? To point us away from false directions, and towards the direction of transformation?