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

How to look


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 106 in total
Tue, 17 Dec 2019 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

From the J Krishnamurti Online daily quote:

There is a vast field, a complex area in the human mind that has not been explored. You don’t have to go to India or a Zen monastery to learn about yourself; you can learn about yourself where you are because that is the world in which you live: your neighbour, wife or husband, and so on. The micro world is the large world if one knows how to look at that small world.

SO what is this "how to look". I think I see that what the mind usually does is thought looks at thought - which can hardly be called looking at all. It is comment, it is interpretation, it is analysis. Coming from thought, such "looking" must always be partial, fragmentary, limited, distorted. It is never complete, never whole. It should have a separate name, "thought-looking" perhaps. But really it is only thought.

"Can one look without the word" K has asked over and over again. In the above quote he says "if one knows how to look", but I am sure that "how" does not imply a method, a technique. What does it mean? Where does it come from?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Dec 2019 #2
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

SO what is this "how to look". I think I see that what the mind usually does is thought looks at thought - which can hardly be called looking at all. It is comment, it is interpretation, it is analysis. Coming from thought, such "looking" must always be partial, fragmentary, limited, distorted. It is never complete, never whole. It should have a separate name, "thought-looking" perhaps. But really it is only thought.

Right...it’s thought. Like in Ks example of looking at the tree....we look through the label and the screen of knowledge we’ve accumulated and accepted about the tree, but don’t really look. There’s a superficial seeing...the eyes perceive the tree...but we don’t see the tree as it actually is because thought interferes. OK....probably nothing new here....we’re probably all well aware of this superficial way we look. So, I haven’t answered your first question at all, have I? I’ve only described how we DO NOT look in the sense K talks about. Will come back to this later. Perhaps others will have something positive to say about Ks way of real looking...observing.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 17 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Dec 2019 #3
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

On awareness which touches on your question Clive...from the QOTD. There’s that big ‘if’ in there however.

Sarobia, Pennsylvania | Notes from Sarobia discussions 1940

Self-analysis and awareness are two different things; the one is morbid. but awareness is joyous. Self-analysis takes place after action is past: out of that analysis mind creates a pattern to which a future action is forced to conform. Thus there comes about a rigidity of thought and action. Self-analysis is death and awareness is life. Self-analysis only leads to the creation of pattern and imitation, and so there is no release from bondage, from frustration. Awareness is at the moment of action; if one is aware, then one understands comprehensively, as a whole, the cause and effect of action, the imitative process of fear, its reactions, and so on. This awareness frees thought from those causes and influences which limit and hold it, without creating further bondages, and so thought become deeply pliable which is to be deathless. Self-analysis or introspection takes place before or after action, thus preparing for the future and limiting it. Awareness is a constant process of liberation.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Dec 2019 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
OK....probably nothing new here....we’re probably all well aware of this superficial way we look.

If we are truly aware of this superficial looking, - one might call it 'false looking' - then would this awareness (which is in itself a form of direct looking, is it not) not in itself bring about change?

When we look at something directly - can we call this state 'seeing'? - does this seeing not necessarily bring about change? This certainly seemed to be the case with K. Is this not how his talks proceeded? And the amazing thing that was revealed when Quantum Theory was begun to be understood was that when a scientist looked at something, that something was profoundly changed.

So one has to ask are we really aware of the superficial way we look?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Dec 2019 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
and so thought become deeply pliable which is to be deathless.

This is remarkable

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Dec 2019 #6
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Where is death when there is no self?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Dec 2019 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Where is death when there is no self?

I am just about to make a post on death in the "the question to life's answers" thread.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Dec 2019 #8
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

How to look? The idea of "Relationship" keeps coming up in my mind.

Relationship as a kind of mirror or "that which exposes" who we are.

The Relationship to the other person through dialogue - where there is lack of understanding as we are exposed as "fearful calculators" as if in a game of chess, rather than in a meeting of hearts/minds.

The Relationship we have with our own thoughts.

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Thu, 19 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Dec 2019 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

I have been watching the mind in the light of this question, 'how to look' I repeat again that of course "how" does not signify any sort of method, of system.

When I becomes sufficiently aware of one's thoughts, one starts to realise that they are not 'one's thoughts'. They are simply thoughts, with the added considerable complication that thought has invented a thinker who claims to do the thinking. And we are deeply conditioned into this pattern of the thinker, the observer, who thinks or claims that he is looking. This is the "seeing with the eyes of the past" that K refers to, isn't it? And it becomes more and more obvious that this 'way' of looking is limited, fragmented, distorted. it is incapable of "seeing the whole picture", it can only see part of the picture, like the blind men and the elephant in the old story.

Here is an extract from K on what he calls “seeing totally”. Once again he uses the word “arduous”; it is arduous to look without the word, he says:

Now, what is "seeing totally'? First of all, what is seeing? Is it only the word? Please follow this a little carefully, if you do not mind. When you say,"I see', what do you mean? Do not answer me, please, but just go with me. I am not setting myself up as your authority, and you are not my followers. I have not got any, thank God! We are together enquiring into this question of seeing, because it is very important, as you will discover for yourselves.

When you say, "I see that tree', do you actually see it, or are you merely satisfied with the words"I see'? Do think about it. Let us take it slowly. Do you say, `That's an oak, a pine, an elm', whatever it may be, and pass it by? If so, it indicates that you are not seeing the tree, because you are caught in the word. It is only when you understand that the word is not important, and can set aside the symbol, the term, the name, that you can look. It is a very arduous thing, to look, because it means that the name, the word, with all the remembrances, the reminiscences associated with the word, must be put aside. You do not look at me. You have certain ideas about me; I have a certain reputation and all that, and that is preventing you from seeing. If you can strip the mind of all that absurdity, then you can see; and that seeing is entirely different from the seeing through the word.
Now, can you look at your gods, your favourite pleasures, your feelings of nobility, of spirituality and all that business - stripped of the word? That is very arduous and very few people are willing really to look. Such seeing is total, because it is no longer associated with the word and the memories, the feelings the word evokes. So, seeing something totally implies that there is no division, that there is no reaction to what is being seen: there is merely the seeing. And the seeing of the fact in itself brings about a series of actions which are dissociated from the word, the memory, the opinions and ideas. This is not an intellectual feat, though it may sound to be one. Being intellectual or being emotional is rather stupid. But to see fear totally frees the mind from fear.

Now, we do not see anything totally because we are always looking at things through the brain. This does not mean that the brain should not be used; on the contrary we must use our brain to its highest capacity. But it is the function of the brain to break up things; it has been educated to observe in parts, to learn in parts, not totally. To be aware of the world, of the earth totally, implies no sense of nationality, no traditions, no gods, no churches, no dividing up of the land and breaking up of the earth into coloured maps. And seeing mankind as human beings, implies no segregation as Europeans, Americans, Russians, Chinese or Indians. But the brain refuses to see totally the earth and the man upon it, because the brain has been conditioned through centuries of education, tradition and propaganda. So the brain, with all its mechanical habits, its animal instincts, its urge to remain in safety, in security, can never see anything totally. And yet it is the brain which dominates us; it is the brain that is functioning all the time.

Please do not jump to the idea that there must be something besides the brain, that there must be a spirit in us which we must get into touch with, and all that nonsense. I am going step by step; so please follow it, if you will.

So the brain is conditioned - through habit, through propaganda, through education, through all the daily influences, the pettiness of life, and through its own everlasting chatter. And with that brain we look. That brain, when it listens to what is being said, when it looks at a tree, at a picture, when it reads a poem or listens to a concert, is always partial; it always reacts in terms of "I like' and"I dislike', what is profitable and what is not profitable. It is the function of the brain to react, otherwise you would be destroyed overnight. So it is the brain, with all its reactions, memories, urges, and compulsions - conscious as well as unconscious - which looks, sees, listens and feels. But the brain, being in itself partial, in itself the product of time and space, of all education - which we have described - , cannot see totally. It is always comparing, judging, evaluating. But it is the function of the brain to react and to evaluate; so, to see things totally the brain must be in abeyance, quiet. I hope I am explaining myself clearly.

So, the total seeing of something can only take place when the brain is highly sensitive, highly responsive to reason, to doubt, to questioning, and yet recognizes the limitations of reasoning, doubting, questioning, and therefore does not allow itself to interfere with what is being seen. If you really want to discover something other than the product of the brain, the brain must first go to its limit, questioning, arguing, discussing, wanting to find out and knowing its own limited, partial existence; and that very experience of knowing the limitation, quietens the mind, the brain. Then there is total seeing.

When one can see the totality of order - with all the implications which we have more or less gone into - then one will see that out of that total comprehension comes a wholly different kind of order. Surely, the right order can only come when there is the destruction of the mind that demands order for its own satisfaction, security. When the brain has shattered its own creation, destroyed the soil in which it breeds all kinds of fancies, illusions, desires, wishes, then out of that destruction there is a love which creates its own order.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Dec 2019 #10
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
When I becomes sufficiently aware of one's thoughts, one starts to realise that they are not 'one's thoughts'.

Quite - may I facetiously add that at the very least I would be able to choose which thoughts to think, or to think a thought that hadn't already been used a billion times by all the confused souls that came before me.

Clive Elwell wrote:
the right order can only come when there is the destruction of the mind that demands order for its own satisfaction, security. When the brain has shattered its own creation, destroyed the soil in which it breeds

Thank you - and I might add, since the question was asked elsewhere, that this destruction cannot be an act of will, but rather a sudden, unavoidable falling away due to circumstance.
Which it would seem arises due to an extremely powerful personal need combined with a faith in the unknown/utter dissatisfaction with the known(a conditioning of the "I" that contains the seed of its own destruction)that instills a complete incapacity to come to conclusions.

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Fri, 20 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Dec 2019 #11
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
it is arduous to look without the word

Don't think of the word blue.
More than arduous, foolish to even try. Not sure he's used the best word here.

What about : Silence is when I rest in Peace?
No, thats terrible, a phrase that only the worst Guru/jokers would dare utter.

what about : Its difficult not being me?
Okay, forget it, we'll stick with what he said.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #12
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

All greatness, like love, comes to you. If you pursue love it will never come, but if you are open, still, not demanding, it will come. QOTD

Going against the grain here, but I would like to talk about practise or method.

How to listen? - By practising the above. Could we not sit down and practise the above even if we have no idea how? Practise being open and aware without reacting (or at least not reacting to our reactions). And this at first during moments of calm rather than when totally caught up in the whirlwind of our passions and actions?
So, i'm suggesting that the above quote could be an invitation to plunge into "not knowing" - Just give up, Sit down, stop trying, accept and observe what happens. Impossible task of course; so just give up, accept, observe…

Many objections will arise of course : "If I'm not pursuing anything, why am I doing this?" and "The great guru told us not to use methods" for example. He also told us not to Believe the gurus, especially not the great ones, nor the ones in our head.

Of course, in conjunction with the method described above (lets call it meditation, or fake it til you make it, or choiceless awareness for dummies); one should also use the method of priming the intellect in order for it to accept the proposition that its not only okay to let go, but that it might actually be beneficial. (By listening to K for example)

I suppose that what I'm really saying is that listening to K and interpreting what he says (as we do) is not sufficient for awakening, Clarity, understanding. It may even lead in the opposite direction. Away from openness and stillness; the prerequisites to "listening"

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Sat, 21 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
I suppose that what I'm really saying is that listening to K and interpreting what he says (as we do) is not sufficient for awakening,

Hmmmm,no. We can really listen without interpreting. I know I do, so I should probably not use the word 'we'. Doesn't that open listening happen to some of us when listening to a talk on youtube or reading a book? We stop analyzing and really listen. Or as K invites us to do, use him as a mirror....looking at ourselves. But thanks for the guru talk, Douglas. I'm sure you'll gain some followers. I'm not saying you're 'wrong'...only that it appears to be more guru talk (the authority of knowledge...no matter how deep and refined it's still limited as we know) like we get here sometimes. And yes, K does this too, but he cautions us to not take him as an authority.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #14
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
How to listen? - By practising the above. Could we not sit down and practise the above even if we have no idea how?

Sure...I'm sure many do. Practicing being open. It's a form of self deception I feel (feel free to question me of course) since it's an avoidance of what actually is...desire, fear, anger, confusion, greed. We are not actually open...that's a fact...what is... but perhaps we can look at what is making up the prison rather than pretending to have no walls around us. And the best way to observe the prison is in our daily living. In the mirror of relationship as K calls it. IMO, of course. I'm no authority in any of this.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 21 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #15
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
the best way to observe the prison is in our daily living. In the mirror of relationship

Dear Mr Paine, Are we engaged in some sort of conflictual Relationship? - I kind of do get the feeling we are.

Tom Paine wrote:
Practicing being open. It's a form of self deception I feel (feel free to question me of course)

How did you come to this conclusion?

Tom Paine wrote:
We can really listen without interpreting. I know I do,.... But thanks for the guru talk, Douglas. I'm sure you'll gain some followers.

Whats going on here?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #16
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Whats going on here?

I don’t know. I just get a strong feeling of aversion to anyone talking out of the authority of knowledge or experience. Well, that doesn’t leave much room for discussion then... perhaps

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 21 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #17
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Mr Paine, Are we engaged in some sort of conflictual Relationship?

I hope not. Do you have a problem with someone having some major disagreements with you?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 21 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #18
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Well, that doesn’t leave much room for discussion then.

Right. That pretty well shuts it down, doesn't it?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #19
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I just get a strong feeling of aversion to anyone talking out of the authority of knowledge or experience.

Thank you Mr Paine, for your honesty. So we both have the experience of being human. And you're right, conflict (or aversion) doesnt leave much room for discussion.

Anyway you have exposed me as a wannabe Guru, now everyone is forewarned, so maybe we may can proceed without danger of anyone succombing to my authority.

Now, my turn to be brutal with you Mr. Paine, for falling into a trap fit only for total beginners : for mistaking your aversion for Clarity. For reacting to your emotions by lashing out in fear and hatred.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #20
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
For reacting to your emotions by lashing out in fear and hatred.

Hatred? Wow! Projecting much? Seeing someone as a guru type is hatred? I think we should part ways. I have a strong aversion to guru types...especially those who project stuff that’s not there. Fear? Hatred? Wow! Unbelievable

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 21 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #21
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Do you have a problem with someone having some major disagreements with you?

I quite like the idea of dialogue - its the anger that I wanted to shine a light on.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #22
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Projecting much?

Sorry, its past my bedtime - If I have anything worthwhile to add to this conversation tomorrow, I will. Oups! just saw the rest of the message about parting ways

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Sat, 21 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Speaking as moderator, can we please bring this personal antagonism to an end, now?

We might continue by considering how such personal conflicts arise. And what is their nature? Unless we can learn from them, about them, they don't have much meaning, do they? I cannot see they are contribute to dialogue in any way - quite the reverse in fact.

if we are interested in questioning ourselves - and it is my understanding that this is what the forum is about - how can personal dispute arise? I can question what someone says, what someone does, but if I start to talk about what the other person IS, I am falling into the usual trap of image-forming.

So please, Tom and Douglas, take a deep breath.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
I suppose that what I'm really saying is that listening to K and interpreting what he says (as we do) is not sufficient for awakening, Clarity, understanding. It may even lead in the opposite direction. Away from openness and stillness; the prerequisites to "listening"

Yes, this is where the question of "how to look" arises. Of course one could just as well say "how to listen". Interpreting, no matter what, just keeps us where we already are, does it not? I was experimenting with it yesterday, walking in a park. I use the word "experimenting" advisedly, not "practicing" - there is a world of difference between the two. To practice implies that you know what you are practicing, but how can I know how to look?

I saw that what gets in the way of just seeing (what is) is recognition/interpretation. These things reduce everything to mere knowledge, the terribly limited world of what we already know - which is, our conditioning.

Surely it is important to look and see things as they are, without putting them through the screen of what we think they are? And perhaps such an apparently simple thing has great significance?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Douglas: I suppose that what I'm really saying is that listening to K and interpreting what he says (as we do) is not sufficient for awakening,

Hmmmm,no. We can really listen without interpreting. I know I do, so I should probably not use the word 'we'. Doesn't that open listening happen to some of us when listening to a talk on youtube or reading a book?

One might add that at times we do appear to listen to what a person is saying. And there is consideration, if that is the word, and not reaction. Where does the difference lie? The reason that we don't listen is that we are full of our own opinions, our own knowledge, isn't it? Which is the same reason that prevents me from just looking at a tree, no? Somehow the mind prefers to know about things, rather than actually contact things. Does it feel more secure that way?

And yet I wonder if we do really listen to a person. Is it that we listen only to the words? Does K not say that true listening only arises when there is love?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #26
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I can question what someone says, what someone does, but if I start to talk about what the other person IS, I am falling into the usual trap of image-forming.

But I can perceive when someone is talking from the authority of knowledge can’t I ? If I call something guru talk that’s all I’m pointing to. If I point it out I don’t see that that should be seen as insulting. Nor is it insulting to say someone is projecting. Though I should have said Douglas ‘seems’ to be projecting. But if someone tells me I’m angry and I’m not I feel free to say they may be projecting. A strong disagreement is NOT necessarily anger.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #27
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Somehow the mind prefers to know about things, rather than actually contact things. Does it feel more secure that way?

Yes. I think even little children like to know the names of things. And what they ARE.

And yet I wonder if we do really listen to a person. Is it that we listen only to the words? Does K not say that true listening only arises when there is love?

I don’t know, but at times listening/watching a K video, I’m just listening ...not interpreting or concluding. One can do this with a friend or spouse. It’s an interesting experiment...not to try to listen, but to pay attention to what we’re actually doing

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Dec 2019 #28
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But I can perceive when someone is talking from the authority of knowledge can’t I ? If I call something guru talk that’s all I’m pointing to. If I point it out I don’t see that that should be seen as insulting. Nor is it insulting to say someone is projecting. Though I should have said Douglas ‘seems’ to be projecting. But if someone tells me I’m angry and I’m not I feel free to say they may be projecting. A strong disagreement is NOT necessarily anger.

Ok, I will give my opinion on what you say, hopefully as a friend. And not 'take sides'.

Yes, one can question if someone seems to be claiming authority in a discussion. I find "How do you know that" is a good question to ask in this respect - as enquiry, not rhetorically. But to refer to "Guru talk", well that is likely to bring about reaction - especially in K circles :-). I think that I might see it as insulting, a little. But we can learn a lot from our reactions.

Nor is it insulting to say someone is projecting. Though I should have said Douglas ‘seems’ to be projecting.

Why not ask if someone is projecting or not? That might lead to a fruitful discussion on what it means to project.

But if someone tells me I’m angry and I’m not I feel free to say they may be projecting.

Ok. Enough to look within oneself and see if one is angry or not. One then might state what is the case, but actually whether you are angry or not seems to me your personal thing. There is no need for me to react to it, to assume that you are or you are not, or to conclude that that should not be angry.

Oddly, I was talking about this yesterday. Why should there be such a thing as agreement? Why can two people not enquire into the issue, and try their hardest to discover what it true and what is false? What a different world we would live in, if everyone did that!

When things get heated, I have at times found "I messages" quite useful. See
https://www.gordontraining.com/leadership/what-are-the-essential-components-of-an-i-message/

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 #29
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

People on the forum might wish to verbalize insights that they have had. They already , through those insights, understand that the verbalization can never be the insight that was experienced. The verbalization is a;ways the past and the words are only 'souvenirs' of the actual seeing. They, the words, could be in every language but what is behind them is something that may be universal...They are a 'gift' and should be accepted as that. They may come from a demented mind or a sane one but they should in every case, be accepted (not believed) with some grace. We, don't know until we have seen it for ourselves, what is true and what is not. Truth cannot be verbalized. It cannot be captured and repeated...and it has nothing to do with 'conclusions'

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 #30
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Ok. Enough to look within oneself and see if one is angry or not. One then might state what is the case, but actually whether you are angry or not seems to me your personal thing.

There is no need for me to react to it, to assume that you are or you are not, or to conclude that that should not be angry.

That was Douglas stating that i was angry and fearful...I think that was his word. His assumption, that is. Where that came from I have no idea, and yes, it could easily have been turned into a question rather than a statement. "Are you angry about something I wrote, Tom?" But you have way more patience than I do , Clive. I dont have the patience for infinite discussions of stuff like you mentioned above. I do recall that Huguette told a couple of our members that they were talking from authority and that she could no longer respond to their posts. I feel that way about our newest member, sorry to say. One more thing....I didn't feel any heat on my end. I may be blunt and a little impatient, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm angry or feeling 'heat'.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 106 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.)