Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 271 - 300 of 551 in total
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #271
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
But let us stop discussing Putin, politics etc. on a K forum.

I am not discussing Putin or politics. You brought him and "ich" into it. What interests me is your brandishing of statements such as "I know Russians, their mentality . . . "

It is not the content of such a statement that interests me but the quality of such a statement.

It's additionally instructive that having volunteered your critique and included three links to back it up you then invite me not to discuss it. Hilarious!

This post was last updated by Paul David son Wed, 12 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #272
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks for the link to the National Review, by the way. Here is what Wikipedia says of that magazine.

"Since its founding, the magazine has played a significant role in the development of conservatism in the United States, helping to define its boundaries and promoting fusionism while establishing itself as a leading voice on the American right"

No wonder they say what they do.

The second link I looked at was that of 'Politico,' a conservative US magazine endorsed by George W Bush.

The third link you gave directed me to a talk by the professional anti-commmunist, Yuri Bezmenov (aka Tomas D. Schuman) who wrote "Love Letter to America" and was connected to the notorious World Information Network which promises "Sovereignty, Wealth and Freedom and to leave you "Permanently changed."

Oh boy!

This post was last updated by Paul David son Wed, 12 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #273
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

So, maybe we can get back to 'man and machine' if we can remember what we were looking at before this diversion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #274
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
What's needed, at least according to K, is self knowledge.

Not quite, Tom. To make an effective intention one has to have integrity. Intention requires integration or else one goes off in two directions at once, without knowing it. Only an integrated mind can be conscious of its own workings.

I've been "intending" to leave this computer all day and get on with some real work . . . ooops!

A machine however, acts in accordance with the intention of the one who creates it. Machines are seldom duplicit.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Wed, 12 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #275
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Only an integrated mind can be conscious of its own workings.

I don't see how there can be integration without self knowledge. But I may be missing your point here....and not sure how you are using the word 'conscious'.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #276
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I don't see how there can be integration without self knowledge. But I may be missing your point here....and not sure how you are using the word 'conscious'.

Self-knowledge implies that something that was not brought into the conscious working of mind has now been brought in, made conscious. The mind habitually hides parts of its workings from conscious oversight. We are not aware that we deceive ourselves. Were we aware then there could be no deception. In the sentence "we are not aware" the 'we' is taken to be that which is conscious.

It's like when someone says, "I was suddenly aware I had been lying to myself." Obviously something had been aware at some level. At some level some part of mind came into play and said, "I better suppress that information" and some other part later says that it was not aware of it. The censor does its work undercover but it is all part of the one movement of the functionally disparate mind.

No, you can't be integrated without also being self-aware in the sense of the mind knowing everything that it is doing. Therein lies the whole problem that K said he held the solution to, if I may put it that way.

By the way, K often discerned between self knowledge, which implied an accumulation, and self-knowing, which was a continuous state. In the same way he distinguished between experience and experiencing and between thought and thinking.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #277
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 41 posts in this forum Offline

Something i think we are missing.

.....Acyutji is right. In examining what Krishnaji calls "listening and seeing", which are the functional aspect of his teaching, it would be possible to discover the nature of communication. We have not yet tried to figure out whether communication is a process, or rather an instantaneous light.

KRISHNAMURTI: Can we begin with the verbal level, and work from there?

P: This question involves not only the communication between the 'speaker' and ourselves, but also the nature of the instrument which enables us to grasp and apprehend.

KRISHNAMURTI: Do you want us to start from there slowly?

There is a verbal communication in which each of us understands the meaning of the word. In such a communication, the word is (the common?) meaning, and this meaning can be understood by me and by you. This is verbal communication. Then communication also means listening not only to the (verbal) meaning of the word, but also to the intention of the speaker at the moment when he uses it. Otherwise, the communication is broken. When we use a word, it must have a quality of 'directness' that does not allow any ambiguity, and it must also include the real need to communicate something. This need must be accompanied by affection, respect- the feeling that it is your understanding that matters, that it is not that I am superior and inferior to you. And, in this use of speech, there must be the 'contact of the intention' transmitted by the very quality of the voice. This means that each of us, at the same moment, at the same level, and with the same intensity, must understand the words; There must be contact with the intention, and only in this case does an (authentic) communication exists.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Thu, 13 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #278
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
What is your intention here?

The quote was very good, Peter, very apposite. I think we can all learn from it. But we were also discussing the nature of intention, whether and to what extent a divided mind can 'intend.'

In the quote, K was saying that one has to go beneath the word and come to the intent behind the word. That's not so easy, is it? Where the word is not carefully chosen, the lack of care often reveals something, we may see that behind the lack of care is a lack of integrated intent. More than one thing is intended. Then we see that what is at stake is not a lack of care, per se, but a divided intent.

Often, when I have pointed to the carelessness with which words are used I have been accused of being pedantic, of trying to score points or of being overcritical or confrontational. Usually, however, I have been inviting the poster to go back and see something that may reveal to him/her an inner-discrepancy. I think it's useful to do that but it's not always effective as the poster may react very defensively.

We are not here to win competitions but to communicate. But, at the same time, unfortunately, we are not here to communicate but to win competitions. Such is the divided mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #279
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 159 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
We are not here to win competitions but to communicate. But, at the same time, unfortunately, we are not here to communicate but to win competitions. Such is the divided mind.

Is that why you are here Paul? "To win competitions"?

When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 13 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #280
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 41 posts in this forum Offline

We are not here to win competitions but to communicate."

What are we here to communicate?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #281
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is that why you are here Paul? "To win competitions"?

I think I expressed both sides of the equation adequately, Dan. We have competitive/co-operative spirits and on a forum such as this, both sides come across. Your own question, given it's impertinence, seems to me to be rather on the competitive side. It came to me not so much as a question but as a put down, though I may be wrong.

Look, no one will say they come here to win competitions because that is obviously a crude and unfortunate thing to admit to, even to oneself. Everyone believes they are here to communicate. But when you look at most threads you will see little real communication of the quality K spoke of in the extract Peter shared. So, one has to ask why.

And may I ask your question back to you, therefore, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #282
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
What are we here to communicate?

It seems we mostly communicate our ideas, perceptions and opinions. It may not be what we are here TO communicate but it is what we DO communicate.

But take your question, Peter, what is behind it? Did you find out what you were expressing with that question?

I'll tell you how it comes across to me, right now (as my impression may change the next time I look at it).

I see there are two possibilities: You could be asking what SHOULD we be communicating - either according to your own understanding of the purpose of communication or in accordance with the Kinfonet Guidelines. Or, you could be asking if there is something specific or if the question is wide open. I wonder if you also see the ambiguity in your question which makes it difficult to give an answer adequate to the inquiry?

To my mind, the more important question is to do with what we actually do rather than what we are supposed to do or try to do or are there to do.

Given that there is some sort of direction or purpose or order to our attempts to communicate, what is interesting is what actually happens when we attempt to act from there. What is our rate of success, as it appears to you, Peter?

This post was last updated by Paul David son Thu, 13 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #283
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 41 posts in this forum Offline

As i see it each one of us has a world view. It's different for each one. For most this view is just a cobbled together mess. We spread this mess amongst one another. We don't really ever clear any thing up, we are just stirring up the mess. This is what is going on with our so called comunicating.

With K it's different. It seems that K had discovered something of a different order. He had come upon a different way of seeing things. He had something to comunicate. Most of us really have nothing to comunicate.

This person writing here rightly or wrongly feels he has discovered something, something significant, something worth pointing out. Of course all of you probably feel the same.

Each has his or her own world view. Each wants to stick to his or her way of seeing things. Each has a world view. Each seems to want to promote his or her own way of seeing things, but nothing changes the mess remains. We cannot listen thru what we are holding on to.

K had a world view, for example, he believed that thought was matter.

What does that mean? No one is able to listen.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #284
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 41 posts in this forum Offline

What does K mean when he says to see it all at once?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #285
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
What does K mean when he says to see it all at once?

I have no idea what K means. But if you are asking what this "seeing all at once" = "total perception" = "observing without the observeer" means for me, I can try to describe it.

"Seeing all at once" means to have a global insight into the structure and functioning of your own mind, it means looking into the mirror and meeting yourself. What is our mind constantly occupied with? It is occupied with problems. Global insight means that you see the problem, the observer of the problem, the creator of the problem, the escapes from the problem, the attempts at solution of the problem, the joy and pain attached to the problem and realize that they are all one and the same thing - in short, you see the whole structure of your mind. If you can perceive one single problem in this global manner, you perceive all problems. And it is only in this global perception, that you are at peace, that you are attentive, that there is no effort and no thought, no inner tension. In this global perception, the mind becomes silent.

Our search for "enlightenment", "insight", "happiness" is an ESCAPE from the problems of our lives. And if your are escaping, you are unaware of the problem, that is your attention is partial, not total. You do not really perceive that, in which you are entangled. For this reason, we should not be concerned with "silence", but with understanding our problems, that in which we are entangled. The observer is the problem, is the fear, is the escape, but he does not perceive the totality. To perceive the totality of any problem, of your mind, is to be free

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #286
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Our search for "enlightenment", "insight", "happiness" is an ESCAPE from the problems of our lives. And if your are escaping, you are unaware of the problem, that is your attention is partial, not total. You do not really perceive that, in which you are entangled.

True what you say, Jan. The 'problem' is painful and we don't want to be aware of it... we want to get rid of it....get rid of the pain. But this struggling to get rid of a part of ourselves only perpetuates the pain...perhaps making it even worse. We've been so conditioned to see the problem as separate from 'me'....to analyze with the analyzer/me separate from what he analyzes. We normally don't see that the analyzer is not separate from the problem.

Jan: "but he does not perceive the totality"

Tom: right he sees separate parts...me/problem/solution/belief/conclusion/ideal, etc.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 13 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #287
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 159 posts in this forum Offline

I posted this this morning in the general discussion:

Wim Opdam wrote:

And what is this total perception ??
Is perception neutral ??
'Total' does that indicate a cumulation ??
Is there partial perception ??
Answers seem already been given by the assumption we know what is ment, but do we ??

Dan: We can't 'know' what 'total perception' is, it is beyond that I would say. You can, and have to, experiment and maybe 'come upon' it. Quietly watching thought, you can ask where do the thoughts come from, how do they arise? Is there a silence out of which this 'thinking process' arises. And when the 'thinker is not separate from the flow of the thoughts, what is the quality of that thought? The thoughts consist of words in the language you were taught as a child. Each word had to be learned, in the past....etc. This was part of my morning 'meditation' and it was a 'validation' of something that K. had said somewhere. I don't know if this is exact but I recall it as:

"Attention in the unknown, is freedom from the known".

When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #288
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The 'problem' is painful and we don't want to be aware of it... we want to get rid of it....get rid of the pain. But this struggling to get rid of a part of ourselves only perpetuates the pain...perhaps making it even worse. We've been so conditioned to see the problem as separate from 'me'....to analyze with the analyzer/me separate from what he analyzes. We normally don't see that the analyzer is not separate from the problem.
Jan: "but he does not perceive the totality"
Tom: right he sees separate parts...me/problem/solution/belief/conclusion/ideal, etc.

Exactly, Tom. Total perception is the perception of the totality of your mind. In this total perception there is no choice, no effort. There cannot be. Effort is always a fragment of consciousness that tries to change other fragments, not realizing that he is like a dog chasing its own tail.

http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1954/1954-...

Question: What is the relationship between me and my mind?

Krishnamurti: Now Sirs, let us go into this so that you and I directly experience what is being said. It is a process of meditation and without meditation there is no wisdom. Wisdom comes into being through self-knowledge. When I know myself as I am - not according to what other teachers have said or what anybody else has said - when I know what I am from moment to moment, that is self-knowledge; and that self-knowledge can only come into being through meditation. Meditation is to be aware of all the conflicts, in the mirror of my activities, of my relationships, of my states. So let us enquire into this question, the relationship between me and the mind.

Is the mind different from the me? Am I different, is the observer, the thinker different, from the thought? You understand, Sirs?

I say, "I think". Is thinking different from the entity who says, "I am thinking"? We say that the two are separate, that `the me' thinks it is different from the thought. We assume that the me comes first; the ego, the Self is the thinker; that is the first, then the thought, the mind. So we have broken up the me and the mind. But is that a fact? You may break it up; but, in reality, is the me, the thinker, different from consciousness which says, which thinks, which exists? Can you remove the qualities of the diamond and say that what remains is the diamond? The me has various qualities, various memories, various activities, hopes, fears, frustrations which are all of the mind, are they not? Remove all your qualities; then, is there "you"? The mind is the me. The mind thinks there is the higher Self, the Atman, Paramatman, higher and higher; it is still what the mind projects; the mind has separated itself as the me and the thought.

After all, what is the mind? The mind is surely the conscious as well as the unconscious. The sea is not just the surface of the water which you see in the sunshine, sparkling, living; it is the whole depth that makes the Sea. Similarly, our mind is the whole content, whether we are conscious of it or not. The mind is so occupied, so taken up with activities, problems, that it never begins to question, to enquire, to find out, to fish in the unconscious. We know what is the unconscious; it is very simple. Our motives, our accumulated knowledge, the collection of experiences, fears, hopes, longings, frustrations - all that is our consciousness; the desire for God and the creation of Gods - all that is consciousness. So to divide the me and the mind has no reality.

Please see this, realize this. The whole of this consciousness is the me - the me that has a job; the me that has a wife, the husband; the me that is ambitious, envious, acquisitive; the me that values; the me that has a tradition; the me that wants to find reality, God; the me that is petty, acquisitive - all that is the mind, all that is consciousness. That consciousness, you may push far up and call it Atman, Parmatman, or whatever you like; but it is still a product of time, it is still consciousness. Now, with that consciousness, you want to find something which is beyond the mind itself; but you can never find that.

You may have occasional quietness when the whole consciousness right up to the bottom is still, and you may dream of something unimaginable, immeasurable, because in sleep your mind, your consciousness, may perchance occasionally be quiet. But when you are aware of all this pro- cess choicelessly this pattern of consciousness is broken and then you will see there is real stillness in the totality of your consciousness. That is something far beyond the measure of the mind. But to pursue what is beyond the measure of the mind has no meaning. What I say or what some one else says has no meaning. What has meaning is to be completely aware of this consciousness and of all its many layers. This awareness cannot be learnt through any analysis; one knows the whole thing if one is observant.

To know the whole process of the mind - all its inclinations, motives, purposes, its talents, its demands, its fears, its frustrations, its success - to know all that is to be quiet and not let that act. Then only that something which is beyond the mind, can come into being. That can only come when there is no invitation; that can only come when you are not seeking. Because our search is born out of frustration, the mind that seeks can never find. It is only the mind that understands the total process, that can receive the blessings of the real.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #289
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 159 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
K had a world view, for example, he believed that thought was matter.

What does that mean? No one is able to listen.

Thank you Peter for bringing that. That is the word: "matter", that describes what was seen. The thoughts 'materialize' (become 'matter') they appear and they disappear.

When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #290
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

From the above excerpt provided by Jan:

"Is the mind different from the me? Am I different, is the observer, the thinker different, from the thought? You understand, Sirs?

I say, "I think". Is thinking different from the entity who says, "I am thinking"? We say that the two are separate, that `the me' thinks it is different from the thought. We assume that the me comes first; the ego, the Self is the thinker; that is the first, then the thought, the mind. So we have broken up the me and the mind. But is that a fact? You may break it up; but, in reality, is the me, the thinker, different from consciousness which says, which thinks, which exists? Can you remove the qualities of the diamond and say that what remains is the diamond?"

So, the whole of consciousness is what we refer to as 'me'. This is a huge insight, isn't it? I am not a fragment of consciousness but the totality....all the parts make up me. I don't stand apart and observe, because I'm not separate from that consciousness. I've seen K's statement that "the thinker is the thought" many times, but never saw it clarified as it was above except by K.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #291
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

yes Tom, it is a huge insight

http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1950/1950-...

Now we can see very well that the thinker is the result of thought; because, there is no thinker if there is no thought, there is no experiencer if there is no experiencing. The experiencing, the observing, the thinking, produces the experiencer, the observer, the thinker. The experiencer is not separate from the experience, the thinker is not separate from the thought. Why, then, has thought made the thinker into a separate entity? When we know that our daily thinking, which is a response to challenge, produces the thinker, why do we believe that there is an entity separate from our daily thinking? Thought has created the thinker as a separate entity because thought is always changing, modifying, and it sees its own impermanence. Being transient, thought desires permanency, and so creates the thinker as an entity who is permanent who is not caught in the net of time. So, we create the thinker - which is merely a belief. That is, the mind, seeking security, holds to the belief that there is a thinker separate from thought, a `me' that is apart from my daily activities, from my daily thoughts, from my daily functions. So, the thinker becomes an entity apart from thought; and then the thinker proceeds to control, modify, dominate thought, which creates conflict between the thinker and the thought, between the actor and the action.

Now, if we see the truth of that - that the thinker is thought, that there is no thinker separate from thought, but only the process of thinking - , then what happens? If we see that there is only thinking and not a thinker trying to modify thought, what is the result? I hope I am making myself clear. So far, we know that the thinker is operating upon thought, and this creates conflict between the thinker and the thought; but if we see the truth that there is only thought and not a thinker, that the thinker is arbitrary, artificial and entirely fictitious - then what happens? Is not the process of conflict removed? At present our life is a conflict, a series of battles between the thinker and the thought - what to do and what not to do, what should be and what should not be. The thinker is always separating himself as the `me' remaining outside of action. But when we see that there is only thought, have we not then removed the cause of conflict? Then we are able to be choicelessly aware of thought and not as the thinker observing thought from outside.When we remove the entity that creates conflict, surely then there is a possibility of understanding thought When there is no thinker observing, judging, moulding thought, but only choiceless awareness of the whole process of thinking, without any resistance, without battle, without conflict, then the thought process comes to an end.

So, the mind, in understanding that there is no thinker, but only thought, eliminates conflict, and therefore there is merely the process of thinking; and when there is an awareness of thinking without any choice, because the chooser has been eliminated then you will see that thought comes to an end. Then the mind is very quiet, it is not agitated; and in that quietness, in that stillness, the problem is understood,

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #292
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

Peter Kesting wrote:

K had a world view, for example, he believed that thought was matter.

What does that mean? No one is able to listen.

Thank you Peter for bringing that. That is the word: "matter", that describes what was seen. The thoughts 'materialize' (become 'matter') they appear and they disappear.

Firstly, it is not put quite rightly when said that K believed thought was matter. In discussions with Bohm they both agreed that thought was a "material process," that is, a process of matter. It's like saying walking is a process of matter. The major and obvious difference being that with thinking, the movement is cerebral while with walking, it is the legs.

I would ask Dan, with reference to his comment that thought becomes matter, what was it before it became matter and in what material form is it once it becomes matter? In the same way, apply the same questions to walking. Do you see the difficulty?

The universe we know is a universe of matter in motion and we know that matter itself is a form of condensed and patterned energy. As matter and energy are two forms of the same thing and are always in motion, all of that implies time. It also all implies cause and effect.

K's distinction was not that 'he believed thought was matter' but that he taught that there was something beyond matter, beyond process, beyond time and beyond cause and effect. His teaching was that the formation of the 'self' put a block on being in contact with that.

This thread is asking if man is a machine, if the metaphor of 'machine' or of 'mechanical' is true of humankind. Humankind, I would suggest, is a form of matter in motion and along with all other life forms, humankind is living matter - matter that is doing something we call 'life.'

If we say that thought is mechanical because it is a material process then we also have to include all life and all material processes in the category of machines or mechanisms. That rather puts to death the notion of the machine however and replaces it with the general term 'matter.'

I would rather reserve the terms 'machine' and 'mechanical' for something specific, a much small affair than the universe in general.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Thu, 13 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #293
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So, the whole of consciousness is what we refer to as 'me'. This is a huge insight, isn't it?

It may be, if it is understood.

Not only am "I" the whole of the consciousness of which 'self' is but a part, but "I" am also the body, the legs, the nostril hair, the brain and all activities, processes and movements that take place within all of that. Yet, the way this whole thing is arranged permits the subjectivity that arises to perceive itself as somehow separate and in command.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #294
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote: Are we actually machines? ...we live in a post-modern era... We have ditched the soul... we ask, if man himself is a machine then isn't the whole of nature a machine?... But, we are told, man may rise out of this condition and become 'real.' It's a little like the Pinocchio story, the wooden boy becoming flesh and blood, a real mutation. In our case, however, it is a nuanced story of 'enlightenment' or whatever words are used. We can move from the mechanical to the creative through an instant mutation.

................

This is not what the K 'teachings' proffer. To read the above into them is to read them through the veil of conditioning. What they actually say is that everything is real, man included, but that this very veil (ie. as employed above) makes a falsity of our outlook, ensnaring us within it.

Conditioned observation has an unfortunate habit of getting everything (ie. reality) back to front, Paul, just as happened with your OP here.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 13 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #295
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 159 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
thought becomes matter, what was it before it became matter and in what material form is it once it becomes matter?

Looking for an analogy to what was seen here...the thoughts 'materialize' like clouds, which have a color and a shape, a form. Then they dissipate, disappear and then another appears...so when thoughts 'materialize', they are ...thoughts. What were they before they became thoughts?... I don't know.

Here's an, I think, interesting observation on the nature of thought: When thought asks why it can't be silent, it's already answered the question. :)

When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 13 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #296
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
To read the above into them is to read them through the veil of conditioning.

Well done for spotting the obvious, John. But if it is true for me then it is most likely true for you, that you too read K (or anything) through your conditioning. In fact I pointed this possibility out in the first post:

Paul David son. wrote:
Am I bringing to my reading of K a whole basket of goodies, an underlying theme that has a powerful emotional charge to it? And is this underlying theme interfering with my understanding, not of K (primarily) but of myself?

This is one of the cardinal elements of K's teaching, that each one of us bring to our reading and listening a whole bundle of personal bias.

John Perkins. wrote:
What they actually say is that everything is real, man included

Yes, everything is real, including thought and everything it has produced.But thought is not 'true' to what it purports to mirror - though it may be more or less 'true' to it. The 'veil'

But are you not bringing your own conditioned response into what I posted (post 1)? My main point, after all, was this.

K said, "We function mechanically, in the home, in the office, when we talk, when we talk, it is always mechanical." Is this actually so?

Do you have anything to say that relates to that question, John?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #297
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
thoughts 'materialize' like clouds, which have a color and a shape, a form. Then they dissipate, disappear and then another appears...so when thoughts 'materialize', they are ...thoughts.

Yes, of course the correct word for the formation of cloud is not 'materialisation' (after all, the evaporation from which they are formed is also material) but 'condensation.' So, do thoughts form as water particles condensate into cloud? I suppose it may be looked at in that way.

If my own view is correct (which is possible) thought arises at a level subliminal to the 'conscious' part of mind, the part we generally regard as the 'thinking' part. There seems to be a horizon beyond which the mind is incapable of viewing its own action, though it may gain plenty of clues. It seems to me that for thought processes to enter the conscious realm where they can be considered, reformulated, added to etc., the particular thread of thought must command some sort of force to go beyond the 'horizon' and become part of the process of self-reflection. I think this force is to do with emotion. That which is relevant, answers a challenge, collects energy as it proceeds and thrusts itself forward as an emotional charge. My impression is that thought is an extension of emotion, expressed in a different language.

But yes, the superficial impression may be quite like clouds forming and dissipating . . . even raining on one's parade :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #298
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Here's an, I think, interesting observation on the nature of thought: When thought asks why it can't be silent, it's already answered the question. :)

haha, yes, certainly.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #299
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:

K said, "We function mechanically, in the home, in the office, when we talk, when we talk, it is always mechanical." Is this actually so?

The answer to your question will necessarily depend on whether a person has cause to accept a prospective mutation of the brain as a fact, or otherwise. If they do not, then the reading of this (and any other) element of the 'teachings' must necessarily be mechanical and in the dead letter. Ie. the 'we' and the 'always' (in this instance) will be read as though there are and can be no exception(s). But a 'live' reading (if I might call it such), knowing K for what he was, will naturally observe that such a 'dead' reading invalidates the 'teachings' on account that if no mutation of the brain lies in prospect then K must either have been a charlatan or a freak, neither of which is the case.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 13 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #300
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

John, your abusive and unsolicited personal messages to me say everything there is to say about whether your brain has mutated or not. I will not pretend to have any type of discussion with you on this site or anyplace else.

"You are a prick, Davidson, and always have been."

Anyone else who wishes to discuss with this gentleman, kindly go ahead.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 271 - 300 of 551 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.)