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

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 451 - 480 of 790 in total
Wed, 19 Apr 2017 #451
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

dave h wrote:
...you can almost see where the conflict is in the language we use. I was this. I am this. I want to be that. It's not the same 'I' in each case is it?

We talk about the 'I' so much I think we get lulled into thinking it's real. The whole point about the 'I' is that it is an imaginary entity. We operate from it, but it is the very fact that we operate from an imaginary centre that makes our lives confused. So no, it's not the same 'I' in each case; there isn't one. Or, looking at it the other way around: yes of course it's the same 'I' in each case, it's the same mistake being made by the same reality (ie. you and me) with the same result.

So take your pick.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 20 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Apr 2017 #452
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
We talk about the 'I' so much I think we get lulled into thinking it's real

The "I" is unobservable. You can observe the "I" either in the past or in the future or you can observe you body. But when you ask what is the "I" or who am "I"? There is a separation between the I and the observer. Then you can ask, who asked the question? And again, you answer "I". But the actual observer, who is observing the "I" or who is asking the question, is unobservable. He thinks that there is a division, a separation between himself and the "I". Only when he becomes quiet can he realize that the observer is the observed.

The "I" manifests as will. I will this, I will not, I will not this, I will not that, I posses this, I want this, I will get rid of that, I will acquire that etc. This constant process of the "I" is what Buddha called "desire", or "attachment" and postulated his 4 noble truths: there is suffering, the cause of suffering is desire, and there is a way out. This "I" is in essence desire and attachment, it does not exist independently.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Apr 2017 #453
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
The "I" manifests as will. I will this, I will not, I will not this, I will not that, I posses this, I want this, I will get rid of that, I will acquire that etc.

I don't think we can say that the 'I' is will or desire, Jan.

Any thought that focuses on the specific thinking entity (ie. any thought we have about our individual selves) constitutes a logical and rational absurdity because it puts in place a centre that the universe doesn't possess. The 'I' is this imaginary centre. Thus 'I', thinking about 'me' - 'the centre' concentrating upon 'the centre' - excludes reality, placing the operator in a false existence. The universe doesn't have a centre and any activity that puts one in place is nonsensical.

Desire, as K points out, is the driving force behind the universe. Where would we be if the genders didn't experience desire and/or have the will to satiate it?

Thus it isn't that we say I 'will' this, or I 'want' that, etc., but rather it is simply that we say (or think) 'I' at all.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 20 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Apr 2017 #454
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

John & John, if you want to know what K writes about the "ego", "me", "I", then some of his best talks about it come from 1952 Madras. There is a gap in K talks between 1950 and 1952 and I think that I read somewhere that K did not do any talks, that he withdrew to solitude because he wanted to see how he would do without any talks. (he probably says this in one of the Q&As, I do not remember anymore). A couple of quotes out of these talks

"Energy in movement, in action, is desire. Is it not? That desire when thwarted is pain, and that desire in fulfilment is pleasure. For most of us, action is a process of fulfilment of desire. "I want" and "I don't want" govern our attitude. That energy which is canalized, identified as the 'me' through desire, is ever seeking a fulfilment. Desire in its movement, in its action, is a process of fulfilment or denial. There are various forms of fulfilment and various forms of denial likewise, each binding, each bringing about different kinds of sorrow."

"The effort or the will to experience, to acquire, to be or not to be, is always there. The will is the factor of our deterioration; the will to become - individually, collectively, nationally or in different levels of our societies - , the will to be is the important factor. If we observe, we shall find that, in this will, there are the actor and the thing he acts upon. That is, I exert my will to transform or change some thing; I am greedy, and I exert my will not to be greedy; I am provincial, nationalistic, and I exert my will not to be so. I act; that is, I use my will to transform that which I consider evil, or I try to become or keep that which is good. So, there is this dualistic action in will, which is the experiencer and the experience. think that, therein, is the root of our deterioration."

"Is there an entity apart from the self, which looks at the self and dissolves the self? Are you following all this? Is there a spiritual entity which supercedes the self and destroys it, which puts it aside? We think there is. Don't we? Most religious people think there is such an element. The materialist says 'It is impossible for the self to be destroyed; it can only be conditioned and restrained - politically, economically and socially; we can hold it firmly within a certain pattern and we can break it; and therefore it can be made to lead a high life, a moral life, and not to interfere with any thing but to follow the social pattern, and to function merely as a machine'. That, we know. There are other people, the so-called religious ones - they are not really religious, though we call them so - who say 'Fundamentally, there is such an element. If we can get into touch with it, it will dissolve the self'. Is there such an element to dissolve the self? Please see what we are doing. We are merely forcing the self into a corner. If you allow yourself to be forced into the corner, you will see what is going to happen. We would like that there should be an element which is timeless, which is not of the self, which, we hope, will come and intercede and destroy, which we call God. Now is there such a thing which the mind can conceive? There may be or there may not be; that is not the point. When the mind seeks a timeless spiritual state which will go into action in order to destroy the self, is that not another form of experience which is strengthening 'the me'? When you believe, is that not what is actually taking place? When you believe that there is truth, God, timeless state, immortality, is that not the process of strengthening the self? The self has projected that thing which, you feel and believe, will come and destroy the self. So, having projected this idea of continuance in a timeless state as spiritual entity, you are going to experience; and all such experience will only strengthen the self; and therefore what have you done? You have not really destroyed the self but only given it a different name, a different quality; the self is still there, because you have experienced it. So, our action from the beginning to the end is the same action; only we think it is evolving, growing, becoming more and more beautiful; but, if you observe inwardly, it is the same action going on, the same 'me' functioning at different levels with different labels, with different names. When you see the whole process, the cunning, extraordinary inventions, the intelligence of the self, how it covers itself up through identification, through virtue, through experience, through belief, through knowledge; when you see that you are moving in a circle, in a cage of its own make, what happens? When you are aware of it, fully cognizant of it, then, is not your mind extraordinarily quiet - not through compulsion, not through any reward, not through any fear? When you recognize that every movement of the mind is merely a form of strengthening the self, when you observe it, see it, when you are completely aware of it in action, when you come to that point - not ideologically, verbally, not through experiencing, but when you are actually in that state - then you will see that the mind being utterly still, has no power of creating. What ever the mind creates, is in a circle, within the field of the self. When the mind is non-creating, there is creation, which is not a recognizable process."

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Thu, 20 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Apr 2017 #455
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
"Energy in movement, in action, is desire. Is it not?"

This does not constitute an indictment of desire.

"That desire when thwarted is pain, and that desire in fulfillment is pleasure."

'Desire when thwarted...' This is talking about the 'I's reaction to desire. Ie. what it does with it, not that it is it.

"For most of us, action is a process of fulfillment of desire. "I want" and "I don't want" govern our attitude."

Ditto my previous.

"That energy which is canalized,..."

The energy itself is not the flaw. The energy itself is a necessary constituent of reality.

"...identified as the 'me' through desire,..."

Note, 'through' desire, not as desire.

"...is ever seeking a fulfillment. Desire in its movement, in its action, is a process of fulfillment or denial. There are various forms of fulfillment and various forms of denial likewise, each binding, each bringing about different kinds of sorrow."

Note again, 'various forms of fulfillment and various forms of denial... each binding.' These are introduced by the 'I' rather than constitute it.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 20 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Apr 2017 #456
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

Hi John,
1) the description is not the described, so let us not not hang too much on words. Language, words are by their own nature fragmentary, ie. the whole process of the "I", is fragmented into parts such as observer, desire, will, subject, object etc.
2) the effort to somehow capture a theory of the "I" is another variant of a search for security. We hope that when we describe and thus understand the "I", we will somehow escape the "I" or escape our problems and conflict. But the intellect cannot solve this problem.

John Perkins. wrote:
These are introduced by the 'I' rather than constitute it.

I dont see it that way. The reactions of desire are either thwarted and reflected back, or satisfied, and these reactions give rise to the "I" and not the other way around. The desire creates the object of desire, the observer separates himself from the created object, and tries to achieve that object, but the whole process is desire and the "I", the observer, is just one part of desire. So desire gives rise to observer, to the "I". It is the same with trying to understand the "I". The observer creates the image of the "I", separates himself from the image and tries to act upon it, creating conflict, and not realizing that observer is observed, ie. he himself creates the image, he is the image. So desire is primary, "I" is secondary, not the other way around.

some quotes that support the claim, that the "I" has not substance, it is a bundle of memories manifesting as desire, will
http://www.kinfonet.org/krishnamurti/quotes/thr...
http://www.kinfonet.org/krishnamurti/quotes/the...
http://www.kinfonet.org/krishnamurti/quotes/the...

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Thu, 20 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Apr 2017 #457
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Desire is experienced by animals that aren't troubled with an 'I'. Desire drove K to present the teachings. Desire is a driving force of life. It is only the false centre that makes of it a problem by selecting preferred outcomes; by projecting forward into the future erroneous ideas of the past. Both (past and future) are fallacious.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 20 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 #458
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Please my friends, my dear friends, I am lacking an education, tell me more about Meister Eckhart, quantum mechanics, the abolition of the ego, instant enlightenment, the desire of animals, the description not being the described, the energy not being the flaw, the driving force of life, the thwarting of desire, the unobservability of the 'I,' the beingness of nothing, the observations of Heisenberg, the first steps of the seekers of Truth, the details of the wave-equation, the sandcastles of the truth, the relation between quantum determinacy and free-will, the state of spontaneity in which truth will be seen, K's exploratory methodology, the Aspect experiments, the non-determinancy of Copenhagen, the ensnarements of spiritual poachers, the thought experiments of identical copies, the X/Y/Z that should become A/B/C, the transformation of personal will into the will of God, the rational form of the new will and the taking of ones pick.

I am enthralled with the possibilities of learning all this new stuff. Fill me with your pustules.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 #459
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson 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.

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

John Perkins responded: 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.

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

Paul Davidson wrote: K said, ”We function mechanically, in the office, when we talk, when we talk, it is always mechanical.” Is this actually so?

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

John Perkins wrote (@#299): 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.

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

Paul Davidson wrote: 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.

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

In other words you ran away (again), if you remember. It's your habit when you can't win. Any time you feel like coming back I'll be happy to talk with you. It never takes long to expose the fallacy of your unfailingly mechanistic argumentation anyway.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Fri, 21 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 #460
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
I am enthralled with the possibilities of learning all this new stuff. Fill me with your pustules.

Hi Paul, no need to fill you, you are already full of it. Now, if you want to reach the spiritual peak of Mount Everest that we are comfortably sitting upon and waiting for you, you must empty yourself of it. Have a nice spring day too (or whatever season you have in Brazil right now)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 #461
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
some quotes that support the claim, that the "I" has not substance, it is a bundle of memories manifesting as desire, will

Yes the 'I' has no substance. It is an imagined centre, effectively of the universe, which falsifies entities living their lives as though it did, or does, have substance.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Fri, 21 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 #462
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Just a fleeting thought regarding the above exchanges : We seem to be definitely 'superior' to other e-thinking machines at least in one 'humane' specificity: the sense of humour (alas, too often of the 'wicked' kind) and our changing personal 'moods'.

I'm glad you see the funny side, John. There almost invariably is one of course, thank god! :)

As a matter of fact, there is now in the US&A a group of ( Democratic ?) psy's who are challenging the presidency for a serious case of destructive narcissistic syndrome. However, they did not specify whether the alleged syndrome is self-destructive or just all-directional.

(-:

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Fri, 21 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 #463
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 162 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Have a nice spring day too (or whatever season you have in Brazil right now)

The beauty of this spring day here, only strengthens my suspicion that 'why' we are here is to sense as clearly as possible these wonders of creation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 #464
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The beauty of this spring day here, only strengthens my suspicion that 'why' we are here is to sense as clearly as possible these wonders of creation.

Our hearts are mirrors that God created out of himself to behold his own beauty. He multiplied himself into billions of "I"s to experience himself out of all possible perspectives, from an bacteria to a human.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 #465
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Yes the 'I' has no substance. It is an imagined centre, effectively of the universe, which falsifies entities living their lives as though it did, or does, have substance.

yes, but telling ourselves that "the self is false, an illusion, won't dissolve the self". I was writing about "will" and desire, but today I meditated over this K talk, and I believe that the only way to dissolve the will is to realize the motive behind the will. The will being the will to be, to become, to acquire or discard. The motive behind the will is fear. To realize this in oneself is very difficult and arduous, because the fear is mostly unconscious. But it is a deep fear of lonelines, of not being, of emptiness and futility. The "I" cannot be dissolved, until we become fully aware of the ultimate motive behind its activity. And even when we discover this fear, loneliness, emptiness, we are almost instinctively running away, trying to cover it with activity. Only when we realize that there is no escape, can we stay with the fear, the observer becomes the observed and we can be free from will to be or not to be. The reason why it is so difficult to achieve liberation is because this motive, this fear, is very deep and mostly unconscious and so very difficult to become aware of. But without understanding the motive behind the will, behind acquisitiveness, behind the desire for hapiness, can there be no freedom.

"The motive power behind the will is fear, and when we begin to realize this, the mechanism of habit intervenes, offering new escapes, new hopes, new gods. Now it is at this precise moment, when the mind begins to interfere with the realization of fear, that there must be great awareness not to be drawn off, not to be distracted by the offerings of the intellect, for the mind is subtle and cunning. 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
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 #466
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
John Perkins. wrote:

Yes the 'I' has no substance. It is an imagined centre, effectively of the universe, which falsifies entities living their lives as though it did, or does, have substance.

Jan: yes, but telling ourselves that "the self is false, an illusion, won't dissolve the self".

Tom: The self is our beliefs ...our ideals....our goals....conclusions. Of course the self exists as long as these exist.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #467
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
"...but telling ourselves that the self is false, an illusion, won't dissolve the self." I was writing about "will" and desire,...

Yes, Jan, you were writing about will and desire as though they equate to the 'self'. It seems to me that the K talk you link to above makes it clear that it is the particular things 'willed' and 'desired' (ie. whatever we imagine might avoid what is feared) that maintain the 'self', rather than actually representing it. Thus 'will' and 'desire' per se are not the, as it were guilty party, they do not equate to the 'self'. As I pointed out previously, 'will and desire' motivate us across the spectrum of possible activity not just in detrimental stuff.

...I believe that the only way to dissolve the will is to realize the motive behind the will.

The way I see it, if a person has a goal, for example to get rid of the self, then they cannot lend themselves properly (as in sufficiently fully) to the activity that might lead to the its demise. Having a goal and taking the requisite action represents continued division in the mind.

Only doing the right think for its own sake will cut the mustard. Doing the 'right thing' to achieve a personally preferred end (like getting rid of the 'I' because we're aware of its effect) will never cut it. There is no way to slip in 'unnoticed' through the back door.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 22 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #468
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The self is our beliefs ...our ideals....our goals....conclusions. Of course the self exists as long as these exist.

Yes, it exists as a detrimental idea; like the idea of jumping off a cliff to pick a flower down below. Only a mad person would fall for it (no pun intended), but when it comes to the false centre and its detriment, we do.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 22 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #469
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 551 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
"The motive power behind the will is fear,

Well, Jan, even if the quote probably belongs to K, I should say that this is just a notorious example of half truth: the 'motive power' behind 'will' could as well be greed , the subliminal desire of the 'me' to give itself a solid continuity in time.
Even if we put it in terms of 'fear of not being' this definition of 'will' is obviously flawed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #470
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 162 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
And maybe also to become aware and transcend the inevitable 'flaws' of Creation as it has manifested on this lonely planet?

The only "flaw" that I see here John, is our inability to fit into the pattern of 'harmony' and I guess we can't blame 'creation' for that. Big brain in an animal...who knew it would take the 'direction' it has? That it would not only threaten its own existence but potentially everything else around it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #471
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Well, Jan, even if the quote probably belongs to K, I should say that this is just a notorious example of half truth: the 'motive power' behind 'will' could as well be greed , the subliminal desire of the 'me' to give itself a solid continuity in time.

But doesn't greed come about as a way of circumventing insufficiency (and the 'fear' thereof)?

Even if we put it in terms of 'fear of not being' this definition of 'will' is obviously flawed.

I'm afraid I don't read the talk as Jan seems to, ie. as equating will and the 'I'.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #472
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 551 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The only "flaw" that I see here John, is our inability to fit into the pattern of 'harmony' and I guess we can't blame 'creation' for that. Big brain in an animal...who knew it would take the 'direction' it has?

Agreed Dan, it was probably an inevitable 'wrong turn' - given the enormous variety of life on earth. Possibly up to recent times most of our ancestors have really tried their best -but in just a few decennies the whole thing got out of control. I do not think that we can get back to a 'natural order'...that never was. I believe that it is our immediate challenge to try to create a new order based on compassion and intelligence, or else....

And where's the problem, then ? That all the possible 'decision positions' are already 'taken' by people who never had the desire nor the inclination to take a step back and contemplate the enormity of the present challenge.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #473
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 162 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
...never had the desire nor the inclination to take a step back and contemplate the enormity of the present challenge.

Also the main 'flaw' has only been recognized by a few. It hasn't been seen that what was necessary was a total psychological 'revolution'. The real problem in us has gone unidentified, that of self-centeredness, and all the attempts to move us away from violence have all been superficial such as our organized 'religions', 'self-improvement', the myriad psyche 'escapes'.... Not many have recognized that changing the 'outer' will not change the 'inner'. The 'fault' is in us and that is where it needs to be corrected if that is possible before some cataclysm of our own making occurs.

Beside us, some nine other human type 'experiments' have been discovered so far. What was their fate, their circumstances, their 'flaw'? Unfortunately we'll never know. (They didn't leave the 'messy trail' that we'll probably leave.)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #474
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Same thing- one is feeding the other.

Not sure if it's the 'same thing'. One of them is definitely feeding the other and there's no vicki verco. K's perception looks right to me.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 22 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #475
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Also the main 'flaw' has only been recognized by a few.

Beside us, some nine other human type 'experiments' have been discovered so far. What was their fate, their circumstances, their 'flaw'? Unfortunately we'll never know.

Their 'flaw' was innocence. Precisely the same as every other species that sapiens has eradicated. Nothing can compete with the collective effort of a higher level of consciousness (ie. that of self). We don't represent a mistake, we represents excellence; an absolutely requisite step-stage for the universe to literally 'come alive'. Which is exactly what happens each time a brain mutation occurs.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 22 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #476
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Well, Jan, even if the quote probably belongs to K, I should say that this is just a notorious example of half truth: the 'motive power' behind 'will' could as well be greed , the subliminal desire of the 'me' to give itself a solid continuity in time.
Even if we put it in terms of 'fear of not being' this definition of 'will' is obviously flawed.

Motivation can be positive and negative. Positive means the will to acquire something positive, negative means trying to get rid of something negative, to escape something. And things like greed, ambition, power hunger can be motivated both positively and negatively. Take ambition. One way to look at it is to obtain fame, success, recognition by others, this in turn fuels our pride which is a positive emotion. On the other hand, one can have some deep rooted feelings of inferiority, and the will to obtain success might be an attempt to overcompensate these negative inferiority feelings. One of the deepest fears we have is a fear of not being, of nothingness. Our "I" thinks that it is permanent, continous, has a lot of plans for future or for next year, thinks that the things it had acquired will last. It is terrified of death, of not being. Even the search for "truth" (that you believe that one day you will find liberation) is an illusion of the ego which has plans for tomorrow for itself, ie. "I will become liberated". The ego somehow wants to acquire "liberation", but stay permanent, continous in the process. But death means death. The will to acquire, to be, to possess, attachment - these things give the "I" its feeling of permanency. Remove all those things with witch the ego identified itself (memories), all those things it has acquired and thinks that it possesses, and all its plans for future, and is there any "I" left? So this will to be, to acquire, to possess gives the "I" its feeling of permanency. Everything that threatens those things causes fear. The ultimate fear is fear of not being. K says that every movement of the mind is motivated either positively (desire, attraction) or negatively (fear, escape). His "method" to free the mind from this mechanical circle is to be choicelessly aware of all the movements of the mind, without the will or desire to go beyond, because the desire to go beyond is again positive or negative motivation, movement.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #477
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Also the main 'flaw' has only been recognized by a few. It hasn't been seen that what was necessary was a total psychological 'revolution'. The real problem in us has gone unidentified, that of self-centeredness

but it isn't obvious what is wrong with self-centeredness. Ayn Rand based her whole philosophy on self-centeredness, on glorifying and worshipping the self. And she has been immensely successfull and popular in the US among the ruling class. I do not think that she has been particularly happy as a human though. There is an epidemy of narcissism. Donald Trump is a textbook example. (I have no grudge against him, I see him as a patient). His narcissism is so severe that he loses touch with reality, and subconsciously distorts his perception of reality to maintain a positive self-image. With what arguments do you want to convince the mainstream that they should give up their egotism? Isn't the desire to get rid of egotism egotistic too?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #478
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 162 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
With what arguments do you want to convince the mainstream that they should give up their egotism? Isn't the desire to get rid of egotism egotistic too?

Yes I think that you just mentioned that and I believe John was referring to the same "loop" process when he spoke of "cause becoming effect"? Whatever 'state' I am in triggers a desire/will to change it, continue it, intensify it, etc. To 'act' somehow on 'what is' rather than the 'simple' choiceless observation of 'what is'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 23 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #479
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yes I think that you just mentioned that and I believe John was referring to the same "loop" process when he spoke of "cause becoming effect": Whatever 'state' I am in triggers a desire/will to change it, continue it, intensify it, etc. To 'act' somehow on 'what is' rather than the 'simple' choiceless observation of 'what is'.

Round and round and round the conversation goes.

Didn't the 'state' even K was in, 'trigger a desire/will to act somehow on what is'? Rather, that is, than just choicelessly observing? Why else would he present the teachings? This is a question that needs addressing. It isn't one that personal enmity should be allowed to block out.

There is no point hiding from the fact that K had a personal drive just because the contrary might happen to better fit with our ideas.

But then I guess requesting that people simply be honest is tantamount to banging ones head against a wall. If people could be honest none of the question of this 'I' business would ever arise at all. The fact is they can't.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 22 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #480
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 162 posts in this forum Offline

Regarding the fear of death, of not being, it just occurred to me that our technical thought, that which allowed us in the beginning to 'imagine' a future time, something that hadn't happened... And prepare ourselves for what might happen in that time that hadn't happened etc. That was our survival advantage. We could 'imagine' a better shelter, a better way to hunt, better weapons...we could look into a future that wasn't there and prepare. This 'future' took on a reality of its own as if it was 'actually' out there waiting, up ahead. And then seeing the things around us dying and disappearing, thought saw that there was a 'future' up ahead and that 'one day' we would not be a part of it. We would be 'gone'... The fear is based on thought's 'creation' of a concept of a 'future' as well as a 'past' i.e. 'Time'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 23 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 451 - 480 of 790 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.)