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

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 481 - 510 of 790 in total
Sat, 22 Apr 2017 #481
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The fear is based on thought's 'creation' of a concept of a 'future' as well as a 'past' i.e. 'Time'.

Welcome to K.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Apr 2017 #482
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:
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.

I think you are on to something, John. This is the paradox of K teachings. At the same time he is both waving an enticement in front of our eyes (look how marvelously happy, free, full of peace and love I am) and telling us that we should not desire those things. He is talking about the need for inner revolution, but telling us that any desire to revolt is still within the prison.
His method is choiceless observing of the prison, ie observing without denying and without accepting. We should observe our prison without the will to break out, without the will to stay in it, without the despair (condemnation), without accepting it (resignation). All these things are positive and negative reactions to the prison. Who is the entity that feels imprisoned and looks for escape? Why does it feel imprisoned? So what should we do? The moment that we realize (actually, not theoretically) that we can do absolutely nothing, intelligece is borne. No amount of rattling the bars, hitting the walls, digging the ground, no amount of despairing or accepting or forgetting our situation will free us. No awaiting rescue (through miracle, through god, through intelligence) will free us. Nothing we do or do not do will ever free us. When the mind reaches this state what happens?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Apr 2017 #483
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
This is the paradox of K teachings. At the same time he is both waving an enticement in front of our eyes (look how marvelously happy, free, full of peace and love I am) and telling us that we should not desire those things. He is talking about the need for inner revolution, but telling us that any desire to revolt is still within the prison.

When somebody said to K, "But you are a teacher." He responded, "I hold out a light to you." I don't think anybody can do more for another but just try and give them to understand that there is something more than the mechanistic everyday. Of course in order to 'hold out a light' a person must first themselves be lighted.

His method is choiceless observing of the prison, ie observing without denying and without accepting.

Jan, I don't think it's possible for it to be at once choiceless and a method. I think that on those grounds K would deny that he offers a 'method'.

We should observe our prison without the will to break out, without the will to stay in it, without the despair (condemnation), without accepting it (resignation). All these things are positive and negative reactions to the prison.

Yes, and without 'willing' ourselves to be 'will-less'.

Who is the entity that feels imprisoned and looks for escape? Why does it feel imprisoned? So what should we do? The moment that we realize (actually, not theoretically) that we can do absolutely nothing, intelligence is born.

Yes, K puts it as follows:

"I assure you, when there is complete nakedness, utter hopelessness, then in that moment of vital insecurity there is born the flame of supreme intelligence, the bliss of truth."

No amount of rattling the bars, hitting the walls, digging the ground, no amount of despairing or accepting or forgetting our situation will free us. No awaiting rescue (through miracle, through god, through intelligence) will free us. Nothing we do or do not do will ever free us. When the mind reaches this state what happens?

The above quote is 'what happens'. That is what K says and it is my own experience. It doesn't make a 'K' or a Buddha of a person, that degree of clarity is a long way away. It is just the first step. It means they can see; they are lights unto themselves.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Apr 2017 #484
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:
The above quote is 'what happens'. That is what K says and it is my own experience. It doesn't make a 'K' or a Buddha of a person, that degree of clarity is a long way away. It is just the first step. It means they can see; they are lights unto themselves.

There are no steps, there is either light or there is darkness. Maybe occasinally you might have catched a glimpse of the truth through a crack in the clouds, but soon other clouds have covered the sun. The reason is that the cloud-forming mechanism has not yet been fully understood. When you realize, that nothing you do or do not do, wil have any effect on the prison, what state is your mind in? When you quote K citing "flame of supreme intelligence and bliss of truth is born", is that really your experience or is that another shield that you mind erected to protect itself from the prison?

"You cannot be made anew with the dead weight of the past, and perceiving this you think you must make an effort to get rid of it. Being caught in confusion, you feel that to become disentangled from it you must discipline yourself, you must make an effort to overcome it, or otherwise confusion will increase and continue. This is what you mean, isn't it? Either you make an effort to keep still and observe in order to find ways and means of overcoming this confusion and conflict, or you make an effort to see its causes so that you may overcome them; or you are intellectually interested only to observe - but we need not be concerned with the so-called intellectuals. Either you accept the chaos, the struggle, or you try to overcome suffering; both involve effort. If you examine the motive for this exertion you will perceive that there is the desire not to suffer, the desire to escape, to be satisfied,to protect oneself, and so on. Effort is being made to overcome, to understand, to transform that which we are into that which we want to be or think we ought to be. Does not all such effort really produce a series of new habits instead of the old? The old habits, the old values have not given you the ideal, the satisfaction, and so you make an effort to establish new ideals, a new series of habits and values and satisfactions. Such effort is considered worthy and noble. You are making an effort to be or not to be something, according to a preconceived formula, pattern. So there cannot be a rebirth, but only a continuation of the old desire in a new form which soon creates confusion and sorrow. Again there is the exertion of the will to overcome this conflict and pain; one is again caught up in the vicious circle of effort, whether it is the effort to find the cause of suffering or the effort to overcome it.
Effort is made to overcome fear through discovering its causes. Why do you want to discover the cause? Is it not because you do not want to suffer, you are afraid to suffer? So you hope that, through fear yielding to fear, all fear will be overcome. This is an impossibility. Now do you make an effort to discover the cause of joy? If you do, then joy ceases to be and only its memories and habits exist.
Questioner: So by analyzing, fear should also disappear in the same way that pleasure does when examined. But why does it not?
Krishnamurti: Joy is spontaneous, unsought and uninvited, and when the mind analyzes it to cultivate or to recapture it, then it is no longer joy. Whereas fear is not spontaneous except in sudden, unforeseen incidents, but it is sedulously cultivated by the mind in its desire for satisfaction, for certainty. So if you make an effort to get rid of fear by discovering its causes, and so on, you are merely covering up fear, for effort is of the will, which is resistance created by fear.
If you integrally, with your whole being, understand this process, then in the midst of this flame of suffering, when there is no desire to escape, to overcome, out of this very confusion there arises a new comprehension spontaneously springing up out of the soil of fear itself."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Apr 2017 #485
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
There are no steps,...

I'm afraid I have to beg to differ here, Jan. What I described is/was the arrival of light in my instance. It probably can't be exactly the same in any two instances because no two people or personal histories are the same.

...there is either light or there is darkness.

On this too I'm afraid we have to differ. I agree that there is either light or darkness, they certainly can't coexist, but what you seem not to appreciate is that the light can be present in different levels of intensity. K had lots more light than me but I still have light and not darkness.

When you quote K citing "flame of supreme intelligence and bliss of truth is born", is that really your experience or is that another shield that you mind erected to protect itself from the prison?

No, it's my experience. I perfectly understand your cynicism, it's all it ever meets with. But all that that really shows is that very, very few really believe K. And even that is understandable because, just as Paul Davidson is always happy to point out, why should (or even could) a person really believe what they've only heard about but never actually themselves experienced?

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sun, 23 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Apr 2017 #486
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:
I agree that there is either light or darkness, they certainly can't coexist, but what you seem not to appreciate is that the light can be present in different levels of intensity

There are no different levels of light and shade. What you call different levels of darkness are just different conditionings, different escapes, different cages. One man paints the walls of his prison with alcohol, drugs, power. You paint the walls of your prison with "truth", "God" or "Krishnamurti". Both are just different wall-papers, the one seems darker the other seem lighter, but an illusion is still an illusion, an escape is still an escape. What is really needed is the understanding of all the escapes, all the illusions. When you realize that nothing that you do or do not do can free you out of prison, what happens? Then there is no fear, is there? Then it does not matter if you suffer or study Krishnamurti, both will have exactly the same effect on the prison. And then you are really free to investigate, to explore because there is no going wrong, there is no right path and wrong path, no reward and punishment. If you follow a reward promised by another (such as K teachings), there is fear of going wrong and not obtaining the reward. But if you know that studying Krishnamurti is not much different from getting drunk to obtain forgetfulness, there is no fear of going wrong.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Apr 2017 #487
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
There are no different levels of light and shade. What you call different levels of darkness are just different conditionings, different escapes, different cages. One man paints the walls of his prison with alcohol, drugs, power. You paint the walls of your prison with "truth", "God" or "Krishnamurti". Both are just different wall-papers, the one seems darker the other seem lighter, but an illusion is still an illusion, an escape is still an escape. What is really needed is the understanding of all the escapes, all the illusions. When you realize that nothing that you do or do not do can free you out of prison, what happens? Then there is no fear, is there? Then it does not matter if you suffer or study Krishnamurti, both will have exactly the same effect on the prison. And then you are really free to investigate, to explore because there is no going wrong, there is no right path and wrong path, no reward and punishment. If you follow a reward promised by another (such as K teachings), there is fear of going wrong and not obtaining the reward. But if you know that studying Krishnamurti is not much different from getting drunk to obtain forgetfulness, there is no fear of going wrong.

Well all I know, Jan, is that circa 30 years ago I ran into a metaphorical brick wall and for the first time found myself with absolutely nowhere to go. Every possible avenue I could see I had tried and found to be a dead end. Often when people hit a point like that they take the suicide option but that is just another way forward, which means they haven't entirely hit a 'brick wall'. For me the suicide option didn't apply because it's not something I've ever considered, although at the same time I couldn't see how I could still be alive more than a few weeks or months hence because there was absolutely no road I could take. I was totally adrift. I was at that point of 'complete nakedness, utter hopelessness ... that moment of vital insecurity' K describes. And that was when the light came on. I had never heard of K or enlightenment or Insight or any of that stuff then, and I was of the opinion that anybody who reads scripture and sees sense in it must have a screw loose. But the 'light' dropped me straight in behind the scriptures. Not in the sense of becoming religious at all but just seeing them very clearly (without an anthropomorphised 'god'). For quite a long time, probably months, I was reeling from the shock and was mystified. But then I came upon theosophy and eventually, through that, upon K, and I found that K can describe everything the same way as I see it. In other words he reflects my vision; even perfectly describing the 'vital insecurity' scenario. That is how I know that K knows, and that the anti K ideas of the likes of Davidson are a huge mistake.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sun, 23 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Apr 2017 #488
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, I am not questioning your experience. Who but ourselves can judge the state that we ourselves are in? I was talking generally. I believe your story about "absolutely no road to take" because it is exactly at such moments of crisis that truth is born. When the ego has "absolutely no road to take", it dies. When it has a road to take, that road is an escape, an illusion. And the ego can make escapes and illusions out of everything, including Krishnamurti and his teachings. The ego in prison suffers and creates escapes and opposites, but all of that is still in prison. Only when the ego realizes (actually, not theoretically), that there is no escape, no way out, that no matter what it does will free it, will it die and something new can be born.

Question: How can we get rid of incompleteness without forming some ideal of completeness? After the realization of completeness there may be no need for an ideal, but before the realization of completeness some ideal seems inevitable, although it will have to be provisional and will change according to the growth of understanding.
Krishnamurti: Your very saying that you need an ideal in order to overcome incompleteness shows that you are merely trying to superimpose that ideal on incompleteness. That is what most of you are trying to do. It is only when you find out the cause of incompleteness and are aware of that cause that you become complete. But you do not find out that cause. You do not understand what I am saying, or rather, you understand only with your minds, only intellectually. Anyone can do that, but really to understand demands action. Now you feel incompleteness, and therefore you seek an ideal, the ideal of completeness. That is, you are seeking an opposite to incompleteness, and in wanting that opposite you merely create another opposite. This may sound puzzling, but it is not. You are continually seeking what seems to you the essential. One day you think this essential; you choose it, strive for it, and possess it, but meanwhile it has already become the unessential. Now if mind is free from all sense of duality, free from the idea of essential and nonessential, then you are not confronted by the problem of choice; then you act from the fullness of discernment, and you no longer seek the image of completeness. Why do you cling to the ideal of freedom when you are in a prison? You create or invent that ideal of freedom because you cannot escape from your prison. So also with your ideals, your gods, your religions: they are the creation of the desire for escape into comfort. You yourself have made the world into a prison, a prison of suffering and conflict; and because the world is such a prison, you create an ideal god, an ideal freedom, an ideal truth. And these ideals, these opposites, are but attempts at emotional and mental escape. Your ideals are means of escape from the prison in which you are confined. But if you become conscious of that prison, if you become aware of the fact that you are trying to escape, then that awareness destroys the prison; then, instead of pursuing freedom, you will know freedom. Freedom does not come to him who seeks freedom. Truth is not found by him who searches for truth. Only when you realize with your whole mind and heart the condition of the prison in which you live, when you realize the significance of that prison, only then are you free, naturally and without effort. This realization can come only when you are in a great crisis, but most of you try to avoid crises. Or, when you are confronted by a crisis, you at once seek comfort in the idea of religion, the idea of God, the idea of evolution; you turn to priests, to spiritual guides, for consolation; you seek diversion in amusements. All of these are but escapes from conflict. But if you really confront the crisis before you, if you realize the futility, the falseness of escape as a mere means of postponement of action, then in that awareness is born the flower of discernment. So you must become aware in action, which will reveal the hidden pursuits of craving. But this awareness does not result from analysis. Analysis merely limits action. Have I answered that question?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Apr 2017 #489
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Hi John, I am not questioning your experience. Who but ourselves can judge the state that we ourselves are in? I was talking generally. I believe your story about "absolutely no road to take" because it is exactly at such moments of crisis that truth is born. When the ego has "absolutely no road to take", it dies. When it has a road to take, that road is an escape, an illusion. And the ego can make escapes and illusions out of everything, including Krishnamurti and his teachings. The ego in prison suffers and creates escapes and opposites, but all of that is still in prison. Only when the ego realizes (actually, not theoretically), that there is no escape, no way out, that no matter what it does will free it, will it die and something new can be born.

Yes, that's my personal experience and it's echoed in what K says. It happened of a sudden and left me bewildered and in a mild state of shock for, as said, quite some time; months at least. The reason for that will have been not least because I'd never thought about any such thing as insight etc.. All of that was double dutch to me. It never entered my mind. But I knew very certainly that for the first time I was seeing. And it has never gone away. Which is another thing that K echoes, viz. that Insight (capital 'I'; that being different from small 'i' insight) is a one-off event representing a permanent change, the 'mutation'.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Mon, 24 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #490
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 9 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Please my friends, my dear friends, I am lacking an education, tell me more about ...

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

Hi Paul,

Is this a comment on how the conversation keeps branching away from the thread topic?

By "pustules" do you mean something like a sort of knowledge-itch that we are scratching at?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #491
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

dave h wrote:
By "pustules" do you mean something like a sort of knowledge-itch that we are scratching at?

Yes, the constant repetition of knowledge, whether about quantum physics, thought experiments, Meister Eckhardt, mutation of the brain cells and the thousand things that have dominated this thread over the last week or so are testimony of posters inability to address themselves coherently and concretely to the question posed by the thread. The question is, why do people veer off and spout knowledge rather than applying their curiosity to the question at hand? Is it lack of curiosity? It may be. Jan, for example, has already solved the whole mystery with three words "thought is mechanical." This is the exact form that mechanicism takes in thought, where it does not investigate but stops at a categorical statement "A=B" and moves on into the realm of knowledge.

Knowledge can be somewhat like a pustule, when it is just bursting to get out, wherever it can. But knowledge does not have to move in that way. It can be a platform for inquiry, but only so long as every statement it makes is then questioned. I respect K in that. He pointed out, more firmly than many, that inquiry is largely a process of negation, not affirmation. Thought, at the categorical level, where it is most 'mechanical' is useful in the technical sphere but disastrous in the psychological. To say, "I have mutated" shows an absence of any state of inquiry. As K said, one has arrived.

Why the "itch?" Discomfort?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #492
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

We were saying earlier that the triggering of thought in response to a perceived challenge is rather mechanical. The challenge comes and it seems the mind has set up a trigger whereby thought is the response. We try to think our response to each challenge, unless it is immediate, such as the snake or the precipice.

But this in itself is about the triggering of thought, not about what happens afterwards. In sex, thought often subsides, especially at the point where the involuntary nervous system begins to take over. I recall a Hollywood film where the father advises his teenage son, "Never let the small head tell the big head what to do." But here's a question. When is sex more mechanical, when thought is involved or when it is pushed aside by the rudimentary physical sex response. Examine your own experience, don't theorise.

I once witnessed two dogs fucking through iron railings. At the end of the fuck they couldn't detach and were stuck there together, one each side, howling. The bus came so I didn't see how it was resolved. Not possessing thought, were they any less mechanical?

This post was last updated by Paul David son Mon, 24 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #493
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:
Jan, for example, has already solved the whole mystery with three words "thought is mechanical."

Paul, I am a scientist. I am used to take for granted only those things that can be proven either by means of scientific method or solid logic. For example, there are a few statements made by K, that I have a problem accepting without proof. For example his claims about "mutation in the brain" or his claims that he had abolutely no dreams (I would need to see his polysomnography to believe that he has no REM sleep) or his claims that he has healing powers (he tried to heal Bohm after his heart attack, but of course failed, and he himself died from pancreatic cancer).

What about a claim that "thought is mechanical". We said that thought is mechanical, because it is always response of brain and memory to challenge a this response is predetermined. If you took two exact copies of the same brain and gave them the exact same challenge, they would respond exactly the same. So the responses are mechanical, that is deterministic. This is of course belief, it cannot be stricly proved by experiment. But the claim seems plausible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #494
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
We said that thought is mechanical, because it is always response of brain and memory to challenge a this response is predetermined.

Jan, firstly, "we" did not say it, "you" did. Some may agree, others may disagree. That is the first point where your claim that "I am used to take for granted only those things that can be proven either by means of scientific method or solid logic" falls short of the mark.

The second is as follows: You may believe you have written something based on "scientific method or solid logic" in the first quote above. Is it so? Let's look at the claim. You wrote:

"thought is mechanical, because it is always response of brain and memory to challenge a this response is predetermined"

What is at stake here is the veracity of the "because." Is one thing inevitably determined by the other?

What you are pointing to there is a triggering mechanism whereby a thought process begins in response to a perceived challenge. Yes, this triggering is fairly mechanical. But I would want to know whether thought always and only arises due to a perceived challenge or whether it can arise due to other factors and also, what is meant by the word "challenge."

But there is something more important at stake, the triggering factor, though part of thought, is not the whole of it. Is the outcome of thought determined by the challenge set? If so, like feeding material into a machine, it is mechanical. There is no necessary direct correspondance between the tru=iggering 'mechanism' and the quality of the process triggered. That is where the 'mechanical' metaphor breaks down and is itself revealed to be mechanical.

Any disturbance in the equinimity of a person may trigger a thought response. but then again, it seems that all responses of any life form are to do with disturbances in the equinimity, the state of psychological stability and composure. This is why I said at the start of this thread, the claim that thought is mechanical leads to the conclusion that all life is mechanical. We thus lose the very meaning of the word in an ocean so wide that nothing is excluded except the famed 'creative force,' which is itself a concept and therefore also the result of the mechanical.

Lastly, to go back to the first quote, "and this response is predetermined"

What is actually "predetermined?" It is not the concrete nature or quality of the response that is predetermined. It is the fact of there being a response that is predetermined. The trigger may be a constant factor but the concrete nature of the response varies according to an incalculable number of variables and cannot be determined beforehand. It is that tiny flaw in your precept that upsets the apple cart of your "solid logic" and leads tyou to a wrong "because." Always go back, Jan, and check your "becauses" and "therefores."

This post was last updated by Paul David son Mon, 24 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #495
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
If you took two exact copies of the same brain and gave them the exact same challenge, they would respond exactly the same. So the responses are mechanical, that is deterministic.

Jan, firstly, your tendency to start with an "if" derails the whole thing. You cannot take two exact copies of the same brain. Not only is it physically impossible but conceptually flawed as there are not two exact same things in the whole universe. You are not applying "solid logic" but formal logic.

But, that aside, what are you saying? That two exact same things would be exact same things in the exact same circumstances? That if something is the same then it cannot be different?

Jan, that is an incredibly tautological statement. It could be applied to anything in the universe, even Insight. If I were to use that "solid logic" and apply it to Insight I would end up "proving" that insight is mechanical. Look:

'If you took two exact copies of the same Insight they would be exactly the same. So the Insights are mechanical, that is deterministic.'

Can you see the error in your "solid logic" Jan

The belief in "solid logic" is fallible, I'm afraid, both because its solidity may not necessarily rest upon a rational basis and because its solidity may not rest upon a factual basis. So you have to look at the factuality and the rationality of a particular use of logic.

Almost eleven here now. I have to go work. I'll look in later.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Mon, 24 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #496
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:
Jan, firstly, "we" did not say it, "you" did. Some may agree, others may disagree. That is the first point where your claim that "I am used to take for granted only those things that can be proven either by means of scientific method or solid logic" falls short of the mark.

Paul, ever communication needs to start with definition of words, otherwise it cannot proceed

Paul David son wrote:
But, that aside, what are you saying? That two exact same things would be exact same things in the exact same circumstances? That if something is the same then it cannot be different? Jan, that is an incredibly tautological statement

I do not want to bring in quantum mechanics again, but two quantum systems prepared in exactly the same state will not produce the same results, but random results. That is the indeterminism, randomness. And it is not trivial or tautological at all.

Paul David son wrote:
The belief in "solid logic" is fallible, I'm afraid, both because its solidity may not necessarily rest upon a rational basis and because its solidity may not rest upon a factual basis

I agree. I am distrustful of disciplines based solely on logic and not solid experiment. K teachings is no solid science. He makes a lot of observations about the nature of mind, and either it resonates with you or not. It cannot be objectively proven or deduced by logic. It is not scientific.

Paul David son wrote:
Almost eleven here now. I have to go work. I'll look in later.

too bad for you, I just came from work :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #497
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 162 posts in this forum Offline

Here's the way I see it this morning, (logic aside :)...We run like machines. We take stuff in: food. air, water, info through the sense organs, etc. and that is the fuel that runs us. We recharge at night, wake up and everything revs up, all the 'processes' including thought...all pretty much the same day in, day out. The sense that someone is in charge, 'me', is sort of an 'illusion' (the 'I' process is actually part of the thought process). The whole thing runs on its own and unless something breaks down, it goes that way for 80 years or so. Then that ends.

What K. (and others) have brought into this mechanical situation is that as humans they say, there is another, a non-mechanical possibility for us: that through an 'effortless perception' this mechanicalness can be 'seen' and transformed... And through such a total perception, our true, non-mechanical essence is revealed.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 24 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #498
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Here's the way I see it this morning, (logic aside :)...We run like machines. We take stuff in: food. air, water, info through the sense organs, etc. and that is the fuel that runs us. We recharge at night, wake up and everything revs up, all the 'processes' including thought...all pretty much the same day in, day out. The sense that someone is in charge, 'me', is sort of an 'illusion' (the 'I' process is actually part of the thought process). The whole thing runs on its own and unless something breaks down, it goes that way for 80 years or so. Then that ends.

What K. (and others) have brought into this mechanical situation is that as humans they say, there is another, a non-mechanical possibility for us: that through an 'effortless perception' this mechanicalness can be 'seen' and transformed... And through such a total perception, our true, non-mechanical essence is revealed.

I think that's close enough to warrant a cigar.

I think what K means by 'mechanical' in relation to human beings is that our responses tend to be sufficiently repetitive and in accord with conditioning to be predictable. Of course the range of any individual, especially the more intellectually sharp, will be broad, so that they will resemble an incredibly complex machine, but nevertheless if a person is known well enough, as perhaps eg. Anna might know Paul, she will likely be able to predict pretty accurately his reactions and responses.

But who might predict the perceptions of the likes of K?

The simple fact of the matter is that life is ever new. Dynamism is its signature characteristic. The responses of entities that are truly living (ie. as opposed to being 'mechanical') cannot be predicted because the path of life they follow cannot be predicted. None of it has ever happened before. This quality of freshness in the moment belongs exclusively to the Insighted - what K calls the 'mutated' - human brain.

The only way Dan's above description runs into difficulty is that he gets things, as mechanical brains always do, the wrong way round. He says:

"...there is another, a non-mechanical possibility for us: that through an 'effortless perception' this mechanicalness can be 'seen' and transformed... And through such a total perception, our true, non-mechanical essence is revealed."

He thinks that through an 'effortless perception' he will observe his condition and the observation will bring about the change he seeks. He can't see that this observation, just as is all that the mechanistic vision sees (no slight), is looking through the lens of the 'I'.

The 'mechanical' condition is not real. Thus when 'effortless perception' occurs there's nothing to see. Sure the 'mechanistic' modus op can be observed where it's operating, thus eg. I can see it in Paul (no slight), but how could it possibly be observed in the 'effortlessly perceiving' entity? It isn't there.

It's funny isn't it how limited thought is at seeing.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Mon, 24 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #499
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
ever communication needs to start with definition of words

Yes, but the definition has to accord with the thing defined or it sinks.

Jan Kasol wrote:
I do not want to bring in quantum mechanics again, but . . .

Good, me neither so I ignored the rest of the paragraph.

Jan Kasol wrote:
It cannot be objectively proven or deduced by logic. It is not scientific.

That's fine but you asserted "thought is mechanical" and you gave a logical proof, which turned out to be neither logical nor provable.

Jan Kasol wrote:
too bad for you, I just came from work :-)

Oh, then it's too bad for you. I love my work and don't have to go anywhere to do it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #500
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
What K. (and others) have brought into this mechanical situation is that as humans they say, there is another, a non-mechanical possibility for us: that through an 'effortless perception' this mechanicalness can be 'seen' and transformed... And through such a total perception, our true, non-mechanical essence is revealed.

Not exactly, Dan. K never said he regarded life itself as mechanical. If all life is that then the transformation you write of is something other than life. The "non-mechanical essence" is another idea, I'm afraid. (Actually I'm not afraid).

Are we back to arguing 'essences,' 'forms' and 'quiddities?'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #501
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 42 posts in this forum Offline

John P: ""When somebody said to K, "But you are a teacher." He responded, "I hold out a light to you." I don't think anybody can do more for another but just try and give them to understand that thereĀ isĀ something more than the mechanistic everyday. Of course in order to 'hold out a light' a person must first themselves be lighted."

John K: "There are no steps, there is either light or there is darkness."

We are all of us already enlightened. It is just that it is covered up by the activity of thinking.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 24 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #502
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 42 posts in this forum Offline

Still, it is not covered up at all.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 24 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 #503
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
We are all of us already enlightened. It is just that it is covered up by the activity of thinking.

Well, it is covered up by 'centred' thinking. Brain activity per se is not the villain of the peace. In other words the brain is not the villain of the peace. The villain of the peace is the natural but problematic predisposition of essentially pubescent self consciousness to consider itself individually pivotal to the whole.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #504
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 42 posts in this forum Offline

John P: "Well, it is covered up by 'centred' thinking"

Yes, this is right.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #505
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 42 posts in this forum Offline

The center mistakenly takes itself to be in charge. The center processes, it doesn't see. It doesn't recognise in it's calculations... what it is that is actually always there, beyond itself. It isn't aware of the presence and significance of that (this) other. So it tries to become "enlightened". But it is only out of what is always there, beyond the mechanical, that there is any seeing at all. So how is it this blindness comes into being? A guess? Does it come out of the absence of leisure? Out of the brain having to be constantly active? This impressed on it by culture? Which we accept.

What we are is that (this) "light".

We mistakenly take ourselves to be persons.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #506
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
The center mistakenly takes itself to be in charge.

A centre is imagined by immature humanity.

The center processes, it doesn't see.

The centre is, ie. it consists in, an unseeing thought process.

It doesn't recognise in it's calculations... what it is that is actually always there, beyond itself.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:5

It isn't aware of the presence and significance of that (this) other. So it tries to become "enlightened". But it is only out of what is always there, beyond the mechanical, that there is any seeing at all.

Yes, despite that science allows of nothing else matter is not singularly fundamental. What we like for want of a better term to call 'spirit', is where matter is not. They're mutually exclusive but the place where there is something of a merging, yin-yang style, is in the matured human being, and in the matured human being alone.

So how is it this blindness comes into being?

All life starts out blind and grows into seeing.

What we are is that (this) "light". We mistakenly take ourselves to be persons.

We mistakenly take ourselves to be centres, and we blindly work from the idea of it/them.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #507
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
This mistaken fear of 'not-being', of 'death' obscures everything else. The result of which is the continuous 'I' obscuring " what is always there, beyond the mechanical".

The centre is put in place first: blindness, fear etc. are consequential.

Psychological thought (ie. centred thought) is a material process involving time. Insight (capital 'I') represents what we might call a spiritual 'process' which has no time involvement. It is instant for the very reason that it IS the singularity of the universe (if that makes any sense to you). Insight (capital 'I') happens - can only happen - through the medium of a physical (ie. material) body, thereby bringing about a convergence of spirit and matter, making what we like to call 'god' of man, or the spirit flesh. It is two parts of the Trinity they call One.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #508
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
The center mistakenly takes itself to be in charge.

Well it is, to a certain extent. The will is not so much a power house (as it is granted its power by the whole) as it is a staging post. Apols for the inexact metaphors, but I hope you see the underlying point. Within the decision-making process by which a human acts, much is arrived at unconsciously and then afterwards justified as a conscious decision. Thus, a major part of the drama of proposition and resistance is missed and an image is sealed and delivered that there has been a conscious calculation leading to each action.

The conscious, calculative part of the process is often largely post-factual. When we say, "I decided" the image is of a unified and deliberative state of mentation whereas the fact that has been obfuscated is that the mind and its decision making process is rent with contradiction and one often ends up doing the opposite of what one has decided, in the act of doing it.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #509
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Within the decision-making process by which a human acts, much is arrived at unconsciously and then afterwards justified as a conscious decision.

Does it apply to K and his ilk?

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #510
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 162 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
I don't know if this is what K , Mr Buddha & others are terming as 'suffering' or 'sorrow' but it certainly is a pretty sad situation to contemplate. It takes almost a life-time just to become (painfully ?) aware of it , as for the practical 'clues' for 'solving' it, they are pretty scarce...

The only way 'out' is 'through'?:

K.: (..) "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
Displaying posts 481 - 510 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.)