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

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 721 - 750 of 790 in total
Mon, 15 May 2017 #721
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
PS: I described the indescribable for you in my thread.

That may be the most ludicrous thing I've read so far.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #722
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
everything is surely mechanical.

Right. Let me check I've got that completely clear, "Everything is mechanical." Right. Now, what was the other thing you said?

John Perkins. wrote:
Thus nothing, actually, is mechanical

Oh dear, I fear it's slipped past me again. I'm such a dunderhead at this game.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #723
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Roundly then Paul, no, I am not a machine. And you yourself only behave as one on account of your unlit status.

So, okay. Now we have a view. No one is actually a machine but people who are "unlit" behave as machines. I, in John's view, am one who behaves like a machine as I am, in his view, "unlit." John however is lit and therefore does not behave like a machine.

But I do not behave like a machine. I am sure of that. I know I have patterns and habits but does a machine have habits? I know that there are elements in my psyche that are conditioned but does that mean I am nothing but conditioning? I understand what is meant by conditioning, a set response to a set stimulus, but most of my responses are not like that. It does not mean there is no causation and no determination but conditioning is a specific thing. If one says that causation equals conditioning then the one who says s/he is not conditioned is also saying their actions have no cause. I have never seen any evidence of that being the case in anyone I have ever met or heard of, although I have heard it claimed of some people.

So I'd like to know what the real difference is purported to be, between the one who it is claimed is nothing but his conditioning and the one who has no conditioning. Please don;t tell me the difference is conditioning or we'll go round in circles.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #724
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I was only pointing out that our reactivity is mechanical...conditioned...not free. I was only speaking of our reactivity.

What are you terming 'reactivity' Tom? Is everything a reaction? Or, can you give some examples of behaviour you've expressed today (yes, today) that have not been part of that 'reactivity?'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #725
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
I wasnt speeking of any part of me beyond thought either. If you can perceive in silence, that perception in silence is not mechanical. Total perception is not mechanical. It means perception, in which the observer is silent, not talking, not wanting, not projecting. Such perception is pure listening, pure observing. Beauty that you observe is non-mechanical. That in you, which talks and asserts, is mechanical, that which is open and listens, is not mechanical. There are two modes of being, either you talk or you listen, you cannot do both. And to listen means to die to the observer, who is mechanical.

It's a nice lecture, Jan, but perhaps you can give some examples from your day, today, of any actions that arose from "perceptions in silence." Thanks. I just can't think in such abstractions. I mean, maybe there were also many actions I undertook today which were from silent perception. Can you help me discern what they might have been by giving me some examples from your day so I can know what you mean concretely?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #726
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I think it's important to see/understand what we are now..,to understand how we function in daily living...which for the overwhelming majority, has NOTHING to do with total perception. It's almost entirely conditioned reactivity....which is 'mechanical', as I see it. We're almost always functioning mechanically, aren't we?

I think that's important too, Tom. But I'm not sure our activities are almost entirely mechanical. Which is why we need to give some examples of activities which are not almost entirely mechanical, so we can discern the difference, which is what troubles me about these kind of statements.

What are we saying is mechanical and what is not? I'm not asking for a guidebook or a list, just some real examples.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #727
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Can you help me discern what they might have been by giving me some examples from your day so I can know what you mean concretely?

I observed some swallows flying in and out of their nest under the roofline. That is not mechanical. As soon as you stop observing, perceiving, and start thinking about yourself, you are back in your spinning wheel, thinking about past, thinking about future, which is just a projected past, and you do not really see, because your mind is like a spinning wheel spinning shadows out of memories, which are ashes. You are entrenched in your self-defensive, self-preserving, self-isolating, certainty seeking activity. You are in your little prison with your little furniture. The whole prison is mechanical.
You can also read my #16, where I described it. Or you can listen to K

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #728
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
So, okay, I do not consider myself to be a machine. Do you consider yourself to be a machine?

yes, I consider my personality, my identity, my ego, my "self" to be machine-like, in the sense that it is conditioned, habit-like. The "self" is a nest build of fragments of memories, which is continually adding more and more to itself. It constantly needs stimulation, the repetition of sensations, to feel itself alive.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #729
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I think it's important to see/understand what we are now..,to understand how we function in daily living...which for the overwhelming majority, has NOTHING to do with total perception. It's almost entirely conditioned reactivity....which is 'mechanical', as I see it. We're almost always functioning mechanically, aren't we? Someone says the word God, and I react..,either positively or negatively. Or Democrat or Republican or socialist. The reaction is a conditioned reaction. Perhaps no more intelligent than Pavlov's dogs.

the problem is, that you do not know, what total attention means. It is just an abstract idea for you, that you have acquired by studying Krishnamurti. You have brought this word into your known. Can you observe without the reactions? Have you ever tried it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #730
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 17 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Are we actually machines? I ask this question because there is so much comparison between man and machine, in general, and also because such comparison is raised specifically in the discussions on the K teaching in terms of thought being mechanical, the brain being compared to a computer, a typewriter or a tape recorder.

So, when we use a word such as "mechanical" what are the images we conjure up?

Re: Post #1

As I see, mechanical implies non-real (not that machines are not a part of reality), whenever there is a possibility of abstraction being involved to come up to something real, the real escapes through the net. In other words, we can’t recognize real in the domain of abstract thinking, for if we did, then it would be a contradiction and therefore abstract thought has to come to an end to resolve the contradiction. In that sense, K speaks of thought being mechanical/non-real, which doesn’t mean we (without imposing a notion of subjectivity), in our totality of existence (and being capable of thinking as a movement of real, and in concrete reality) are machines.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #731
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson claims (tediously, and as ever for his ends) that John Perkins wrote:

'everything is surely mechanical'.

What I actually wrote, as he well knows, was:

"That's what science says, and if we agree with this nonsensical version of events then everything but everything is surely mechanical."

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

I'm not going to ask why you like to so muddy the waters of inquiry Paul because I know why you do. But I would say that it seems something of a pity to me that people don't get so readily banned for repeated malign (and pernicious) misrepresentation of other people as they might for trying to add some humour to the proceedings. I personally think that your persistent misdemeanours of this kind are far more mendatious than were Ken D's doings, but hey ho!, such is life. You are a much more slippery character than he and by that means you live on.

But then, frankly, I'd rather have you here where you can be kept an eye on than elsewhere free of restraint. :)

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Mon, 15 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #732
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
That's what science says, and if we agree with this nonsensical version of events then everything but everything is surely mechanical

as I see it, it is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, which are both mechanical reactions of conditioning. It is a matter of ending the known. The known is mechanical. And you cannot end the known, unless you first know yourself

"To receive the unknown, the mind itself must become the unknown. The mind is the result of the thought process, the result of time, and this thought process must come to an end. The mind cannot think of that which is eternal, timeless; therefore, the mind must be free of time, the time process of the mind must be dissolved. Only when the mind is completely free from yesterday, and is therefore not using the present as a means to the future, is it capable of receiving the eternal. That which is known has no relationship with the unknown; therefore, you cannot pray to the unknown, you cannot concentrate on the unknown, you cannot be devoted to the unknown. All that has no meaning. What has meaning is to find out how the mind operates, it is to see yourself in action. Therefore, our concern in meditation is to know oneself not only superficially, but the whole content of the inner, hidden consciousness. Without knowing all that and being free of its conditioning, you cannot possibly go beyond the mind's limits. That is why the thought process must cease and, for this cessation, there must be knowledge of oneself. Therefore, meditation is the beginning of wisdom, which is the understanding of one's own mind and heart."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #733
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
I observed some swallows flying in and out of their nest under the roofline.

You named them?

But actually Jan, many people observe in that way. It doesn't entail doing anything but observing. My attention was drawn this morning to a crowd of birds gathered in and around the guava tree in our garden. I observed them a few minutes and then they flew off. I don't see how that is more or less 'mechanical' than anything else. In fact it may be more mechanical. My attention is drawn by the sound and the movement. Without thought and without the intervention of any other factor my head turned, my eyes focused and my ears tuned in. When the stimulus flew away my attention relaxed and other things captured it.

On the other hand, when I am driving I do try not to let my attention be drawn away from my driving. If I followed the birds I'd end up in the ditch.

Jan Kasol wrote:
As soon as you stop observing, perceiving, and start thinking about yourself, you are back in your spinning wheel, thinking about past, thinking about future

Okay, that's a clear statement, but is it so? Thinking also involves perception. One perceives one's own thoughts in a sort of loop. But is all thinking, thinking about oneself? Does all thinking (rather than perceiving of swallows and the like) place one back in the spinning wheel of self/time? It is not my experience that it does.

For example, I am writing a book. Certainly I have to be aware of the time frames involved in the story, past, present and future, but in what way is writing a story "thinking about yourself?" Is it at all? Are writing a story, painting a picture, singing a song, dancing or planting a seed all mechanical because they involve self in some way? In planting a seed one may be thinking of the pleasure one will get from the flower or fruit, and that certainly involves the future AND the self, but is it totally mechanical or are there other factors involved which are not mechanocal?

Jan, I understand the observing the swallows activity. That's fine. But we do not spend all day observing swallows. What I'd like to know is whether this same type of choiceless perception takes place for you when you go shopping at the local supermarket.

UJKrishnamurti said it was the case for him. He said that he would pass through the market and things would seem to jump out at him and he would arrive home with them not knowing how. Is that how it is with you or is it in some way different? Or, do you spend your whole day perceiving swallows?

It's a serious question my friend.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #734
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Just to take one aspect a little further and explore:

I planted some papaya seeds yesterday. Certainly I was thinking of the papaya I'd eaten that morning (which involved both self and time). I recalled the lushness, the colour and texture, the perfection of the seed mass, the taste and refreshment it brought and so on. Some of those aspects were remembered vividly, some were simply implicit in the pleasure of recalling the papaya and having its seeds in my grasp. Selection was also involved. Had the papaya been of a poorer quality I would not have taken the trouble to plant its seeds. I want a good papaya to grow, not a poor one. So, choice, pleasure, desire, all were involved. It is part of the work and necessary. One does not plant hust anything. Also there is the learned skill of planting, knowing when to plant and where to plant. All that is implied and behind it all is the desire to eat something good, in the future.

But let's not stop there. Let's see what else is involved in the planting:

Eating a papaya is also a natural act and whatever else is going on, there is the movement of the natural. Intelligence is working. I did not eat the papaya in order to obtain the seeds. In opening the fruit I saw the seed and my heart lifted. I was happy to see them. It's the most natural feeling, not some sort of task-oriented or obligatory, mechanical action. The fruit has evolved to give pleasure for that is the way its seed gets spread. The form of the fruit has been naturally selected over perhaps millions of years to attract ones attention and exploit ones drives in order for it to reproduce itself ad nausium, which seems to be the most basic pattern of life itself. So, there is a harmony in being attracted to the fruit and 'wanting' to further its propagation. Even thought thought, desire, time and self are involved, there is no contradiction.

In separating the seeds, washing them and finding a spot to plant, care is taken. Certainly knowledge (time) is involved, but let's not forget 'care,' which is also a most natural factor. Love and care of the living plant is integral for success and one does want to succeed, let's admit it. The point is to have a successful plant at the end of it and care is necessary for that. One could say, oh, if success is involved then the activity is surely self-centred and therefore mechanical. But that seems to me to be a ridiculously narrow view, a reduction of the act to its mechanical aspects and an ignoring of everything else. Such a narrowing down kills the act.

In planting the seed one feels the soil, sifts it through ones fingers. There is sensual pleasure in that but also see what is happening. There is a empathic reaction, one is instinctively trying to feel ones way, to empathise with the form and nature f the medium one is working with, the soil. One plants carefully and then goes for water. One applies a little hummus as one has been collecting the organic waste for years and putting it in the wormery for just such times when a young seed needs a powerful boost to germinate. All this is care. But, it could be said to be only the mechanical exploitation of a string of accumulated skills to fulfill future desire - self, time, desire, reaction etc.

I just wanted to draw out a simple act to bring more into perspective than the dogmatic application of some imagined K principals.

My perspective is that every action and every reaction imply some degree of the above. The more weighed down we are by our troubles, the less open we are to perceiving ever wider realms, both of our environments and of our actions. But nothing we do is ever purely mechanical, so far as I see it, and therefore it cannot be true that we are machines, though our actions may reduce themselves quite a way in that direction and may do so quite often. In order to see ourselves we must see what is limiting our perception and our experience rather than making blanket categorisations.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #735
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
We're almost always functioning mechanically, aren't we? Someone says the word God, and I react..,either positively or negatively. Or Democrat or Republican or socialist. The reaction is a conditioned reaction. Perhaps no more intelligent than Pavlov's dogs.

You were quoting Tom, of course and you instructed him that his problem, according to you, was that he didn't know "total attention." Leaving aside the sheer impudence of that assertion, I want to point out what I think you missed, which may have been much more important than your reactivity.

I'll put it in my own terms:

Tom, when someone mentions God, Democrat, Republican, Socialist or even 'Pavlov' I do not "react." Sure, there are many things which can be said that do elicit a reaction in me of some kind. For instance, I answered a question my partner posed to me this morning and she asked the question again and said I hadn't answered. That accusation caused a reaction in me and my reaction caused a reaction in her and so it went on, all through breakfast. But most words cause no such reaction in me and it makes me wonder (again) what you mean by reaction and by reactivity. I think you should get that clear or make it clear for us first.

Everything we do, in some way, is a reaction. But when we say someone is 'reactive' we mean something rather more specific. What is it we mean?

It seems to me that what is being pointed to are reactions that pass some sort of implied limit.

If I spill hot coffee on myself there is an instant reaction, but that is from the involuntary nervous system. But if someone pushes in front of me in a line there is the involuntary reaction from the push (my heart beat increases, I take a breath, adrenaline is pumped etc) but also there may be an emotional reaction (how dare they take my place etc) which may lead to an outward action (I remonstrate or complain or push or fight or run off in distress etc).

What I don't get is why are the involuntary responses called 'intelligence' and the others 'mechanical?'

Okay, here's a suggestion. That which is involuntary (purely physical - if there is such a thing) are naturally mechanical. They 'should' be mechanical and therefore it is intelligence working at its correct level. But, we presume, at the level of the conscious part of the mind a different working of intelligence should be taking place, one which demands conscious attention and adaptability to whatever is the specific challenge being thrown our way. Any deficit in that constant attention and endless adaptability implies we are depending on past experience and learned patterns, to whatever extent, to respond to any challenge. And it is that which is being called 'mechanical.' It is being called mechanical not because it is any more mechanical than the involuntary nervous response but because we consider it should be less so.

The Irish mystic, Alice Bailey, wrote that the evolution of species is an upward trend whereby there is an ever-increasing level and complexity of response. I think that is partially true. I think it is something implied in the way we perceive out predicament. There is always an implied 'should.' We 'should' be able to respond more flexibly at the conscious level. Where our responses fall short of the 'should' a reaction takes place called anxiety. We would love to be free of such anxiety and want a sort of ideal state wherein every challenge is met by something called "total attention" and all our problems are solved at a stroke through 'pure intelligence.'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #736
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
In other words, we can’t recognize real in the domain of abstract thinking, for if we did, then it would be a contradiction and therefore abstract thought has to come to an end to resolve the contradiction.

I'm not sure, Nat. To 'abstract' means to take a thing from the concrete and perceive it is discrete. But this itself is a natural thing. A monkey looks up at a tree and abstracts the fruit from the whole. That's the way he gets his lunch.

We have an advanced mental system we call thought and this though is able to abstract, hold an image of the abstracted item and manipulate that image in time. The problem we have, it seems to me, is that we build a mental world of such abstractions and build 'positively' upon it, hardly bothering to return to the concrete (the grown together) to validate our hypothetical mental world. We come adrift from the concrete and live at the level of the abstract. This may involve logic but it is not rational (depending on the real). It is most difficult to set the mind in the opposite direction and question itself.

The reason I doubt your statement is to be found in its last phrase, that abstract though must end for the contradiction to be resolved. I would say that abstract thought is essential but it that the mind has to remain flexible, not consolidate its abstractions to the extent they cannot be looked at any longer as constructions, subject to change, wear and tear or outright demolition when required.

The abstract should not be endlessly abstracted but the concrete should not be set in concrete.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #737
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
What I actually wrote, as he well knows, was:

"That's what science says, and if we agree with this nonsensical version of events then everything but everything is surely mechanical."

You presume I "well know" that. In fact I misread you, for which I apologise. I skimmed what you posted and made a mistake. You can call me 'pudenasha' for that if you like.

Okay, now I've seen what you wrote . . . "If we look back through chronological time we go through the earth's molten state etc to the purported 'big bang'; for which science would have us believe there was no pre-existent potential. That's what science says, and if we agree with this nonsensical version of events then everything but everything is surely mechanical."

Had I read more carefully I'd have noticed that whopper! 'Science' does not reject pre-existent potential. Where do you get such baloney? 'Science' merely says the Big Bang theory postulates a horizon event, which is to say, however far we move towards it, it will always recede. 'Science' admits its incompetence to ever see beyond the 'Big Bang.' All 'science' may do is analyse the first moments, like cutting a piece of wood in two again and again but never getting to the end of it. And that's the same with 'matter.' Whereas it was postulated (since the Greeks) that there was some sort of indivisible core element ('atom' means indivisible) that paradigm no longer holds and hasn't held for one hundred years. I read Hawkings "The God Delusion" last month and it seems he still holds to the idea of an indivisible final element from which everything else originates, but that is not a consensus view. What he does say which makes sense is that by filling the gap with something called 'God (the god of the gaps) is an emotionally satisfying but endlessly lazy escape.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #738
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Hi, Paul, just a 'personal' view of this whole 'Are we mechanical ?' issue: I believe that in K's view, any perception or action that is lacking 'Love' - along with its travel companions 'Compassion' & 'Intelligence' - is bound to eventually become repetitive, mechanical, predictable. So this seems to be is a 'total insight' from a timeless perspective. Now, if we are taking this challenge 'very personally' - as his 'teaching approach' seems to imply , there are only 2 options: either it triggers an authentic 'listening' to the 'truth' ( or 'falsehood') content of such a statement, or a rejection 'off the bat' -for 1001 reasons.

The experiential key point would be: is the 'self-questioning' backed by a sense of authentic 'not-knowing'? If yes, it could be self-revealing. If not...it becomes just another subject of contention.

Agreed. That is his teaching, that is the challenge and that is the indication.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #739
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:

What I actually wrote, as he well knows, was:
"That's what science says, and if we agree with this nonsensical version of events then everything but everything is surely mechanical."

.

Paul David son wrote:

You presume I "well know" that. In fact I misread you, for which I apologise. I skimmed what you posted and made a mistake. You can call me 'pudenasha' for that if you like.

Perhaps then you 'skim' everything?

Okay, now I've seen what you wrote . . .

Okay, thanks Paul, but first time would be good. The apology should perhaps go to the forum rather than to me. It's their time that the 'skimming' wasted.

"If we look back through chronological time we go through the earth's molten state etc to the purported 'big bang'; for which science would have us believe there was no pre-existent potential. That's what science says, and if we agree with this nonsensical version of events then everything but everything is surely mechanical."

Had I read more carefully I'd have noticed that whopper! 'Science' does not reject pre-existent potential. Where do you get such baloney?

It says, does it not, that for it (ie. for 'science') the 'big bang' represents the absolute beginning? How then might it also hold with a 'pre-existent' anything?

'Science' merely says the Big Bang theory postulates a horizon event, which is to say, however far we move towards it, it will always recede. 'Science' admits its incompetence to ever see beyond the 'Big Bang.'

And this highlights something of the problem that you and I seem to approach in diametric opposition. You freely confess to no personal experience of anything other than that which is explainable in terms of matter (viz., in the terms of our discussion, 'thought' etc.). This 'matter' represents the ground in which science is happy to base its entirety. But whilst you admit, along with science itself, that it itself is flawed, yet you constantly proceed to judge K, whose teachings are pointedly NOT based in thought (or hence matter or science) in those terms.

All 'science' may do is analyse the first moments, like cutting a piece of wood in two again and again but never getting to the end of it. And that's the same with 'matter.' Whereas it was postulated (since the Greeks) that there was some sort of indivisible core element ('atom' means indivisible) that paradigm no longer holds and hasn't held for one hundred years.

This is true enough, but what you seem to constantly miss is that the K stuff has its base in a 'seeing' that is not of time; or hence of what we view and thin of as matter.

I read Hawkings "The God Delusion" last month...

I think you'll find it's 'Dawkins'. Easy mistake.

...and it seems he still holds to the idea of an indivisible final element from which everything else originates,...

'still'? Are you actually mixing up 'Hawking' and 'Dawkins'?

...but that is not a consensus view. What he does say which makes sense is that by filling the gap with something called 'God (the god of the gaps) is an emotionally satisfying but endlessly lazy escape.

Quite. That's a fairly basic observation made by many.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #740
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
What I don't get is why are the involuntary responses called 'intelligence' and the others 'mechanical?'

These are all divisions created by the mind, by the intellect, by the observer. Unconditioned, universal Life, pure Being, is beyond all reactions, beyond all points of view, beyond all opinions. Its no use creating divisions by trying to categorize reactions. You cannot live without reactions. For sure, even K had reactions. But reactions can be either spontaneous, arising in reaction to the new, to life, to the unknown. Or reactions can be of the background, of a mind caught in conditioning, in belief, in politics, in theories. Life is a constant movement, constant arising of new situations. If you react from a fixed background, that is mechanical. If you react from spontaneity, not from a fixed background, that might be called intelligence. Pure being is beyond all reactions, both voluntary and involuntary.

to put it differently: the action of will is always mechanical. When there is no will, there is the spontaneous, the unknown, the creative.

to compare with K, you can read some quotes
http://www.kinfonet.org/Quote/tags/264

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Mon, 15 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #741
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
I observed them a few minutes and then they flew off. I don't see how that is more or less 'mechanical' than anything else. In fact it may be more mechanical

if the observation is spontaneous, creative, ie observing everything that life brings, and you want nothing from the observation, that it is not mechanical. If you decide, based on conditioning, that you are going to "observe" nature in order to escape from you life, in order to get absorbed and lose yourself in nature, that is not spontaneous.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #742
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Any deficit in that constant attention and endless adaptability implies we are depending on past experience and learned patterns, to whatever extent, to respond to any challenge. And it is that which is being called 'mechanical.

Indeed, but I was focused more on emotional reactions....based upon beliefs, ideals, shoulds, should nots, like and dislike, etc. It's this part of consciousness that leads to conflict and suffering. I've been 'programmed' by all that I just mentioned, and if someone questions my God(if I have one) my defensive reaction is mechanical and predictable. If I'm a nationalist and someone insults the U.S., I'm programmed to react mechanically in defense. My contention is that all of the 'psychological' and emotional aspects of 'me' are mechanical in that sense...our reactivity is like a programmed machine. Programmed by like and dislike, reward and punishment, the search for emotional satisfaction and emotional security. The 'me' ...the self...functions according to its programmering...its conditioning. I'm still exploring this. Feel free to point out how our emotional reactivity and thinking is not mechanical, if it is not.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #743
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
UJKrishnamurti said it was the case for him. He said that he would pass through the market and things would seem to jump out at him and he would arrive home with them not knowing how. Is that how it is with you or is it in some way different? Or, do you spend your whole day perceiving swallows? It's a serious question my friend.

The movement of life is always new, always spontaneous, always fresh. It is only when we perceive life through our old, weary, dull minds, that life seems old, boring, dreary. Compare how children percive life and how an old mind perceives life. Their minds are active, not burdened by knowledge, theories, ideologies. They are open to life and hence perceive and live much more intensely than adults. And I try to be open to life, which means die to the old, and perceive the movement of life with fresh eyes, be open to the new, unknown, spontaneous. I do not do that continuously, or through effort, the act of will, but I give up my will and let myself be surprised, what life brings. Most adults are not open to life, they are drowned in their problems, in their endless rat race, they live on the ashes of what was or what will be or what should be.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #744
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
post 729...the problem is, that you do not know, what total attention means. It is just an abstract idea for you, that you have acquired by studying Krishnamurti. You have brought this word into your known.

Paul call that impudence, but I'd say, rather, that you obviously didn't read carefully. Where in my post quoted in #729 did I mention 'total attention'? I purposely left that aspect of awareness out of my post, as I was focused on the emotional reactivity and psychological thought which us totally conditioned....mechanical...I'm contending.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 15 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #745
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Paul call that impudence, but I'd say, rather, that you obviously didn't read carefully. Where in my post quoted in #729 did I mention 'total attention'? I purposely left that aspect of awareness out of my post, as I was focused on the emotional reactivity and psychological thought which us totally conditioned....mechanical...I'm contending.

I don't understand, Tom. I was responding to Jan, who said that your problem, Tom, is that you don';t understand what total attention is. Jan said that of you, not me. You, on the other hand, had not brought in 'total attention' but 'total perception.' I thought it presumptuous of Jan to identify your alleged non-understanding as your 'problem.'

Is that clearer now?

p

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #746
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Okay, thanks Paul, but first time would be good. The apology should perhaps go to the forum rather than to me. It's their time that the 'skimming' wasted.

I apologise to the entire forum.

John Perkins. wrote:
It says, does it not, that for it (ie. for 'science') the 'big bang' represents the absolute beginning?

No, it does not. I think you've been 'skimming' science. You need to apologise to the whole forum, John.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #747
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
You freely confess to no personal experience of anything other than that which is explainable in terms of matter

That is not a 'confession,' John. What I have said is that I have had no personal experience which I take as being beyond matter, in whatever form, energy, thought etc. I have no reason to believe in anything beyond matter, in whatever form. Whether things are explainable or not is a different question. The explanation is not the thing, right?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #748
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
'still'? Are you actually mixing up 'Hawking' and 'Dawkins'?

No, I meant and I mean Dawkins. As you say, an easy mistake.

John Perkins. wrote:
Quite. That's a fairly basic observation made by many.

Ah, you've discovered something quite immaterial!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #749
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
. Jan said that of you, not me. You, on the other hand, had not brought in 'total attention' but 'total perception.' I thought it presumptuous of Jan to identify your alleged non-understanding as your 'problem.'

I understood the first time :) Must have been a quoting problem. Possibly due to me trying to type and quote on this small Samsung tablet. I was responding to Jan telling me my 'problem', yes. I didn't even bring attention into the discussion, so how would he know if I understood total attention ...or not?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 15 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #750
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D has been banned, btw....from the entire site, if I understood his PM correctly. I find that kind of puzzling, but perhaps he was given fair warning to cease and desist.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 721 - 750 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.)